The Most Realistic Speaker Technology?

miklorsmith · « **Reply #100 on:** 13 Feb 2008, 04:47 am »

Yeah, everyone says they want natural-transparent-uncolored speakers. This is meaningless audiophile catchphrasism. I don't know anybody with a gooey system but I would guess that they would be trying to pursue tone over solid state digital "purity", trumping objectivity with real emotion.

rajacat · « **Reply #101 on:** 13 Feb 2008, 05:27 am »

Does so-called solid state "purity" sound more like live music than alleged "emotional" but tone accurate speakers. I doubt it. When I hear live music, it doesn't have a dry, unemotional feel to it. Perhaps there are aspects of music reproduction which have eluded the number crunchers.

spwal · « **Reply #102 on:** 13 Feb 2008, 08:41 am »

I was trying to be realistic honestly.

You can get into a pair of TAD 2002 mounted in something, a simple active crossover that can give you some real world data, and some kind of woofers in a box and you will have a worldclass system for not alot of money, and you will have alot of fun doing it.

it will be my next step most likely....

im completely addicted to TAD drivers. I bought them on a whim, knowing i could not afford them, but now i cannot live without. That Be diaphragm is insane....

Big JBL speakers will one day go, TADs that i popped in em will stay methinks!

JLM · « **Reply #103 on:** 13 Feb 2008, 10:21 am »

Can speakers be too realistic?

On a couple of occasions I've listened to studio monitors that were extremely analytical. Can they be too truthful or lacking something? Let me try to paint a word picture. These monitors provided very detailed pen and ink sketches, instead of a colored painted with subtle shadings and textures that provide depth. Many speakers are in between, they provide cartoon recreations.

Another example is Lowthers. Not to lump all Lowthers together, but I've heard them sound extremely detailed, to the point of being very distracting. The analytical side of my brain was drawn into working overtime to discover the tinyest (irrelevant) details. It overloaded the emotional side, blocking my ability to simply enjoy the music.

There's still much that "the numbers" don't explain. If they ever do, science will be replaced with dogma.

jimdgoulding · « **Reply #104 on:** 13 Feb 2008, 11:12 am »

What you describe in regard to those studio monitors sounds to me like there are time delivery or design issues in the frequency domain in real world execution. That can of worms, again. What make and model of speakers, if you can recall? Was it in a showroom?

spwal · « **Reply #105 on:** 13 Feb 2008, 12:43 pm »

there is something so sweet and magical about the TAD berellyium diaphragm and the monster alnico magnets. I havnt given you the details about the rest of my system, but i tried to have things counterbalance each other to good results. sorry im on a complete TAD rant because they are precise and detailed as all that but not a-musical in the least.

im, like alot of people in this forum, completely sold on chip amps, so i have a maxed-out 50 wpc patek clone,

a cult-classic modded melos sha-1 tube preamp (which is where the "shading and color" come from)

currently a Bel Canto DAC3 that i love but cannot afford to keep (most outstanding single piece of gear i have owned)

short mac palladium ICs throughout

radioshack monster zipcord (temporarily)

JBL 4341 speakers running passive with TAD 2002 drivers (ya, 4341 like they used at Abby Road)

shunyata hydra 8 (on loan, but actually starting to belive that these conditioners do something, maybe ill get something less $)

Steve · « **Reply #106 on:** 13 Feb 2008, 04:44 pm »

Quote from: AphileEarlyAdopter on 13 Feb 2008, 03:52 am

For the record, I think, we do have the technology to build 'realistic' sounding speakers. But then again this is a relative term. Atleast I am glad to see a quest for 'realistic' speaker..rather than smooth, or juicy/goosey or whatever synonym of flavored sound is. I take it for 'realistic' to mean 'natural'/'transparent'/'uncolored'. In my very humble opinion, if you ask for anything else, you will be on merry-go round forever. If I play Jazz, I want it to sound exactly like the way it was recorded or meant to recreated (with those artificial reverbs and delays added to studio recordings). If a concert was recorded in a hall, I want that venue ambience recreated.
Sometimes, audiophiles tune their systems to sound so 'gooey' everything sounds the same. This surely cannot be High-Fidelity !!!
Just some personal biases

I agree. And I have heard gooey systems as well. From my experience, though, speakers are all over the place in terms of tonal balance, from very thin to gooey and flabby bass.etc.

