• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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!

Quality speakers for classical music with high output/volume

Interesting. Looking online, seems like I could get used or demo version for around $3000, though certainly not cheap. Also wish they had a bit of a better look. They seem rather ugly, but of course, sound is most important.

Where do you live? I paid less than $3000 for brand new KH 150s from Thomann, shipped to the US.
 
A lot of good information here. I'll try to address some of it now, but I'm sure it's going to take me longer to digest the nuances. I also did a lot more reading, so can provide more accurate information:

Tower vs Bookshelf: I would really prefer bookshelf for many reasons, including the ability to put the bookshelf on a TV stand/mount it on a wall, easier to relocate with or sell/ship, move around/adjust height for listening, bookshelf+sub can sound better than tower; plus safer from my dogs. I’m not ruling it out, but I would really prefer not to have a tower for now. Maybe once I’m in a forever home it might make more sense.

Speaker placement: These are going to sit at the corners of the room, very close or against the wall. In the room, I can be in a number of places, depending on whether I’m watching something or reading a book by the window. Moving around the speakers or sitting in specific sweet spots is not something I’m looking for. I believe this is called a good off-axis performance that’s needed.

Sub: Yes, eventually considering adding a sub, but not right now. Bluesound Node streamer does have an output for a sub, but I think it’s a single output/mono.

Complexity: Ideally, I want to avoid buying a separate amp. A powered speaker would be ideal. It’s been difficult to research speakers, and now researching amps and wattage + compatibility with speakers will take me a very long time. I just want to be able to sit back and enjoy my music. Consider that for the last few years I’ve been limited to the speakers in my laptop! And even in my office, I’ve been listening to Creative GigaWorks II. They’re sitting right next to my ear, so have been plenty loud enough (replacing the office speakers is something else I need to figure out).

Loudness: I need to explain the use case more. Certain classical pieces have a wide dynamic range. For example, Sibelius’s Valse Triste by Karajan or Gould’s 1981 Goldberg Variations album. At least in my setups, I have found that if I don’t crank up the volume, I can’t properly hear the quieter parts of the performance. As a result, when the louder music segment (or track) comes along, the volume becomes even louder, sometimes unnecessarily so. Now maybe with a high quality system I won’t have this problem and don’t necessarily need a very high output speaker? I don’t know. However, I did have Alesis M1 Active MKII speakers connected to my computer though M-Audio Fast Track Pro years ago and I know that I did not like the performance and had issues with lack of volume. That’s the closest I have come to HiFi audio.
 
Last edited:
If you up your budget a bit, the JBL708P might be an option.

Or even the 705p. I have a pair and they aren’t slouches :)
 
You have been led astray by claims that have no basis in scientific fact. If you were to read a one or two page summary regarding sampling theory you would realize there's a good reason that CDs sound just fine using a 44.1 kHz sample rate.

Bit depth affects the dynamic range of reproduction. 16 bits provides 96 dB of dynamic range. 24 bits provides 144 dB. Background noise in a typical concert hall is around 30 dB, maybe 25 dB if super quiet, and often is higher. An orchestra may hit a peak of 108 dB, or 78 dB above background noise, which only requires 13 bits to resolve....at peak.

Let's take a look at the distortion graph Amir generated for the KH-150, which has been recommended above, and as noted--is excellent for something that could be called a bookshelf speaker.

View attachment 272788

The average level of 96 dB SPL at 1 meter, measured for one speaker, would increase for two speakers in stereo, but then decrease with distance to the listening position.

In any case, that would be a reasonable approximation for what people consider "loud" at non-peak levels.

This excellent performer is injecting distortion at 40 dB across much of the critical listening range (not even considering the level of distortion below 100 Hz.) That's junk at 56 dB below the level of music, or just 9-10 bits of resolution between real information and gibberish.

The value of using 24 bits in recording is that makes things much easier for a recording engineer to set levels so that a crescendo or an overly ambitious whack from a percussionist does not clip and require the take to be redone.

You also noted you desire "bit-perfect" reproduction. Are you planning on using any form of digital processing to tame any of the several large and unavoidable peaks in bass response that you cannot avoid? There's no way to do that and be "bit-perfect". Read up a bit on "Schroeder frequency" and you will learn that what you hear below 200 Hz or so is largely your room, not your speakers, and there's only so much you can do.

