SURVEY: Do you notice a big difference in $10K+ speakers vs. more affordable ones? (1 Viewer)

[Rob Roth]

many high-end speaker lines have an idiosyncratic sound that may, or may not, please a person's ears. I think it is very hard to compare, say, a 20K speaker from one manufacturer's line with a 5k speaker from another manufacturer. More telling, IMO, is progression within a given line.

I happen to like Sonus Faber and REL. I'm not interested in defending my likes but I am very glad that both manufacturers have extensive lines allowing me to upgrade as budget and improved discrimination warrant. BTW, this is another reason to cultivate a good relationship with a dealer who will facilitate your upgrades.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Very expensive speakers tend to excel in "audiophile" areas (detail retrieval, "imaging"), which makes sense since that's whom they're geared toward. Many don't make much music, although that's not really a priority with their owners.
I'd actually take the $550 Magnepan MMG over just about any multiway dynamic cone/dome speaker, Watt/Puppies, ML hybrids, etc.

 

[Saurav]

Jack,
Excellent point. I would add "complex" to your "very expensive". The current "high end" speakers seem to be geared more towards clean undistorted SPL - lots of drivers, complex crossovers, huge power requirements. That's a totally different presentation from what is achieved by a horn-loaded single high-efficiency driver driven by a few clean watts of power. I've heard a system with 108dB Oris horns driven by 0.5W SETs (is there anyone left on this board who hasn't heard me say that yet? ), and nothing else I've heard comes even close.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I've heard a system with 108dB Oris horns driven by 0.5W SETs (is there anyone left on this board who hasn't heard me say that yet? ), and nothing else I've heard comes even close.

I respect your opinion, but in 20 years of professional audio work and home listening, I have yet to hear a horn speaker I can listen to for more than one hour. I find the midrange lacking almost always.

 

[Saurav]

I respect your opinion, but in 20 years of professional audio work and home listening, I have yet to hear a horn speaker I can listen to for more than one hour. I find the midrange lacking almost always.

Well, I haven't heard too many other horns, and I certainly don't have 20 years in this hobby, so I won't dispute that. For me, that was the most amazing system I've ever heard, in the sense that it came closest to sounding like real people playing real instruments, and not a recording. The tonal accuracy seemed fine to my inexperienced ears, and the dynamics on drums were the closest to what I remember drums sounding like back when I used to play in a band.
Just out of curiosity, have you heard Oris or Avantgarde horns, driven by 'good' SET amplification?
We probably just have different tastes. There's nothing that says that everyone has to like the same kind of sound

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Jack, this is a ridiculous statement as excellence in audiophile areas by definition means "closer to the music". Therefore true audiophile speakers are reproducing as closely as possible what is heard in the recording (concert or studio).

I'll refrain from responding to the insulting tone and stand by what I said. Most "audiophiles" (especially self-professed ones) have no idea what getting closer to the music means. Their systems excel at extramusical effects, though. Also, it really wouldn't mean "closer to the music", would it? More likely "lover of sound".

 

[Rob Roth]

Jack,

Perhaps the problem is your phrase "most audiophiles". There is a subset who nervously play the same 5 'reference discs' repeatedly after tweaking their systems. These poor souls exult when a new component or tweak 'reveals' some detail of music, but spend more time agonizing about what is 'wrong' with their systems. Unfortunately the high end magazines may encourage such neurotic obsession.

For me, and I believe most audiophiles, its about the music. To enjoy the music you have to get the system out of the way. Now this certainly means not obsessing, but it also means building systems that are transparent and coherent. Transparent systems are those in which we don't 'hear' the component. Coherent systems are those capable of accuracy as musical complexity increases. You can easily and cheaply find systems which do a good job on simple, unaccompanied vocals. Fewer systems do a good job on a vocalist accompanied with several instruments. And damn few can accurately reproduce the massed voices and orchestra of, say, Beethoven's 9th.

Soundstage and imaging are all about recreating a more believable musical event. They are difficult to achieve since they require well matched components and attention to room conditions and speaker placement. But when you get it right, you know.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Most "audiophiles" (especially self-professed ones) have no idea what getting closer to the music means.

Jack, on this we will always disagree. While there is always a subset of audiophiles who may be more interested in equipment than music, the majority of us buy a system that allows us to enjoy the performance more. I spend a lot more time listening to music than I do reading articles in magazines or the Internet.

I don't think its fair to state that audiophile's are interested in "effects". I hear this a lot and was angry to read your post again which also reflects this view. I am sorry to have been insulting in my reply, but your statement was also insulting to audiophiles.

 

[Saurav]

But when you get it right, you know.

My reaction to most systems I've heard with good imaging has usually been on the lines of "Ooh, every cymbal is at a different point in space" and "I love how the singer is in front of the drums". I've heard very few systems that make me go "Damn, this is a tight band" or "These guys really know how to play". And the few that have evoked that kind of a reaction from me, have done it not because they imaged well.

Like I said before, these are just my tastes and experiences, and they don't have to match anyone else's.

 

[Larry B]

Arnel's original question was as follows:

If so, what is the first thing about them that "grabs" you?

Depends on the speaker. If it's a very large speaker, it might be the forcefulness of the presentation. More often however, it's a combination of clarity (particularly of midrange), detail, balance and effortlessness.

