Best floor standing speakers for music

[MrBoat]

Coloring music is an artistic choice, but an accurate speaker will play back that coloration as it was recorded. The point isn’t to get “live” sound from speakers, since most recorded music (outside of acoustic or classical) is intentionally processed anyways.

I want speakers to play back exactly what was recorded, not add its own flavor to it. If you want certain coloration added to music, use an eq or tubes, but pick the accurate speaker. I sometimes bump the sub volume up 3dB and add 3dB of boost to 40 & 25hz when listening to bass heavy electronic music, but a speaker that naturally had those colorations would sound horrible with something like an acoustic guitar.

Harman has done tons of research regarding this, and almost always, people prefer neutral, flat speakers with uniform directivity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But how do you know? Most people don't. Which is why they have to use measurement devices to tell them that they are, if one is to adhere to the measurements. Especially once you add the hundreds of possibilities with in-room effects into this equation.

I still maintain the idea that our imaginations can work much of this out. Anyone who has ever experienced (or been aware of, at least) user break-in to a new set of speakers can likely agree, if they dare to admit it. Those who don't, tend to call it, "speaker break-in."

I am aware of Harman's and Floyd Toole's research. Harman needs to generally appeal to the masses. I'm saying there are individual approaches that encompass much more than that. If ruler flat speakers were the answer for all things listenable, than we would only likely need one manufacturer that produced 3 in either small, medium or large.

Last night I took a look over at Paul Carmody's web site. I built a kit of bookshelf speakers by him but never really looked into his other offerings. I was surprised to find that he touched on this subject with regard to what 'most' people listen to with his "Tarkus" design. It was good to see that I am not the only one who understands this, or at least wonders about it.

 

[MrBoat]

I have always enjoyed mine too mr Boat. Not the be all end all but the French sourced tweeter and Greg Timbers design are really damn good IMO. In fact, my former surrounds are from the same line. S-38 mirrored pair monitors. 8” 3 ways. They image like crazy and sound great too. I may be putting them up for sale very soon to finance my Atmos installation. I’m going to miss them.
Edit: mine are actually the “II” series with silver drivers.

JBL does this frequently. It shows how on top of the game they really are. But these aren't legacy products. They're nearly disposable beyond perhaps, replacing the surrounds. Mine are from around 1999 though and still going strong. Basically what they have done is assured I will consider JBL for future purchases, and. . . I do.

I could actually buy the II series. A friend has a well kept pair that he would sell me if I had to have them. He's on a bookshelf binge for the foreseeable future. He often needs boat parts/work and I could likely get them for a labor exchange deal but I am out of room.

 

[shadyJ]

I am aware of Harman's and Floyd Toole's research. Harman needs to generally appeal to the masses. I'm saying there are individual approaches that encompass much more than that. If ruler flat speakers were the answer for all things listenable, than we would only likely need one manufacturer that produced 3 in either small, medium or large.

Toole isn't arguing that everyone should listen to a flat response. He would say that speakers should aim for a natively flat response and also a uniform off-axis response. That way the response curve can be predictably equalized to your taste. Speakers that have a erratic response are more difficult to equalize, especially if the off-axis patterns are loopy.

 

[MrBoat]

Toole isn't arguing that everyone should listen to a flat response. He would say that speakers should aim for a natively flat response and also a uniform off-axis response. That way the response curve can be predictably equalized to your taste. Speakers that have a erratic response are more difficult to equalize, especially if the off-axis patterns are loopy.

I didn't mean it like that. I was in between tasks at work. I just meant I was aware of Toole's research. More so, how literally this concept is taken as the say-all with speaker design, with regard to coloration, in spite of how many different ways music is recorded and interpreted and for who.

 

[shadyJ]

I didn't mean it like that. I was in between tasks at work. I just meant I was aware of Toole's research. More so, how literally this concept is taken as the say-all with speaker design, with regard to coloration, in spite of how many different ways music is recorded and interpreted and for who.

