What do you look for the most in stereo loud speakers?

[respice finem]

...in modern day speaker with the available cheap amplification, sensitivity is of very little concern.

Or even no concern at all if you have only active speakers like I do.

 

[Sal1950]

I've been remixing multitrack stems for personal enjoyment in my DAW. Recently I made a stripped-down version of Nirvana – In Bloom. I removed the wall-of-sound compression (for a better expression ) focused on drums ( Toms kick drum minimale highats) bass, Curts voice, and mixed everything in mono — no panning, no polish, just intimacy and balance. It’s far from the original, but it resonates more with me.

Forgive me for my senior and drug damaged memory, but who do you know that you have access to Nirvana's multitrack stems ???

 

[Sal1950]

But I am glad that people realized that in modern day speaker with the available cheap amplification, sensitivity is of very little concern.

I'd never put it at the top of my concerns but it is something I would-do pay attention to.
It can often tell you something about a speakers capabilities in max spl, distortion, and some of those debatable qualities that
high sensitivity horns bring to the table. I'd definitely pass on some of those old school, low 80s, acoustic suspension type designs
just as a matter of course.
YMMV

 

[Snarfie]

Forgive me for my senior and drug damaged memory, but who do you know that you have access to Nirvana's multitrack stems ???

With a bit of Search you can find them quite easy. Regarding Nirvana voice & instrument consist of 14 individual tracks/instruments voices. Look for .ogg .mogg stems files or simply mutitrack(s). For instance most songs of the beatles are available. I guess some of them are original most of them not still quality is not bad. However to mix it quite some knoledge is needed using a DAW like Protools Ableton... A .mogg file is easy to load into Audacity atleast to listen to the seperate tracks.

 

[kemmler3D]

I am glad that people realized that in modern day speaker with the available cheap amplification, sensitivity is of very little concern.

I know I keep picking on the survey choices, don't take it personally, I know how hard it is to design a survey that covers everyone's thoughts in advance...

But to this end maybe Max SPL would have been a better choice or possibly a good additional option. You're right that it's not hard to drive most speakers to their limit these days, but anecdotally I think people who care about sensitivity are really looking for a high peak output.

 

[Duke]

What we can't do, however, is separately equalize the off-axis response differently than the on-axis response, and yet that will be determinative in small rooms.

Well maybe not with conventional speakers, but there is at least one unconventional topology which enables adjustments to the off-axis sound independent of the direct sound. And imo this can be particularly beneficial in small rooms.

My conclusion is that flat on-axis response, which above the Schroder frequency can be achieve using EQ, is a requirement for fidelity. But so also is producing relatively flat frequency response curves off-axis, even with the spectral tilt that comes from beaming, and that is not something a lot of speakers achieve successfully.

What you described here is apparently the "gold standard" for conventional speakers.

The off-axis performance may have a bigger effect than the on-axis performance in a lot of rooms, if it is sufficiently different from the on-axis sound.

Looking at it from a different angle: Ime there is benefit from minimizing the spectral discrepancy between the on-axis and off-axis sound, but apparently this is a minority opinion at best.

Rick "there's more to fidelity than just flat response on axis" Denney

I'm guessing your parents were early adopters of Dr. Toole's teachings... ?

 

[rdenney]

I'm guessing your parents were early adopters of Dr. Toole's teachings...

¿Que?

My parents are (or were) older than Floyd Toole, long may he live.

And the only reason they ever owned an actual stereo is because I bought one for them after I was an adult. The closest Dad came to a stereo was a bottom-line Realistic reel-to-reel tape recorder, the kind with speakers that hinged together to form the lid.

Or am I missing a joke? (All too likely.)

Actually, the broadcast engineer/sound technician that I apprenticed with adopted Toole's teachings long before either one of us knew who he was beyond a name mentioned occasionally in magazines. When we designed PA systems for churches, the pattern of the speakers was significantly more important than just about any other feature, and it dictated how well the speakers would help us solve the problem of reinforcing the sound without doing so audibly. The problems of a large church space are different but the philosophy is the same--fill the space with consistent sound.

But what do I know? I love my Revels, but I also still like my Advents. Amir had little good to say about those when he tested a pair.

