Which speakers are the Classical Music Pros using?

[KA7NIQ]

Personally knowing many musicians (both classical and not), they prefer to spend their money on more musical instruments or music making accessories (especially guitarists and drummers!!) and not new speakers unless there's something seriously wrong (speakers are broken). I think part of the "audiophile experience" is this constant need to buy a "better" speaker when the one we had would satisfy 99.9% of the listening public.

I totally agree! Nearly all of my Musician friends do not have anywhere near the quantity or the quality of speakers that I do. One of them still has his ancient NHT Super Ones, or maybe they are NHT Super Zero's. He has them because he read something years ago on some forum that some "Guru" suggested them as a great performing low cost speaker. He told me that years ago he did a Google Search for a "great performing low cost speaker" and the thread about the NHT's popped up, he found them on sale, and he bought them. End of story. He powers them with an ancient Harman Kardon receiver, and does have a small Subwoofer. He is totally happy with his system. I sent him a link to this forum, explaining to him that there are 'New Guru's' now, and perhaps he should consider upgrading ? He read this forum, then he told me to get the hell out of here!
Seriously!

 

[Newman]

Classical musicians in particular can go into great debt to obtain a pretty wildly expensive instrument, all with a somewhat modest income.

 

[Newman]

Good to see Dr Toole has stood up for himself in face of some pretty ordinary accusations.

Perhaps it’s time for the OP to out himself in terms of his personal biases for classical music speakers. What does he own past and present and what does he aspire to. Not for no reason is he standing up for B&W (surely he can’t believe his own rhetoric that “so many classical studios use them so they must be the best” — that’s the old “ten people like pop for every one who likes classical so it must be more interesting” illogic) and for dipoles. It is more likely that he has been the pot calling the kettle black, in terms of claiming others have motivations. Apologies if the OP has already done so.

 

[Newman]

The only arrangement that made a meaningful difference was that which addressed the side wall reflection. Preferences settled into a pattern in which classical music was generally preferred with wall uncovered, seemingly expanding the soundstage in a "natural" way. Most popular music was also approved of in this condition, but there were some listeners who preferred having the side wall damped - yielding a "tighter soundstage". Having the ability to choose quickly and easily had enough appeal to one of the listeners that he implemented it at his home. It beats building the feature into the loudspeaker, which is fixed for life.

I know I am repeating myself, but we are putting so much energy (and dragging Dr Toole into it) into discussing things that are only applicable to 2-or-less speaker playback. Talk about living in the past!

A decent upmixer and a few surround channels and this discussion goes away.

 

[MarkS]

I totally agree! Nearly all of my Musician friends do not have anywhere near the quantity or the quality of speakers that I do.

Sound quality is irrelevant to many musicians. They hear the music, not the sound.

 

[KA7NIQ]

Sound quality is irrelevant to many musicians. They hear the music, not the sound.

Maybe ? I have heard that Musicians are capable of creating music in their minds, when they listen to less than stellar performing speakers.

 

[tuga]

Good to see Dr Toole has stood up for himself in face of some pretty ordinary accusations.

Perhaps it’s time for the OP to out himself in terms of his personal biases for classical music speakers. What does he own past and present and what does he aspire to. Not for no reason is he standing up for B&W (surely he can’t believe his own rhetoric that “so many classical studios use them so they must be the best” — that’s the old “ten people like pop for every one who likes classical so it must be more interesting” illogic) and for dipoles. It is more likely that he has been the pot calling the kettle black, in terms of claiming others have motivations. Apologies if the OP has already done so.

And where exactly did I stand up for B&W? Or dipoles?

 

[tuga]

You clearly weren't "standing" where I was. At that point, we weren't aiming at anything to "validate", it was a desire to build loudspeakers that had the highest probability of pleasing customers - it sounds so mercenary, doesn't it? The saving grace was that we kept on publishing the results of our investigations for our competitors to read and learn from - thank you Sidney Harman (RIP). The guidance provided by the results of double-blind listening tests was that relatively uniform, relatively wide, dispersion (which came naturally in well engineered cone/dome designs) was widely approved of. Naturally, it was continued, with efforts to reduce resonances to a minimum, and to maintain smooth, relatively constant or slowly changing directivity. Improvements in those areas continued to be rewarded by ever higher subjective ratings of sound quality.

If the research had continued, no doubt we would have eventually addressed the matter of just how important the shapes of the off-axis frequency responses are, as a factor separate from the smoothness (absence of resonances). The direct sound is the dominant factor in determining sound quality, so achieving smooth on-axis/listening window curves was a necessary starting point. Few people seem to know that any "room EQ" modifies the direct sound, even though what is causing the apparent problem in the room curve is from off-axis radiation. There is NO substitute for starting with a well-designed loudspeaker - aftermarket "room EQ" cannot repair all ills.

