What speaker for what music?

flez007 · Dec 16, 2011

I am with your line of thought DaveyF, as you know I have lived with almost all sorts of different design options, bookshelf, monitors, horns, multi-driver, single driver, vented/ported... at the end I preferred a particular musical genre that benefited from the foundation of such design.

There are of course some that might have a larger applicability area but hard to find a great one for everything (I have not heard ultra-exotoca speakers yet). An example of my case would be my time with some B&W speakers, which I labeled as "good for everything, great at nothing" (sorry for the translation since I might not be using the right words here).

fas42 · Dec 16, 2011

mep said:
In that same vein, I have never believed in one type of speaker for rock, another type for jazz, and yet another for classical. If a speaker is accurate, can handle large amounts of power without distorting and compressing the signal, it should be able to play any and all types of music equally well. If it can’t, something is wrong with the speaker.

And +1 as well. Except, the something "wrong" are highly likely to be quite a number of subtle factors throughout the system setup. Also, small speakers have no trouble sounding big, the only reason for size is getting bass reproduction right. As an extreme example, take the treble and midrange drivers of Basspig's system and stick them into the tiniest box that can physically hold them. No bass, but the volume would pulverise your listening room, house and general neighbourhood ...

As regards soundstaging and imaging, as Davey stated, "real" sound has both, it's not one or the other: a system working properly also has both elements in the reproduced sound, "bigness" with absolute precision of an element within it.

Frank

microstrip · Dec 16, 2011

Phelonious Ponk said:
Most certainly for quality. Mastering is the final phase of the process, in which the stereo mix is tweaked for mass production. It is done on all kinds of studio and domestic equipment, depending on the studio. Some studios master on high-end domestic playback equipment, some on mid field pro monitor systems, some on the same near fields the recording and mixing is done. It is important. It is certainly a step at which the recording can be made better or worse. But let's not give it more importance than it deserves. The overwhelming majority of the work that the artists and engineers do to make music on record is done in the studio control room, not the mastering suite, and it is not for convenience it is for quality, the quality required to reveal fine detail. With all of that said, some people don't like playback to be that revealing; it's not for everyone. For this old musician who spent many years listening almost exclusively to headphone systems, active near field monitors are the perfect speaker set up. They take that headphone precision and intimacy and float it out in front of me instead of placing it inside of my head. Perfect. YMMV.

Tim

Good point - I was referring to mixing and mastering, not only mastering. Sorry I was not clear. But you say it all when you say "For this old musician who spent many years listening almost exclusively to headphone systems, active near field monitors are the perfect speaker set up" . I accept and respect it.

But this is not the audiophile perspective, neither from many professionals. See for example F. Toole on near-field monitors:

In recording control rooms, it is common to place small loudspeakers on the meter bridge at the rear of the recording console. These are called near-field or close-field monitors because they are not far from the listeners. As shown in Figure 18.1c, the near field of a small two-way loudspeaker (the midrange and tweeter of the example system) extends to somewhere in the range 21 in. to almost 6 ft (0.53 to 1.8 m). Including the reflection from the console under the loudspeaker greatly extends that distance. There is no doubt, then, that the recording engineer is listening in the acoustical near field, and that what is heard will depend on where the ears are located in distance, as well as laterally and in height. The propagating wavefront has not stabilized, and as a result this is not a desirable sound field in which to do precision listening (...) .

From "Sound Reproduction" page 368.

Phelonious Ponk · Dec 16, 2011

JackD201 said:
If you want to hear that in a large scale, you're welcome to fly over Tim

For large scale, I only need to pull up a chair. For a large room, well, it needs to be a very well-damped room. And it's much damper in Manila than it is in Reno.

Tim

RogerD · Dec 16, 2011

Phelonious Ponk said:
For large scale, I only need to pull up a chair. For a large room, well, it needs to be a very well-damped room. And it's much damper in Manila than it is in Reno.

Tim

They don't call it the high desert for nothing.

Phelonious Ponk · Dec 16, 2011

microstrip said:
Good point - I was referring to mixing and mastering, not only mastering. Sorry I was not clear. But you say it all when you say "For this old musician who spent many years listening almost exclusively to headphone systems, active near field monitors are the perfect speaker set up" . I accept and respect it.

But this is not the audiophile perspective, neither from many professionals. See for example F. Toole on near-field monitors:

In recording control rooms, it is common to place small loudspeakers on the meter bridge at the rear of the recording console. These are called near-field or close-field monitors because they are not far from the listeners. As shown in Figure 18.1c, the near field of a small two-way loudspeaker (the midrange and tweeter of the example system) extends to somewhere in the range 21 in. to almost 6 ft (0.53 to 1.8 m). Including the reflection from the console under the loudspeaker greatly extends that distance. There is no doubt, then, that the recording engineer is listening in the acoustical near field, and that what is heard will depend on where the ears are located in distance, as well as laterally and in height. The propagating wavefront has not stabilized, and as a result this is not a desirable sound field in which to do precision listening (...) .

