Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?

There are many experienced audiophiles in this forum and I would
appreciate all comments, theoretical as well as how you approach
auditions personally.

Raghu

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:44:23 GMT, RPS wrote:

This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?

There are many experienced audiophiles in this forum and I would
appreciate all comments, theoretical as well as how you approach
auditions personally.

I cheat, and use my own master tapes............... :-)

I believe that most people would consider a 'neutral' speaker to be
one which produces a natural-sounding speaking voice, and also sounds
as much like an original concert hall p[erformance of unamplified
music as possible. Failing that, note that several companies such as
PMC, B&W and ATC produce a range of professional monitor speakers
which are widely used in the recording industry. Use a B&W N801 for
instance, and you'll be listening to your classical music on the same
speaker which was most likely to have been used by the mixdown
engineer.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:44:23 GMT, RPS wrote:

This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?

There are many experienced audiophiles in this forum and I would
appreciate all comments, theoretical as well as how you approach
auditions personally.

I cheat, and use my own master tapes............... :-)

I believe that most people would consider a 'neutral' speaker to be
one which produces a natural-sounding speaking voice, and also sounds
as much like an original concert hall p[erformance of unamplified
music as possible. Failing that, note that several companies such as
PMC, B&W and ATC produce a range of professional monitor speakers
which are widely used in the recording industry. Use a B&W N801 for
instance, and you'll be listening to your classical music on the same
speaker which was most likely to have been used by the mixdown
engineer.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:44:23 GMT, RPS wrote:

This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?

There are many experienced audiophiles in this forum and I would
appreciate all comments, theoretical as well as how you approach
auditions personally.

Raghu

The main thing when auditioning a new speaker is this - if on first
hearing, you say "wow, that sounds great" then walk on by. That is not
a neutral speaker.

I remember my first hearing of a Quad electrostatic. I had been
expecting great things and I was frankly disappointed, it didn't
really seem to be much of anything. No booming bass, no fizzing highs.
But on further listening I realised that all that stuff was there,
just not overstated. It was clean.

I think that is the best way to sort out what is neutral - it should
not grab you by the throat in any regard - just carry on sounding
better the longer you listen to it.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:44:23 GMT, RPS wrote:

This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?

There are many experienced audiophiles in this forum and I would
appreciate all comments, theoretical as well as how you approach
auditions personally.

Raghu

The main thing when auditioning a new speaker is this - if on first
hearing, you say "wow, that sounds great" then walk on by. That is not
a neutral speaker.

I remember my first hearing of a Quad electrostatic. I had been
expecting great things and I was frankly disappointed, it didn't
really seem to be much of anything. No booming bass, no fizzing highs.
But on further listening I realised that all that stuff was there,
just not overstated. It was clean.

I think that is the best way to sort out what is neutral - it should
not grab you by the throat in any regard - just carry on sounding
better the longer you listen to it.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

In article , RPS wrote:
If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?

A good question which I have often asked myself too. I don't have a
complete answer above the trite "I know it when I hear it" but I do have
some indicators which (I think) work for me. It's entirely possible
this is just my own personal definition with which no-one else will agree.

First of all transparency or neutrality to me means the absence of
obvious defects. For example:

- tonal imbalance: too much ("impressive?") bass; too much treble
smoothness or contrariwise too much "spit" in the treble

- boxiness: a sort of grey or tonally coloured resonance which
can also leave sound behind, blurring the boundaries between the
musical notes where there should be more silence.

It's a question of trying well-known recordings, especially if you have
heard them on more than one system - even if it's only having listened
on your own system, in the car, on headphones or (better) on someone
else's system. I have a few which I take with me to auditions.

As others have said voices are something everyone knows well from
long real-life listening experience. Voices sounding just right is
a good indication of accuracy. There are also defects to avoid here,
for example:

- excessive sibilance: can arise from a specific form of tonal
imbalance with a mid-upper frequency overemphasis

From attending concerts you will have an idea of the natural range of
sounds especially from acoustic instruments. I find small percussion
instruments if they sound natural to give a good indication of dynamic
accuracy.