Your reply to the comment that you consider the Reference 3A speaker includes "Do you know if the precision and output of this speaker is similar to the KH-150?"

What do you mean by "precision"? Please keep in mind that you are asking for advice on Audio Science Review.
I'm pretty well-versed in several areas of science and data, just not in speakers. But absolutely, have I seen any hard evidence that high freq sampling makes a difference in human perception? No. And frankly, I didn't want to spend too much time going down this rabbit hole, so I thought going with a system that at least supports 24/96 would be a good safe compromise in case there is some truth to that.

Maybe this is a separate discussion, but to confirm, are you (and maybe ASR) stating that essentially there is no reason at all for audio to be beyond 44.1 kHz and 12 bits at the listening stage? I understand why audio engineers go above that, but we're only talking about the music consumption part. And if so, is the entire thing around SACDs, DSD, PCM, etc, just snake oil, essentially? If you have any scientific reviews at hand, I'd like to have some references on this for the future. I think I saw somewhere that people sometimes can't distinguish even between lossy and lossless files, but I always thought that's a function of the equipment and that with equipment on the higher end, it would be possible to distinguish that, as well as things like 96 kHz sampling differences.

And maybe there is a better word for it, but by "precision" I mean that if I did a blind test between hearing an actual violin or hearing a reproduction of that violin sound from the speaker, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Same goes for human voice. Musical genres like rock, techno, rap, they're fun to listen to, but accurate reproduction is not something I am concerned about, especially since a lot of the sounds there are generated electronically to begin with.
 
Last edited:
I am building my first system where I am going to stream music from my computer to a streamer (likely Bluesound Node) and connect it to the speakers both in my office and in another room.

One of my first dilemmas is getting high quality speakers that can reproduce 24/192 sound (or at least 24/96) with high fidelity, mostly classical music, including vocals, but also be capable of high volume output (current room size is 13.5 x 20.5 ft). I have been considering KEF LS50 II, but according to a review linked on this forum, that speaker might not have a high output. Review says it's 90dB max at 13ft (4m).

My question is what speakers can I get that produce both accurate sound and also have high output? I'd prefer active speakers, but can consider passive with an amp (don't have an amp currently). The budget is under $3000, but can go a bit higher if it will make a big difference. Also would prefer bookshelf rather than floor standing speakers.
I sympathize with your need. I have to drive an even larger space. Test data here and elsewhere are generally limited to 96 dB and compression data is no longer tested or provided. Amplifier power is cheap compared to speaker power. Standmount speakers seem designed for a small room, and most larger speakers also cannot handle large SPLs for distant listening at near-concert levels. A symphony orchestra can momentarily exceed 110 dB at the 4th row of the audience without breaking a sweat. A pair of typical hifi speakers making 96 dB at 1 meter will provide maybe 78 dB at 8 meters.

I'm not sure what to do. In my house, I must be satisfied with much less than live classical concert levels and quit crying about it. If I want concert levels, I don headphones.

[Here come the cryer/whiners predicting early deafness. Let them wonder why classical conductors can still hear long after retirement.]
 
I'm pretty well-versed in several areas of science and data, just not in speakers. But absolutely, have I seen any hard evidence that high freq sampling makes a difference in human perception? No. And frankly, I didn't want to spend too much time going this rabbit hole, so I thought going with a system that at least supports 24/96 would be a good compromise in case there is some truth to that.

Maybe this is a separate discussion, but to confirm, are you (and maybe ASR) stating that essentially there is no reason at all for audio to be beyond 44.1 kHz and 12 bits at the listening stage? I understand why audio engineers go above that, but we're only talking about music consumption. And if so, is the entire thing around SACDs, DSD, PCM, etc, just snake oil, essentially? If you have any scientific reviews at hand, I'd like to have some references on this for the future. I think I saw somewhere that people sometimes can't distinguish even between lossy and lossless files, but I always thought that's a function of the equipment and that with equipment on the higher end, it would be possible to distinguish that, as well as things like 96 kHz sampling differences.

