76 posts / 0 new
Last post
CnoEvil's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 week 4 hours ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 18435
SPEAKERS sorted by how they Sound

This list will be updated, added to, or changed as necessary - All feedback and further suggestions welcome.

 

1. Slightly foward of neutral

- Focal; Triangle; Monitor Audio; Elac**; Leema Acoustics; Klipsch; JBL(Domestic)**; TAD

2. Fairly Neutral

- ATC; PMC; Previous Kef Ref; Gamut; Tannoy; Neat; Acoustic Energy; Usher; Totem; Vivid; Ophidian; Eclipse; Canton; Wilson Audio

3. Slightly Warmer than neutral

- Dynaudio; Kef Ref/LS50; ProAc; Diapason; Q Acoustics; B&W**; Dali; Linn; Cambridge Audio; Amphion; Heco Direkt; B&O; Meridian; Taga Harmony

4. Smoother and Richer

- Opera; Rega; Epos; Kef R Series; Audio Physic; Spendor; Sonus Faber; Wharfedale; Tannoy Legacy Models

5. Old School/Traditional

- Harbeth; Spendor Classic; Audio Note; Classic Sonus Faber

 

**Inconsistant between models

 

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

davidf's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 09/05/2017 - 16:26
Posts: 1078
.

Wouldn’t this be a little personal to each listener? I remember someone describing the sound of their speakers once, and my view of them was quite the opposite! Smile

www.thelittleaudio.company jewellery quarter, birmingham

amphion | anthem | audio technica | bluesound | convert technologies | clearaudio | electrocompaniet | eclipse | hegel | heco direkt | innuos | kef | larsen | moon | ophidian | svs | technics

CnoEvil's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 week 4 hours ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 18435
davidf wrote:

davidf wrote:

Wouldn’t this be a little personal to each listener? I remember someone describing the sound of their speakers once, and my view of them was quite the opposite! Smile

Yes it is, but you have to start somewhere...and to a degree, it's comparative.

IMO There are basic sonic traits that there is broad consensus on. eg. The Kef R Series sound smoother and more forgiving than the XQ Series.

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

insider9's picture
Online
Last seen: 2 days 23 hours ago
Joined: 20/09/2016 - 12:22
Posts: 4611
Cheers Cno

This one will be harder. I'd say differences are bigger between models and lines as well as how historically speakers were voiced. But having them in one place as reference may be very useful.

My system and currently testing...  Get in touch insider_9@yahoo.com

CnoEvil's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 week 4 hours ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 18435
insider9 wrote:

insider9 wrote:

This one will be harder. I'd say differences are bigger between models and lines as well as how historically speakers were voiced. But having them in one place as reference may be very useful.

It may help with matching Amps with Speakers.

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

Al ears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 23/11/2008 - 19:20
Posts: 11256
.

CnoEvil wrote:

This list will be updated, added to, or changed as necessary - All feedback and further suggestions welcome.

 

1. Slightly foward of neutral

- Focal; Triangle; Monitor Audio; Elac

2. Fairly Neutral

- ATC; PMC; Previous Kef Ref; Gamut; Tannoy; Neat; Acoustic Energy; Usher; Totem; Vivid

3. Slightly Warmer than neutral

- Dynaudio; Kef Ref/LS50; ProAc; Diapason; Q Acoustics; B&W; Dali; Linn

4. Smoother and Richer

- Opera; Rega; Epos; Kef R Series; Audio Physic; Spendor; Sonus Faber

5. Old School/Traditional

- Harbeth; Spendor Classic; Audio Note; Classic Sonus Faber

 

Ok, but I would query the Old School definition. These are purely related to a design that depends on the amplification that drives them. There is no such thing. A classification that I suddenly realised once I obtained my speakers that were US specific

The whole idea that you can classify speakers in this way is, once again, individual specific.

 

Motto: Never pay full price for anything, there is always room to haggle!

Tom Evans Audio Design amplification / Acoustic Zen Adagio + EB2 speakers / Dr. Feickert Analogue Woodpecker-SME310 / Oppo 105eu

alchemist 1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 20 hours ago
Joined: 28/03/2012 - 18:19
Posts: 845
  You've missed out Yamaha ..

  You've missed out Yamaha ....Smile

CnoEvil's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 week 4 hours ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 18435
alchemist 1 wrote:

alchemist 1 wrote:

  You've missed out Yamaha ....Smile

Not in the Amp section, I haven't. Blum 3

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

CnoEvil's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 week 4 hours ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 18435
Al ears wrote:

Al ears wrote:

Ok, but I would query the Old School definition. These are purely related to a design that depends on the amplification that drives them. There is no such thing. A classification that I suddenly realised once I obtained my speakers that were US specific

The whole idea that you can classify speakers in this way is, once again, individual specific.

Most of the old school list is thin walled and sound different compared to speakers using modern thinking on design - they sound more like an instrument.

Older SF also have an old school, lusher sound. It's one of the traits that makes Harbeth sound different to the Kefs in my demo.

Saying that, it doesn't make your observation wrong.

 

 

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

alchemist 1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 20 hours ago
Joined: 28/03/2012 - 18:19
Posts: 845
CnoEvil wrote:

CnoEvil wrote:

alchemist 1 wrote:

  You've missed out Yamaha ....Smile

Not in the Amp section, I haven't. Blum 3

  I know , but what about the NS5000 ?..............*man_in_love**dirol**smile*
CnoEvil's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 week 4 hours ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 18435
alchemist 1 wrote:

alchemist 1 wrote:

CnoEvil wrote:

alchemist 1 wrote:

  You've missed out Yamaha ....Smile

Not in the Amp section, I haven't. Blum 3

  I know , but what about the NS5000 ?..............*man_in_love**dirol**smile*

Tell me where they should go and I will take it under advisement. Unknw

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

Leeps's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 11 hours ago
Joined: 10/12/2012 - 18:43
Posts: 1049
Al ears wrote:

Al ears wrote:

CnoEvil wrote:

This list will be updated, added to, or changed as necessary - All feedback and further suggestions welcome.

