View Full Version : Revealing speakers
Am i right in thinking very accurate speakers are very revealing?,So more laid back designs that "smooth out deficiencies" are actually coloring the sound by rolling off the treble? Which means the final sound is almost totally different to how it was produced (recorded)? So a revealing speaker for all intents and purposes should reproduce a sound nearer to the original recording?
hifi_dave
21-10-2013, 17:05
Accuracy is accuracy and revealing is not necessarily accurate. I have speakers here which are very revealing but they are screamingly bright and so, not accurate.
Ok,so do more laid back speakers colour the sound and do they roll off the treble to "smooth out deficiencies"?
David is right.
Accurate and revealing are not necessarily the same thing. Revealing can also be described as a brightly voiced speaker which presents details very sharply (HF lift) or offers initial "presence" but this can become fatiguing to listen to after a relatively short while.
Accurate usually means a loudspeaker whose frequency response is nominally flat across its' frequency range give or take a few dB.
In reality, few manage this really well due to all sorts of issues but a good loudspeaker will maintain a flat response plus or minus perhaps 5dB. You'd be surprised at how many are way outside of this envelope, whether that be poor crossover design, cabinet design or inappropriate choice of driver, or a combination of all of those things.
However, an accurate speaker should be revealing of the recording, but only in so much as recorded detail comes through without making your ears bleed!
Ok,so do more laid back speakers colour the sound and do they roll off the treble to "smooth out deficiencies"?
That depends entirely on what is defined as "laid back". It could mean woolly bass which lags behind everything else, a slowish transient response, or other colouration perhaps resulting from a non linear response. It equally could mean a drooped HF response. Some people may prefer a slight drop in HF perhaps due to room issues.
One thing is important to remember when discussing loudspeaker response and that is that it is usually described relative to anechoic conditions so response of any particular speaker will vary depending upon the room characteristics it's used in.
Its not speaker inparticular just speakers in general but,another way of looking at it is if you have a revealing or accurate speaker and then a speaker on the softer side of things that will be adjudting the sound so that wouldnt be such a good thing? So accurate or revealing speakers are true in what they say or sing?
Its not speaker inparticular just speakers in general but,another way of looking at it is if you have a revealing or accurate speaker and then a speaker on the softer side of things that will be adjudting the sound so that wouldnt be such a good thing? So accurate or revealing speakers are true in what they say or sing?
Accuracy = Faithfulness to the recorded material = high fidelity
Revealing can be accurate (clarity/low noise floor etc) but more often than not, what is described as "revealing" tends to mean "bright". Anything with a lifted HF response or a dropped HF response as you have mentioned is not accurate and cannot be faithful to the recorded material, with the possible exception of a lifted response being modulated in-room by room treatments or being listened to off-axis for a flatter HF response.
Whether that's a good thing or not is entirely the decision of the listener and as already mentioned is room dependant.
Yep thats understandable Paul, So what makes a speaker revealing what is the thing that makes a speaker react in that way? Is the material used in the drivers is it the crossovers? Also if you had a revealing speaker "bright" and then used it with a valve amp wouldnt you create a happy medium if your valve amp is on the warmer side?
If a speaker is revealing because it is lifted in HF response it could be because of the crossover used (HF section doesn't contain a sufficient L-pad to attenuate the response to match the other drive units). It could also be because the speakers are designed to be listened to off-axis (not firing towards you) so on-axis they could be lifted by say +6dB in the high frequencies, and each driver/baffle arrangement will have its own dispersion characteristic which determines how steeply that lift is rolled off as you move off-axis, therefore they will have a recommended angle off-axis to listen at. There are a number of speakers designed this way. One example is the Roksan Darius that I've just completed a renovation for.
Using a valve amp is not any guarantee of taming anything. If the speakers are bright, just hooking up a valve amp, which generally have high output impedances relative to SS counterparts, makes them more reactive to speaker loading. As frequency rises, the impedance also rises, and the speaker generally becomes easier to drive as less current (and therefore less power) is needed to maintain a given output. This can also depend on the crossover used as some crossovers generate a flattish load for a good deal of the response. In such circumstances (rising impedance), the valve amp may actually increase the perceived brightness. In general, you have to be particularly fussy about which valve amp that you match with which speaker if you want anything resembling a flat response. There are of course well designed valve amps out there which I know have very low output impedance and therefore will be less reactive to speaker load variance. One such example is the excellent Radford (revival) amplifiers still being manufactured today.
Just need to add that of course some valve amps can be fairly rolled off depending on the valves used or output transformers used, and in these circumstances, they could tame the top-end of a bright loudspeaker. Would require trial and error though which is an expensive way of going about things!
hifi_dave
21-10-2013, 18:12
There are many things which could make a speaker 'bright' but I think the usual reason is that the tweeter is more sensitive than the bass or mid driver and so runs at a higher level. This gives a stepped up response.
