Can revealing speakers be bad? (1 Viewer)

[Tommy_N]

Hello all,

I’m almost ready to upgrade my speakers and I’m interested in both the B&W 600 series and the CDM 9s.

I’ve heard that the CDM line is very revealing. I understand that it will show any flaws in the rest of the audio chain, but what exactly will that mean or more specifically, what will it sound like?

A lot of the CD’s I listen to are poorly recorded. I listen to a lot of old Blues, distortion filled hard-core, and on occasion mp3’s & poorly recorded live albums. For HT I also play some old VHS tapes that have some audio dropouts.

Are these going to sound worse with the better quality speakers?

For the next 6-12 months they will be powered by a Denon 3802, then I will upgrade to a separate amp. My CD player will probably also need to be upgraded seeing as that it is almost 15 years old.

Thanks
Tom

 

[Steve_Ma]

Are these going to sound worse with the better quality speakers?

Great question!

Maybe some of those recordings will sound a little worse.

On the other hand you can bet that some of the music you have that's more recent (or wonderfully recorded older material) will sound sound much better with the CDMs.

If I were making that decision, I would make it based on other factors (cost, room acoustics, electronics, etc). IMO, those are far better reasons to go with one over the other.

Just my $0.02
--Steve

 

[ross ish]

A very 'revealing' speaker would work fine with any system. The speaker would not sound worse from one system to the next, it's just that its potential may not be fully realized.

B&W have a tendancy of being bright. Stay away from brighter sounding ss amps such as Denon and Yamaha. You can tame the brightness somewhat by swapping out for cables that are more warmer sounding.

As you enter into the high end arena, be prepared to experiment with different sources and components. The realm of high end audio is a hobby of continue upgraditis; in search of the ultimate sonic sensation.

 

[Tommy_N]

Steve,

You bring up some good points. I'm not sure if the benefit I would get by using the CDM9 vs 604 is worth the difference in price.

Ross (or anyone) do you have any suggestions for trying cables? Personally for my ears I don't think I would hear any difference. But I am willing to try it out. However, I do not want anything too $$$. The $$$ is better spend towards actual electronics.

Thanks

Tom

 

[John Royster]

I listened extensively to the 604s and CDM9s.

They really are very different speakers.

Very revealing speakers to me don't really sound "bad". Even with mediocre recordings they still sound "good". But they'll start to show a "electronic" sound with poor source components.

Somehow it doesn't sound quite like music. You can hear it wanting to come out but it stills sounds like a stereo and not a performance.

Then you get a good source, pre-amp and amp and POW! Band's playing in your living room.

 

[Cagri]

You can tame the brightness somewhat by swapping out for cables that are more warmer sounding.

Are there cables in the market with the ability of seperately recognising signals and emphasize lower frequency and transmit these to be reproduced sounding warmer? I really would like to know how this may happen technically.

 

[Shane Martin]

Are there cables in the market with the ability of seperately recognising signals and emphasize lower frequency and transmit these to be reproduced sounding warmer? I really would like to know how this may happen technically.

Can we discuss this elsewhere as this would hijack this rather good thread?

Very revealing speakers are a double edged sword because the better your equipment, the more $$ you are going to spend for "subtle" improvements. Subtle can mean alot of things for alot of people so try not to read too much into that. Essentially they reveal poor recordings and poor upstream components.

 

[Cagri]

Well, the thread shall continue without getting hijacked. I wouldn't like to see that happen, I hadn't realised this was a matter almost similar to 'can same spec amps sound different' debate until doing a search about it.

I can't think such cables would possibly exist though. Good quality cables/poor quality cables ----> change in sound quality, OK, but warmer/brighter cables? I don't buy it.

 

[Chu Gai]

Maybe you need to arrange for an audition in your home. Appears that you may've not even heard the speakers yet.