From "Sound Reproduction" page 368.

Recognizing the inherent danger in this, I'll just go ahead and disagree with Mr. Toole. Yes, where your ears are in the near field is critical. I can sit here in my rolling chair, roll a bit to the left and the phantom center channel rolls with me, quite precisely. It's as if it is on a track, coupled to my head, tracking every move I make. I can literally change the imaging by moving my head. It is sensitive, to be certain. But I understand what I'm dealing with and deal with it. I push back a couple of feet, center myself, lean back and listen. Or I can lean in, a bit to the right, to concentrate on the hi-hat there. It may or may not be a desirable sound field for conventional listening, but critical listening? I, and thousands of audio engineers would disagree with Mr. Toole on that one. It is extremely convenient. It is great for critical listening. It is not, however, even my ideal. That would probably look something like a comfortable chair sitting at the point of a triangle from two speakers just barely far enough from the listener for "the propagating wavefront" to have "stabilized," in the middle of a very large, soft, quiet room, with the entire system (including my ears) many feet from any walls.

If I had such a room to dedicate to music listening, I'd be there now.

Tim

Phelonious Ponk · Dec 16, 2011

I need to add something for context: I do spend a lot of time just listening and enjoying music; it's one of the great pleasures of my life. But as a player, there's another purpose for my system. I don't learn the parts I play from reading sheet music, I learn them from listening. I often find myself listening in deep for that piano part buried in the mix, trying to deconstruct it, so I can take that part, created on 88 keys, and figure out a way to emulate it on six strings. Other times I find myself trying to cop a tone. Is that a chorus pedal or digital delay? How fast is its setting? Is that part played on a guitar with humbuckers or single coils? Is that a slight touch of cascading preamp channels, or is it just a high output pickup bitch-slapping the front end of a vintage-style low-gain tube amp (God, I hope so...)?

I gotcher need for resolution right here. And the strengths of near field monitoring are a powerful tool in that endeavor. The compromises are very real as well, but I'm quite willing to accept them.

YM...almost certainly...MV.

Tim

fas42 · Dec 16, 2011

microstrip said:
There is no doubt, then, that the recording engineer is listening in the acoustical near field, and that what is heard will depend on where the ears are located in distance, as well as laterally and in height. The propagating wavefront has not stabilized, and as a result this is not a desirable sound field in which to do precision listening[/B] (...) .

From "Sound Reproduction" page 368.

Didn't absorb that part of the quote before, and like Tim, will have to disagree. <dWRd>If the system is working correctly the wavefront doesn't need any air space to stabilise, your ear/brain does it all for you. It IS an excellent way of pinpointing whether the system is in order or not, because every deficiency of the system, as well as the recording, will be very clear. The recording's "problems" will be of a different nature from those of the audio replay quality, so relatively easy to distinguish </dWRd>

Frank

Phelonious Ponk · Dec 16, 2011

fas42 said:
Didn't absorb that part of the quote before, and like Tim, will have to disagree. <dWRd>If the system is working correctly the wavefront doesn't need any air space to stabilise, your ear/brain does it all for you. It IS an excellent way of pinpointing whether the system is in order or not, because every deficiency of the system, as well as the recording, will be very clear. The recording's "problems" will be of a different nature from those of the audio replay quality, so relatively easy to distinguish </dWRd>

Frank

Actually, Frank, I agree with that part. It's the notion that it is not a good format for critical listening, that I disagree with. Understand the sensitivity of the position of your ears relative to the field. Use it. It is an incredible format for critical listening. But there's no way any ear/brain perception is going to get around the sensitivity of the position of your ears, the instability of the waveform, when listening that close. That would take some really good drugs.

Tim

puroagave · Dec 16, 2011

mep said:
I have always thought this logic was seriously flawed. Here is what I believe: small speakers can’t sound big, but big speakers can sound “small” if small is what is encoded in the tape, the grooves, or the master digital file.

In that same vein, I have never believed in one type of speaker for rock, another type for jazz, and yet another for classical. If a speaker is accurate, can handle large amounts of power without distorting and compressing the signal, it should be able to play any and all types of music equally well. If it can’t, something is wrong with the speaker.

+4

I have a low-powered system with small monitors and esl-57's and primarily listen in the near field. My speakers are sized to my listening room and available space not to any type of music, the fact they do better with small works and music w/o wide swinging dynamics speaks more to their limitations than anything. imo, size matters when you want to play *all* types of music - bigger is def better! that said i get more of the real thing through my audeze LCD-3s than any speaker sytem ive ever owned - large or small..