Your 'happy medium' would only provide a more accurate response if the amp provided the exact opposite of what the speaker is doing. For many reasons, that is unlikely to happen.
hifi_dave
21-10-2013, 18:14
Paul said it so much better than me.
Thats fair enough Dave. See this is where i think most designers get it wrong they design speakers in the wrong enviroment (or on a computer) they should have a room with a tv furnishings tight corners and general stuff,clutter and all that around like in a normal house,not everybody has the "perfect" listening room,if they can design a speaker that can be used in the real world living room and in any enviroment be it a big front room or a small front room no matter where you put it the speaker wall allways sound good then they will be onto a winner where rooms shouldnt affect the speaker to drasticly.
cloth-ears
21-10-2013, 18:26
In my experience a revealing speaker is just that. Usually they have a pretty flat response but this means it will show up any shortcomings in the system or recording. Because so few speakers are flat most recordings are tweaked a bit to sound good on mass market speakers. This is usually by lifting the treble a bit and adding about 20db or more of compression. Believe it or not a dynamic range of 100db sounds crap on rubbish kit. Unfortunately audiophiles are in the minority and not usually catered for by recording studios. I have worked in one once and have listened to a master tape and the final mix, they usually bear little or no resemblance.
In my experience a revealing speaker is just that. Usually they have a pretty flat response but this means it will show up any shortcomings in the system or recording. Because so few speakers are flat most recordings are tweaked a bit to sound good on mass market speakers. This is usually by lifting the treble a bit and adding about 20db or more of compression. Believe it or not a dynamic range of 100db sounds crap on rubbish kit. Unfortunately audiophiles are in the minority and not usually catered for by recording studios. I have worked in one once and have listened to a master tape and the final mix, they usually bear little or no resemblance.
So in that case surely a flat response is good? Yes it will show up crap recordings ive had speakers before that show up a duff recording isnt that the whole point that we want electronics and speakers that tells the truth or do people want electronics and speakers that make everything sound fluffy and lovely all the time basically telling lies,me personally i would rather have and electronics and speakers that tell it as it is without covering stuff up.
What they may do is also show where the weakest points are in your system
So in that case surely a flat response is good? Yes it will show up crap recordings ive had speakers before that show up a duff recording isnt that the whole point that we want electronics and speakers that tells the truth or do people want electronics and speakers that make everything sound fluffy and lovely all the time basically telling lies,me personally i would rather have and electronics and speakers that tell it as it is without covering stuff up.
Yes. A flat response is what you're best aiming for. You can't design for a poor standard of recording as there are superlative recordings out there too. You design for fidelity when it comes to the hardware.
I play in a band so we hear it as it is,so isnt that accurate and revealing on stage and when we mingle in the crowd?
Oldpinkman
21-10-2013, 19:37
Come and have a listen sometime Dan. I could do with another pair of ears on a few things I'm comparing. I have some very revealing speakers. And they're not bright, and can be quite mellow. And I can open a bottle of wine :)
cloth-ears
21-10-2013, 20:11
Yes. A flat response is what you're best aiming for. You can't design for a poor standard of recording as there are superlative recordings out there too. You design for fidelity when it comes to the hardware.
True, there are some very good recordings out there but they tend to be limited to particular types of music. Mainstream pop is often over processed and highly compressed although there are some exceptions. Dire Straits Private Investigations springs to mind, very open and lacking compression. On some lesser equipment it sounds awful but on a good system it sounds delightful whilst some of the other tracks on the same LP are a tad over processed.
So a flat response speaker is best to go for? What speakers have a flat response?
RobbieGong
21-10-2013, 20:56
Good thread !!
walpurgis
21-10-2013, 21:35
If you want to hear revealing, have a listen to a pair of Quad ESL 57s.
I have owned these and to my ears they are certainly stunningly revealing. There again, so is a pair of Lowther horns but you could not get speakers that sound more different!
There have been speakers that measure flat and don't sound particularly analytical and others that measure flat and are ruthlessly revealing, so the best way to choose a speaker is to try and hear it on your own system, or at least hopefully being driven by equipment that you are familiar with in a sympathetic environment.
If you want to hear revealing, have a listen to a pair of Quad ESL 57s.
I have owned these and to my ears they are certainly stunningly revealing. There again, so is a pair of Lowther horns but you could not get speakers that sound more different!
There have been speakers that measure flat and don't sound particularly analytical and others that measure flat and are ruthlessly revealing, so the best way to choose a speaker is to try and hear it on your own system, or at least hopefully being driven by equipment that you are familiar with in a sympathetic environment.
+1
If you want to hear revealing, have a listen to a pair of Quad ESL 57s.
I have owned these and to my ears they are certainly stunningly revealing. There again, so is a pair of Lowther horns but you could not get speakers that sound more different!
There have been speakers that measure flat and don't sound particularly analytical and others that measure flat and are ruthlessly revealing, so the best way to choose a speaker is to try and hear it on your own system, or at least hopefully being driven by equipment that you are familiar with in a sympathetic environment.