Well, that's some of it. However it's your ears which matter and your
own likes and dislikes which are much more relevant than mine.

--
John Phillips

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

In article , RPS wrote:
If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?

A good question which I have often asked myself too. I don't have a
complete answer above the trite "I know it when I hear it" but I do have
some indicators which (I think) work for me. It's entirely possible
this is just my own personal definition with which no-one else will agree.

First of all transparency or neutrality to me means the absence of
obvious defects. For example:

- tonal imbalance: too much ("impressive?") bass; too much treble
smoothness or contrariwise too much "spit" in the treble

- boxiness: a sort of grey or tonally coloured resonance which
can also leave sound behind, blurring the boundaries between the
musical notes where there should be more silence.

It's a question of trying well-known recordings, especially if you have
heard them on more than one system - even if it's only having listened
on your own system, in the car, on headphones or (better) on someone
else's system. I have a few which I take with me to auditions.

As others have said voices are something everyone knows well from
long real-life listening experience. Voices sounding just right is
a good indication of accuracy. There are also defects to avoid here,
for example:

- excessive sibilance: can arise from a specific form of tonal
imbalance with a mid-upper frequency overemphasis

From attending concerts you will have an idea of the natural range of
sounds especially from acoustic instruments. I find small percussion
instruments if they sound natural to give a good indication of dynamic
accuracy.

Well, that's some of it. However it's your ears which matter and your
own likes and dislikes which are much more relevant than mine.

--
John Phillips

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

"RPS" wrote in message
...
This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?


You can't.


I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?


Yes, of course, how else will you know?

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

"RPS" wrote in message
...
This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?


You can't.


I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?


Yes, of course, how else will you know?

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

Keith G wrote:

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?
You can't.

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?
Yes, of course, how else will you know?

However, many critics and audiophiles audition speakers and pronounce
one to be accurate or not, colored or uncolored, including in this
forum.

I was wondering what such assessments are about? Is it in the end a
different, if somewhat misleading, was of saying you simply like or
don't like a particular speaker?

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

Keith G wrote:

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?
You can't.

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?
Yes, of course, how else will you know?

However, many critics and audiophiles audition speakers and pronounce
one to be accurate or not, colored or uncolored, including in this
forum.

I was wondering what such assessments are about? Is it in the end a
different, if somewhat misleading, was of saying you simply like or
don't like a particular speaker?

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"RPS" wrote in message
...
This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?


You can't.

I would put that slightly differently. :-)

I'd say that you can make judgements upon the accuracy or neutrality of the
reproduction, but have to accept that such judgements may not always be
reliable. :-)

My experience is that some speakers give me a sound that seems to me much
more like the sound I hear when I go to concerts. I am talking here of
'classical' music, listened to in various venues, on a number of occasions,
over many years.

This does not necessarily mean, of course, that the speakers *are* more
accurate, just that they sound more accurate to me, using my own
experience. Since I want a sound that seems to me close to what I think I
hear when at a real concert, or when listening to real human voices, this
seems to me to be a reasonably adequate method for my purposes.


I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?


Yes, of course, how else will you know?

Well, you need to have some familiarity with the types of sounds involved.
However this may not mean you had to be present for that specific concert.
Just work on a statistical basis, having visted that venue many times and
grown accustomed to how it tends to sound when people play the works you
are listening to. Then extend that to a number of venues. If the speakers
give a 'convincing impression' for many venues and items of music you have
some familiarity with, that seems a fair approach to me.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"RPS" wrote in message
...
This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?


You can't.

I would put that slightly differently. :-)

I'd say that you can make judgements upon the accuracy or neutrality of the
reproduction, but have to accept that such judgements may not always be
reliable. :-)

My experience is that some speakers give me a sound that seems to me much
more like the sound I hear when I go to concerts. I am talking here of
'classical' music, listened to in various venues, on a number of occasions,
over many years.

This does not necessarily mean, of course, that the speakers *are* more
accurate, just that they sound more accurate to me, using my own
experience. Since I want a sound that seems to me close to what I think I
hear when at a real concert, or when listening to real human voices, this
seems to me to be a reasonably adequate method for my purposes.


I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?


