• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Most beautiful speakers in the world ?

MattHooper said:
When it comes to Estelon speakers, I’m not a huge fan of the look. But when it comes to those giant flagship Estelon speakers they are kind of cool in a “ if you’re going to go for it, go for it” aesthetic. The finish is beautiful. They look a bit like cool aliens. And there’s a very purposeful look.

Having listened to a couple different Estelon speakers at my friends place, they don’t really grab me. They do a good job of sounding very open, boxless and precise, but there’s a sort of mechanical or artificial quality, a bit of a stripped to the bone tonal quality, that I don’t get on with.
Click to expand...
Tube Amp might lift the veil :cool: :p
 
MattHooper said:
They do a good job of sounding very open, boxless and precise, but there’s a sort of mechanical or artificial quality, a bit of a stripped to the bone tonal quality, that I don’t get on with.
Click to expand...
You should start writing reviews, this is meaningless :facepalm: .
 
38033.jpg
38036.jpg
 
MattHooper said:
They [Estelons] do a good job of sounding very open, boxless and precise, but there’s a sort of mechanical or artificial quality, a bit of a stripped to the bone tonal quality, that I don’t get on with.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't normally comment on a subjective impression in a thread dedicated to visual aesthetics, but when someone said your comment was "meaningless", obviously I was unable to resist...

To a first approximation, the front baffle of the Estelons is very narrow, with large radius, diffraction-negating round-overs. I don't think there would be any horizontal-plane internal standing waves, and presumably the internal construction and/or damping addresses vertical internal sanding waves. Ime these physical characteristics all would tend to contribute to "very open, boxless, and precise" sound.

Note that a large radius round-over reduces the effective baffle width by about 1/2 of the round-over radius. So two round-overs (one on each side) reduces the effective baffle width by one round-over radius. Thus the effective width of the Estelon cabinets, from the standpoint of the "baffle step", is even less than their already-narrow width dimension.

And if the baffle is narrow, the baffle step kicks in at a higher frequency, and so the direct-to-reflected sound ratio in the lower portion of the spectrum tends to be on the low side. Subjectively this can present as thinness (relative to roughly equivalent wide-baffle speakers), and that might be behind the "a bit of a stripped to the bone tonal quality".

I don't have any thoughts on the rest of @MattHooper's post; personally I thought the Estelons I heard at an audio show a couple of years ago sounded magnificent. But my point is, I can see a plausible correlation between his subjective impressions and speaker's physical shape.

So to me, Matt's post is far from "meaningless", even if my conclusions about the Estelons were different.
 
Last edited:
Duke said:
I wouldn't normally comment on a subjective impression in a thread dedicated to visual aesthetics, but when someone said your comment was "meaningless", obviously I was unable to resist...

To a first approximation, the front baffle of the Estelons is very narrow, with large radius, diffraction-negating round-overs. I don't there there would be any horizontal-plane internal standing waves, and presumably the internal construction and/or damping addresses vertical internal sanding waves. Ime these physical characteristics all would tend to contribute to "very open, boxless, and precise" sound.

Note that a large radius round-over reduces the effective baffle width by about 1/2 of the round-over radius. So the effective width of the Estelon cabinets, from the standpoint of the "baffle step", is even less than their already-narrow width dimension.

And if the baffle is narrow, the baffle step kicks in at a higher frequency, and so the direct-to-reflected sound ratio in the lower portion of the spectrum tends to be on the low side. Subjectively this can present as thinness (relative to roughly equivalent wide-baffle speakers), and that might be behind the "a bit of a stripped to the bone tonal quality".

I don't have any thoughts on the rest of @MattHooper's post; personally I thought the Estelons I heard at an audio show a couple of years ago sounded magnificent. But my point is, I can see a plausible correlation between his subjective impressions and speaker's physical shape.

So to me, Matt's post is far from "meaningless", even if my conclusions about the Estelons were different.
Click to expand...
To me it sounded like a visual description. "there’s a sort of mechanical or artificial quality, a bit of a stripped to the bone tonal quality" - it makes no sense to me. Stripped of what? Meat? Missing frequencies? "Mechanical or artificial"? How do they introduce that into the sound? I've never heard said speakers, and probably never will. But yeah, maybe looks a little skinny, mechanical and artificial ;).
1758823113946.jpeg

Not that I don't like them, - they seem to measure well too.
 
dagfinn said:
To me it sounded like a visual description. "there’s a sort of mechanical or artificial quality, a bit of a stripped to the bone tonal quality" - it makes no sense to me. Stripped of what? Meat? Missing frequencies? "Mechanical or artificial"? How do they introduce that into the sound? I've never heard said speakers, and probably never will.
Click to expand...