See this is the point some people say revealing is not very good yet some of the nicest sounding speakers are very revealing.
Oldpinkman
22-10-2013, 07:34
The ESL's are probably THE reference for revealing (either number). The 57's perhaps the very clearest window, but the most obvious bass rolloff, and very beamy. The 63's for all they are a bit "windy" have a sound I find more rounded and undoubtedly image much better. Broadly, apart from blocking out all the light, if you can get them in a decent size room, a sensible distance from the walls, you can pretty much just plonk the 63's down on stands and you will get good imaging. you can fanny about for a lifetime trying to get the 57's to do it - but when they do......:D (stacked are a different kettle of fish again - but you need a big room)
The ventricals are more similar than different. Firstly they too are sadly directional (more in the vertical than horizontal plane - sound really odd when you are standing up). But - whilst never quite that ethereal transparency the stats do - much more similar than different. The etched mylar tweeter presumably being responsible. And they are easier to image than the 57's. And domestically much more acceptable - although pretty insensitive and not that easy to drive. But if you want to come for a listen, you'll know revealing when you hear it next.
The bumf (which I found in a drawer recently) says they were "voiced to match the ESL 63's". This implies we all sat there and thought - "how could we design a moving coil to replace the Quad electrostatics" - cos otherwise I think we'd have been happy putting a pink triangle on the Quads. In fact Andrew came down with the Helmholtz resonator design and different drive units, and impressed Arthur. They then changed the bass driver, tried ribbon tweeters, settled on the etched mylar, developed a necessarily complicated crossover and we ended up with something tonally quite similar to the 63's. Every pair was hand built - the drive units hand matched because the midrange drivers exhibited great variations between units. But coming back to your earlier point - what is revealing? that largely meant taking the design and its constraints, and setting the crossover to achieve as near as possible to flat response from a microphone 1m away. It ended up +-3db 40Hz to 20KHz. Its bass rolls off more gently than the cliff edge ESL's but pretty steep for all that.
Against all my religious principals and upbringing, I am seriously interested in experimenting with powered subwoofers with them. Early adventures are very promising.
I'll put the kettle on ;)
Bright and revealing are not the same things. Most of the sound is 'revealed' in the mid range so the quality of the implementation there (and not in the tweeters) is what will seperate truly revealing speaker from the also-rans. I agree that the '57 is a good benchmark as it adds and subtracts absolutely nothing. Providied the rest of the system is competent this can only be a good thing. As for flat response across the board I think most people find speakers that are flat (i.e within 1dB) in the bass to sound bass light, purely because of the sensitivity in our hearing which reduces as frequency reduces. So you often get speakers with +5 to +7 dB of bass lift from 300 to say 40Hz in order to compensate and give a 'full' sound in the real world. Nothing wrong with this approach, it does not mean the loudspeaker is less accurate, in fact it will probably sound more accurate. Very few people want aneamic sounding bass.
On the other hand you can put the lift in the mid-range - this will sound superficailly impressive but will have far more of an effect on the sound and could definatley be described as coloured. The problem here is that not only can it get on your tits after a while it also masks the differences in recordings. Some swear by it though.
cloth-ears
22-10-2013, 07:54
I used to have a pair of 57’s and apart from being pig ugly they did pretty much tick all the boxes in the mid and high range only letting themselves down on the bass. I tried using a sub but found it muddied the midrange somewhat. I put this down to the bass frequencies modulating the 57’s membranes and causing a minor Doppler effect. I could be wrong.
Bright and revealing are not the same things. Most of the sound is 'revealed' in the mid range so the quality of the implementation there (and not in the tweeters) is what will seperate truly revealing speaker from the also-rans. I agree that the '57 is a good benchmark as it adds and subtracts absolutely nothing. Providied the rest of the system is competent this can only be a good thing. As for flat response across the board I think most people find speakers that are flat (i.e within 1dB) in the bass to sound bass light, purely because of the sensitivity in our hearing which reduces as frequency reduces. So you often get speakers with +5 to +7 dB of bass lift from 300 to say 40Hz in order to compensate and give a 'full' sound in the real world. Nothing wrong with this approach, it does not mean the loudspeaker is less accurate, in fact it will probably sound more accurate. Very few people want aneamic sounding bass.
On the other hand you can put the lift in the mid-range - this will sound superficailly impressive but will have far more of an effect on the sound and could definatley be described as coloured. The problem here is that not only can it get on your tits after a while it also masks the differences in recordings. Some swear by it though.
I wouldn't say so particularly. Don't forget that measurements are quoted either anechoically or semi-anechoically and in real rooms, within 1.4m of a rear wall, you will typically get a +6 to +9dB bass lift depending on the room/speaker.