Yes, of course, how else will you know?

Well, you need to have some familiarity with the types of sounds involved.
However this may not mean you had to be present for that specific concert.
Just work on a statistical basis, having visted that venue many times and
grown accustomed to how it tends to sound when people play the works you
are listening to. Then extend that to a number of venues. If the speakers
give a 'convincing impression' for many venues and items of music you have
some familiarity with, that seems a fair approach to me.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

"RPS" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?
You can't.

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?
Yes, of course, how else will you know?

However, many critics and audiophiles audition speakers and pronounce
one to be accurate or not, colored or uncolored, including in this
forum.


So they do. (It's no bad thing - when people stop criticising stuff we'll
get fobbed off with any old crap on a 'take it or leave it' basis.)



I was wondering what such assessments are about? Is it in the end a
different, if somewhat misleading, was of saying you simply like or
don't like a particular speaker?


Yes. In the end, as listeners, they are only expressing their own opinions.

When a speaker is designed and manufactured it will be made to sound as
close as possible to that particular manufacturers 'house sound' either to
create sales on a large scale or (unusually) a sound which they think is
superior whether the mass markets are likely to take to it or not.

The amusing thing is, that by the time many people have bought and upgraded
a number of pairs of speakers (probably getting more and more expensive as
they go along) searching for 'perfection' they could probably have had a
pair tailored to their very own requirements by a capable builder for less
money! (If not rolled up their sleeves and built their own, which is not
easy however......!)

The trick with speakers is to stop listening to them and just keep chucking
the music on. Do that for long enough and any old pair of dogs will become
your 'reference'. Start with a pair of attractive and well-built speakers of
the right size (a glance will tell you) from a Name you respect and just
stick with them. Bear the following in mind and you won't go far wrong:


Little speakers can be very good until bigger speakers come along. (Size
*always* matters....)

Wood veneer sounds much better than vinyl wrap.

Floorstanders sound much better than standmounters or bookshelf jobbies.

Light wood veneer sounds better than dark wood veneer.

Silver grille cloth sounds better than black.

English speakers sound better than those from any other country.

Biwirable speakers are much better than non-biwirable ones.


That's about it AFAIK - did I miss anything obvious?

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

"RPS" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?
You can't.

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?
Yes, of course, how else will you know?

However, many critics and audiophiles audition speakers and pronounce
one to be accurate or not, colored or uncolored, including in this
forum.


So they do. (It's no bad thing - when people stop criticising stuff we'll
get fobbed off with any old crap on a 'take it or leave it' basis.)



I was wondering what such assessments are about? Is it in the end a
different, if somewhat misleading, was of saying you simply like or
don't like a particular speaker?


Yes. In the end, as listeners, they are only expressing their own opinions.

When a speaker is designed and manufactured it will be made to sound as
close as possible to that particular manufacturers 'house sound' either to
create sales on a large scale or (unusually) a sound which they think is
superior whether the mass markets are likely to take to it or not.

The amusing thing is, that by the time many people have bought and upgraded
a number of pairs of speakers (probably getting more and more expensive as
they go along) searching for 'perfection' they could probably have had a
pair tailored to their very own requirements by a capable builder for less
money! (If not rolled up their sleeves and built their own, which is not
easy however......!)

The trick with speakers is to stop listening to them and just keep chucking
the music on. Do that for long enough and any old pair of dogs will become
your 'reference'. Start with a pair of attractive and well-built speakers of
the right size (a glance will tell you) from a Name you respect and just
stick with them. Bear the following in mind and you won't go far wrong:


Little speakers can be very good until bigger speakers come along. (Size
*always* matters....)

Wood veneer sounds much better than vinyl wrap.

Floorstanders sound much better than standmounters or bookshelf jobbies.

Light wood veneer sounds better than dark wood veneer.

Silver grille cloth sounds better than black.

English speakers sound better than those from any other country.

Biwirable speakers are much better than non-biwirable ones.


That's about it AFAIK - did I miss anything obvious?

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:


The main thing when auditioning a new speaker is this - if on first
hearing, you say "wow, that sounds great" then walk on by. That is not a
neutral speaker.

