SPEAKERS sorted by how they Sound

[CnoEvil]

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

1. Slightly foward of neutral[/b]

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

2. Fairly Neutral[/b]

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

3. Slightly Warmer than neutral[/b]

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

4. Smoother and Richer[/b]

- 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

 

[davidf]

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!

 

[insider9]

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.

 

[CnoEvil]

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.

 

[Al ears]

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.

 

[CnoEvil]

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!

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.

 

[alchemist 1]

You've missed out Yamaha ....*smile*

 

[CnoEvil]

You've missed out Yamaha ....*smile*

Not in the Amp section, I haven't. *blum3*

 

[alchemist 1]

You've missed out Yamaha ....*smile*

Not in the Amp section, I haven't. *blum3*

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

 

[CnoEvil]

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.

 

[CnoEvil]

You've missed out Yamaha ....*smile*

Not in the Amp section, I haven't. *blum3*

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*

 

[Leeps]

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.

 

[insider9]

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.

 

[abacus]

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]

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.

 

[lindsayt]

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

 

[CnoEvil]

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

To me, they sound like a speaker that's hard to beat (new) for £800. *wink*

 

[lindsayt]

Oh yes, the Kef LS50's do have a very good blend of compromises. The designer did a great job with them.

Still doesn't stop them sounding like they have a double camel humped shaped frequency response.

 

[CnoEvil]

Oh yes, the Kef LS50's do have a very good blend of compromises. The designer did a great job with them.

Still doesn't stop them sounding like they have a double camel humped shaped frequency response.

So you prefer Dromedary to Bactrian Speakers. *biggrin*

 

[Vladimir]

Perhaps change the title to "SPEAKERS sorted by how they Sound to CnoEvil" and it will skip the redundant criticism that's piling in. It's obviously a subjectively curated list, but ppl will still object as if the laws of physics are violated.

 

[CnoEvil]

I can see that some are (rightly) questioning the usefulness of catagorizing speakers into groups like this - so I will try and explain the rational behind it.

This is not designed for experienced listeners, who have listened to a wide variety of kit, come to their own conclusions on how different speakers sound, where different speakers will work and what best to partner them with.

No, this is to help the complete (or relative) newbie, dipping their toe in the audiophile snake pit for the first time. To them, it's like being blindfolded, spun aound and then trying to hit the dartboard at all, let alone pierce the bullseye.

It can be hard to remember what this feels like and what one assumes is blindingly obvious, is a complete mystery to someone putting a system together for the first time.

It is my strong conviction that brands of speakers have an inherent sound characteristic, which can be enhanced, or to some extent mitigated by set up and a wise choice of suitable components......but, to a greater or lesser extent, that inherent characteristic will always be there.

I think most people would agree, that the sonic spectrum for speakers goes from Dull/Soporific -> Gauging your brain out through your ears with an Ice pick. The smoothest speaker I've owned (by some margin) was the Celestion SL6 and the most forward was the Kef IQ9. Both these speakers have an inherent sound....and both can be made sound very well, depending on what Amp you use. The SL6 need lots of power and an incisive amp that can crack the whip. The IQ9 needs the opposide, so works with the likes of Sugden and Arcam.

IMO. Where my 2 lists can help someone new to the game, is see where their speakers fall on the sonic spectrum...and then go to the other list and see the group of amps that could tailor the sound to something more to their taste.

With curent speakers, I'd probably put Spendor Classic at one end and Triangle at the other.

The 2 reference threads are not supposed to be definitive, or do away with demoing....but be a place to start for demoing and show the comparative differences between different brands.

 

[CnoEvil]

Perhaps change the title to "SPEAKERS sorted by how they Sound to CnoEvil" and it will skip the redundant criticism that's piling in. It's obviously a subjectively curated list, but ppl will still object as if the laws of physics are violated.

That is a fair point - but I would make 2 observations in my defence:

1. Given every description of sound, on every hifi forum in the world, is subjective....I would hope that people would take "as read" that this one is no different.

2. My "back catalogue" on here is fairly extensive....and the feedback I have received over descriptions has been mostly positive....which at least gave me the confidence to stick my neck out with this list. If every time I put out a sonic description, I was jumped on, I certainly would not have attempted it.

In my other recent post, I have tried to explain how these lists should and should not be used.

If you look at classic "known pairings", it's notable how many are a more Forward sounding component, mixed with a smoother one eg. Arcam/MA; Sugden/Proac; Electro/PMC; Cyrus/Vienna Acoustics; UR/Focal

 

[abacus]

If they are a newbie you make a few suggestions in his price range (Different models in a manufactures range can sound completely different, as if they didn’t, what would be the point of making different ranges) and emphasize that he must try the different combinations at a dealer to find a setup that suits. (The lists you have made will just confuse them, particularly as when they go to a dealer the sound will be nothing like your descriptions of them due to their different ears)

It’s a nice idea to try and categorise things but unfortunately in this case it has too many pitfalls.

Bill

 

[CnoEvil]

If they are a newbie you make a few suggestions in his price range (Different models in a manufactures range can sound completely different, as if they didn’t, what would be the point of making different ranges) and emphasize that he must try the different combinations at a dealer to find a setup that suits. (The lists you have made will just confuse them, particularly as when they go to a dealer the sound will be nothing like your descriptions of them due to their different ears)

Bill

I think it helps to have a starting point before you walk into a dealer. You don't. Opinions differ.

 

[kukulec]

1. Slightly foward of neutral - Elac FS 147 and all the Elacs with Jet 3

2. Fairly Neutral - Elacs with Jet 5

3. Slightly Warmer than neutral - Elacs for US market (debut, uni-fi)

I could see the same issue at the amplifiers.