As for bass & treble sensitivity, this is something which is dependant upon volume. The obvious explanation for the effect is the Fletcher Muson curve (see below) which describes the sensitivity of human hearing with volume at different frequencies. As our hearing has evolved to be more sensitive in the mids (where speech occurs and presumably where we hear the sabre toothed tiger growling at us!) our hearing is less sensitive at the extremes, partcularly below 1KHz abnd above 8KHz:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0tboKzOcKws/S4k6pLlc_eI/AAAAAAAAAFs/VHm0IueE5D8/s400/Equalloundess+contour.svg.png
Looking at the above, as SPL increases, we become more attuned to the bass and treble and hearing response is much flatter, so any significant lift in bass or treble won't be that welcome as it will tend to dominate. This is why amps used to carry loudness buttons, to boost bass and treble at low volumes to restore the flat hearing response. Most loudspeakers are still designed with a flat bass response due to bass lift in-room and many with a lift in treble to allow a flat response anechoically at 85dB.
Oldpinkman
22-10-2013, 10:44
For anyone interested, having googled the old testicals to see what the online world had to say about them, I see a London dealer called audio gold has a pair up for sale for 600 queens English. Personally, if I didn't have a pair I'd bite his hand off. You will need a decent competent 100w amp (say a 405-2) to drive them. And for all it says ribbon tweeters on the ad - they look like the (better) etched mylars to me. Very Very rarely for sale. Rather like rocking horse shit - very hard to find.
They are apparantly missing covers, but these (if you want them) were a simple plywood frame painted black, attached by dot velcro so not hard to make your own. Also the originals would have had some "airy" foam bungs for the rear ports where used close to (very close to) a rear wall - but again not hard to create something.
Just so you know :)
I wouldn't say so particularly. Don't forget that measurements are quoted either anechoically or semi-anechoically and in real rooms, within 1.4m of a rear wall, you will typically get a +6 to +9dB bass lift depending on the room/speaker.
.
True to an extent but I have found that having to boost bass by using room boundaries is not as effective as having it built in to the response of the speaker. Added to which you begin to cloud/muddy the mids. I much prefer to use speakers standing in free space. Of course if you have both room and tuning (Q)effects operating it will dominate, probably unpleasantly. Unless your a bit of a bass fiend that is.
What do you want from a stereo eh?
Some here want the nth amount of DETAIL and spend a fortune on cables, plugs and fancy components inside their gear. They STILL feel the need to tweak and if they can afford to, then fair enough, 'cos there'll never be an end to it all!
There are others in these parts who don't have all but unlimited pockets and have turned instead to good cheap vintage gear. Thing is, this old stuff isn't 'detailed' or necessarily 'accurate' but my Gawd it can put you in touch with the emotional musical message. You end up not listening to the 'gear' but instead you're singling or humming along instinctively.
Horses for courses guv'nor :)
That's all very true David. If your gear can't convey the emotion of music then there's little point in having it because in all likelihood you won't enjoy it much. However, questions were asked about accuracy and on "revealing" or "bright" loudspeakers in the context of what this meant, and those questions were answered. To some extent, searching for high fidelity is a good thing because without a degree of accuracy, you'll inevitably build a system which might be good at one sort of music but hopeless with another. I've lost count of the number of systems I've heard that sound magical with jazz or simple acoustic close mic'd stuff but hopeless with classical or rock. For some, accuracy is a red herring and not important. For replaying the music as it was intended, accuracy is important, but only as long as you like what was intended! You may not always like the results of that as recordings vary as much as kit does, but assemble components to at least target a degree of accuracy and you'll have more chance of hearing more decent music than just a one-trick pony system. There's no real rules having said all that. At the end of the day, we all assemble systems we like the sound of as without that box ticked, it's all pretty meaningless. Inevitably, that means that others won't like how our systems sound (no-matter how polite some views expressed at bake-offs are :lol:) but what other people think doesn't matter. It's yourself that needs to be satisfied.
purite audio
23-10-2013, 16:48
Loudspeakers just reproduce the file, the listener provides the emotion.
Keith.
Loudspeakers just reproduce the file, the listener provides the emotion.
Keith.
Not all loudspeakers will reproduce the file in a way that prompts the same emotional response I guess is the point.
cloth-ears
23-10-2013, 17:25
That's all very true David. If your gear can't convey the emotion of music then there's little point in having it because in all likelihood you won't enjoy it much. However, questions were asked about accuracy and on "revealing" or "bright" loudspeakers in the context of what this meant, and those questions were answered. To some extent, searching for high fidelity is a good thing because without a degree of accuracy, you'll inevitably build a system which might be good at one sort of music but hopeless with another. I've lost count of the number of systems I've heard that sound magical with jazz or simple acoustic close mic'd stuff but hopeless with classical or rock. For some, accuracy is a red herring and not important. For replaying the music as it was intended, accuracy is important, but only as long as you like what was intended! You may not always like the results of that as recordings vary as much as kit does, but assemble components to at least target a degree of accuracy and you'll have more chance of hearing more decent music than just a one-trick pony system. There's no real rules having said all that. At the end of the day, we all assemble systems we like the sound of as without that box ticked, it's all pretty meaningless. Inevitably, that means that others won't like how our systems sound (no-matter how polite some views expressed at bake-offs are :lol:) but what other people think doesn't matter. It's yourself that needs to be satisfied.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said “one-trick-pony”. I have tried many speakers and when they are demonstrated the salesman usually only shows the type of music they excel at. Single driver full range speakers are really good at simple music but it doesn’t take long to realise that they are all smoke and mirrors. Play some heavy rock through them and they fall apart at anything close to realistic volumes.