I remember my first hearing of a Quad electrostatic. I had been
expecting great things and I was frankly disappointed, it didn't really
seem to be much of anything. No booming bass, no fizzing highs. But on
further listening I realised that all that stuff was there, just not
overstated. It was clean.

In general, I'd tend to agree. However I must admit that my first chance to
hear the Quad 63's caused me to be stunned by just how good they were in
the space of just the first few minutes! :-) To me at that time, their
quality was immediately apparent in terms of sheer clarity and
'naturalness'. I was no longer listening to loudspeakers, I was listening
to the music. :-)

Above said, though, I had already spent many years listeing to the 57's,
and various other speakers, and already loved the 57's. So I was already
probably 'primed' to hear/identify the relevant differences. In addition,
at the time I'd just been having to listen to Linn Isobaraks (which I do
not like at all) for an hour, so the 63 came like a breath of fresh air
after that! ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:


The main thing when auditioning a new speaker is this - if on first
hearing, you say "wow, that sounds great" then walk on by. That is not a
neutral speaker.

I remember my first hearing of a Quad electrostatic. I had been
expecting great things and I was frankly disappointed, it didn't really
seem to be much of anything. No booming bass, no fizzing highs. But on
further listening I realised that all that stuff was there, just not
overstated. It was clean.

In general, I'd tend to agree. However I must admit that my first chance to
hear the Quad 63's caused me to be stunned by just how good they were in
the space of just the first few minutes! :-) To me at that time, their
quality was immediately apparent in terms of sheer clarity and
'naturalness'. I was no longer listening to loudspeakers, I was listening
to the music. :-)

Above said, though, I had already spent many years listeing to the 57's,
and various other speakers, and already loved the 57's. So I was already
probably 'primed' to hear/identify the relevant differences. In addition,
at the time I'd just been having to listen to Linn Isobaraks (which I do
not like at all) for an hour, so the 63 came like a breath of fresh air
after that! ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

Keith G wrote:

...
The trick with speakers is to stop listening to them and just keep chucking
the music on. Do that for long enough and any old pair of dogs will become
your 'reference'. Start with a pair of attractive and well-built speakers of
the right size (a glance will tell you) from a Name you respect and just
stick with them. Bear the following in mind and you won't go far wrong:

Little speakers can be very good until bigger speakers come along. (Size
*always* matters....)

Wood veneer sounds much better than vinyl wrap.

Floorstanders sound much better than standmounters or bookshelf jobbies.

Light wood veneer sounds better than dark wood veneer.

Silver grille cloth sounds better than black.

English speakers sound better than those from any other country.

I think this is true, especially at my budget. I have heard great
American speakers but nothing I could think of buying. However, some of
my formerly English-camp friends have switched to Dynaudio. :)

Biwirable speakers are much better than non-biwirable ones.

Interesting you don't say "biwired" but just "biwirable". Presumably
because if somebody has taken the trouble make them biwirable, they
might also have taken the trouble to do other things right??

Anyway, do you have any advice on my original query (posted in another
thread): I have a 20+ yr old Spendor BC1 pair. Have been quite happy
with it but would like to find out what would be candiates to make a
meaningful upgrade ("one" step up) and what would be the budget for
such an upgrade in today's market? My short list to audition, drwan up
from others' suggestions, includes Proac, Dynaudio as well as Spendor's
own S6 (although it is in the process of being replaced by S6e).

Raghu

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

Keith G wrote:

...
The trick with speakers is to stop listening to them and just keep chucking
the music on. Do that for long enough and any old pair of dogs will become
your 'reference'. Start with a pair of attractive and well-built speakers of
the right size (a glance will tell you) from a Name you respect and just
stick with them. Bear the following in mind and you won't go far wrong:

Little speakers can be very good until bigger speakers come along. (Size
*always* matters....)

Wood veneer sounds much better than vinyl wrap.

Floorstanders sound much better than standmounters or bookshelf jobbies.

Light wood veneer sounds better than dark wood veneer.

Silver grille cloth sounds better than black.

English speakers sound better than those from any other country.