DaveyF · Dec 16, 2011

mep said:
I have always thought this logic was seriously flawed. Here is what I believe: small speakers can’t sound big, but big speakers can sound “small” if small is what is encoded in the tape, the grooves, or the master digital file.

In that same vein, I have never believed in one type of speaker for rock, another type for jazz, and yet another for classical. If a speaker is accurate, can handle large amounts of power without distorting and compressing the signal, it should be able to play any and all types of music equally well. If it can’t, something is wrong with the speaker.

Mark, I think what you are saying doesn't quite contemplate the whole picture.....what's missing, IMO, is the contribution of the room

. In a BIG room, the large speaker ( if accurate and with the abilities you describe, can most likely do a reasonable job of showing intimacy....) however, IMO the size of said room will probably take away from the portrayal of detail and possibly pinpoint imaging vs. the small speaker in a small room. In a small room, the large speaker is probably a disaster...wherein the small speaker in the LARGE room is struggling BUt may be able to correctly image and portray some dynamics ( due to what Jack was saying). NEITHER will be able to truly portray what I was listening to in the symphony hall....which is BOTH incredible intimacy and explosive force with the same ease. IF you have heard such a speaker and room, please PM me and tell what it was and where you heard it.

DaveyF · Dec 16, 2011

Ronm1 said:
I gave up on recreating a Symphony in the home, just not practical. When the need for a fix arises, I just go to the local Symphony. Auditorium/Hall acoustics are quite good and the playing/musicianship is way better than I expected. Damned shame I ignored them for so long. Best decision I ever made a number of years ago from an audio/music perspective. All IMHO, of course.

I am beginning to believe this as well..... Therefore, the point I brought up about "compromise".

DaveyF · Dec 16, 2011

flez007 said:
I am with your line of thought DaveyF, as you know I have lived with almost all sorts of different design options, bookshelf, monitors, horns, multi-driver, single driver, vented/ported... at the end I preferred a particular musical genre that benefited from the foundation of such design.

There are of course some that might have a larger applicability area but hard to find a great one for everything (I have not heard ultra-exotoca speakers yet). An example of my case would be my time with some B&W speakers, which I labeled as "good for everything, great at nothing" (sorry for the translation since I might not be using the right words here).

Fernando, I am of the opinion that a particular musical genre tends to work better on a speaker designed for that genre.( This is a generality, BUT seems to basically hold true for most speakers and designers...certainly the one's I have heard, and I have heard most of the "ultra-exotica"). I think you are using the 'right ' words here and translating beautifully

fas42 · Dec 16, 2011

Phelonious Ponk said:
But there's no way any ear/brain perception is going to get around the sensitivity of the position of your ears, the instability of the waveform, when listening that close. That would take some really good drugs.

Tim

Or something like the MBL 101E or X-Treme's. This review nicely expresses the phenomenon that occurs: http://www.avguide.com/review/mbl-101-x-treme-omnidirectional-loudspeaker-tas-189?page=3; these speakers serve as a nice reference for what's possible. As some people have commented, even when you "know" that the sound is coming from these your ear/brain still can't shake off the illusion of the soundstage. Now, these are just multi-way, stereo speakers, with large displacements between the drivers; doesn't stop your mind registering the images, even relatively close.

Of course, they have to be driven well, which is a feat in itself. The one time time I heard them they started off well, but over a period of 5 minutes or so you could hear the sound start to degrade, elements of "hardness" coming in, as some of the usual audio suspects began to intrude. So, unfortunately, they don't eliminate the need to be fussy with the rest of the chain, but they certainly give a system a good head start to conjuring up realistic sound scapes.

Frank

Phelonious Ponk · Dec 17, 2011

fas42 said:
Or something like the MBL 101E or X-Treme's. This review nicely expresses the phenomenon that occurs: http://www.avguide.com/review/mbl-101-x-treme-omnidirectional-loudspeaker-tas-189?page=3; these speakers serve as a nice reference for what's possible. As some people have commented, even when you "know" that the sound is coming from these your ear/brain still can't shake off the illusion of the soundstage. Now, these are just multi-way, stereo speakers, with large displacements between the drivers; doesn't stop your mind registering the images, even relatively close.
Frank

Frank, go back and read what you're responding to, what you actually quoted above. Note this line in particular: "when listening that close."

Set a pair of large, omnidirectional speakers up a meter and a half apart. Now pull up a chair, front and center, a meter and a half back. Now roll back and forth a bit. Does the phantom center move with you? Probably not. You've probably got mono from all positions at this point, along with irrefutable evidence that you have far too much time on your hands.

Tim

fas42 · Dec 17, 2011

Phelonious Ponk said:
Frank, go back and read what you're responding to, what you actually quoted above. Note this line in particular: "when listening that close."