Thin column speaker arrays give the perception of real bass but soon sound fatiguing. The only solution for me is a good three way speaker; yes I know they have crossovers but having three speakers sharing the load more than justifies for any losses incurred.
Large three way speakers may take up a bit of room but at least they will have a go at any type of music thrown at them. IMHO
On a related issue, you often read a review of a speaker and it will say something along the lines of 'look elsewhere if you want it for rock' or 'very good with acoustic'. Surely its possible to design a speaker that will work with everything, I wouldn't have thought studios went about changing their speakers when recording different types of music or am I wrong?
I was writing my reply whilst you were posting yours cloth-ears and didn't see it so mine reads a bit daft now. But I am sure a really good all-rounder can be done.
cloth-ears
23-10-2013, 18:10
I was writing my reply whilst you were posting yours cloth-ears and didn't see it so mine reads a bit daft now. But I am sure a really good all-rounder can be done.
Studios tend to use small two way for near field monitoring (Yamaha NS10m) and larger multi drive units for “live” playback. The small ones show every detail and are a useful tool for mixing; it is very difficult if not impossible to get the mix right using larger speakers.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said “one-trick-pony”. I have tried many speakers and when they are demonstrated the salesman usually only shows the type of music they excel at. Single driver full range speakers are really good at simple music but it doesn’t take long to realise that they are all smoke and mirrors. Play some heavy rock through them and they fall apart at anything close to realistic volumes.
I would agree that this can be the case though I don't believe it's always just the fault of the speaker.
Sometimes it's the amp.
Sometimes it's the recording. Single drivers are often great at ambiance and realistic imaging. More processed complex / rock recordings can sometimes brutally exposed as "processed"
There is also the opposite issue, take a 3-way speaker with a complex crossover, some of these fed a diet of simple music or atmospheric jazz then they don't sound as good as a single driver speaker so it is swings and roundabouts.
My speakers hedge their bets, they are open baffle with a wideband 12" driver covering 100Hz to 8kHz sans crossover, this is supported by tweeter and two 15" basses per side.
Andrew B
23-10-2013, 18:16
That's all very true David.If your gear can't convey the emotion of music then there's little point in having it because in all likelihood you won't enjoy it much. However, questions were asked about accuracy and on "revealing" or "bright" loudspeakers in the context of what this meant, and those questions were answered. To some extent, searching for high fidelity is a good thing because without a degree of accuracy, you'll inevitably build a system which might be good at one sort of music but hopeless with another. I've lost count of the number of systems I've heard that sound magical with jazz or simple acoustic close mic'd stuff but hopeless with classical or rock. For some, accuracy is a red herring and not important. For replaying the music as it was intended, accuracy is important, but only as long as you like what was intended! You may not always like the results of that as recordings vary as much as kit does, but assemble components to at least target a degree of accuracy and you'll have more chance of hearing more decent music than just a one-trick pony system. There's no real rules having said all that. At the end of the day, we all assemble systems we like the sound of as without that box ticked, it's all pretty meaningless. Inevitably, that means that others won't like how our systems sound (no-matter how polite some views expressed at bake-offs are :lol:)but what other people think doesn't matter. It's yourself that needs to be satisfied.
I couldn't have said it better, especially the bits I highlighted.
Rothchild
23-10-2013, 18:43
Glad someone else mentioned NS10s. I was going to chime in to say that if you want it to sound like it does in the studio you should get some of the speakers studios use, the most ubiquitous of which is the NS10. There's a good article here about them: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep08/articles/yamahans10.htm and the linked research paper http://www.soundonsound.com/pdfs/ns10m.pdf offers more insight and some comparisons with other studio monitor speakers. I particluarly like the waterfall graphs for showing the effect of bass ports on 'unbalancing' the response time of a speaker across the frequency spectrum.
The other classic 'mix check' speaker is the Auratone 5c, a little single driver closed box (often used in mono) if you can get a mix working on one of those then the chances are it will translate well across a whole range of other systems. I built and use Thomas Barefoot's modern interpretation of the Auratone ('Killatone') http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=297 and find them invaluable (and actually much more enjoyable than they ought to be) for spotting daft errors, uncluttering midrange, and generally getting good width and depth in to my mixes.
