Excellent question. But there are two issues here. I was really addressing the argument that ribbon tweeters gain their reputation for detail from elevated frequency response and harmonic distortion. IMHO, that's not consistent with my manic A-B-C-D comparisons, which to my ears demonstrate a more relaxed, open sound from ribbons. But that doesn't address your question--which is right? For that I would like to have a live source in one room, and speakers in an isolated second room being fed by a perfect mic, preamp, and amp into the speakers. Then I could walk back and forth and form some opinion. Absent that, we're forced to listen to opinions from unreliable sources like me. For the record, I have played in orchestras on a semi-professional basis for 40 years, and I've heard many, many cymbals. And triangles. And to my aging ears, the ribbons sound more like what I'm hearing on stage. And I've listened to orchestras a bajillioin times from various seats in an auditorium. Same conclusion. But those statements are really just a crass attempt to score debating points and credibility. It's not science, and you shouldn't attach much importance to them. Speakers are interesting. And most of the issues are unsettled.
I worked for a dealer who sold Infinity speakers and we picked up the line in the early '80s when the RS-B, RS-M and RS-IIIb were being phased out in favor of the rounded corner cabinets with strips of oak that are normally used for tambor doors. The highs did seem more relaxed but not particularly realistic. They were still fighting with the "how the heck do we keep these surrounds attached to the polypropylene cones?" issue and I'm sure the decisions for their crossover designs had a lot to do with that since they were using poly for their cone and dome mids. For some music, they were great but for a lot of it, not so much. For some, they were outstanding and that's obviously the reason we have so many opinions on what sounds "best". Peoples' preferences differ, Sean Olive's comments aside. The people he uses for testing, by his own comments, are trained to hear certain things and that's not necessarily an unbiased group if he's trying to get them to find Harmon International's speaker lines superior. People find something that fits their hearing, if they're lucky. The ones who can't or don't, become frustrated or annoyed and some get to the point of deciding that they can build a better sounding product
using what sounds best, to them.
I find it interesting that we search for the most "realistic" sounding systems when the whole recording process is a series of steps aimed at making a realistic-sounding recording of the sounds that were produced in a space, often using a large number of microphones, when the listener's room can't possibly be the same except by a huge coincidence or some obsessive act.
It doesn't stop us, though. Our opinions are based on so many things that one "best speaker in the whole, wide world" may sound like absolute garbage in the majority of listening rooms. I play guitar and have been astounded by how similar the sounds on some recordings are to my guitar and amp sitting near my speakers and other than the fact that the brand and model are the same, everything else is absolutely different. On the other hand, having been close to drums and cymbals in live situations, I do find them to be fatiguing but that's usually because of the acoustics in that location. Other times, it's just the drummer/percussionist.
Overall, I want a balance of realism and "easy to listen to". Nothing could be worse than the sound being totally realistic and hard to listen to for any length of time.
