What makes a speaker detailed?

[Eetu]

Detail retrieval. Micro-detail. Resolution. Resolvability.

What makes one speaker more resolving than another (assuming the same source/dac/amplification/listening position). A frequency response without dips? Surely there's more to it. How can it be measured and quantified? And do speakers with narrow directivity always sound more detailed than wide-directivity speakers?

Share your thoughts, please

 

[March Audio]

Detail retrieval. Micro-detail. Resolution. Resolvability.

What makes one speaker more resolving than another (assuming the same source/dac/amplification/listening position). A frequency response without dips? Surely there's more to it. How can it be measured and quantified? And do speakers with narrow directivity always sound more detailed than wide-directivity speakers?

Share your thoughts, please

Need to be careful here. What some people perceive as "detailed" may simply be as an accentuation of high frequencies. This may not be accurate, but may well give the impression of detail. But yes, a flat response that doesnt over or under emphasise certain frequencies is bound to provide most over all detail.

Low distortion will help along with low contribution from cabinet.

In my experience FWIW narrow directivity does not sound more detailed. This will especially be the case if you listen off axis.

 

[Koeitje]

Group delay has an impact for the lower end.

 

[Doodski]

Power to weight/mass ratio.

 

[Eetu]

Need to be careful here. What some people perceive as "detailed" may simply be as simple as an accentuation of high frequencies. This may not be accurate, but may well give the impression of detail.

Low distortion may well help along with low contribution from cabinet.

In my experience FWIW narrow directivity does not sound more detailed. This will especially be the case if you listen off axis.

Good points!

Yes, definitely. That's probably one of the reasons why the Klipsch sound is so popular. Accentuated highs.

I meant when listening on-axis/fixed listening position. Because of the ratio of direct vs reflected sound.

 

[Doodski]

That's probably one of the reasons why the Klipsch sound is so popular.

The only song I ever found to sound really enticing on Klipsch Cornerhorns was Streetheart - Snow White.
The tambourine is realllly snappy sounding and enhanced.

 

[QMuse]

Group delay has an impact for the lower end.

No, it doesn't, as reflections are causing GD to be all over the place. If you have ever measured it you would know.

And please let us not repeat discussion about audibility of the time-domain stuff for the 1587th time.

 

[tuga]

Detail retrieval. Micro-detail. Resolution. Resolvability.

What makes one speaker more resolving than another (assuming the same source/dac/amplification/listening position). A frequency response without dips? Surely there's more to it. How can it be measured and quantified? And do speakers with narrow directivity always sound more detailed than wide-directivity speakers?

Share your thoughts, please

High-resolution speaker is a narrow-dispersion (which determines room interaction) speaker with a flat on- and off-axis frequency response that is able to reproduce the low-level information registered in the audio signal.
My (anecdotal) listening experience leads me to conclude that "hard" cones and domes tend to do better in terms of detail retrieval, as does the sealed-cabinet topology.

As @March Audio said above, there is a difference between real detail retrieval ability and perceived resolution.
@John Atkinson often makes not of how a breakup resonance in the presence region may produce a perceptual enhancement of detail and the same is true for a frequency response peak in that region.
Pro audio sources refer to the the 4-6kHz band as being responsible for "clarity"/"definition" in a mix for that reason.

Have a play with Audacity.

 

[tuga]

Need to be careful here. What some people perceive as "detailed" may simply be as simple as an accentuation of high frequencies. This may not be accurate, but may well give the impression of detail. But yes, a flat response that doesnt over or under emphasise certain frequencies is bound to provide most over all detail.

Low distortion may well help along with low contribution from cabinet.

In my experience FWIW narrow directivity does not sound more detailed. This will especially be the case if you listen off axis.

I agree with what you've written.

I would just like to add that one should listen on-axis, which makes last your point moot.

 

[Koeitje]

No, it doesn't, as reflections are causing GD to be all over the place. If you have ever measured it you would know.

And please let us not repeat discussion about audibility of the time-domain stuff for the 1587th time.

Then the answers to OP's question is: the room.

 

[QMuse]

Then the answers to OP's question is: the room.

No. Some early reflections can come handy even for better speech recognition. @March Audio pretty much explained all there is to it in his post above.

 

[tuga]

Some early reflections can come handy even for better speech recognition.

Stereo-reproduced speech?

 

[Mnyb]

Setup is important wider dispersion speaker can sound good to but they are more room dependent , mine does but they are not realy of the modern controlled directivity kind the treble does have a short horn/waveguide on the Meridian speakers for acustic reasons. But modern research have us to use larger better waveguides .
They always been detailed , but as i noticed when i moved lately my new room is more damped or difracts better ? Then the stereo image precision increased dramatically still as detailed but now everything snapps in to place in 3d .
Good cabinets low distorsion well executed xover and enough power ? could also be factors . I have active DSP speakers so some trickery is done I think (in a good way )

 

[tuga]

Setup is important wider dispersion speaker can sound good to but they are more room dependent

Sound good is subjective (in the ear of the beholder).
The performance of wide-dispersion speakers is indeed more room-dependent, thus making it less predictable.

 

[QMuse]

No. Some early reflections can come handy even for better speech recognition. @March Audio pretty much explained all there is to it in his post above.

EDIT: you are actually correct with room: loudspeakers and room are a single acoustic instrument so room is equally important in terms of decay, reverb etc. Using room EQ is of utter most importance to put those two in harmonic relationship which will produce linear response at your LP.

 

[Mnyb]

Sound good is subjective (in the ear of the beholder).
The performance of wide-dispersion speakers is indeed more room-dependent, thus making it less predictable.

Hence why I'm intrigued by the reaserch into controlled directivity speakers Dutch&Dutch JBL/Revel/Buchart waveguides et all .
The goal is often to make the impact of the listening room more predictable .
As it has been shown the FR at angles should be very similar to on axis and no abrupt discrepencies in this around xover points for example ? I do not know the exact technical terms but are watching the speaker measurment treads closely .

I would add dynamic headroom as good thing to have , pushing speaker to the limit can never be a good thing , that dynamic headroom should include the whole spectrum IE subwoofer is a must to offload the mains speakers if they are not very large and you listen at very low levels.

 

[Eetu]

Good stuff here, keep it coming!

Power to weight/mass ratio.

Care to elaborate? Enough speaker weight (/coupling) for desired SPL? Or headroom/power for drivers? Yeah, probably both.

how a breakup resonance in the presence region may produce a perceptual enhancement of detail and the same is true for a frequency response peak in that region.

Meaning a smooth, well-designed woofer-tweeter hand-off? Makes sense.
EDIT: oh you obviously meant cone breakup, got it.

 

[Doodski]

Care to elaborate? Enough speaker weight (/coupling) for desired SPL? Or headroom/power for drivers? Yeah, probably both.

I was thinking along the terms of a light weight driver assembly and a powerful magnet coil assembly with all the various design types used. Sounds pretty basic but including all the physics calculations it gets pretty interesting and complicated and difficult to machine reliably en mass. Beyond the scope of my training/education but I appreciate what is involved.

 

[tuga]

Meaning a smooth, well-designed woofer-tweeter hand-off? Makes sense.
EDIT: oh you obviously meant cone breakup, got it.

One could say that they're related.

 

[tuga]

I would add dynamic headroom as good thing to have

I think that a lot of stress is put into maximum SPL capabilities and not enough attention is given to low-level information retrieval. Turn down your speakers whilst playing a symphony: does it still sound coherent or more like a "mash"?
I wonder if there are effective ways to measure this.