Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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!
Independent of cost, aesthetics, built quality, size, customer service/after sale support and brand reputation.
For a pair of stereo loudspeaker.
It already has excellent linear tonal balance and controlled directivity. I am making the assumption that on ASR, most members would put linear tonal balance and controlled directivity as their number one priority, that's why I took it out of the equation.
Assume all other options above that you won't be selecting aren't egregiously awful.
If you think the poll question and options are flaw, not applicable to you or does not have the option you want, comment below.
Where's the "all of the above" choice? I don't think I would spend real money (more than a couple hundred) for a pair of speakers that lacked any one of those attributes. I might be able to identify sensitivity as my lowest priority on that list, but I'd pass any any speaker that, for example, distorted heavily when played really loudly, which possibly goes hand in hand with low sensitivity.
Of course, that's for my main system. For a desktop system, I might be able to pass up a few of the attributes (such as power handling), but I still don't think I could narrow it down to one that I require above all else.
Where's the "all of the above" choice? I don't think I would spend real money (more than a couple hundred) for a pair of speakers that lacked any one of those attributes.
Minimally, I would look for speakers with THD/IMD/whatever-D < -40dB from 100Hz to 10kHz @ 95dBSPL
Ideally: < -50dB from 100Hz to 10kHz @ 95dBSPL
Wishful thinking: < -60dB from 100Hz to 10kHz @ 95dBSPL (I suspect such speakers do not yet exist ... happy to be corrected ...)
ALL OF THEM - as currently and even with the more advanced tech being used more and more, a good loudspeaker is a very considered mix of all the properties in the list in my opinion.
ALL OF THEM - as currently and even with the more advanced tech being used more and more, a good loudspeaker is a very considered mix of all the properties in the list in my opinion.
1. Independent of cost, aesthetics, built quality, size, customer service/after sale support and brand reputation.
3. It already has excellent linear tonal balance and controlled directivity. I am making the assumption that on ASR, most members would put linear tonal balance and controlled directivity as their number one priority, that's why I took it out of the equation.
Most voted for spatial so far, and I would have too, if the question was after the least important charcteristics. For sure it is only a coincidence, that the winning charcteristic is one that can't be measured, and can only be appreciated as a single person (at a time), and is to some elevated degree for sure not a feature of the speaker alone in uncontrolled environment.
If I assume all the things you say I should assume, then I really don't care as much.
The speakers on the market that fulfill your assumptions for linearity and directivity aren't exactly thick on the ground. Deficiencies abound.
But what made me select the speakers I bought over others that might have been good choices was their ability to make very loud sounds at low distortion or compression without undermining other attributes.
Rick "who had a specific use case for that" Denney
If I assume all the things you say I should assume, then I really don't care as much.
The speakers on the market that fulfill your assumptions for linearity and directivity aren't exactly thick on the ground. Deficiencies abound.
But what made me select the speakers I bought over others that might have been good choices was their ability to make very loud sounds at low distortion or compression without undermining other attributes.
Rick "who had a specific use case for that" Denney
All options aren't great and may not even be good. They are just not egregious awful. The purpose of the poll is trying to figure out what is most important to people, aside from linearity and controlled directivity.
But subs are no substitute for genuine full-range main speakers. They will likely be of a different brand with a different "house sound", will almost certainly need DSP to get them matched with main speakers, will take up more valuable floor space and add to room "clutter", and are in essence a compromise and an unsatisfactory solution to a problem caused by an inappropriate purchase of inadequate main speakers. Have I missed anything?
Independent of cost, aesthetics, built quality, size, customer service/after sale support and brand reputation.
For a pair of stereo loudspeaker.
It already has excellent linear tonal balance and controlled directivity. I am making the assumption that on ASR, most members would put linear tonal balance and controlled directivity as their number one priority, that's why I took it out of the equation.
Assume all other options above that you won't be selecting aren't egregiously awful.
If you think the poll question and options are flaw, not applicable to you or does not have the option you want, comment below.
I'm pleased to see "Measured Linearity" is not one of the poll options. With speakers in particular, this is of far less importance than many of the other attributes that are needed for music to be reproduced in a life-like and exciting manner. Perhaps that's a little controversial on this site!
Firstly, a flat on-axis frequency response. That sets the overall character of the loudspeaker.
Secondly, low mid-range distortion and bass extension.
Accurate pair-matching as that defines how well the loudspeakers will image.
I really don't concern myself with sensitivity as power is cheap, and anyway, I would only consider buying active loudspeakers, so the sensitivity issue would pretty much go away.
I don't understand the term 'controlled directivity'. I would expect any loudspeaker to have wide dispersion, that progressively narrows at higher frequencies but slowly so it's still wide enough at HF.
I also don't concern myself over much with maximum SPL, as all loudspeakers go quite loud enough for me.
But subs are no substitute for genuine full-range main speakers. They will likely be of a different brand with a different "house sound", will almost certainly need DSP to get them matched with main speakers, will take up more valuable floor space and add to room "clutter", and are in essence a compromise and an unsatisfactory solution to a problem caused by an inappropriate purchase of inadequate main speakers. Have I missed anything?
You've missed defining what a "house sound" means relative to bass. I have never see any indication that matching brands between subwoofers and mains offers any audible advantages whatsoever, with the exception of active systems with their own internal DSP/bass alignment (Genelec GLM, for example).
Also, the most capable full-range speakers on the planet won't help you to address a difficult room (which encompasses the majority of domestic spaces) where the best positions for bass are rarely shared by the best positions for stereo speakers. Discrete bass sources can absolutely address this. To rely on full-range mains is much more often a "compromise" than the opposite.
But yes, you will need placement flexibility, a means to properly integrate them, and an understanding significant other (if applicable) for subwoofers to work well. Not everyone possesses the above, but happily I do.
