[*Scotty*]

Zero,what speakers are you currently using that do IT for you.
Scotty

[darrenyeats]

On the subject of recording techniques, I'm not one who likes to hear the keyboard as if it's two feet away. What I prize are simple recordings made from the point of view of an audience member, perhaps one near the front, but a normal perspective.

Some of the best recordings for me are ones with coughs, banging doors and the like all around. They capture what it was like to be there and hear the music live.

I don't like sanitised multi-mic recordings so much, in general. Sometimes I get the impression that sound engineers feel the need to do more to justify their wages, when really they should direct their skills to finding the right minimum.
Darren

[Zero]

Scotty,

Let's face it, there are plenty of loudspeakers that fit my vague description. That said, the one company that seems to churn out speakers that suit my tastes has been Totem Acoustic.

[giantsteps]

Very simple. I avoid any speaker speaker system that ONLY SOUNDS GOOD in the sweet spot. I refuse to elaborate.  :Why? Because the answer is obvious.

Frank

[Russell Dawkins]

In this context it has been said "If you notice the sound, it is wrong".

To me that is the most succinct summation of the target sound - characterlessness.

The character should be in the music or the recording and the speaker's job is to get out of the way.

[JLM]

"Sins of comission" must be eliminated before a speaker is considered as "good" such as bloated bass, in your face mids, exagerated highs, every image the size/height of the front wall, and listener fatigue.

I'd describe fatigue as a product of the brain overload as it trys to make sense out of what is heard due to inaccuracies, mostly again from "sins of commission".  Note how the ear doesn't fatigue from TV, which obviously lacks much but doesn't exagerate either.

[BobM]

I think most speakers sold these days produce a semblance of the real thing in a reasonably good way. So what separates a speaker that is just OK from one that is considered good by most people to one that makes things sound more real? I think that is the critical question and probably at the meat of this thread.

The ultimate goal is "realness" of reproduction, with all it's textures, nuances, dynamic variations, boundary interactions, phasing, timber, pitch, pressurization and airflow, clarity (not necissarily excessive detail here though - that can be artificial), etc. This is what professional musicians work on to perfect their craft. A speaker has to be able to reproduce all of these from all types of instruments, including voice (which is probably the most complex of all). Not an easy job, and each designer tends to focus on a limited number of these parameters most important to them and most easily solved by the type of speaker being designed - cone, planar, electrostat, horn, etc. The odds of getting them all fairly right are worse than winning the lottery.

So, my order of preference is surely:

tonality
continuousness (top to bottom balance)
texture (part of getting the clarity right and not overdone)
ability to disappear and image (clarity without haze)
inner dynamics
outer dynamics
range (top to bottom extension)

Then of course, there's the obvious dependency on upstream components to pass these characteristics along to the speakers. So the speakers may be capable of reporoducing the characteristic, but may not be receiving the information or the power to do so. I think each component needs to be able to have the same issues addressed as the speaker. That's the magic of synergy.

Enjoy,
Bob

[woodsyi]

It's not exactly an aspect of sound reproduction but cost has influenced me.  If I can't afford it, it has no place in my house.   

[rockadanny]

Appropriate tone and weight (of the sound, not the speaker itself).

[Telstar]

1) Voices
2) Piano and Violin (my two favorite instruments)
3) no listening fatigue

everything else (soundstage, blablabla) comes much after.

[ted_b]

Stealing from others who defined these terms very nicely (thank you):
1) weight
2) tonality (includes "wetness", a feeling of organic stickiness to a sound)
3) speed; the ability to go to and from blackness in a nanosecond, if needed.  Usually allows recorded harmonics (probably wrong term) to show through.

Just months ago I would have had two or three different factors, including pinpoint imaging, but I've come to realize I really want air to move in my room, No.1.      If the air is not affected, then the perception of the recording space is more obviously a "recording" than a "trip to the recording session".

[acresm22]

In this context it has been said "If you notice the sound, it is wrong".

To me that is the most succinct summation of the target sound - characterlessness.

The character should be in the music or the recording and the speaker's job is to get out of the way.

Russell, that's a great point, but one that is sure to generate some discussion/controversy, at least among some hardened audiophile types. I recall reading a thoughtful piece in TAS (or Sphile?) about that several years ago, in reference to bass...basically that if you are compelled to comment on the "speed" or "tightness" of the bass performance in any given system, chances are there's something wrong with that system...just like if you noticed flabby, bloated low-end sound. I repeated that notion to a schooled high-ender about subwoofers, and got an icy response...in his view (which was heavily influenced by the likes of Krell and Wilson), ultimate speed, uber tautness and the ability to plum the depths were the ultimate expressions of a truly high-end subwoofer. (Note...he also told me that the Cain & Cain/Wavelength room at the CES show that year sounded "broken.")

Where would we be without different tastes? 

[*Scotty*]

When I listen to live music there is never any overhang or blurred quality to bass notes. They don't go boom unless they're a Howitzer.
Also when I have listened to real pipe organs in cathedrals and churches all of the air in the building is energized by the low notes played on the pedals. Your whole body vibrates. A speaker system should reproduce a well done recording with bass information on it in a manner consistent with reality as outlined above in order to be true to life.
Scotty

[Daygloworange]

In this context it has been said "If you notice the sound, it is wrong".

To me that is the most succinct summation of the target sound - characterlessness.

The character should be in the music or the recording and the speaker's job is to get out of the way.

Transparency. 

I'm with Russell all the way on this one. We both come from a recording background. Upgrading speakers led to upgrading front end components, which is getting me ever closer to true transparency.

The proof to me is that I can hear the characteristics of microphones better on recorded music. It's one thing to know what a snare drum sounds like in real life. It's another thing to know what a snare drum sounds like miked up with a pair of SM 57's. I can hear those types of things much better now. I can also hear Eq manipulations when I record and mix, much clearer now. I can do much more subtle Eq moves because I can zone in on frequencies and hear smaller changes in db's now.

Likewise for other instruments. I have a much better idea as to which type (and diaphram size) of microphones(dynamic, condenser, ribbon) might have been used on recordings, because, as Russell puts it, the speakers aren't getting in the way.

The important factors to me have been, flat frequency response, seamless crossover integration of drivers, crisp leading edge transient response, good phase response, precise imaging, good linearity, dynamics, and tightly controlled mid bass and lower bass. Basically, I want it all! 

The pro-audio speakers I had listened to for years pales in comparison to what I've got now. I had no idea that I would find this kind of fidelity on the consumer end of audio. It was out of ignorance and pure chance that I stumbled onto what 2 channel audio has to offer.

I've never been so impressed with recorded music and 2 channel audio since I improved all my gear, and focused more on room acoustics.

Cheers

[*Scotty*]

Daygloworange,what speakers are doing the job for you now.
Scotty

[Daygloworange]

Scotty,

I'm currently using custom built GR Research designed OB-7's along with GR's older PR subwoofer.

Cheers

[djbnh]

The content of this thread http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=50752.0  The Most Realistic Speaker Technology?
has me wondering what aspect of speaker performance ACers consider most important? How have your priorities influenced what you have purchased and what qualities do you feel you have had do without or wish you could have in addition to what you consider most important? Are you looking for the most realistic sounding speaker technology?
Scotty

Kids in college = Cost / bang for buck.