Generally in a studio the big speakers are for tracking on and for impressing clients, most serious work is done on something alltogether less pleasurable!
cloth-ears
23-10-2013, 18:57
I would agree that this can be the case though I don't believe it's always just the fault of the speaker.
Sometimes it's the amp.
Sometimes it's the recording. Single drivers are often great at ambiance and realistic imaging. More processed complex / rock recordings can sometimes brutally exposed as "processed"
There is also the opposite issue, take a 3-way speaker with a complex crossover, some of these fed a diet of simple music or atmospheric jazz then they don't sound as good as a single driver speaker so it is swings and roundabouts.
My speakers hedge their bets, they are open baffle with a wideband 12" driver covering 100Hz to 8kHz sans crossover, this is supported by tweeter and two 15" basses per side.
There are some excellent three way speakers out there that are capable of handling a wide range of music. On the other hand I have a friend who swears by single full range drivers. The only problem is he uses a sub woofer and super tweeter with them. I tried to tell him that he has a three way speaker but in different boxes but he’s having none of it.
walpurgis
23-10-2013, 19:43
There are some excellent three way speakers out there that are capable of handling a wide range of music. On the other hand I have a friend who swears by single full range drivers. The only problem is he uses a sub woofer and super tweeter with them. I tried to tell him that he has a three way speaker but in different boxes but he’s having none of it.
If you used a pair of Quad ESL 57 speakers with super tweeters and a sub woofer, as some do, would you also call that a three way speaker?
cloth-ears
23-10-2013, 20:12
If you used a pair of Quad ESL 57 speakers with super tweeters and a sub woofer, as some do, would you also call that a three way speaker?
YES. If they were all in one cabinet they would be a called a three way speaker, what’s the difference if you spread them out. B&W 801’s are three way speakers in different boxes.
Well, I read the thread and I’m none the wiser. :scratch:
What does revealing mean when talking about Hi Fi?
Accurate, well speakers are, or they’re not, to a greater or lesser degree. Thankfully we can measure how accurate a speaker is. I’ve yet to read of anyone defining revealing, let alone measure it. :whistle:
I don't think you can accurately define revealing, but you know when you're hearing a revealing speaker. As has been said already, you can have a revealing speaker but it says nothing about tonal balance, frequency response etc.
Probably the closest to measuring 'revealing' would be dynamic response as I always find that more dynamic speakers are more revealing. The converse - super-flat BBC type KEF speakers from the 1980s that sound warm and dull - is also true.
Well, I read the thread and I’m none the wiser. :scratch:
What does revealing mean when talking about Hi Fi?
Accurate, well speakers are, or they’re not, to a greater or lesser degree. Thankfully we can measure how accurate a speaker is. I’ve yet to read of anyone defining revealing, let alone measure it. :whistle:
Good post. Some have indicated it's a strong mid range, and others, that it indicates possibly a speaker with emphasis in the HF, but you're right. If it were to be defined, I'd argue it's an accurate 'speaker which is also un-muddied and un-coloured by cabinet resonances or internal reflections, especially those which affect how clean sounding the speaker is due to things like reflections back through the mid cone and a speaker revealing of the recording nuances. I'd also agree with Martin that speakers able to convey a large dynamic range can be revealing especially where the noise floor is very low, but that also depends upon the amplifier used as they're all part of a circuit. However, almost all loudspeakers have some form of colouration due to cabinet construction, reflection, crossover distortion or a combination of all three. Impossible to get two different speakers ever to sound the same!
Cover them with a sheet and then quickly whip it off again.....revealing speakers.... TA DAAAAA!!! :lol:
Oldpinkman
24-10-2013, 08:48
Good post. Some have indicated it's a strong mid range, and others, that it indicates possibly a speaker with emphasis in the HF, but you're right. If it were to be defined, I'd argue it's an accurate 'speaker which is also un-muddied and un-coloured by cabinet resonances or internal reflections, especially those which affect how clean sounding the speaker is due to things like reflections back through the mid cone and a speaker revealing of the recording nuances. I'd also agree with Martin that speakers able to convey a large dynamic range can be revealing especially where the noise floor is very low, but that also depends upon the amplifier used as they're all part of a circuit. However, almost all loudspeakers have some form of colouration due to cabinet construction, reflection, crossover distortion or a combination of all three. Impossible to get two different speakers ever to sound the same!
I think its a bit like that definition of an elephant. If you've seen one - you know what it is. By almost universal acknowledgement the Quad ESL's fall into that category. Whatever else you might think of them, I haven't heard a single dissenter for "revealing"
jollyfix
24-10-2013, 09:10
Cover them with a sheet and then quickly whip it off again.....revealing speakers.... TA DAAAAA!!! :lol:
:lol::lol: thanks Dave, i needed a good laugh this morning.
:lol::lol: thanks Dave, i needed a good laugh this morning.