I think this is true, especially at my budget. I have heard great
American speakers but nothing I could think of buying. However, some of
my formerly English-camp friends have switched to Dynaudio. :)

Biwirable speakers are much better than non-biwirable ones.

Interesting you don't say "biwired" but just "biwirable". Presumably
because if somebody has taken the trouble make them biwirable, they
might also have taken the trouble to do other things right??

Anyway, do you have any advice on my original query (posted in another
thread): I have a 20+ yr old Spendor BC1 pair. Have been quite happy
with it but would like to find out what would be candiates to make a
meaningful upgrade ("one" step up) and what would be the budget for
such an upgrade in today's market? My short list to audition, drwan up
from others' suggestions, includes Proac, Dynaudio as well as Spendor's
own S6 (although it is in the process of being replaced by S6e).

Raghu

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

"RPS" wrote


snippage


I think this is true, especially at my budget. I have heard great
American speakers but nothing I could think of buying. However, some of
my formerly English-camp friends have switched to Dynaudio. :)


You're American?

Don't **** about then - avail yourself of a pair of Mr Lansing's K2's.......

(Sell a kidney or rob people if you have to!)



Biwirable speakers are much better than non-biwirable ones.

Interesting you don't say "biwired" but just "biwirable". Presumably
because if somebody has taken the trouble make them biwirable, they
might also have taken the trouble to do other things right??


Good thinking (well spotted on the grammar, btw) - the same goes for a real
wood veneer. Not a guarantee, of course......


Anyway, do you have any advice on my original query (posted in another
thread): I have a 20+ yr old Spendor BC1 pair. Have been quite happy
with it but would like to find out what would be candiates to make a
meaningful upgrade ("one" step up) and what would be the budget for
such an upgrade in today's market? My short list to audition, drwan up
from others' suggestions, includes Proac, Dynaudio as well as Spendor's
own S6 (although it is in the process of being replaced by S6e).


Dynaudio? - They would be perfect if they had Focal drivers! ;-)

Can't comment on the Spendors as I have no experience, but follow the other
posters advice and get a selection of candidates HOME to try them out -
nowhere else will do. (If you want Brit speakers that have most of my
criteria covered add Bowers & Wilkins to your list and climb as far up their
tree as funds will allow.....)

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

"RPS" wrote


snippage


I think this is true, especially at my budget. I have heard great
American speakers but nothing I could think of buying. However, some of
my formerly English-camp friends have switched to Dynaudio. :)


You're American?

Don't **** about then - avail yourself of a pair of Mr Lansing's K2's.......

(Sell a kidney or rob people if you have to!)



Biwirable speakers are much better than non-biwirable ones.

Interesting you don't say "biwired" but just "biwirable". Presumably
because if somebody has taken the trouble make them biwirable, they
might also have taken the trouble to do other things right??


Good thinking (well spotted on the grammar, btw) - the same goes for a real
wood veneer. Not a guarantee, of course......


Anyway, do you have any advice on my original query (posted in another
thread): I have a 20+ yr old Spendor BC1 pair. Have been quite happy
with it but would like to find out what would be candiates to make a
meaningful upgrade ("one" step up) and what would be the budget for
such an upgrade in today's market? My short list to audition, drwan up
from others' suggestions, includes Proac, Dynaudio as well as Spendor's
own S6 (although it is in the process of being replaced by S6e).


Dynaudio? - They would be perfect if they had Focal drivers! ;-)

Can't comment on the Spendors as I have no experience, but follow the other
posters advice and get a selection of candidates HOME to try them out -
nowhere else will do. (If you want Brit speakers that have most of my
criteria covered add Bowers & Wilkins to your list and climb as far up their
tree as funds will allow.....)

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

"RPS" wrote in message

This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?

You can't. Furthermore the audio production steps that follow the original
recording session can change the sound some more. Typically, the microphones
used for recording are NOT neutral.

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?

I've made minimalist recordings using some of the most neutral microphones
known, along with a very neutral recorder.

I then played the recording back through my studio monitors, positioned at
the same location in the room where the instrument and mic were, when the
recording was made. The results were remarkably lifelike.

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

"RPS" wrote in message

This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?