Cheers.

AphileEarlyAdopter · « **Reply #107 on:** 13 Feb 2008, 09:33 pm »

Quote from: miklorsmith on 13 Feb 2008, 04:47 am

Yeah, everyone says they want natural-transparent-uncolored speakers. This is meaningless audiophile catchphrasism. I don't know anybody with a gooey system but I would guess that they would be trying to pursue tone over solid state digital "purity", trumping objectivity with real emotion.

Hi, I dont know why you dismiss this idea/approach. I know lots of things about audio is personal preferences that is why I had a disclaimer at the end of my email. But there should be some technical/logical/objective part in this whole business. Otherwise, why should we be discussing this at all. We can all have our own preferences and just keep to ourselves. I do not mean to be argumentative, I am just trying to share my viewpoints and get a better understanding with fellow audiophiles. Based on some posts after yours, you will see there are people who have similar views like mine (but probably not exactly).
Anyways, you cannot call me an audiophile, because I use a $200 receiver as my DAC and Amplifier (Panny XR55)

miklorsmith · « **Reply #108 on:** 13 Feb 2008, 09:46 pm »

Maybe I was too dismissive, if so I apologize.

My problem with those terms is they mean different things to each of us to describe our own version of happiness. If you mean those things regarding instrument location and size of the stage, you will migrate differently from someone else who prizes instrumental tone. Lots of folks think if you have a speaker that registers 20 - 20 you are reproducing the full range of human hearing therefore a perfect system, i.e. no need to continue.

Transparent production of a guitar's notes is not the same thing as it's properly sized placement on a well-defined stage. Yet, sensible people will disagree about which is the more natural-transparent-uncolored-whatever. What I was trying to say is that invoking those terms really boils down to your own personal view of reproduction which is your own and nobody else's. It's the equivalent of saying "I like my favorites best".

One could default to "I want a speaker that captures every aspect of the performance exactly as it was recorded". Yeah, that's desirable all right but impractical given current technology and availability. So, you have to pick the compromises and strengths and THAT defines what you really value.

AphileEarlyAdopter · « **Reply #109 on:** 14 Feb 2008, 01:44 am »

miklorsmith..no problem at all. No apologies needed.
I just have expressed my preference/approach to building a system.
I value tone as well. I sold some Hales monitor speakers because I thought it added a 'metallic' tone to all instruments. I look for the tone of Indian drums (tabla, mridhangam etc) which I have grown up hearing in the streets, temples, marriages etc.

Steve · « **Reply #110 on:** 14 Feb 2008, 09:46 pm »

Hi Aphile,

Nothing wrong with seeking natural, accurate, emotional music. At least I always thought live instruments were emotional and not sterile. That has been the goal for decades, since audio was born.

Are you able to attend musical events at your location? I also find that owning real instruments to be beneficial.

Take care.
Steve

Imperial · « **Reply #111 on:** 19 Feb 2008, 08:12 pm »

Right, I would just like to point out that my suggestion in this thread, The Avalon Ascendant has been reviewed in the 14th issue
of Tone Audio that has just been released.
Having heard the Ascendants myself, I can only nod my head in approval to this review.
And I continue to believe this speaker to be a very good alternative for LeroyC33 at the suggested price point.
My 2 cents..

Imperial

nathanm · « **Reply #112 on:** 19 Feb 2008, 10:50 pm »

As a dentist and audiophile I always make sure my instruments are sterile and not emotional. That's what I use Crelm speakers.

djbnh · « **Reply #113 on:** 19 Feb 2008, 10:53 pm »

Quote from: nathanm on 19 Feb 2008, 10:50 pm

As a dentist and audiophile I always make sure my instruments are sterile and not emotional. That's what I use Crelm speakers.

I thought dentists preferred Crest, not Crelm.

Imperial · « **Reply #114 on:** 19 Feb 2008, 11:03 pm »

Oh, I think somebody needs to "brush" up on some stuff...

Imperial

Imperial · « **Reply #115 on:** 20 Feb 2008, 01:10 am »

Uh-oh ... I spoke too soon!
http://www.crelm.com/

Imperial

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #116 on:** 24 Feb 2008, 02:21 am »

Looks like Leroy has selected a speaker.....new thread......