Preferences in speakers

Letitroll98 · « **on:** 15 Aug 2011, 02:22 pm »

Okay, here's the hypothetical. You have two pairs of speakers nearly identical in all respects, bass response, treble extension and sweetness, etc., except for two areas. One has beautiful tone; woodwinds, strings, piano, all sound deliciously round and complete, but images like a slug, everything on one plane, no layering. The other speaker images holographically, deep with many layers, instruments and vocals sound like they're on a real stage displayed in front of you. But although sounding nice, is a tad more mechanical with instruments not sounding quite as real as the other.

So what's more important to you in recreating the illusion of real music being played in your room, imaging or musical tone. Please don't ask which speakers, make up your own, it's a hypothetical.

eclein · « **Reply #1 on:** 15 Aug 2011, 02:33 pm »

Imaging for me

JohnR · « **Reply #2 on:** 15 Aug 2011, 02:34 pm »

Hypothetical for me

*Scotty* · « **Reply #3 on:** 15 Aug 2011, 03:38 pm »

Hypothetical for me as well.
(c) None of the above.

Scotty

rodge827 · « **Reply #4 on:** 15 Aug 2011, 03:48 pm »

Imaging

Phil A · « **Reply #5 on:** 15 Aug 2011, 03:58 pm »

I'd have to say none of the above. The speakers are the last thing in the audio chain. What electronics are used? Does a change in electronics change what you hear? For example, the speaker that images well but is analytical sounding may have that problem changed by the electronics.

audioligist · « **Reply #6 on:** 16 Aug 2011, 02:48 am »

i think a big soundstage, your eyes closed, a comfortable seating position, a nice drink and the tonal thing you are asking about will make up for lack of imaging (and i do not mean total lack of)
this is why i think some prefer floorstanders to bookshelves. (it has been my experience that bookshelves image better, within reason)

my opinion of course

Letitroll98 · « **Reply #7 on:** 16 Aug 2011, 03:39 am »

Ha! I could guess Phil would try to fix the problem. There isn't one dear friend, all other considerations are equal in this particular world. Scotty, I guess imaging and tonal qualities aren't important to you? But if you think dynamics, bass impact, detail, or some other factor is more important, that may be valid in the real world, be here those things, and any others, are equal.

For the others, there is of course no right answer, I just wanted to find out what is most important to you. Perhaps stated another way, when you first listen to a speaker, do you hear the musical tonal qualities or the soundstaging first? Thanks to all for your continued participation.

jimdgoulding · « **Reply #8 on:** 16 Aug 2011, 04:34 am »

I would reject speakers that play like that for ones that do both.

PDR · « **Reply #9 on:** 16 Aug 2011, 05:52 am »

Quote from: Letitroll98 on 15 Aug 2011, 02:22 pm

But although sounding nice, is a tad more mechanical with instruments not sounding quite as real as the other.

Since its just a tad and not quite......I would pick imaging.....but it would be tough.

This thread makes me glad I dont have to compromise.

JohnR · « **Reply #10 on:** 16 Aug 2011, 09:36 am »

Quote from: Letitroll98 on 16 Aug 2011, 03:39 am

Perhaps stated another way, when you first listen to a speaker, do you hear the musical tonal qualities or the soundstaging first?

I guess for me then, it would be tonal qualities. (I'm assuming that we can pretend that we are listening to whatever music we want.) Do acoustic instruments sound natural, and have a "3D" quality (and that is not related to imaging...). I guess it starts with the mids and then goes to the treble. Then the bass - is it articulate and well-defined. Then there are dynamics, which contributes to sounding natural. I suppose "imaging" comes last on the list for me - it's nice to get the perspective of a performance but it's not a priority to make it a certain this or that. To be honest I find ultra-precise imaging to be a bit of a party trick, since it's not how real life sounds sound.

PS. Also, not all of the above can be solely because of the speakers.

spkrman57 · « **Reply #11 on:** 16 Aug 2011, 02:26 pm »

Imaging and dynamics are my preferences!

I like low wattage tube amps and prefer SET running high-efficiency drivers and horns.

Regards, Ron

versus rider · « **Reply #12 on:** 18 Aug 2011, 12:33 pm »

Quote from: JohnR on 16 Aug 2011, 09:36 am

I guess for me then, it would be tonal qualities. (I'm assuming that we can pretend that we are listening to whatever music we want.) Do acoustic instruments sound natural, and have a "3D" quality (and that is not related to imaging...). I guess it starts with the mids and then goes to the treble. Then the bass - is it articulate and well-defined. Then there are dynamics, which contributes to sounding natural. I suppose "imaging" comes last on the list for me - it's nice to get the perspective of a performance but it's not a priority to make it a certain this or that. To be honest I find ultra-precise imaging to be a bit of a party trick, since it's not how real life sounds sound.

PS. Also, not all of the above can be solely because of the speakers.

John we are on the same plane with this, I have some bookshelfs that I made that many people have commented about the superb imaging, but like you I think its a gimick dreamed up by sound engineers. I would take tonal qualities every time.

SET Man · « **Reply #13 on:** 19 Aug 2011, 01:58 am »

Hey!

For me tone/tonality is the most important. That is the first thing I look for. That is what carry the emotional part of the music itself. A good speaker for me should have the right tonality to reproduce the tone of the musical instruments and vocal right, with a good sense of musical flow I might add to that.

That is why when I listen to a pair of speaker or a system for the the time I tend to look and lock in the tonality of the speaker first than the rest of the audiophile's stuff later.

As for the soundstage/image I think is overrated

Take care,
Buddy

audioligist · « **Reply #14 on:** 19 Aug 2011, 02:54 am »

as an "unaudiophile linguistic" this is what i meant in an earlier post.

Set Man descibes it well... i perceive soundstage and imaging different, not imaging is a part of the soundstage...

i'm slowly catching on to the lingo... and i'm having fun!

good to know.

flintstone · « **Reply #15 on:** 19 Aug 2011, 03:04 am »

Speaker number 1.........you don't know how to set them up.........imaging is more about setup (thats your fault). Speaker number 2....if the tone is off....forget about it!............just my opinion of course

Dave

HsvHeelFan · « **Reply #16 on:** 19 Aug 2011, 03:15 am »

As an orchestral musician, tone is more important than imaging. I sit at the back right of the orchestra with String Basses immediately to my left, cello's in front and trombones to the right.

richidoo · « **Reply #17 on:** 19 Aug 2011, 03:55 am »

Tone is important, but dynamics make listening fun. Not just the macrodynamics like bass drum hits and soft/loud handling that give a piece of music scale, but the microdynamics from note to note, and from beginning to end of a note, that's what makes the music sound alive. Too much or badly designed negative feedback destroys microdynamics, as does too steep passive crossovers made with unmatched parts. After tone quality and dynamics I look for the audiophile aspects like phase coherence and low diffraction, which both allow good imaging.

Vapor Audio · « **Reply #18 on:** 19 Aug 2011, 04:06 am »

As a speaker builder, I have to say that getting the tone right is easy relatively in comparison to creating the holographic imaging. So for me what really makes a design special is the ability to disappear and lay the recording out on a 3-dimensional stage in front of you.

doug s. · « **Reply #19 on:** 21 Aug 2011, 06:22 am »

it's a no brainer; both speakers would be f/s; and i'd be looking for something else to do both. plenty of speakers out there that image great AND have excellent tone. especially if you are willing to have an active pair of subwoofers to go w/your speakers.

doug s.