[kyrill]

1) we dont need  perfect speakers to have a perfect listening experience
like we really can enjoy and love an imperfect woman and that is life as life can be  aa
2)  the better the speaker the better the whole chain before the speakers becomes very important
if speakers become 10k$ you need generally a multi k dollar (retail value) system to get the best out of the speakers
3) the better the system the more important professional room correction becomes
4) the better room and setup you have the more important  "little" things  play a not so little role
like line conditioning and cables, and dampening.These alone may costs thousands of dollars to let allow the speakers truly shine

and 5th i dont belief in an omnipotent speaker for every type of room. A speaker who just as faithful to a single singer and guitar and to a big orchestra. You better find a speaker which is best in the type of music you play most in that particular room
I would spend 10 k improvement to my whole  setup which gives the most efficient jump to yr listening experiences
and yes that is not easy. to satisfy a listening experience is a complex thing

[Imperial]

It is not an easy task to choose a speaker for the long run, based on a wish for "realistic and neutral sound..."
For under 10 grand yeah.. (The european perspective then... Since I've not got much playtime with some of the usual USA suspects)

Avalon Ascendant! (ca 9500$ new price)

I'd use a tube amp to drive them. They would hook up to the 4 ohm taps, so an amp should be chosen accordingly.
They are efficient, but not very efficient, when you got say 100watts they really show off a very natural dynamic freedom.
As I said, I'd really use tubes with them, 100watts or there about. (Use Spectral if you HAVE to use melted sand for amplification... )
I can Imagine that Air Tight ATM-2 would be perfect for these speakers.

Avalon also have a little "brother" for the bigger models... the Avalon Acoustics NP Evolution 2.0
They cost much less, and are pretty close... They are like 2000$ a pair, and maybe that's all it takes?
But Again, The Ascendant is one of THE most neutral and realistic speakers I have heard under the 10 grand limit.

Also, choosing such a neutral type of speaker do tend to turn the "tables" as one could say.
Vinyl suddenly does show it's finer sides!!! This speaker really likes Vinyl playback!!!

And... Like Joe Cocker says... You can leave the grill on, please... That's the Avalon way..!



Imperial

[jimdgoulding]

A quick note to Imperial and return to topic.  I believe it may have been you who posted Natsange.  It's been about 5 weeks since I ordered on the zon of Ama.  I'm hoping this is the week.  Cheers.  "Melted sand", that reminds me of Harvey Rosenberg's writings (some might say rantings).  Been there? 

[Imperial]

I did post something about Josefin Cronholm, yes. Natsange is a cd she's on, that is true, Produced by Frans Bak I think?
You'll find that the songs, that are sung in the Swedish language are quite beguiling!!! 

About HR... not sure what you mean... He also used to call them this I gather?

Imperial

[jimdgoulding]

Sand amps, actually.

[Imperial]

Actually, a tube contains more sand, than a transistor does... (The glass envelope you know...) 
I guess am known for my avid and fiery rantings... on Nordic forums, I guess there is no denying there... , been there..
Harvey did have a certain panache to his writing
that simply was his own.. and he is greatly missed.

Imperial

[Russell Dawkins]

And... Like Joe Cocker says... You can leave the grill on, please... That's the Avalon way..!

Imperial

... do you mean Randy Newman ("you can leave your hat on")?

Thanks for the Gizmomaniacal Rosenberg link. He was such a force of nature.

[JLM]

In addressing the topic: "The Most Realistic Speaker Technology" I offer these observations:

So far, there is no perfect speaker.  But some design principals can provide guidance.

Real world sound sources do not produce out of phase front and rear sound waves, therefore dipoles (planars or open baffles for example) cannot be "The Most Realistic."

No unamplified musical source is produced across a tall source, therefore arrays are not "The Most Realistic."

Nearly all unamplified musical sources are "point sources," therefore all drivers should be in close proximity.  Note that this is need for coherency is more important as the listener/speaker set-up approaches nearfield conditions.  Note also that the bottom three octaves can "cheat" more on this principle as they harder for the ear to discern direction and offset.

Real world sounds aren't colored by grills/enclosures.

Real world sources can be extremely dynamic and very loud.  More efficient speakers tend to score better on these counts.

Real world sources do not change phase or sonic characteristics as frequency changes, therefore the less damaging the crossover and the fewer crossovers/drivers used the better.

[opaqueice]

Real world sound sources do not produce out of phase front and rear sound waves, therefore dipoles (planars or open baffles for example) cannot be "The Most Realistic."