Most speakers are not flat, but those that are deliberately voiced for a non-neutral response are essentially imposing on the buyer what someone else's idea of what the spectral balance of recorded sound should be. Do you want your speakers to be a part of the performance as some kind of layer of extra processing, or do you want your speakers to simply convey the recording as is? Some people do like speakers that impart their own signature on the sound, and that is fine, but it makes or the messy situation that we have today when you don't really know if the speaker is coloring the sound unless you have access to third party measurements.

 

[MrBoat]

Most speakers are not flat, but those that are deliberately voiced for a non-neutral response are essentially imposing on the buyer what someone else's idea of what the spectral balance of recorded sound should be. Do you want your speakers to be a part of the performance as some kind of layer of extra processing, or do you want your speakers to simply convey the recording as is? Some people do like speakers that impart their own signature on the sound, and that is fine, but it makes or the messy situation that we have today when you don't really know if the speaker is coloring the sound unless you have access to third party measurements.

Coloring the sound is not the end of life. It's just another thing. This is why we should audition speakers before buying. We have all seen people who bought pedigreed designs who were not happy with the results.

I have all different kinds of speakers. Most of which tend to be revealing. But there are times when I want to listen to raunchier music loud, without care of audiophile grade recording. I also have speakers that manage this and sound correct doing so. I grew up listening to rock bands live. Both on stage and in recording studios, garages, warehouses, outdoors and even in living rooms.

I don't believe that speakers are designed to really impose anything on the buyer, as much as they are designed to interpret the worst of the common mainstream offerings into something listenable, which is what most people listen to, and what artists are going to have to appeal to in which to sell the most music. We cannot control the studio engineers, or the budgets of those who seek to have their music recorded, and by who.

When someone goes to have music recorded and to buy studio time, it's expensive, and the engineers aren't exactly charitable. If there was a real improvement to be made, it would be with the ethics/egos or even qualifications on 'that' end of the music industry.

So then, we go to audition speakers for rock music and what should we bring? Pink Floyd's DSOTM, and Dire Strait's - Brothers in Arms? Why not Van Halen, AC/DC, ZZ Top, Def Leppard or even Led Zeppelin 1?

I just don't believe 'personally' that one type of speaker measured a certain way does it all. I don't discount people's choices in speakers. But I do kind of tire of the pretentious snobbery often inflicted on so-called lesser builds, when it's pretty obvious to me that the engineers who designed them actually nailed it with their intended purpose.

Don't take this the wrong way. We likely agree more than you think or by what some of my posts may indicate. I just find most of the audio I have been able to afford to be good, and better. From my "party" speakers on up.

Now the Radio Shack/JC Penny stuff my parents used to buy? That stuff really sucked no matter what recording quality was sent thru it.

 

[killdozzer]

Coloring the sound is not the end of life. It's just another thing. This is why we should audition speakers before buying. We have all seen people who bought pedigreed designs who were not happy with the results.

I have all different kinds of speakers. Most of which tend to be revealing. But there are times when I want to listen to raunchier music loud, without care of audiophile grade recording. I also have speakers that manage this and sound correct doing so. I grew up listening to rock bands live. Both on stage and in recording studios, garages, warehouses, outdoors and even in living rooms.

I don't believe that speakers are designed to really impose anything on the buyer, as much as they are designed to interpret the worst of the common mainstream offerings into something listenable, which is what most people listen to, and what artists are going to have to appeal to in which to sell the most music. We cannot control the studio engineers, or the budgets of those who seek to have their music recorded, and by who.

When someone goes to have music recorded and to buy studio time, it's expensive, and the engineers aren't exactly charitable. If there was a real improvement to be made, it would be with the ethics/egos or even qualifications on 'that' end of the music industry.

So then, we go to audition speakers for rock music and what should we bring? Pink Floyd's DSOTM, and Dire Strait's - Brothers in Arms? Why not Van Halen, AC/DC, ZZ Top, Def Leppard or even Led Zeppelin 1?