Here's a quick read that references a paper from 2007. This has been well known for a long time. Unfortunately, as far as I know, the paper has only been available to AES members but has been quoted in audio media for the past 16 years.


As to your specific concern, here's screen grab from that piece:

1679157845880.png


Essentially...the original author of those paragraphs seems to "know" that high-resolution has to be better, and thus the 60 expert listeners in 554 double-blind trials must be wrong.

Sorry...but no. If SACD and DVD-Audio really did sound better, they would not have died out. And as I noted in the post above regarding speaker distortion, there's a good reason for that. Neither state of the art electronics, nor speakers, nor our ears can resolve 24 bits of audio.
 
... Sorry...but no. If SACD and DVD-Audio really did sound better, they would not have died out. And as I noted in the post above regarding speaker distortion, there's a good reason for that. Neither state of the art electronics, nor speakers, nor our ears can resolve 24 bits of audio.
There's much food for thought here. It's easy to understand why studios work in high res -- they must copy, recode, mess with, master, etc., all of which may diminish resolution. But, even just on the media playback end, our gear may take 24-bit audio, decode it, run it through several analog processes, amplify it to speaker level, and electromechanically couple it to air, then ear... each step of which takes away from the 24-bit precision.

How many 'bits' of resolution does this strip out? And, if the result goes much below 16 bits, can we hear it as 'not as good'?

Food for thought.
 
Here's a quick read that references a paper from 2007. This has been well known for a long time. Unfortunately, as far as I know, the paper has only been available to AES members but has been quoted in audio media for the past 16 years.


As to your specific concern, here's screen grab from that piece:

View attachment 272838

Essentially...the original author of those paragraphs seems to "know" that high-resolution has to be better, and thus the 60 expert listeners in 554 double-blind trials must be wrong.

Sorry...but no. If SACD and DVD-Audio really did sound better, they would not have died out. And as I noted in the post above regarding speaker distortion, there's a good reason for that. Neither state of the art electronics, nor speakers, nor our ears can resolve 24 bits of audio.
I was able to find that paper online. Seems to be a simple article with just 5 pages. I'll dive into it tonight. But if there are additional articles, let me know. I would be especially curious tests that combine some sort of scientific measurement, but I understand that using a microphone to assess quality of a samples music coming out of a speaker could have it's own challenges.

I thought SACD died because it was too hard to setup/adopt, especially compared to the ease of iPods and similar devices. By the same measure, DVDs are also dying because movies are going digital. However, in the digital realm, it seems that high sampled audio files are making a come back, if anything. This includes classical music where you can buy high resolution flac files.
 
It is possible that your requirements do not quite match your desires :)
For well-recorded classical music, you need a very wide dynamic range (DR) throughout the entire sound path, right from the recording itself. 24/192 or 24/96 or 24/44.1 all are not about sampling frequency only (192/96/44.1 etc). Hi-res is more about quality of record (in worst case of remastering) and dynamic range. Overcompression is a proven technique that improves the sound of medium quality tracts, that's why there are so many overcompressed records around.
For a number of reasons, I'm not the only one who thinks that speaker size and dynamic range are related and you shouldn't expect high dynamic range from small speakers. You will be able to listen to very loud, heavily compressed music on small speakers, that's a fact.
But this is not about high DR classical music and the desire to imitate a live orchestra.
You need something pretty special to fulfill your desire. I think it's something that includes the acoustic preparation of the room, and large speakers with high sensitivity and a very fast amplifier.
 
Here's a quick read that references a paper from 2007. This has been well known for a long time. Unfortunately, as far as I know, the paper has only been available to AES members but has been quoted in audio media for the past 16 years.


As to your specific concern, here's screen grab from that piece:

View attachment 272838

Essentially...the original author of those paragraphs seems to "know" that high-resolution has to be better, and thus the 60 expert listeners in 554 double-blind trials must be wrong.

Sorry...but no. If SACD and DVD-Audio really did sound better, they would not have died out. And as I noted in the post above regarding speaker distortion, there's a good reason for that. Neither state of the art electronics, nor speakers, nor our ears can resolve 24 bits of audio.