Yes, for pop music - the totally dominant program source of the masses - wide dispersion and the consequent early reflections do seem to be beneficial. Why, because hard panned sounds emerge from a mono loudspeaker and it can be a spatially "hard" source compared to the relatively "fuzzy" phantom images. Early in my NRC efforts I set up a listening room, which in 1985 became the prototype for the IEC standard listening room. Along the way decisions had to be made about acoustical room treatments. At the time the practice in recording control rooms was to absorb most/all early reflections, especially the side wall ones. Knowing the loudspeakers in use at the time explained why - see Figure 12.9 for the very popular UREI 811, a derivative of the also popular Altec 604-8G (Figure 18.5d). The off-axis performance was dreadful, best eliminated. The "live-end-dead-end" recording control room was in fashion. Real science, in my terms, was absent.

I installed heavy, sound-absorbing drapes along the wall behind the loudspeakers on a track that allowed them to be collapsed, or expanded, and also to be moved along the side wall to attenuate the first wall reflection. I invited several audio enthusiasts to experience the various setups, all blind, playing a wide selection of music. The only arrangement that made a meaningful difference was that which addressed the side wall reflection. Preferences settled into a pattern in which classical music was generally preferred with wall uncovered, seemingly expanding the soundstage in a "natural" way. Most popular music was also approved of in this condition, but there were some listeners who preferred having the side wall damped - yielding a "tighter soundstage". Having the ability to choose quickly and easily had enough appeal to one of the listeners that he implemented it at his home. It beats building the feature into the loudspeaker, which is fixed for life.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply.

The goal of this topic was/is not to validate the XXI Century "house sound" approach taken by B&W but more of a survey of what speakers are most commonly used by Classical music professionals.
The subject of directivity was raised accidentally, and that led to your research at Harman. I don't think that I am alone in questioning some of the interpretation that was made of the data, nor of some of the methodology. But the scope and depth of your work is undoubtedly praiseworthy and I can understand the challenges presented by setting up listening evaluation tests. It is helpful to know the questions that you were trying to answer with your research.

 

[tuga]

I know I am repeating myself, but we are putting so much energy (and dragging Dr Toole into it) into discussing things that are only applicable to 2-or-less speaker playback. Talk about living in the past!

A decent upmixer and a few surround channels and this discussion goes away.

Talk about living in small british houses.

Talk about having other interests in life to spend your money on, or your family's.

Talk about limited budgets being split into more lower quality equipment. Or limited budgets period.

 

[Frgirard]

Personally knowing many musicians (both classical and not), they prefer to spend their money on more musical instruments or music making accessories (especially guitarists and drummers!!) and not new speakers unless there's something seriously wrong (speakers are broken). I think part of the "audiophile experience" is this constant need to buy a "better" speaker when the one we had would satisfy 99.9% of the listening public.

Composer Pascal Dusapin used Marlin Logan Sequel 2 with MIT cables

Stereophile has published articles on systems owned by musicians

The musicians are like the rest of the population. 99% of the populations of rich countries have nothing to do with hi-fi and especially with an extra or in-ear headphones for a few hundred euros you have access to unparalleled quality to a hi-fi system in a living room .

 

[Harmonie]

Composer Pascal Dusapin used Marlin Logan Sequel 2 with MIT cables

Stereophile has published articles on systems owned by musicians

The musicians are like the rest of the population. 99% of the populations of rich countries have nothing to do with hi-fi and especially with an extra or in-ear headphones for a few hundred euros you have access to unparalleled quality to a hi-fi system in a living room .

Not surprised.
This combination completed by Wadia was almost sold as a package in France in the nineties by some few brick & mortar shops
Presence Audio Conseil among others.

 

[rdenney]

What is the point of determining how good a speaker’s spatial performance is in mono if it will never be used as such?

…
My interpretation of the data is that the wide directivity speaker rates higher in terms of spatial quality in mono because when positioned equidistant to the side walls it will interact more with them than narrow or narrowing directivity ones.

Suppose that what the data actually shows is that your definition of spatial quality is flawed. Instead of being defined by the stereo field, where channel differences create a masking illusion of space, what if spatial qualities are really dictated by a speaker’s ability to create a timbrally accurate field of sound, by which I mean all the sound from the speaker, including reflections that arrive variously delayed, are timbrally consistent with how the brain identifies “space”?

After all, when I listen to a cellist, I hear the reflections of sound from all around the room in my two ears. The cellist is monophonic, but I still hear the cellist in space.

Thus, perhaps the data are showing us that wide and smooth directivity creates a sound field that gives the impression of space?

Your reduction of that concept to “interact more” is missing the point. The point is that speakers with wide and smooth directivity create timbral accuracy and spatial qualities, while speakers that are noticeably different in timbre off-axis may still create the illusion of stage width when you listen to two of them, but don’t create a spatial effect beyond that. And they also make instruments not sound like themselves when listening away from the sweet spot.