I just don't believe 'personally' that one type of speaker measured a certain way does it all. I don't discount people's choices in speakers. But I do kind of tire of the pretentious snobbery often inflicted on so-called lesser builds, when it's pretty obvious to me that the engineers who designed them actually nailed it with their intended purpose.

Don't take this the wrong way. We likely agree more than you think or by what some of my posts may indicate. I just find most of the audio I have been able to afford to be good, and better. From my "party" speakers on up.

Now the Radio Shack/JC Penny stuff my parents used to buy? That stuff really sucked no matter what recording quality was sent thru it.

I'm not questioning whether some engineers have nailed it, but it's just that this approach, at the end of its road, has a pair of speakers for each genre. Come to think of it, perhaps even for some certain albums. There are very few albums that sound like Mule Variations by Tom Waits.

This is something I immediately see as a problem in all the gear that is fitted to some single style or genre. So I'm not coming from the "pretentious snobbery" part of the specter, quite contrary. I'm looking for an all-rounder because I'll always like more music than the amount of speakers I can afford.

The idea of gear being neutral/flat, IMO gives you the possibility to go either way. Especially if you're not shy in using the EQ. You could, arguably, set your neutral speakers to "do rock" for you. This would be much harder with some sort of sound signature. And you could set them to "do classical" afterwards.

I know we're not there yet, although this has more to do with how much one knows about properly setting the acoustics in his listening room.

If you agree with Carmody when he says: With rock, everything is close-mic'ed, sent through effects, and mixed at a console. It's a studio sound, and it is what rock sounds like, and there should be no shame in that. Furthermore, the production of rock music is part of the composition itself. - I see no reason why this should imply one more change on top of all processing coming from your speakers.

When he says: Consider for example the work of: George Martin (The Beatles), Brian Wilson (Beach Boys), Alan Parsons (Pink Floyd), Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails), Phil Spector, Ted Templeman (Van Halen), Terry Date (Pantera, Soundgarden), Mike Stone (Queen), Bob Rock (Metallica), David Bottrill (Tool, King Crimson), Rick Rubin, Andy Wallace (Nirvana, Jeff Buckley, Rage Against the Machine) - the question is don't you trust those people did their job, why do you need it further "fixed" through speakers? Do you want it conveyed or altered?

Flat speakers are not making rock flat.

 

[yepimonfire]

I have a couple of speakers that don’t measure flat, needless to say I don’t prefer their sound compared to the ones I have that do measure flat. Flat response isn’t the be all end all, dispersion, nonlinear distortion, and dynamic range are important too. Unfortunately, linear distortions also come with other nonlinear distortions, like long decay time, and group delay from resonances. A flat response comes from the diaphragm moving as one piece as a tightly controlled piston, linear distortions suggest that somewhere in the operating range, the driver is failing to do so, or the cabinet/electrical damping is failing to control the driver.

What non flat speakers are you referring to @MrBoat ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OscarJr]

While all music benefits to some degree from a fast transient response metal especially benefits. I often use it to compare the transient response of speakers, there is often so much going on at a quick pace, that speakers with a poor transient response will smear nuances underneath the “noise”, while a very quick speaker will maintain the integrity and separation of all instruments. I often wonder if more people would appreciate the genre better if it was played back on better speakers that didn’t turn it into a smeared mess.

Absolutely. That's why I listen to all my metal (and everything else of course) on my Legacy Audio Calibres! Slayer, Napalm Death, Cannibal Corpse, Carcass, Emperor, Cthonic, Death, Sepultura, Obituary, Morbid Angel, Testament, Exodus, and so forth, and so forth. Top notch speakers make all the difference in the world with metal.

 

[MrBoat]

I'm not questioning whether some engineers have nailed it, but it's just that this approach, at the end of its road, has a pair of speakers for each genre. Come to think of it, perhaps even for some certain albums. There are very few albums that sound like Mule Variations by Tom Waits.