I've never listened to true omnidirectional speakers in a small room, so I can't judge one way or the other with respect to the spectral tilt of off-axis sound. But I think it matters that the off-axis sound has the same general timbre as the on-axis sound, and does not have a big suckout or some substantial hump that calls more attention to the reflected sound than the direct sound. But I don't really find myself quite as happy with the general downward tilt of the "in-room" sum as the preference testing seems to indicate, though I emphasize that that is an outcome not a target. When my systems have measured more horizontal in-room, they've sound good to me.

Rick "not that picky" Denney

 

[RayDunzl]

What did I look for?

Low distortion (harmonic, IMD, resonance of any kind, etc.) - Low enough, and no box on mine above 180hz
Power handling, ability to get stupid loud without blowing up - I can do that. 700W/4Ohm powers them.
Sensitivity - They're sensitive enough.
Spatial performance (soundstage, imaging, depth localization, holography, etc.) - Got all that in the sweet spot.
Bass extension - 23 Hz spec'd, they still fill the graph lower than that.
Driver compression performance - no compression measured, didn't go above 100dB at the listening position, though.
Impedance and ease on amp - They go down between 1 and 2 ohms at the highest end, doesn't matter.
Ease and flexibility of room placement - Hasn't been a problem. WAF not an issue.

Bought in 1998, never looked back or went shopping again. I might try something a little hornier if these ever fail.

The one on the left, but with black rails.

I like them. Others may or may not.

 

[Duke]

¿Que?

I was joking about your middle name, "there's more to fidelity than just flat response on axis", being something Floyd Toole would approve of. And yeah I know it's not your real middle name, and not even your only middle name.

Sometimes I even skip ahead to see how you signed off, in order to get a quick synopsis of your post.

 

[Arindal]

To me, a disconnected reverberation tail is how someone might describe a lot of ringing in the bass but very little in the higher bands. I call it boomy bass.

Bass bands offering a somewhat slower decay hence boomy bass, while midrange and treble sound dryer and ´faster´, is surely one of the pretty common flaws directly connected to an unwanted step or increase in directivity index. I find it most annoying when the frequency bands below approx 300Hz sound boomy, delayed or slower decaying, compared to midragen.

It is not the same phenomenon, though, I would prescribe as ´disconnected´, ´detached´ or ´dull colorated´ reverb. These are all associated with increasing directivity index or a step up in directivity above 800Hz, mostly somewhere in the 1...5K bands. Easy to notice with step up at 2K.

When we designed PA systems for churches, the pattern of the speakers was significantly more important than just about any other feature, and it dictated how well the speakers would help us solve the problem of reinforcing the sound without doing so audibly. The problems of a large church space are different but the philosophy is the same--fill the space with consistent sound.

Absolutely agree, have come to the very some conclusion over the years. That said, directivity is not as audible in a dedicated nearfield setup or in well-treated rooms with lots of absorption particularly in the midrange bands.

What I also noticed is that frequency response consistency over a narrow window of angles is important as these phenomena might get audible either via the size of your head, or reflections/diffraction effects of nearby surfaces/objects like floor, ceiling or mixing console.

 

[Jim Creek]

I still don't really think "imaging" is a great choice for "attribute of a speaker" because it's not a definite, measurable characteristic of one, and it depends a great deal on the room. Beamwidth, DI slope, cardioid, smoothness of dispersion, etc. - all things we can seek out directly that affect imaging, but not imaging itself.

I do think it’s a great choice for a speaker attribute. Whether or not it is measurable I don’t know. But I recognize it when I hear it.

 

[kemmler3D]

I do think it’s a great choice for a speaker attribute. Whether or not it is measurable I don’t know. But I recognize it when I hear it.

Yes, but this is basically my point. You can only hear it, you can't measure it directly, you can't see it (per se) on a spec sheet or even in Amir's measurements... so although it's clearly something most of us seek out, it's hard to know which speakers have it and which don't without hearing the speaker.

It would be interesting to see which attributes of dispersion / FR people believe contribute most to "imaging". Maybe a good subject for a second poll.

 

[Sal1950]

Yes, but this is basically my point. You can only hear it, you can't measure it directly, you can't see it (per se) on a spec sheet or even in Amir's measurements... so although it's clearly something most of us seek out, it's hard to know which speakers have it and which don't without hearing the speaker.