It took me a while to grasp this point. Stereo presentation is a masking effect—an overpowering distraction—the same way loud music masks distortion.

(For a person who claims to be a questioning amateur, you sure are displaying some fixated impressions as the basis for accusing experts of Missing The Point, however you temper them by use of passive voice.)

Rick “respectfully submitted” Denney

(Edit: Dear Apple: timbrally, timbre, and timbral are words, dammit!)

 

[rdenney]

Personally knowing many musicians (both classical and not), they prefer to spend their money on more musical instruments or music making accessories (especially guitarists and drummers!!) and not new speakers unless there's something seriously wrong (speakers are broken). I think part of the "audiophile experience" is this constant need to buy a "better" speaker when the one we had would satisfy 99.9% of the listening public.

Yes. I paid $700 ultimately for my second-hand Revel speakers. The tuba was…more…much more.

And I only own two speakers, but there are four more tubas in this room alone.

Musician don’t expect a sound system to create reality—they live that reality in person. They only need enough cues that they can fill in the blanks from their own experience.

Rick “who messes with audio for different reasons” Denney

 

[tuga]

Suppose that what the data actually shows is that your definition of spatial quality is flawed. Instead of being defined by the stereo field, where channel differences create a masking illusion of space, what if spatial qualities are really dictated by a speaker’s ability to create a timbrally accurate field of sound, by which I mean all the sound from the speaker, including reflections that arrive variously delayed, are timbrally consistent with how the brain identifies “space”?

After all, when I listen to a cellist, I hear the reflections of sound from all around the room in my two ears. The cellist is monophonic, but I still hear the cellist in space.

Thus, perhaps the data are showing us that wide and smooth directivity creates a sound field that gives the impression of space?

Your reduction of that concept to “interact more” is missing the point. The point is that speakers with wide and smooth directivity create timbral accuracy and spatial qualities, while speakers that are noticeably different in timbre off-axis may still create the illusion of stage width when you listen to two of them, but don’t create a spatial effect beyond that. And they also make instruments not sound like themselves when listening away from the sweet spot.

It took me a while to grasp this point. Stereo presentation is a masking effect—an overpowering distraction—the same way loud music masks distortion.

(For a person who claims to be a questioning amateur, you sure are displaying some fixated impressions as the basis for accusing experts of Missing The Point, however you temper them by use of passive voice.)

Rick “respectfully submitted” Denney

(Edit: Dear Apple: timbrally, timbre, and timbral are words, dammit!)

I am not sure that I fully understand your questions but I'll give it a go.

The study used three different speakers: one monopole with wide-ish directivity, one monopole with narrowing directivity and one dipole with narrow constant directivity.
None of the speakers was particularly flat on-axis nor apparently had very smooth directivity.
In other words there were several and not just a single variable at play:
• on-axis FR was different,
• off-axis FR was different,
• directivity characteristics were different,
• diffraction-generated artifacts were different,
• low frequency extension was different,
• the floor bounce cancelation effect was different,
• room interaction was different.
All these variables will contribute to sound quality and thus affect the perception of spatial quality, so one cannot say which one or ones are responsible for the perceived better spatial quality.
To make matters more complicated when listened to in stereo all three speakers rated similarly in terms of spatial quality.
We could remove the effects of room interaction and floor bounce cancelation from the equation by listening in anechoic conditions, of frequency response by EQ'ing flat on-axis and listening on-axis, of low end extension by high-passing all speakers. We would end up with directivity as the only variable, tainted somewhat by diffraction-generated artifacts and potential box resonances.
Because in order to determine the effects of directivity no other variable can interfere with the listening assessment perhaps the BeoLab 50 or 90 would be good candidates for the test because, if I'm not mistaken, they allow the user to change their directivity characteristics (at least in part of the spectrum); one single variable at play.

In my experience it is possible to perceive a sense of space with mono recordings over a pair of speakers. I have never tried listening to a mono recording with a single speaker (my Tivoli One isn't a fair comparison) but I would expect less "spaciousness", with the sound more concentrated on the location of the source/speaker. And without reflections (anechoic) I suspect that different directivity width will not affect spatial quality because it is not interacting with the room.

I am not questioning the importance of smooth directivity in reverberant, untreated rooms. Directivity is on the one hand a matter of taste and on the other a way to control how your speakers interact with the room. From my understanding and experience, and even taking into account that it is ultimately a matter of taste, wide directivity is, like omni, not suitable for narrow rooms (unless you like it).