This is something I immediately see as a problem in all the gear that is fitted to some single style or genre. So I'm not coming from the "pretentious snobbery" part of the specter, quite contrary. I'm looking for an all-rounder because I'll always like more music than the amount of speakers I can afford.

The idea of gear being neutral/flat, IMO gives you the possibility to go either way. Especially if you're not shy in using the EQ. You could, arguably, set your neutral speakers to "do rock" for you. This would be much harder with some sort of sound signature. And you could set them to "do classical" afterwards.

I know we're not there yet, although this has more to do with how much one knows about properly setting the acoustics in his listening room.

If you agree with Carmody when he says: With rock, everything is close-mic'ed, sent through effects, and mixed at a console. It's a studio sound, and it is what rock sounds like, and there should be no shame in that. Furthermore, the production of rock music is part of the composition itself. - I see no reason why this should imply one more change on top of all processing coming from your speakers.

When he says: Consider for example the work of: George Martin (The Beatles), Brian Wilson (Beach Boys), Alan Parsons (Pink Floyd), Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails), Phil Spector, Ted Templeman (Van Halen), Terry Date (Pantera, Soundgarden), Mike Stone (Queen), Bob Rock (Metallica), David Bottrill (Tool, King Crimson), Rick Rubin, Andy Wallace (Nirvana, Jeff Buckley, Rage Against the Machine) - the question is don't you trust those people did their job, why do you need it further "fixed" through speakers? Do you want it conveyed or altered?

Flat speakers are not making rock flat.

With audio, comes a lot of speculation. At least from where I am at now, having been involved with it to some extent for 4 decades by now. Actually, more than anyone I know from my age/peer group growing up. Hi-fi, or at least audiophilia did not just come of age with computers.

I'm not discounting what other people think or what path they choose. Just that there is room for other ways, and there are other things that sound good, or right. When we used to play rock music, provided the user had half a clue as to what things were actually supposed to sound like, the agreement was pretty much unanimous, including those who actually played the same kinds instruments they were listening to.

The sound, or approach, wrong as it may be, is the tone or coloration that used to make girls shirts come off. I recognize that vibe, and I could tell when it was going to happen. My speakers, back in the day could make girls shirts come off too, along with visible goosebumps and other signs of. . . .excitement. I'm NOT getting rid of those speakers and I still know THOSE girls. I can plug in those old party speakers and destroy common room modes with sheer brute force.

Fast forward 2 decades and what do we have? Ruler flat frequency response, computer simulated perfection, the ever present WAF and everyone a critic. The majority of the women aren't even involved in the sport anymore.

This isn't an argument. I just thought I'd toss this in here. I don't own multiple pairs of speakers for corrective purposes. I own multiples because I like to build them and collect them. But I will not get rid of my party boxes. When baby comes through that door, she bumps that volume control up, and her head starts grooving from side to side on some Motown and I see the goosebumps and she goes for the wine. It's going to be another good weekend.

 

[killdozzer]

This isn't an argument.

You could have fooled me. I totally get where you're coming from and, again, I'm not a critic or "ruler flat PC age" millennial. I was simply questioning your line of thought, mainly that out of specifics and peculiarities of rock genre one might deduce rock needs coloured speakers or gear.

But I think you have a point there. A lot has been said about studios that mixed their material having particular type of speakers in mind, this fact repeatedly pops up in literature.

And if this is the case, ruler flat speaker might in fact play different (worse) than what the artist had in mind. Thus it wouldn't be conveying the material but spoiling it somehow. So, much like with what wine goes with what food, you use your knowledge not to find a perfect wine, but a perfect match - certain type of speakers to make 70' & 80' rock shine.

I think you were right. This could also explain why some of the remasters, even if done properly, might be to your dissatisfaction. Your rock party boxes simply might have a hard time with a remaster that was done for "as FR as possible" speakers.