Larry

 

[Larry B]

Saurav:

And the few that have evoked that kind of a reaction from me, have done it not because they imaged well.

Are you sure about that? Imaging presumably reflects coherence of the sound, and purity of the waveform, which also account (I assume) for the "Damn, this is a tight band" or "These guys really know how to play" feelings you descibed. Thus, while you may not have been focusing on the imaging, I believe it goes hand in hand with the emotional involvement you seek.
As I moved up the audio chain from a crappy stereo to decent one, one of the first things I noticed was the ability to distinguish the individual musicians. At the time, I thought this was the be-all and end-all. However, when I made the next quantum step up the ladder I disovered something I couldn't even have imagined: While the performers were still individually recognizable, they now "came together" as one. That is, instead of sounding like 4 (for example) guys each doing his thing, they now sounded like a band. That is, they had the magic and spark similar to what we refer to when we say a band is "tight." Was this the result of better imaging? Maybe. or maybe not. On the one hand, the speakers that best provided this magic were often the best imagers. On the other hand, one of the best imaging speakers in the world, the Watt Puppy, is (in my opinion) poor at conveying emotion. So maybe the last paragraph had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.
Larry

 

[Saurav]

Thus, while you may not have been focusing on the imaging, I believe it goes hand in hand with the emotional involvement you seek.

That's an interesting idea. In the systems that I've heard where I noticed the imaging, it usually intruded on the music. So, you could be right, but in my experience, systems which focus on the imaging aspect of the presentation have usually been poor at the aspects I care about most.

 

[John Royster]

My other .02...
IMHO a good speaker is one that has good tone. What does that mean to me? A piano sounds like a piano, a guitar sounds like a guitar, a tamborine sounds like a tamborine, vocals sound like voices and when they all play together it sounds like beautiful music.
In a decently coherent image. Doesn't have to be pinpoint accurate 'cause that's not what I hear when I go to live show be they big or be they a three person jazz trio at a local martini club. Just get the tone and balance right and I'm pretty happy.
As always, stereos/music means different things to different people.

 

[Larry B]

Lee:

I respect your opinion, but in 20 years of professional audio work and home listening, I have yet to hear a horn speaker I can listen to for more than one hour. I find the midrange lacking almost always.

Amen!

Larry

 

[Larry B]

Saurav:

So, you could be right, but in my experience, systems which focus on the imaging aspect of the presentation have
usually been poor at the aspects I care about most.

Which systems were those?

LB

 

[Saurav]

Hmm.... my current system, compared to some others It images better and sounds worse than some systems I've heard. Most systems with high-power amps driving multi-driver cone speakers would fall into this category, but only in the frame of reference of the tube/horn or tube/high-efficiency-cone systems I've heard.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

IMHO a good speaker is one that has good tone. What does that mean to me? A piano sounds like a piano, a guitar sounds like a guitar, a tamborine sounds like a tamborine, vocals sound like voices and when they all play together it sounds like beautiful music.

John,
Amen on this point...a lot of things come into play here.
First, are the speakers capable of realistics midrange reproduction? This is harder to do than it sounds. A lot of Maggie lovers (myself included), Quad, and Martin-Logan fans believe this so-called "presence" region is the most critical factor in listening enjoyment.
Second, tamborines and cymbals are notoriously difficult high frequency events to do justice. Most redbook cymbals sound a bit too "splashy" while Super Audio (and to be fair DVDA-not to get into that whole ball of wax ) resolution allows the proper "shimmering" sound of a cymbal.
Third, does the amplification handle the decay and initial attack of the notes properly? This is very hard to do and also why I like Audio Research products so much.
Fourth, is the whole system capable of wide dynamic range?
I really got into audio after recording musicians in the studio and hearing how pure notes do sound live in a controlled environment. As you work there, you learn to recognize subtle cues like guitars barely out of tune and the like. Pianos are very, very tricky. Even at Chesky, it was some number of sessions until I personally felt we found the right mic for the piano. Piano makes a nice almost "glassy" sound that is hard to capture on redbook without sounding flat.
Anyway, a long story but I very much agree tone is very important. Reference 3As are quite good in this manner.

 

[Saurav]

Remember, from a distance image can collapse, but up close at the mike's where it is being recorded, imaging is preserved as best as the recording engineer allows.

I've never been near the microphone at any of the professional rock concerts I've attended, so I'm really not interested in knowing what the imaging there is like. In the concerts where I've been up on stage playing, everything sounds completely different from what it sounds like down in the audience.

 

[Saurav]

At the end of the day...

I think this is about a person's tastes. I have some ideas of what kind of sound I like. These ideas have nothing to do with any universally accepted idea of 'good sound', they are only about what I like. As I've been listening to more and more systems, these ideas have been evolving and changing.

Basically, I don't think there's any 'right' or 'wrong' here. IMO, the fundamental goal of an audio reproduction system is to provide pleasure and entertainment. So, the best system for any person is the one that provides him with the most pleasure, end of story. All the rest is fluff.

 

[John Royster]

Well put. To that end "do you notice a big difference in $10K+ speakers vs more affordable one?"
For me yes. Does that mean I prefer the more expensive one? Well.......
it depends.