My pleasure Dave. Sometimes this hobby of ours can get a wee bit stuffy so it helps to lighten the mood :) (cue noses turning up at my calling this a 'hobby') :D
For me the hallmark of a revealing speaker is how much the sound changes with downstream component changes. This is nothing to do with 'accuracy' as my little Royd Sapphires for instance have a far from flat response, but totally blow away the notion that 'all DACs sound the same' for instance...
walpurgis
24-10-2013, 09:57
For me the hallmark of a revealing speaker is how much the sound changes with downstream component changes. This is nothing to do with 'accuracy' as my little Royd Sapphires for instance have a far from flat response, but totally blow away the notion that 'all DACs sound the same' for instance...
Yes I agree, to an extent. I think probably all speakers will show up system changes, it's just a question of degree. I won't go on about my speakers, other than to say they reveal any changes made 'in system' immediately and that degree of revelation is what I want. Just a change of cable is enough to alter the sound noticeably.
Hmm, interesting. No one knows precisely what revealing means, or can’t agree on a definition at least it seems. But, from reading the forum, it seems lots of people have got revealing systems. :scratch:
Isn’t this just another one of those words used out of context that the Hi Fi fraternity are so fond of bandying about without having sat down and thought?
For example; someone tells me they have a truly revealing system. Of course I’m tempted to reply, so what does it show you.
The not so bright have replied, well it reveals what’s on the CD/record/file.
My response is, usually, how would you know?
I might go for a revealing system has the ability to highlight system changes but then again, shouldn’t well designed components in a properly matched and set up system do the same? :eyebrows:
Yes, your last sentence makes sense. However, I'd observe that it's rather disingenuous to call some people "less bright" when all they may simply mean is that Speaker A might highlight some details not heard with Speaker B when playing the same piece of music. It happens, and you don't need to know what's on the recording or what was intended. All you need to know is that you can hear information on one speaker perhaps not evident on another. Isn't that "more revealing" too? A revealing system is indeed one that can highlight some system changes.
So if thats the case then surely a revealing speaker is good to have that way you will be able to find the weak link in your system and change it? If you have other speakers that are not revealing then they will mask and cover the sound of a not so good source or amp which to me is giving you a false sound which is not right by covering up a weakness in your system.
anthonyTD
24-10-2013, 15:28
Different speakers will have different strengths at revealing certain areas of the musical information, as Paul and others have already stated, there are no perfect speakers,however, i would always go for a speaker that has its strengths in the mid range, the mid range is where most of the important musical content is, and where our ears are most sensitive etc,yes, there are speakers that reveal more of what the bass is doing, and there are speakers that reveal more of what the very high top end of the spectrum is doing, however, the all important area is the mid range, get that right, and it should then be easier to identify any affect of changes made' such as cables, and source equipment.
This is one of the main reasons near field studio monitors are relatively small, their all about that all important mid range...
A...
Oldpinkman
24-10-2013, 15:35
Dan
I wouldn't want something that is always making me want to change equipment! I want something that I enjoy listening to music on. Broadly I guess, for most people, revealing is good and therefore a quality you are looking for. In the context of your speaker shopping and the Skibos - listen to them and see if you like them.
There is a balance to be had. The Ventricals and the ESL's are revealing - but not really full range - they don't extend into the bass in the way some speakers can. Subwoofers might help that (currently investigating) but you've added a crossover, and a whole bunch of compatability / integration issues. The ESL's both are physically large and not easily accomodated in small rooms. Ventricals are insensitive and need a lot of driving.
Revealing is good - but not some sort of finite decision maker for a speaker. And its not an absolute -speakers don't fall into a binary category of revealing or concealing. With some their "revealing" quality is particular apparant, but "integrated" "refined" "full range" can all also be good things for a speaker to have.
Mostly, it has to be something you like listening to music through, and often what is best depends first on the room you have, and then the amplifiers that you choose to drive them with
Life, and Hifi. are bunch of compromises :cool:
Just be carefull that 'revealing' doesn't actually mean phasines at the crossover point, leading to harshness, coupled with a tweeter taking off. So may people, especially when younger, mistake these aberrations as 'detail...'
hifi_dave
24-10-2013, 17:25
So if thats the case then surely a revealing speaker is good to have that way you will be able to find the weak link in your system and change it? If you have other speakers that are not revealing then they will mask and cover the sound of a not so good source or amp which to me is giving you a false sound which is not right by covering up a weakness in your system.
As mentioned previously, you can have speakers with a totally wrong frequency response which highlights part of the spectrum. As an example, the Kan has a rising frequency response which highlights the upper mid onwards. It makes anything in this area very forward and 'revealing' but is completely wrong.
walpurgis
24-10-2013, 18:51
I might go for a revealing system has the ability to highlight system changes but then again, shouldn’t well designed components in a properly matched and set up system do the same? :eyebrows:
Not sure I understand that line.
walpurgis
24-10-2013, 18:53
All you need to know is that you can hear information on one speaker perhaps not evident on another.