Hi, to be honest, I wasn’t trying to “ review” the speakers, just making a very subjective comment in terms my own reaction and impressions.

The thing is, you can Point to the measurements of an Estelon speaker but when somebody asks “ OK, I see the graphs but what does that sound like?”… then we are stuck having to use language to try and exchange impressions. As it happens I was able to listen numerous times to that same Estelon model at my friends place.

As to the first part of my description:
“They [Estelons] do a good job of sounding very open, boxless and precise“

I’d think it’s not hard to grasp when I’m trying to describe. As Floyd Toole has pointed out, poorly designed loudspeakers have resonances and this can lead to the sound being identified as coming from the loudspeaker itself - the impression that the sound is clinging to or stuck in the loudspeaker. Think of any really old-school cheap box loudspeaker you might be familiar with and the way the sound seems to be pretty much coming from those loudspeakers. Whereas in a well designed loudspeaker the sound, even hardpan mono, will sound like it is more floating free of the loudspeaker itself.

That’s what I was getting at with a comment about the Estelons. They generally do quite well in that regard: there was no sense of a contained, resonant, boxy sound - instead they gave the impression of sitting in front of two sculptures around which the musical images where simply occurring in open space, fully detached from those speakers.

Anyone here with well designed loudspeakers set up for proper stereo presentation has surely experienced something just like that.

And also as I indicated, those images were not diffuse and vague - there was nice precision in terms of their location and apparent sonic outlines, and I would add with a nice sense of solidity and density. For instance a snare or snare rim being struck, or even a clarinet, had a nice sense solidity and density - like the sound was coming more from a solid object between the loudspeakers rather than a phasey or see-through stereo illusion. So that was quite compelling.

Whatever my misgivings, I think the Estelons have some compelling qualities. And I do think if you heard a properly set up pair, you’d be very likely to experience what I’m describing.

As to this part:

"there’s a sort of mechanical or artificial quality, a bit of a stripped to the bone tonal quality"

That I admit was meant to be even more subjective - a very personal reaction that I don’t expect to translate to everybody else else’s impressions.

Nonetheless, taking a look at the Stereophile measurements I can still attempt to convey where that personal impression might’ve been coming from. When I heard those Estelons, I found the sound a little bit (just a bit) “skeletal” - that is the sense of instruments and voices were conveyed as solid objects, but a little leaned out of flesh and body to the sound. It lacked some of the richness and lushness I hear in real life, and which some other loudspeakers seem to convey more convincingly to me.

If you look at the measurements you can see there is a slope down in the lower midrange, which plausibly removed some of the richness and body that I’m talking about:

1758831337791.jpeg


Likewise, there is that treble peak energy - also mentioned in the subjective portion of that Stereophile review - which also shows up in the in room response:

1758831621328.jpeg


Which I also noted when I listened to the Estelons. In fact, that upper frequency emphasis coincided with a peak in my friend’s phono cartridge which made for me listening to vinyl on his system, uncomfortable (whereas it had not been on previous speakers without that peak). So I listened to mostly digital sources while listening to that speaker.

But I find that such a treble peak can have subjective effects such as:

Emphasizing the more artificial aspects in many recordings, such as the hardness of vocal sibilance and emphasizing certain leading edge transients, hardening the bite of a trumpet etc. And generally speaking can lead to a sort of “harder edged” sound overall.

So by emphasizing the artificial aspects of recordings, and adding artificial emphasis or resonance, along with a reduction of the warmth region I associate with natural sounds: to me that that’s why the sound takes on a sort of “ mechanical or artificial quality.” (I’ve had a habit of comparing real people’s voices to the sound of voices through sound systems, and such direct comparisons almost always leave the reproduced voices sounding more mechanical and artificial versus the real flesh and blood voices).

So there you go… my attempt to communicate to you what I meant.

I think if you were sitting in front of the loudspeakers you probably would have agreed in hearing the first part of my description… but I would be less sure that you would agree with me on the latter part I just described.

And this is where of course people can take or leave subjective descriptions. If you’re finding somebody’s subjective descriptions, do not match onto what you hear from the same gear (or they just aren’t making any sense to you), then they will have no use.