 

1. Slightly foward of neutral

- Focal; Triangle; Monitor Audio; Elac

2. Fairly Neutral

- ATC; PMC; Previous Kef Ref; Gamut; Tannoy; Neat; Acoustic Energy; Usher; Totem; Vivid

3. Slightly Warmer than neutral

- Dynaudio; Kef Ref/LS50; ProAc; Diapason; Q Acoustics; B&W; Dali; Linn

4. Smoother and Richer

- Opera; Rega; Epos; Kef R Series; Audio Physic; Spendor; Sonus Faber

5. Old School/Traditional

- Harbeth; Spendor Classic; Audio Note; Classic Sonus Faber

 

Ok, but I would query the Old School definition. These are purely related to a design that depends on the amplification that drives them. There is no such thing. A classification that I suddenly realised once I obtained my speakers that were US specific

The whole idea that you can classify speakers in this way is, once again, individual specific.

 

See this is where our ears / brains play these tricks on us...or perhaps it's just me!

 

I'm gunna stick my neck out here...I've always thought the LS50's have a metallic brittle 'hifi' edge and sound nothing like real voices or instruments, so although I respect your experience and opinion Cno, I'd personally put the LS50's on the same side of neutral as scraping plates. OK, i'm probably over-egging the description, but it's interesting how each of our perceptions have picked out something so different from the same speaker. And it's not been down to just one listen or amp either.

 

I've tried to like KEF and the majority seem to rate them, but I haven't heard a single speaker they produce that I've liked yet. Ah well, I don't think KEF will mind, there are plenty of punters lining up to part their cash for them.

 

The other comment I'd make is that voicing within one manufacturer's range CAN at times be quite different on the acid / alkali / warm / forward scale. I've owned MA Radius (forward / dynamic / exciting), MA Apex (neutral) and MA Gold (warm and almost dull...needs a really powerful and lively amp to wake them up)...all from the same manufacturer. Even though some components and technołogies are shared across these ranges, their voicing is noticeably different.

Main:Tidal,Chromecast Audio,Pioneer BDP450,Anthem MRX710,Ruark Talisman 3,Ruark Dialogue 2,MA Apex A10,MA R370HD sub, Panasonic 42" plasma. 2nd:Tidal,Musical Fidelity X-A2,Ruark Epilogue 2

insider9's picture
Online
Last seen: 2 days 23 hours ago
Joined: 20/09/2016 - 12:22
Posts: 4611
.

CnoEvil wrote:

insider9 wrote:

This one will be harder. I'd say differences are bigger between models and lines as well as how historically speakers were voiced. But having them in one place as reference may be very useful.

It may help with matching Amps with Speakers.


Sure, it's useful. Just more complex is all.

Yamaha speakers I've heard were neutral.

My system and currently testing...  Get in touch insider_9@yahoo.com

abacus's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 49 min ago
Joined: 24/09/2008 - 23:16
Posts: 1153
It’s a pointless list as

It’s a pointless list as everyone hears things differently, plus the biggest difference is usually the room not the speakers. (Plus I have never come across anybody that classes B& W as warm (It’s normally the complete opposite) so that makes the list suspect anyway)

Bill

CnoEvil's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 week 4 hours ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 18435
Leeps wrote:

Leeps wrote:

 

See this is where our ears / brains play these tricks on us...or perhaps it's just me!

I'm gunna stick my neck out here...I've always thought the LS50's have a metallic brittle 'hifi' edge and sound nothing like real voices or instruments, so although I respect your experience and opinion Cno, I'd personally put the LS50's on the same side of neutral as scraping plates. OK, i'm probably over-egging the description, but it's interesting how each of our perceptions have picked out something so different from the same speaker. And it's not been down to just one listen or amp either.

've tried to like KEF and the majority seem to rate them, but I haven't heard a single speaker they produce that I've liked yet. Ah well, I don't think KEF will mind, there are plenty of punters lining up to part their cash for them.

he other comment I'd make is that voicing within one manufacturer's range CAN at times be quite different on the acid / alkali / warm / forward scale. I've owned MA Radius (forward / dynamic / exciting), MA Apex (neutral) and MA Gold (warm and almost dull...needs a really powerful and lively amp to wake them up)...all from the same manufacturer. Even though some components and technołogies are shared across these ranges, their voicing is noticeably different.

Yes, there are a lot of variables...and yes I've used my judgement to compile the list...but it's also comparative ie. if you put all these speakers on the end of the same decent system, how they would compare to each other.

Every speaker on the planet can be made to sound poor, given the wrong system and room.

Your description of the LS50s, is so far away from what I hear, that it has to be down to system matching and set up (imo)...as I simply cannot sit in a room with speakers sounding as you have described......that is why I like Valves, Class A and have ended up with Harbeths. 

Generally, the criticism of the R Series, is they are too warm and not open and exciting enough. The New Refs can sound too "HiFi", if not matched well with components not up to the task. The older Kef Series imo were a bit bright and forward, if not matched with warmer amps like Arcam and Sugden.

Personally, I think knowing the innate traits of speakers and amps, make them easier to match,,,thus making synergy easier....hence matches like Sugden/Proac; Electro/PMC; Rotel/B&W; LFD/Harbeth; Cyrus/Spendor; Arcam/MA.

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

lindsayt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 14 hours ago
Joined: 08/04/2011 - 01:18
Posts: 3062
Kef LS50's sound like they

Kef LS50's sound like they have a double camel humped frequency response to me.

Pages

Log in to post comments