Yes, my left speaker definitely reveals information I don't hear from the right one. :)
Some of the most 'revealing' speakers are used in recoding studios; chosen for their ability to reveal flaws and errors in the miking of, and in the performer's playing. They are generally far from accurate.
An interesting anecdote concerning accuracy came from a professional cellist. He has had the playing of his cello recorded for him on numerous occasions, and when replayed on most high quality speakers agrees that the recording "sounds just like a cello". But when replayed over Quad 57 ESLs, he said "it sounds like my cello".
That is when accuracy and resolution come together.
Harry Hill
16-11-2013, 16:45
Yeah but he is sat behind his cello, not infront of it, when he is playing it.
Some of the most 'revealing' speakers are used in recoding studios; chosen for their ability to reveal flaws and errors in the miking of, and in the performer's playing. They are generally far from accurate.
An interesting anecdote concerning accuracy came from a professional cellist. He has had the playing of his cello recorded for him on numerous occasions, and when replayed on most high quality speakers agrees that the recording "sounds just like a cello". But when replayed over Quad 57 ESLs, he said "it sounds like my cello".
That is when accuracy and resolution come together.
Yeah but he is sat behind his cello, not infront of it, when he is playing it.
He's not sat behind his cello when listening to the playback on various speakers.
isn't he sitting behind his cello while playing and listening to it. Otherwise he would have to ask someone to play his cello so he can stand in front of it and listen to it... Am i missing something ? In any event, I find the example very true.
isn't he sitting behind his cello while playing and listening to it. Otherwise he would have to ask someone to play his cello so he can stand in front of it and listen to it... Am i missing something ? In any event, I find the example very true.
It doesn't matter where he is sitting, or whether the cello is present or not. The point is he found only the Quad 57 ESL to be capable of reproducing the subtle differences that distinguish and characterise the sound of his cello from that of any other cello.
icehockeyboy
20-11-2013, 16:18
Glad someone else mentioned NS10s. I was going to chime in to say that if you want it to sound like it does in the studio you should get some of the speakers studios use, the most ubiquitous of which is the NS10. There's a good article here about them: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep08/articles/yamahans10.htm and the linked research paper http://www.soundonsound.com/pdfs/ns10m.pdf offers more insight and some comparisons with other studio monitor speakers. I particluarly like the waterfall graphs for showing the effect of bass ports on 'unbalancing' the response time of a speaker across the frequency spectrum.
The other classic 'mix check' speaker is the Auratone 5c, a little single driver closed box (often used in mono) if you can get a mix working on one of those then the chances are it will translate well across a whole range of other systems. I built and use Thomas Barefoot's modern interpretation of the Auratone ('Killatone') http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=297 and find them invaluable (and actually much more enjoyable than they ought to be) for spotting daft errors, uncluttering midrange, and generally getting good width and depth in to my mixes.
Generally in a studio the big speakers are for tracking on and for impressing clients, most serious work is done on something alltogether less pleasurable!
A friend of mine, who was a studio engineer for years at one of the radio stations I worked on was telling me about a meeting he had recently with Robert Plant, he's still in the business by the way, ( my friend that is) and the conversation got around to studio monitors.
According to RP the Yam NS 10 is a crap monitor.
Don't shoot me by the way, I'm only the messenger.
hifi_dave
20-11-2013, 16:31
It is dire but wasn't it originally chosen to represent the sound of tranny and car radios at that time ?
icehockeyboy
20-11-2013, 20:53
It is dire but wasn't it originally chosen to represent the sound of tranny and car radios at that time ?
No idea Dave.......
Rothchild
20-11-2013, 22:33
It is dire but wasn't it originally chosen to represent the sound of tranny and car radios at that time ?
That was more likely the Auratone 5c.
Craig, the thread topic is revealing speakers, not nice sounding speakers. Did RP denounce the use of NS10s per se or just the sound? I'm shooting no one here, this is all subjective at this point, but I'm intrigued to know what your mate made of this? Has he stopped using NS10s because RP doesn't like them? (Does anyone like them?! ;-) I'm not sure they do, that's not what I was suggesting to be fair).
All I can add is that I find regularly that the 'talent' I work with hate the sound of my kilatones but love the sound of the mixes I make on them when I play them back on my PMCs (and I know that I wouldn't make those mix decisions if I mixed purely on the PMCs). Point is that what's liked and what's revealing are not necesarily the same thing
Point is that what's liked and what's revealing are not necesarily the same thing
Very good point, Marc. Some of the most incredibly revealing speakers I've ever heard have been horn loaded. I couldn't live with them, but boy do they bring up detail like no other kind. One exception is the Horning Agathon Ultimate, which is both revealing and a great speaker.
A story I read somewhere about the NS10 is that a London studion had no small monitors and they wanted something that would resemble domestic speakers in size so they sent a junior engineer out down the Tottenham Court Road and he came back with the NS10 which he had bought mainly because he liked the look of the white bass drivers. How true that is I have no idea.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.