Whereas somebody else listening to the Estelon set up I heard may have come away with a similar subjective reaction to mine, would read my description and say “yes! That conveys my impressions as well!” And for myself, when I find a writer or audiophile describing impressions that match my own, I find that both fascinating and potentially useful (eg those writers who seem to hear as I hear and care about what I care about, have led me to some really wonderful loudspeaker purchases).

(which doesn’t mean that it’s not entirely reasonable for someone else to buy strictly on measurements).

Cheers.

dagfinn said:
But yeah, maybe looks a little skinny, mechanical and artificial ;).
Click to expand...

That might have played a part in it as well :-)
 
MattHooper said:
Hi, to be honest, I wasn’t trying to “ review” the speakers, just making a very subjective comment in terms my own reaction and impressions.

The thing is, you can Point to the measurements of an Estelon speaker but when somebody asks “ OK, I see the graphs but what does that sound like?”… then we are stuck having to use language to try and exchange impressions. As it happens I was able to listen numerous times to that same Estelon model at my friends place.

As to the first part of my description:
“They [Estelons] do a good job of sounding very open, boxless and precise“

I’d think it’s not hard to grasp when I’m trying to describe. As Floyd Toole has pointed out, poorly designed loudspeakers have resonances and this can lead to the sound being identified as coming from the loudspeaker itself - the impression that the sound is clinging to or stuck in the loudspeaker. Think of any really old-school cheap box loudspeaker you might be familiar with and the way the sound seems to be pretty much coming from those loudspeakers. Whereas in a well designed loudspeaker the sound, even hardpan mono, will sound like it is more floating free of the loudspeaker itself.

That’s what I was getting at with a comment about the Estelons. They generally do quite well in that regard: there was no sense of a contained, resonant, boxy sound - instead they gave the impression of sitting in front of two sculptures around which the musical images where simply occurring in open space, fully detached from those speakers.

Anyone here with well designed loudspeakers set up for proper stereo presentation has surely experienced something just like that.

And also as I indicated, those images were not diffuse and vague - there was nice precision in terms of their location and apparent sonic outlines, and I would add with a nice sense of solidity and density. For instance a snare or snare rim being struck, or even a clarinet, had a nice sense solidity and density - like the sound was coming more from a solid object between the loudspeakers rather than a phasey or see-through stereo illusion. So that was quite compelling.

Whatever my misgivings, I think the Estelons have some compelling qualities. And I do think if you heard a properly set up pair, you’d be very likely to experience what I’m describing.

As to this part:

"there’s a sort of mechanical or artificial quality, a bit of a stripped to the bone tonal quality"

That I admit was meant to be even more subjective - a very personal reaction that I don’t expect to translate to everybody else else’s impressions.

Nonetheless, taking a look at the Stereophile measurements I can still attempt to convey where that personal impression might’ve been coming from. When I heard those Estelons, I found the sound a little bit (just a bit) “skeletal” - that is the sense of instruments and voices were conveyed as solid objects, but a little leaned out of flesh and body to the sound. It lacked some of the richness and lushness I hear in real life, and which some other loudspeakers seem to convey more convincingly to me.

If you look at the measurements you can see there is a slope down in the lower midrange, which plausibly removed some of the richness and body that I’m talking about:

View attachment 478401

Likewise, there is that treble peak energy - also mentioned in the subjective portion of that Stereophile review - which also shows up in the in room response:

View attachment 478406

Which I also noted when I listened to the Estelons. In fact, that upper frequency emphasis coincided with a peak in my friend’s phono cartridge which made for me listening to vinyl on his system, uncomfortable (whereas it had not been on previous speakers without that peak). So I listened to mostly digital sources while listening to that speaker.

But I find that such a treble peak can have subjective effects such as:

Emphasizing the more artificial aspects in many recordings, such as the hardness of vocal sibilance and emphasizing certain leading edge transients, hardening the bite of a trumpet etc. And generally speaking can lead to a sort of “harder edged” sound overall.

So by emphasizing the artificial aspects of recordings, and adding artificial emphasis or resonance, along with a reduction of the warmth region I associate with natural sounds: to me that that’s why the sound takes on a sort of “ mechanical or artificial quality.” (I’ve had a habit of comparing real people’s voices to the sound of voices through sound systems, and such direct comparisons almost always leave the reproduced voices sounding more mechanical and artificial versus the real flesh and blood voices).