False.  Drums, plucked strings, and many other real world sound sources are close to dipoles.  Not to mention reflections.

No unamplified musical source is produced across a tall source, therefore arrays are not "The Most Realistic."

A double bass?  A chorus standing on risers? 

Nearly all unamplified musical sources are "point sources," therefore all drivers should be in close proximity.

Huh??  Instruments produce sound by vibrating, and I've not seen many "point" instruments - have you?  You'd need pretty small fingers to play one, I'd imagine.  And how often have you been to a performance with precisely two sound sources where your speakers will be?

Real world sounds aren't colored by grills/enclosures.

Of course they are. 

Real world sources can be extremely dynamic and very loud.  More efficient speakers tend to score better on these counts.

Sometimes, yes, although more powerful amplification can compensate, and very efficient speakers tend to have higher distortion.

Real world sources do not change phase or sonic characteristics as frequency changes, therefore the less damaging the crossover and the fewer crossovers/drivers used the better.

The importance of that is highly debatable.  In my experience the strange frequency-dependent dispersion pattern of a box loudspeaker (versus a dipole, for example) is far more audible than any phase distortion.  That's fully consistent with psychoacoustics and acoustic research, which shows that people are much more sensitive to frequency response aberrations than to phase distortions.

[Daygloworange]

JLM,

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. 

Your understanding and interpretation of physics, sound propagation and all things speakers is mediocre at best. You consistently persist to repeat things, even after your been proven wrong. I don't get it. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge, just validating the (inaccurate conclusions) you've drawn.

Your latest post here only highlights your stubbornness. It's full of so many inaccuracies it's not even funny, and is basically meaningless to the discussion of loudspeaker performance.

Cheers

[kyrill]

not a bewildered but an amusing Leroy i sense in the background reading to all the "dynamics' his post  has aroused 

[Geardaddy]

JLM,

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. 

Your understanding and interpretation of physics, sound propagation and all things speakers is mediocre at best. You consistently persist to repeat things, even after your been proven wrong. I don't get it. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge, just validating the (inaccurate conclusions) you've drawn.

Your latest post here only highlights your stubbornness. It's full of so many inaccuracies it's not even funny, and is basically meaningless to the discussion of loudspeaker performance.

Cheers

Ouch....let's get ready to ruuuumble....

[BrianM]

Jane, you ignorant slut.

[*Scotty*]

I have no problem with JLM's post at all. He has clearly stated his reasoning process for the priorities he has regarding audio reproduction.
He has applied his criteria to his loudspeaker purchasing decisions and owns a single driver loudspeaker system. I think the information he has given us is valuable because it tells us what he considers important in music reproduction. What I would be interested in knowing is what aspect of single driver performance he feels could be improved upon. In other words whats missing and needs to be added to broaden the appeal of single driver speaker systems.
Scotty

[doug s.]

I have no problem with JLM's post at all. He has clearly stated his reasoning process for the priorities he has regarding audio reproduction.
He has applied his criteria to his loudspeaker purchasing decisions and owns a single driver loudspeaker system. I think the information he has given us is valuable because it tells us what he considers important in music reproduction. What I would be interested in knowing is what aspect of single driver performance he feels could be improved upon. In other words whats missing and needs to be added to broaden the appeal of single driver speaker systems.
Scotty

it's yust that jlm's description of how a line source speaker system works is a complete joke, among other things...

ymmv,

doug s.

[nodiak]

My speakers sound good and I don't know why.
I hope to give some others a try.
But if I can't I won't cry.
Because...see line 1.

jest a silly pome.

I think in a large room Dipole Line Arrays with IB bass could be amazingly life like. Speakers several feet out, seating med/farfield. In my smallish room dipoles are a challenge, but can be worked out. Mostly about finding correct driver size for room, and getting room treatment figured out. For now I'm back to boxes to live with the designers intention for awhile, then will try these drivers in dipole with bass support.

Tho I'm not seeing/hearing it his way I don't blame Jeff/JLM for wanting to have everything figured out as there are so many ideas to keep up with. It's hard to love the one you're with when there are so many available options. But that's the nature of the game. Usually I just invoke the GEFWIF mantra (good enough for who it's for).