You can't. Furthermore the audio production steps that follow the original
recording session can change the sound some more. Typically, the microphones
used for recording are NOT neutral.

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?

I've made minimalist recordings using some of the most neutral microphones
known, along with a very neutral recorder.

I then played the recording back through my studio monitors, positioned at
the same location in the room where the instrument and mic were, when the
recording was made. The results were remarkably lifelike.

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
I've made minimalist recordings using some of the most neutral
microphones known, along with a very neutral recorder.

I then played the recording back through my studio monitors, positioned
at the same location in the room where the instrument and mic were, when
the recording was made. The results were remarkably lifelike.

Yes. And I'd say one of the best sources is a good 'fruity' male voice.

An STC or Coles 4038 is a good mic for the recording. As you say, many top
notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
I've made minimalist recordings using some of the most neutral
microphones known, along with a very neutral recorder.

I then played the recording back through my studio monitors, positioned
at the same location in the room where the instrument and mic were, when
the recording was made. The results were remarkably lifelike.

Yes. And I'd say one of the best sources is a good 'fruity' male voice.

An STC or Coles 4038 is a good mic for the recording. As you say, many top
notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:22:32 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:


The main thing when auditioning a new speaker is this - if on first
hearing, you say "wow, that sounds great" then walk on by. That is not a
neutral speaker.

I remember my first hearing of a Quad electrostatic. I had been
expecting great things and I was frankly disappointed, it didn't really
seem to be much of anything. No booming bass, no fizzing highs. But on
further listening I realised that all that stuff was there, just not
overstated. It was clean.

In general, I'd tend to agree. However I must admit that my first chance to
hear the Quad 63's caused me to be stunned by just how good they were in
the space of just the first few minutes! :-) To me at that time, their
quality was immediately apparent in terms of sheer clarity and
'naturalness'. I was no longer listening to loudspeakers, I was listening
to the music. :-)

Above said, though, I had already spent many years listeing to the 57's,
and various other speakers, and already loved the 57's. So I was already
probably 'primed' to hear/identify the relevant differences. In addition,
at the time I'd just been having to listen to Linn Isobaraks (which I do
not like at all) for an hour, so the 63 came like a breath of fresh air
after that! ;-

Slainte,

Jim

For me also the quality started to ooze through in just a few minutes.
It was just that first instant that was sort of disappointing. I just
wish I had room for a pair.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:22:32 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:


The main thing when auditioning a new speaker is this - if on first
hearing, you say "wow, that sounds great" then walk on by. That is not a
neutral speaker.

I remember my first hearing of a Quad electrostatic. I had been
expecting great things and I was frankly disappointed, it didn't really
seem to be much of anything. No booming bass, no fizzing highs. But on
further listening I realised that all that stuff was there, just not
overstated. It was clean.

In general, I'd tend to agree. However I must admit that my first chance to
hear the Quad 63's caused me to be stunned by just how good they were in
the space of just the first few minutes! :-) To me at that time, their
quality was immediately apparent in terms of sheer clarity and
'naturalness'. I was no longer listening to loudspeakers, I was listening
to the music. :-)

Above said, though, I had already spent many years listeing to the 57's,
and various other speakers, and already loved the 57's. So I was already
probably 'primed' to hear/identify the relevant differences. In addition,
at the time I'd just been having to listen to Linn Isobaraks (which I do
not like at all) for an hour, so the 63 came like a breath of fresh air
after that! ;-

Slainte,

Jim

For me also the quality started to ooze through in just a few minutes.
It was just that first instant that was sort of disappointing. I just
wish I had room for a pair.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
I've made minimalist recordings using some of the most neutral
microphones known, along with a very neutral recorder.

I then played the recording back through my studio monitors,
positioned at the same location in the room where the instrument and
mic were, when the recording was made. The results were remarkably
lifelike.

Yes. And I'd say one of the best sources is a good 'fruity' male
voice.

An STC or Coles 4038 is a good mic for the recording. As you say,
many top notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

Much of the current art of audio production is dedicated to getting a
preferred sound that may be nothing like the live performance.