 

[ross ish]

Tommy,
Would not get into the cable debate, but it does not hurt to audition cables and find out for yourself. Most on-line cable retailers offer trials. Also local dealers may loan out cables for evaluating.

There is no empirical data that proves or disproves cables changing sonics. But there are interactions between cables and components. Check it out or email me.

 

[Marc H]

I like John's response and agree.
The CDM9 will work fine on the Denon and sound decent but once you upgrade the source, you will say 'Wow'.

 

[Michael R Price]

I don't get the thing about using a "warm" sounding amplifier to counteract "bright" sounding speakers. If the speakers are bright, the speakers are bright. If the amplifier produces distortion, you will notice it more. Has anyone ever recommended a "bright" (which to me sounds suspiciously like "bad sounding") amplifier for use with any speaker?

Don't worry about your wires, but after getting speakers you could consider changing the other components.

 

[LanceJ]

Personally speaking, I'll take a revealing speaker any day over one that massages the sound so everything it reproduces sounds "good".

Their seems to be a trend this past decade to consciously build dull (warm, velevety, etc) sounding components. And I think many high-end companies are the worst offenders in this regard. For some reason, many audiophiles are offended by any sound that has a sharp characteristic to it, even if it sounds that way in real life. So I guess these high-end manufacturers are catering to their intended client's delicate senses. As a result of this, in certain high-end magazines I've noticed that any component that has a smooooooth sound is thought of as a quality item, and the "crappy" stuff is described as brash, overly forward or bright.

That's their opinion.

Well, from being in this hobby for over twenty years, I've found that the brash stuff is what reproduces music most accurately. The down side of this is that badly recorded music sounds really bad: my new Surrealistic Pillow CD by Jefferson Airplane sounds great on my $40 Altec/Lansing computer speakers, but pretty lifeless (little bass & restricted highs) on my Technics/Boston Acoustics rig. The good side of a--ahem--"bright" system? Good recordings sound awesome. Detailed, clean & lifelike. Coldplay's Parachutes and Sarah McClachlin's(sp?) Fumbling Towards Ecstasy are great examples of this. On recordings where the album was recorded with tube equipment to give the music a relaxed feel, my system is capable of revealing this. If the music was supposed to be an in-your-face type of recording, like my MXPX or Rollins Band albums, then I can hear that too. And if it's too in-my-face, then I just turn down the treble control (I'm not afraid to use tone controls. And my Technics' is centered all the way up at 20kHz so it doesn't mess with the important midrange frequencies).

And if a cable actually softens the system's sound, then IMO something is wrong with it and it shouldn't be used.

Now obviously, there is a point where sound can be too bright: ever play a $30 boombox in bathroom with no carpet? Ouch! So I'm not saying a sizzly sounding rig is a good thing. There is truly such a thing as a grainy or etched sound, which I can't stand (IMO many of Yamaha's speakers at Best Buy exhibit this nasty quality. And most speakers using piezoelectric horn tweeters sound this way too, but even louder).

So there's my two cents.....well, more like a dollar I guess .

LJ

 

[Chu Gai]

Occasionally when something is too revealing it makes it difficult to pay attention with your ears.

[c] [/c]

 

[Frank Zimkas]

To answer the original question....
A good system can make some recordings simply unbearable. I've got a few older Cd's that do nothing more than gather dust cuz I just can't handle the sound now! Too many flaws in the recordings to handle I guess. I've even got a few newer copies of some Count Basie and Duke ellington that are just horrible as well.

 

[Tommy_N]

Originally posted by LanceJ

To answer the original question....
A good system can make some recordings simply unbearable. I've got a few older Cd's that do nothing more than gather dust cuz I just can't handle the sound now! Too many flaws in the recordings to handle I guess.

That's what I'm worried about. If I only listened to high quality records it wouldn't be an issue.

I'm probably going to audition speakers within the next two weeks. I'll posted my comments and thoughts.