Don

[jimdgoulding]

Leroy said "realistic".  I take that to mean practical things like a room in a house or flat or something, and costs.  I'm thinking dynamic designs (direct radiators) have more flexibility (i.e. adaptability to a broad base of situations) than planars, those with large panels firing both ways.  The thing that my planars taught me is that front firing multi driver dynamic speakers are at their best when their drivers are time aligned and early reflection is eliminated which pure planars don't have to deal with.  Amplifier power generally needs to be higher for the pure planers, too.  I loved em in bigger rooms past, driven with powerful monoblocks.  Both designs can be wonderful when properly executed and placed in the right settings.  Dual radiating flat panels being more demanding of the setting than boxes in my experience.

(later)  Well, nevermind me.  Having re-read Leroy's post, my interpretation of "realistic" had nothing in common with his inquiry.

[AphileEarlyAdopter]

Hi folks,
This is a very good topic. I see many people are suggesting the names of speakers they like or have tried. I think the original poster wants an opinion one level higher i.e. what is the technology that produces this 'realistic' sound. Though many have discussed the technologies, quite a number of posts refer to the speakers themselves, which kind of digresses/deviates from the main topic.
Some people here have posted on characteristics that define 'realism' viz - soundstage, detail and dynamics. If you ask me, I'd easily pick dynamics as the main attribute you want if it has to sound REALISTIC. Next comes detail - when you hear somebody playing drum..you hear not just the drum, but all the rattle and other concomitant sounds. Soundstage is what recreates the venue ambience. The last two might be influenced by equipment upstream as well. I have experience only with dynamics speakers. But I have heard the original Gallo Reference speakers, which threw a cavernous soundstage and sounded amazingly realistic. I also have heard some planar speakers which produce much fine detail and delineation in the high frequences. So my guess is, for atleast the highs, the normal dome (silk or metal) dont really cut it.

[ZLS]

Reading the posts on this thread I am struck with the thought that every technology has it's drawbacks and limitations.  It then becomes a balancing act in working around these limitations that ultimately depends on the preferences of the individual listener.  Case in point. 
    A coherent time aligned point source is the very definition of a single driver speaker, however frequency response and dynamic range are limitations that must be acknowledged and dealt with.  A person who values a loudspeaker that reproduces the lowest to the highest frequency response will not be satisfied with a single driver.  Likewise a person who wants the greatest dynamic range.  It is not possible to defy the laws of physics (yet).  It is not a question of right or wrong, it is a question of individual preference; that is why people have been talking about individual brands of speakers.  The particular speakers emphasize the qualities that the listener values most. 
    The most realistic speaker technology is not a question that can be answered in the abstract.  It can only be answered by adding the words "to whom" 
    Gentlemen, we live in an imperfect world, that is the challenge of our hobby.  We must pick and choose, learning as we go.  I, for one, would have it no other way.

[Imperial]

... do you mean Randy Newman ("you can leave your hat on")?

The phrase "you can leave your hat on.." is a very popular one in Norway, and it is thought of as "owned" by
Joe Cocker, or his version of the song is what is mostly known here. (Joe is very popular in Norway, always has been I think!)
It is very often played in the media here, on the radio and such.
The Avalon reason is that the grill is part of the diffraction behaviour of these speakers... and should be left on for correct radiation and levels in the higher frequency bands...
Or if you have a room that could need a lift in the tweeter, removing the grill will do just that, usually.
I'm sure that was not sort of planned by Neil Patel, but it will work..
... Moving back to topic for a while: Listen up Leroy33!
Regarding quality recordings to evaluate a neutral speaker, I can bring up a gem in this regard.

Peter Axelssons Quartet with the album "The nearness of you". (This record is on par with "kind of blue"/Miles Davies ... It is!!)
I have it, and it is a fantastic recording to bring along for that quick listen in shops and such.
This record has such a phenomenal recording quality that it will be quickly evident if a speaker is "realistic and natural sounding"
Peter has played with Chet Baker, Maxine Sullivan, Scott Hamilton, Gerry Mulligan. He is a recording engineer as well!
There is also another CD by him "The natural way" But I've not heard that one.
"Nearness of you" contains the track "Recitative". What I believe to be the finest recording of a Double/(Stand up) -  Bass I've ever heard in my life.
Going looking for that natural and realistic speaker is best done with the right set of tools if you ask me!
Number one is to use superbly recorded material. Secondly it is to take your time...

And I don't think there is a "best" way of building a speaker...
When all parts pull together for the music, I believe it will be audible, and it will be a beautiful moment!
Like Lonewolf42 says up a couple of posts... Go Listen!


Imperial