I would like to point you towards Amir's rebuttal of that 2007 study by Meyer and Moran. Specifically:

1. Meyer and Moran failed to test their source material to see if they indeed had spectrum that would be captured by higher sampling rates of SACD/DVD-A. Some of the titles they used were actually upsampled CD masters so they were one in the same when converted down to 16/44.1. This is a very basic mistake. Every test of this sort must include verification of the assumptions. Namely that the content being used is what it is thought to be. That they did not see fit to do so casts a very dark shadow on the quality of this test.

2. They do not provide any measurements that demonstrate that the CD-ROM recorder used as a poor man’s sample and bit depth converter to 16/44.1, actually performed that assumed function. The Journal report does not even mention what that equipment was. Later online posting revealed that it was an HBB CD-ROM recorder as I have noted in Figure 1. The manual for that unit fails to say anything at all about the monitoring loop that was used in the test for down conversion. It is possible that it is an analog pass-through path and hence no conversion to 16/44.1 occurred. The authors insist that they had measurements that proved otherwise but none are provided for review in the paper or online. This is no way to perform a “scientific study.” All important assumptions need to be verified and documented. Next to content itself being high resolution, nothing is more important than showing the response of this down conversion being that of 16/44.1 KHz.

3. There were no controls. Industry and research best practices and international standards such as ITU-R BS1116 require that there be controls that are used to verify proper operation of the test harness. What is a control? It is a stimulus with a known outcome. An example in this scenario would be down sampling all the way down to 22 KHz with the bandwidth extending to only 11 KHz. If the listeners still report random results, then we know something is wrong. Maybe the connections to the ABX switchbox are mis-wired. Or data gathering. Humans make mistakes and we need ways to catch those mistakes.

4. Another important use of controls is screening out testers who do not possess critical listening abilities for the test in question. If our test fixture is correct but listener still votes randomly, we must eliminate them from the listening panel. Having these testers participate still would serve to dilute the results. And is a sure way to get "no better than chance" outcome since that is precisely what these non-critical listeners do.

The above is an example of a statistical concept called the Simpson’s Paradox. It says that improper summation of a group of results can create false conclusions Here, it matters not that one hundred people could not hear the difference, if five could. If those five reliably found a difference then we know the difference is there. Mixing the other one hundred in there will only serve to generate incorrect data, not strengthen it.

5. Meyer and Moran tests was performed using multiple sets of playback hardware, content and source equipment. These make for different tests whose outcomes cannot be combined into one statistic. This violates basic principles of statistics. This failing was raised in a letter to the Journal of AES by Dr. Dranove. Meyer and Moran respond by accepting the criticism in their response

@excelsius: if I were you, I would not worry about hi-res audio for the time being. You can worry about it later. As you can see from the debate in your thread, hi-res audio is a bit like a religion. There are those who believe in it without evidence, and then there are also those who don't believe in it on theoretical grounds that we can't hear the difference. Neither side has been supported by decent blind testing, so the jury is still out. The only way is to do a blind test yourself and see if you can pick it. When I still had SACD capability on my system, I could hear a difference - some SACD's clearly sounded better than the RBCD layer, but with some other SACD's there was no difference. In hindsight that was probably because some SACD's were mastered better.

There is one thing that everyone on ASR believes in. Even subjectivists on other forums agree. Compared to speakers and rooms, whether or not you use hi-res audio makes a miniscule difference. What all these guys are arguing about is whether it makes a miniscule difference or no difference. A complete waste of time in my opinion. My advice is to focus on getting the best speakers you can, and think about where you are going to put it in your room.
 
Last edited:
I would like to point you towards Amir's rebuttal of that 2007 study by Meyer and Moran. Specifically:

Oh, I am well aware about that rebuttal, and yes, it does raise valid concerns about the methodology of some of those studies. I still hold that given how digital audio works, that 24 bits doesn't present any advantage given the limitations of electronic, speakers, and our ears. Those lower order bits are all lost in noise, if they are even used at all.
 
By the same measure, DVDs are also dying because movies are going digital. However, in the digital realm, it seems that high sampled audio files are making a come back, if anything. This includes classical music where you can buy high resolution flac files.

I was not referring to DVDs, but rather DVD-Audio, the high-resolution PCM format that competed with SACD, the high-resolution DSD format.
 