Set a pair of large, omnidirectional speakers up a meter and a half apart. Now pull up a chair, front and center, a meter and a half back. Now roll back and forth a bit. Does the phantom center move with you? Probably not. You've probably got mono from all positions at this point, along with irrefutable evidence that you have far too much time on your hands.

Tim

Also a bit too much money, if I got hold of a pair of MBL's just to try that experiment ...

If the electronics were in good shape the phantom centre would move all the way, but hey! We've been here before ...

The point I was responding to was your assertion that one's ears are sensitive to the position of one's head, that the waveforms emerging from multiple drivers were bound to clash when one was in close proximity. Looked at logically, that seems to be how it should work, but my own experiences have shown me otherwise. Good omnis are the easiest way to get this without special effort, the MBLs did it nicely, but assiduous tweaking will also get you there.

Speaking of mono, a true such recording is the best test piece; as I've mentioned some time before the image should shift to the left and the right of either speaker as you move your head accordingly, even up close. The point in all this is that the drivers do not draw attention to themselves, they genuinely become "invisible" ...

Frank

Phelonious Ponk · Dec 17, 2011

Speaking of mono, a true such recording is the best test piece; as I've mentioned some time before the image should shift to the left and the right of either speaker as you move your head accordingly, even up close. The point in all this is that the drivers do not draw attention to themselves, they genuinely become "invisible" ...

Frank, this is exactly what I'm saying. The phantom center - which is all there is in mono - shifts left and right with the position of your head, especially up close. Now, mind you, "up close" is relative. Up close works will with small two-way speakers, where the output of the midbass driver and the tweeter can merge across the short distance to your ears. But if you have a pair of 4-way, omni-directional speakers that are 6.5 feet tall, if you have a situation in which you're hearing as much coming off of the side of the driver, and the wall behind it as you are the front, a situation in which one driver may, by dumb luck, be at ear level and the others are going to be necessarily above your head, pointed at your mid section and somewhere below your a**, all bets are off. No imaging. No driver coherence.

Did you really mean to use MBLs as an example in a near field conversation?

I really don't know if you just skim (lightly) some posts before you compose what you think must be an appropriate variation on your standard response or if you're just totally clueless. But currently, your response makes me wonder a) if you knew we were currently talking about near field set ups and b) if you even looked at the picture of the speakers you linked me to. In any case you continue to provide entertainment.

Tim

microstrip · Dec 17, 2011

Phelonious Ponk said:
(...) It may or may not be a desirable sound field for conventional listening, but critical listening? I, and thousands of audio engineers would disagree with Mr. Toole on that one. It is extremely convenient. It is great for critical listening. (...)

I have little studio experience, and the few professionals I personally know who share F. Toole view are involved in studio design and can not be considered non biased opinions, as they earn their life designing great studios for far-field listening. So , I will not comment on your disagreement.

But, independently of the opinion of the "thousands of audio engineers", I could see that F. Toole presents technical data on why the wavefront has not stabilized. It seems your perceptual findings are in disagreement with it - welcome to the Dark Side of Audiophilia, Tim!

flez007 · Dec 17, 2011

DaveyF - I am lost with this thread

, the topic is really of my interest and since I reached to a conclusion based on my personal experience some time ago, I was looking for some additional information once this thread started (thanks

), but now I see valid but many "shoots to the air". Since you started it, I was wondering if you have arrived to some conclusions or just declare it is again "a matter of tastes"

garylkoh · Dec 17, 2011

mep said:
I have always thought this logic was seriously flawed. Here is what I believe: small speakers can’t sound big, but big speakers can sound “small” if small is what is encoded in the tape, the grooves, or the master digital file.

In that same vein, I have never believed in one type of speaker for rock, another type for jazz, and yet another for classical. If a speaker is accurate, can handle large amounts of power without distorting and compressing the signal, it should be able to play any and all types of music equally well. If it can’t, something is wrong with the speaker.

+5

I've designed small bookshelf loudspeakers, and turned around and designed a 4-tower behemoth, and it is easier to make a large speaker sound small than to make a small loudspeaker sound large.

The problem is not the design of the loudspeaker. The problem is air. Air resistance is proportional to the square of the velocity of the cone. Hence, a small, high-excursion driver will have much more difficulty coupling to the air to drive a soundwave to the listener's ear than a large driver at the same loudness.

Even at, say 90Hz, the cone of a small bookshelf loudspeaker (which should easily get down to 60Hz) is already "punching" through the air and causing air-borne distortion. That's why a large loudspeaker may sound more "relaxed" and "natural" even for not very demanding "female jazz vocals" which should be the forte of a pair of small bookshelf loudspeakers.

What speaker for what music?

Member Sponsor

Addicted To Best

VIP/Donor

New Member

VIP/Donor

New Member

New Member

Addicted To Best

New Member

Member Sponsor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Addicted To Best

New Member

Addicted To Best

New Member

VIP/Donor

Member Sponsor

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)

Similar threads