Tom

 

[Michael R Price]

Lance, I like bright sound too, but there has been some association recently of that word with "harsh" and "fatiguing." For example, what the heck does it mean to say an amplifier is "bright"? The only explanation I can think of would be that it's producing unpleasant sounding, high frequency distortion. A bright and exciting sounding system does not have to be harsh and fatiguing! (Although, unfortunately, with today's components and recordings, sometimes it is.)

 

[Doug BW]

That's what I'm worried about. If I only listened to high quality records it wouldn't be an issue.

I understand your concern. However, if you buy speakers where mediocre recordings sound just as good as great recordings, it is a near certainty you will be craving a speaker upgrade in less than a year.

After all, aren't you thinking of spending thousands on new speakers because you want to have the best sounding speakers you can? You won't get that if you buy a speaker that takes a great recording and fuzzes it up to the point it sounds like a lousy recording. Instead, you'll listen to your speakers and think, "something's missing". Or you'll go to a friend's house and think "why don't MY speakers sound as good?".

Good speakers may change which of your CDs are your favorites. That's not a bad thing. You may find that you enjoy your "new" favorite CD a lot more than your "old" favorite.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

I don't think good speakers make bad equipment and cds sound WORSE than they did before. If you have a wonderful system, you get used to fabulous sound on well-recorded cds. You put a POS cd in there, and it will sound like crap. Sure, it sounds different than on the speakers on your TV, or whatever old crappy boombox you might have used before, but it's still crappy sounding. It just seems worse than it did because you get used to such great sound. In reality it's probably better than what it used to sound like, but when you have system where the crappy cds sound just as crappy as the really good ones, you don't notice anything at all.

 

[LanceJ]

Michael said:

For example, what the heck does it mean to say an amplifier is "bright"?

To me, the person saying this is used to a warmer/softer sounding amp. Amps that are designed with totally flat frequency responses are considered bright by some people; amps that have a downward tilting high frequency response are what some consider to be musical or liquid sounding.......but IMO they are lacking detail. To each his own!! And there are other electronic techniques to soften an amp's sound that will not show up on a frequency response chart so don't totally depend on those things to make sonic comparisons (and all this also applies to preamps and a source component's output stage: CD players, tape decks, dvd players, phono stages & tuners). This is all part of voicing a component, just like a car designer designs a model to express how he thinks an automobile should behave: should it handle like a slot car at the expense of ride comfort, or should it ride like a motorized marshmallow? That all depends on who/what he is designing it for. Personally, I'll take the slot car--they're a lot more fun!

Extra stuff:

IMO, all this depends on what the listener considers to sound "musical". Many, many audiophiles listen mostly to classical--I'm no expert but I have never heard any electric quitars, snare drums or synthsizers in such music. And these instruments have a lot of powerful high frequency energy. But why bother building a system that can reproduce those frequencies at live levels if the owner doesn't even listen to such music? And many audiophiles are well known for hating digital recordings--they proclaim it sounds harsh, flat, sterile, etc. My own opinion on this is because digital is so good at capturing nearly every small detail--including the bad ones--some overly sensitive types categorize digital as "bad". AND they are so used to analog's own set of distortions they think something is wrong with digitally-derived sound. Analog usually has its biggest problems with: the delicate high frequencies (tape particle sizes, tape saturation limits, biasing, noise reduction systems, tape head misalignment, groove destruction, groove/stylus incompatibilities, phono cartridge magnetic anomalies, etc, etc; phase problems--especially w/vinyl--can give music an artificial "floaty" or "airy" quality; and even-order harmonic distortions (even-order supposedly has relaxing qualities). I'm not making fun of these effects--they can add up to a rather enjoyable sound & I didn't recently blow $230 on a turntable because I rabidly hate analog ......but these sounds weren't present in that recording studio. Now, if the artist wants it there, then it's no big deal. It's part of his artistic expression.

I just don't want my system to artificially color EVERY piece of music with the same sonic characteristics.

LJ