So there you go… my attempt to communicate to you what I meant.

I think if you were sitting in front of the loudspeakers you probably would have agreed in hearing the first part of my description… but I would be less sure that you would agree with me on the latter part I just described.

And this is where of course people can take or leave subjective descriptions. If you’re finding somebody’s subjective descriptions, do not match onto what you hear from the same gear (or they just aren’t making any sense to you), then they will have no use.

Whereas somebody else listening to the Estelon set up I heard may have come away with a similar subjective reaction to mine, would read my description and say “yes! That conveys my impressions as well!” And for myself, when I find a writer or audiophile describing impressions that match my own, I find that both fascinating and potentially useful (eg those writers who seem to hear as I hear and care about what I care about, have led me to some really wonderful loudspeaker purchases).

(which doesn’t mean that it’s not entirely reasonable for someone else to buy strictly on measurements).

Cheers.



That might have played a part in it as well :-)
Click to expand...
That might be the longest 'report' I've ever encountered typed on an iPhone :cool:
 
dagfinn said:
I like my room better.
Click to expand...
1758866153727.png

Is this your normal listening situation?
Why are the small speakers on top of the large speakers?
Why are the speakers on the floor next to the main speakers?
And - do you really need the small speakers for the laptop as well?
 
Audionaut said:
View attachment 478488
Is this your normal listening situation?
Why are the small speakers on top of the large speakers?
Why are the speakers on the floor next to the main speakers?
And - do you really need the small speakers for the laptop as well?
Click to expand...
Hi Audionaut!
This is a temporary room, while we're looking for a new house, so I try to make the best of it.

Mostly everything is on wheels, so I can adjust listening distance and rearrange setup easily. Desk is a little close, for the picture, (and there's some optical weirdness going on). PC workstation is on a small trolly providing platform the graphics monitor and 4020s, and the macMini will sit somewhere there too - currently temporary in use elsewhere.

Anyway, the 1030a's on top of the big speakers are for Auro3D/Atmos heights, but the wallmounts are being moved since I just turned my room around 180 degrees. I'm considering not using them, there's so little space over the 1039a's. If I put up the heightmounts, they would only be 20 cm higher - maybe not worth it. So I may keep it 5.2. They are in not connected, just stored there. Under the turntable sits the BlueRay transport, miniDSP, ADACs and phono preamps. Mini home studio :).

There is a 1022b as centre speaker, and I have a sub on each side for stereo bass support under 30Hz. One 7360a, and one Martin Logan Grotto I. I'll be buying another 736/70a, when I can find one second hand. Genelec subs are the best. For rears, I have 1022a, not visible in the picture.

The small 4020's I use late at night, mostly - and for comparison. If you sit at around 2,5m from the big monitors, you don't go to regular "nearfield" for detail, what the big monitors does is superior by far. But It is useful to scale down, hear you mix on small speakers too.

I have a Mackie Big Knob Studio+ monitor controller, which lets me select speakers and provide headset monitoring, do realtime A/B/C and more, handy thing. Currently subs are lowpassed on one channel, while the 1039a's are playing full range, no highpass. The 4020 are playing full range too, and can have sub support as well. But not late at night, when others sleep.

Why stereo bass? The "summed bass" thing only works for mainstream pop music on vinyl, I have lots of stereo bass in jazz and classical music going back decades, to the earliest publications of stereo. Hard panned bass with in room crosstalk from other instruments is common. In symphonic orchestras, basses has a standard position, as does the harp and piano. Playback should keep it like that. Not to mention secondary, spacial LF room effects, which also disappear when summing. Listen to this test track from @amirm's headset test list, and compare mono vs stereo, if you can. Two very different experiences :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

EddieAudio06
Genelec vs Customary Hi-Fi Passive Speakers
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Ilkka Rissanen
Ilkka Rissanen
F
Question about bassport
Replies
2
Views
376
DVDdoug
DVDdoug
Talisman
Are there any aesthetically beautiful subwoofers? (with photos)
6 7 8
Replies
152
Views
18K
Flaesh
Flaesh
Robin L
Most Beautiful Songs - 1960 - 1979
13 14 15
Replies
292
Views
20K
gsp1971
gsp1971
B
Vintage Speakers are back in style
7 8 9
Replies
164
Views
21K
Valvetubehead
Valvetubehead
Back
Top Bottom