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
I've made minimalist recordings using some of the most neutral
microphones known, along with a very neutral recorder.

I then played the recording back through my studio monitors,
positioned at the same location in the room where the instrument and
mic were, when the recording was made. The results were remarkably
lifelike.

Yes. And I'd say one of the best sources is a good 'fruity' male
voice.

An STC or Coles 4038 is a good mic for the recording. As you say,
many top notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

Much of the current art of audio production is dedicated to getting a
preferred sound that may be nothing like the live performance.

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:03:54 -0400
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

An STC or Coles 4038 is a good mic for the recording. As you say,
many top notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

Much of the current art of audio production is dedicated to getting a
preferred sound that may be nothing like the live performance.

Out of interest, how are the 'response curves' for various speakers
made? do they just use a super-linear microphone, or is there some other
technique used, perhaps measuring harmonics?

I'd like to be able to make profiles of various speakers, so it would be
interesting to see how its done...

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:03:54 -0400
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

An STC or Coles 4038 is a good mic for the recording. As you say,
many top notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

Much of the current art of audio production is dedicated to getting a
preferred sound that may be nothing like the live performance.

Out of interest, how are the 'response curves' for various speakers
made? do they just use a super-linear microphone, or is there some other
technique used, perhaps measuring harmonics?

I'd like to be able to make profiles of various speakers, so it would be
interesting to see how its done...

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:42:24 +0100, Ian Molton wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:03:54 -0400
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

An STC or Coles 4038 is a good mic for the recording. As you say,
many top notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

Much of the current art of audio production is dedicated to getting a
preferred sound that may be nothing like the live performance.

Out of interest, how are the 'response curves' for various speakers
made? do they just use a super-linear microphone, or is there some other
technique used, perhaps measuring harmonics?

They use measuring microphones, which are generally flat to better
than 1dB over the audio range, and are also supplied with an
individual calibration curve, so that even that small response error
can be calculated out.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:42:24 +0100, Ian Molton wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:03:54 -0400
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

An STC or Coles 4038 is a good mic for the recording. As you say,
many top notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

Much of the current art of audio production is dedicated to getting a
preferred sound that may be nothing like the live performance.

Out of interest, how are the 'response curves' for various speakers
made? do they just use a super-linear microphone, or is there some other
technique used, perhaps measuring harmonics?

They use measuring microphones, which are generally flat to better
than 1dB over the audio range, and are also supplied with an
individual calibration curve, so that even that small response error
can be calculated out.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:58:12 GMT
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

They use measuring microphones, which are generally flat to better
than 1dB over the audio range, and are also supplied with an
individual calibration curve, so that even that small response error
can be calculated out.

where would I get one, and how much would it cost?

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:58:12 GMT
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

They use measuring microphones, which are generally flat to better
than 1dB over the audio range, and are also supplied with an
individual calibration curve, so that even that small response error
can be calculated out.

where would I get one, and how much would it cost?

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"RPS" wrote in message
...
This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?


You can't.

I would put that slightly differently. :-)

I'd say that you can make judgements upon the accuracy or neutrality of
the
reproduction, but have to accept that such judgements may not always be
reliable. :-)


OK, I'll qualify that (if it makes you happy) to: 'You can't, with any
degree of certainty.....'


My experience is that some speakers give me a sound that seems to me much
more like the sound I hear when I go to concerts. I am talking here of
'classical' music, listened to in various venues, on a number of
occasions,
over many years.

This does not necessarily mean, of course, that the speakers *are* more
accurate, just that they sound more accurate to me, using my own
experience. Since I want a sound that seems to me close to what I think I
hear when at a real concert, or when listening to real human voices, this
seems to me to be a reasonably adequate method for my purposes.


Coming through loud and clear. - Agree entirely, but it reinforces my own
view that one man's 'accuracy' is another man's 'coloured'....

I have no problem with the term 'accuracy' when it is used to describe the
way electronic/electro-mechanical devices handle a signal, but AFAIAC it
falls on it's arse when it reaches the speakers and gets out into the room.
Then we are most definitely in the domain of the human ear and whatever
psychoacoustics may or may not apply.



I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?


Yes, of course, how else will you know?