You probably agree that the most significant difference between mono and stereo is the latter's ability to produce phantom source localisation and multi-dimensional spatial presentation (soundstage). These stereo effects result from using two speakers (and idealy a 2-mic 2-channel recording) but there seems to be some conflict between obtaining image "sharpness" and increasing "spaciousness". D'Antonio and others seem to agree that early reflections are damaging to both image "sharpness" and the "reconstruction" of the original venue acoustics (when there was one) and that is my experience too. And even though ultimately it's a matter of preference, if (you find that) early reflections are damaging then wide directivity does not make sense unless the room is very wide.

In regard to your cellist analogy there is a very concrete difference in goals between a musical instrument and a sound reproduction device or system, the former creates sound and the later reproduces recorded sound. Unless the cello was close mic'ed or recorded outdoors the mic will have picked up ambience cues. If your room's acoustic footprint is too strong (a reflective room, or wide-directivity speakers which interact more with the listening environment) it will overlay itself to or mask the recorded ambiance and mess it up. Whilst the result of this interaction may sound pleasing with pop/rock studio mixes it is in my view and/or for my taste damaging with classical music.

 

[Spocko]

Yes. I paid $700 ultimately for my second-hand Revel speakers. The tuba was…more…much more.

And I only own two speakers, but there are four more tubas in this room alone.

Musician don’t expect a sound system to create reality—they live that reality in person. They only need enough cues that they can fill in the blanks from their own experience.

Rick “who messes with audio for different reasons” Denney

I feel you - I stop myself every time I'm considering an expensive piece of audio equipment by asking myself "wouldn't you rather have that Gibson limited edition instead?"

 

[Spocko]

I totally agree! Nearly all of my Musician friends do not have anywhere near the quantity or the quality of speakers that I do. One of them still has his ancient NHT Super Ones, or maybe they are NHT Super Zero's.

WOW, my first "high end" speakers were also NHT Super Ones from the 90's before the internet! I think I saw the rave reviews on Stereophile or something similar.

 

[charleski]

And I only own two speakers, but there are four more tubas in this room alone.

You know you just outed yourself as someone who's into horns, right?

 

[MRC01]

Yes. I paid $700 ultimately for my second-hand Revel speakers. The tuba was…more…much more.

And I only own two speakers, but there are four more tubas in this room alone.

Musician don’t expect a sound system to create reality—they live that reality in person. They only need enough cues that they can fill in the blanks from their own experience.

Rick “who messes with audio for different reasons” Denney

I sort of resemble that, having spent similar amounts on various flutes as I have on my audio system. Bass flute, alto flute, 3 soprano flutes, a piccolo, and various other flute-like instruments (fifes, ocarinas, etc.). As an amateur musician (not a pro), I consider the audio system and musical instruments as roughly equally important for my musical enjoyment.

That said, I prefer the recordings and sound system to create reality or at least sound as natural and lifelike as possible. Classical music recordings do this consistently well, the engineering & mastering seems closer to the original mic feed, sounds like they use a much lighter hand during mixing and mastering. Modern music recordings, not so much. They are consistently over-processed and artificial sounding. Just yesterday I browsed through Stereophile's RTDF for 2021, found most of the recordings on Qobuz and listened to each for a few minutes. This once again confirmed my opinions. I believe this is intentional and can think of 2 reasons for it:
1. Non-classical genres typically want the music to sound louder than other music when streaming: loudness wars.
2. They consider the excessive (in my opinion) post-processing to be an artistic rendition of the sound: natural realism is not their goal. They want it to sound punchy and exciting. One man's "punch and exciting" is another man's "artificial and fatiguing", and ultimately turns me off to the music.

As for the OP about what speakers classical music pros use, I'm not sure it matters. If your goal is natural realism and minimal post-processing, you can achieve that with any decent speaker or headphones. Of course, each classical label tends to have their own "house sound", but I don't think the speakers or headphones they use plays much of a factor in that. I believe that is more a result of their preferred microphones, micing methods, room and musician arrangements, etc.

 

[rdenney]

You know you just outed yourself as someone who's into horns, right?

You've no idea about the trouble I get into on tuba forums talking about the difference between exponential (long-throw) and bi-radial (short-throw--really waveguide) horns. Tuba bells have similar differences, but not by calculation. And it absolutely affects how their sound propagates in a concert hall, and whether a given instrument is more or less appropriate for a given hall and its reverberation characteristics. The tuba above works really well in dead spaces because it rams the sound out there like a cannon. Other tubas are shorter and fatter, and have wider directivity, which gives them omnipresence, particularly in reverberant halls.

Rick "acoustics are acoustics" Denney

 

[Frgirard]

Not surprised.
This combination completed by Wadia was almost sold as a package in France in the nineties by some few brick & mortar shops
Presence Audio Conseil among others.

In Marseille we have a hifi shop called Harmonie

Home - HarmonieAudio

Conseil, écoute et vente de produits Hi-Fi sur Marseille et ses alentours. Vente de produits audio répondant aux plus hautes exigences de fidélité et de musicalité.

www.harmonieaudio.fr