It would be interesting to see which attributes of dispersion / FR people believe contribute most to "imaging". Maybe a good subject for a second poll.

People talk like imaging isn't measurable, it is, just not something that can be presented in a single number or two.
How a system images is a complicated combination of just about everything we do know how to measure including how the
owner positions them, his room acoustics and even more.
What's more to the point is IT'S NOT MAGIC

 

[kemmler3D]

People talk like imaging isn't measurable, it is, just not something that can be presented in a single number or two.
How a system images is a complicated combination of just about everything we do know how to measure including how the
owner positions them, his room acoustics and even more.
What's more to the point is IT'S NOT MAGIC

Right, agree, but it is a criteria for buying a speaker the way "driving experience" is a criteria for buying a car. It's not very specific, a lot of more specific, measurable things go into it.

 

[boxerfan88]

It would be interesting to see which attributes of dispersion / FR people believe contribute most to "imaging". Maybe a good subject for a second poll.

My personal opinion:
* how well matched are LR speakers (0.5dB?)
* how symmetrical is the room
* how symmetrical is the system layout to MLP

 

[kemmler3D]

My personal opinion:
* how well matched are LR speakers (0.5dB?)
* how symmetrical is the room
* how symmetrical is the system layout to MLP

And width of dispersion, smoothness of DI, steepness of DI, how reflective the room is, overall tonal balance in upper mids / treble, etc...

Like I said, probably a subject for a whole poll unto itself.

 

[Sal1950]

My personal opinion:
* how well matched are LR speakers (0.5dB?)
* how symmetrical is the room
* how symmetrical is the system layout to MLP

The last 2 are probably equally if not more important than, any one particular speaker design.

 

[Jim Creek]

My personal opinion:
* how well matched are LR speakers (0.5dB?)
* how symmetrical is the room
* how symmetrical is the system layout to MLP

I am lucky that I sit dead center between my speakers. The speakers are not ideally placed though. They are ~8’ apart centered along the long wall on either side of a fireplace. My room is a 15x24 rectangle but furniture is scattered randomly Not sure how well the LR speakers are matched. Despite all that my Silver 100s image quite strongly.

 

[Mart68]

Alternative Take: What Do You Look for the Most in a Song/Track — Not Just the Loudspeakers?

Probably a bit off topic

The original question asks what we value most in stereo loudspeakers — but that got me thinking: shouldn't we also ask what we value most in the music itself?

After all, the way a track is mixed and mastered determines how reverb, imaging, dynamics, and overall tone are "locked in" — regardless of what speakers you play it through. We’re listening to a finished product shaped by the creative and technical decisions of the mix engineer.

So maybe the more revealing question is:

"What do you look for the most in a song or track — instead of just in loudspeakers?"

For example, I've been remixing multitrack stems for personal enjoyment in my DAW. Recently I made a stripped-down version of Nirvana – In Bloom. I removed the wall-of-sound compression (for a better expression ) focused on drums ( Toms kick drum minimale highats) bass, Curts voice, and mixed everything in mono — no panning, no polish, just intimacy and balance. It’s far from the original, but it resonates more with me.

This leads me to wonder: how long before AI can remix or even produce music entirely based on our individual preferences? What would that mean for listening culture — and for how we evaluate playback gear so for instance you have monitors that lack some bass you can individually enhance that in the bass track. Basicly the possibilities are endless.

Curious to hear how others approach this — do you think more about the sound system, or the sound design of the music itself?

Can only speak for myself but I take the recording as a given - no matter what issues it has, even if they are accidental or down to too many drugs or whatever, it's all intrinsic to the art, to what comes out at the end.

Nirvana used wall of sound compression? Fine by me, leave it in. Change it and you create something new - No law against that. Just not what I'm after. I avoid remixes and remasters of old recordings for the same reason.

 

[Heinrich]

And width of dispersion, smoothness of DI, steepness of DI, how reflective the room is, overall tonal balance in upper mids / treble, etc...

Like I said, probably a subject for a whole poll unto itself.

That would be it. What RT30 decay times people live with, spectral distribution, symmetry. We don't see such as often as we should. Wide versus narrow DI in which environment and listening habits: casual or formal? I can't dare to ask for that sort of self-reflection. Let's talk about the speakers.