Well, you need to have some familiarity with the types of sounds involved.
However this may not mean you had to be present for that specific concert.
Just work on a statistical basis, having visted that venue many times and
grown accustomed to how it tends to sound when people play the works you
are listening to. Then extend that to a number of venues. If the speakers
give a 'convincing impression' for many venues and items of music you have
some familiarity with, that seems a fair approach to me.


The OP is mentioning 'the actual original sound' which implies a degree of
specificity - generally, it is important that an audio system portrays the
sound of, say, a piano in a way we recognise and 'agree with', but when it
comes to, say, a sackbut or shamisen we (many of us, that is) will have
little to go on other than whether or not we simply *like* the 'sound'. The
temptation to tell anyone forget 'accurate' - concentrate on 'nice' is
always strong.....

;-)

(Interesting to see that one or two of the worst 'accuracy tub thumpers'
hearabouts are finally managing to get some of the dots joined up.....)

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"RPS" wrote in message
...
This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?


You can't.

I would put that slightly differently. :-)

I'd say that you can make judgements upon the accuracy or neutrality of
the
reproduction, but have to accept that such judgements may not always be
reliable. :-)


OK, I'll qualify that (if it makes you happy) to: 'You can't, with any
degree of certainty.....'


My experience is that some speakers give me a sound that seems to me much
more like the sound I hear when I go to concerts. I am talking here of
'classical' music, listened to in various venues, on a number of
occasions,
over many years.

This does not necessarily mean, of course, that the speakers *are* more
accurate, just that they sound more accurate to me, using my own
experience. Since I want a sound that seems to me close to what I think I
hear when at a real concert, or when listening to real human voices, this
seems to me to be a reasonably adequate method for my purposes.


Coming through loud and clear. - Agree entirely, but it reinforces my own
view that one man's 'accuracy' is another man's 'coloured'....

I have no problem with the term 'accuracy' when it is used to describe the
way electronic/electro-mechanical devices handle a signal, but AFAIAC it
falls on it's arse when it reaches the speakers and gets out into the room.
Then we are most definitely in the domain of the human ear and whatever
psychoacoustics may or may not apply.



I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?


Yes, of course, how else will you know?

Well, you need to have some familiarity with the types of sounds involved.
However this may not mean you had to be present for that specific concert.
Just work on a statistical basis, having visted that venue many times and
grown accustomed to how it tends to sound when people play the works you
are listening to. Then extend that to a number of venues. If the speakers
give a 'convincing impression' for many venues and items of music you have
some familiarity with, that seems a fair approach to me.


The OP is mentioning 'the actual original sound' which implies a degree of
specificity - generally, it is important that an audio system portrays the
sound of, say, a piano in a way we recognise and 'agree with', but when it
comes to, say, a sackbut or shamisen we (many of us, that is) will have
little to go on other than whether or not we simply *like* the 'sound'. The
temptation to tell anyone forget 'accurate' - concentrate on 'nice' is
always strong.....

;-)

(Interesting to see that one or two of the worst 'accuracy tub thumpers'
hearabouts are finally managing to get some of the dots joined up.....)

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
As you say, many top notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

Much of the current art of audio production is dedicated to getting a
preferred sound that may be nothing like the live performance.

Absolutely, and nothing necessarily wrong in that. After all, a photo
doesn't always capture a scene better than a painting.

--
*I went to school to become a wit, only got halfway through.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
As you say, many top notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

Much of the current art of audio production is dedicated to getting a
preferred sound that may be nothing like the live performance.

Absolutely, and nothing necessarily wrong in that. After all, a photo
doesn't always capture a scene better than a painting.

--
*I went to school to become a wit, only got halfway through.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:58:12 GMT
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

They use measuring microphones, which are generally flat to better
than 1dB over the audio range, and are also supplied with an
individual calibration curve, so that even that small response error
can be calculated out.

where would I get one, and how much would it cost?


The most common models in general use are shown on these web pages:

http://www.behringer.com/02_products...M8000&lang=eng

http://shop.store.yahoo.com/eawsia/microphones.html

http://www.core-sound.com/dpa4006.html