It is possible that your requirements do not quite match your desires :)
For well-recorded classical music, you need a very wide dynamic range (DR) throughout the entire sound path, right from the recording itself. 24/192 or 24/96 or 24/44.1 all are not about sampling frequency only (192/96/44.1 etc). Hi-res is more about quality of record (in worst case of remastering) and dynamic range. Overcompression is a proven technique that improves the sound of medium quality tracts, that's why there are so many overcompressed records around.
For a number of reasons, I'm not the only one who thinks that speaker size and dynamic range are related and you shouldn't expect high dynamic range from small speakers. You will be able to listen to very loud, heavily compressed music on small speakers, that's a fact.
But this is not about high DR classical music and the desire to imitate a live orchestra.
You need something pretty special to fulfill your desire. I think it's something that includes the acoustic preparation of the room, and large speakers with high sensitivity and a very fast amplifier.
Maybe so. What is your thought on the recommended KH-150 here? Also, can you give examples of some speakers that you think would capture the dynamic range better? If the speakers are very large, expensive, and require a lot of additional parts (fast amplifier, which is a new term for me), then maybe I just have to settle with second best for now
 
I was not referring to DVDs, but rather DVD-Audio, the high-resolution PCM format that competed with SACD, the high-resolution DSD format.
I understand. That was a parallel example about how disappearing media (DVDs, or even blu-rays) do not necessarily say anything about the quality of that media but are more related to convenience, such as ipods replacing CDs (and SACDs).
 
When I still had SACD capability on my system, I could hear a difference - some SACD's clearly sounded better than the RBCD layer, but with some other SACD's there was no difference. In hindsight that was probably because some SACD's were mastered better.

There is one thing that everyone on ASR believes in. Even subjectivists on other forums agree. Compared to speakers and rooms, whether or not you use hi-res audio makes a miniscule difference. What all these guys are arguing about is whether it makes a miniscule difference or no difference. A complete waste of time in my opinion. My advice is to focus on getting the best speakers you can, and think about where you are going to put it in your room.

Do you recall the kerfuffle over the hybrid SACD of Norah Jones' original album? Analysis of the frequency response showed the SACD was remastered from a 16 bit/44.1 k master. I suspect that was not the only one like that, yet there were all sorts of people singing the praises of those discs.
 
Given the site @mj30250 pointed out (which seems like a legit site), I could certainly just order the KH-150 and be done. I'll wait a bit more to get some more feedback here before pulling the trigger.

Would be really curious to hear people's experiences here who have heard KH-150 and know personally how it compares to other speakers, with pros/cons and the off-axis performance given that I don't plan to be listening in specific sweet spots.

Also, the KH-150 also has the MA-1 monitor alignment device. Is this a worthy addition?

Would appreciate any adjustable height stand recommendations as well for the KH-150 or similar speakers.
 
I have searched the subject for years,I even came up with a number as what it takes to fill a room with nice classical music (that's my gender too) and it's about 300-500$ per m³ all included and the variation has to do with aesthetics,headroom,etc.

No ordinary bookself will give you what you want at 4 meters,it won't even at 3 meters.You need physical size or very clever DSP to deal with it.

At the end it's about compromises but the one thing you need to obtain and secure is nice wide soundstage without holes and an even (as much as the room permits) response down to 30Hz.

I hate to disappoint you but you either have to look at the used market or up your budget.
 
I am building my first system where I am going to stream music from my computer to a streamer (likely Bluesound Node) and connect it to the speakers both in my office and in another room.

One of my first dilemmas is getting high quality speakers that can reproduce 24/192 sound (or at least 24/96) with high fidelity, mostly classical music, including vocals, but also be capable of high volume output (current room size is 13.5 x 20.5 ft). I have been considering KEF LS50 II, but according to a review linked on this forum, that speaker might not have a high output. Review says it's 90dB max at 13ft (4m).

My question is what speakers can I get that produce both accurate sound and also have high output? I'd prefer active speakers, but can consider passive with an amp (don't have an amp currently). The budget is under $3000, but can go a bit higher if it will make a big difference. Also would prefer bookshelf rather than floor standing speakers.
Maybe it would help to know if you are listening to full symphony works or something more sedate, like baroque.
 
Back
Top Bottom