Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
subjective speaker quality
19 views
Skip to first unread message
William Sommerwerck
May 24, 2012, 12:21:41 PM5/24/12
to
I sometimes get dumped on when I recommend electrostatic or planar-magnetic
speakers. Such speakers are often criticized as sounding "cool", "distant",
"analytical", or "uninvolving". I disagree, but I understand why people feel
that way.
Yesterday I got a pleasant surprise. A guy from the condo-management
association was repairing water damage, and said he wanted to hear some
music while he worked. I pulled out "Kind of Blue" (which I'd never heard")
and was startled at how the sound was completely //unlike// the sound
generally associated with planar speakers. It was warm and very "immediate".
(The guy is not audiophile, but he said he liked the sound very much.)
This only confirms my belief that planar speakers come closer to being truly
neutral than cone-type speakers.
--
"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
questions." -- Edwin Land
speakers. Such speakers are often criticized as sounding "cool", "distant",
"analytical", or "uninvolving". I disagree, but I understand why people feel
that way.
Yesterday I got a pleasant surprise. A guy from the condo-management
association was repairing water damage, and said he wanted to hear some
music while he worked. I pulled out "Kind of Blue" (which I'd never heard")
and was startled at how the sound was completely //unlike// the sound
generally associated with planar speakers. It was warm and very "immediate".
(The guy is not audiophile, but he said he liked the sound very much.)
This only confirms my belief that planar speakers come closer to being truly
neutral than cone-type speakers.
--
"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
questions." -- Edwin Land
David Fox
May 24, 2012, 12:35:47 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 9:21 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
I too prefer planar speakers but I'm not sure they're more realistic.
They do certain things extremely well and I enjoy those things. They
have pinpoint clarity and they can create the illusion of image beyond
that of any cone speaker that I've heard. However, live music doesn't
image either. So it gets back to the age-old question of what your
goals are in listening to music - realism or the most pleasant
experience? I'm addicted to the sound of planars and make no bones
about realism. Similarly, other people like highly-colored
underpowered tube amps that have lousy benchmark statistics but really
have a special beauty when playing certain types of music with a
limited dynamic range (small jazz combos, chamber music, etc).
Planar speakers cannot push air like cone speakers and that is their
major limitation. Large, dense orchestral music like Mahler climaxes
and obviously loud rock music work much better with cones. The new
breed of expensive cones (e.g. Wilson, Magico) do the best job of
blending the clarity of planars with the heft of cones, but planars
still beat them hand-down IMHO in vocal, jazz, chamber, and most
classical recordings. If my listening mix skewed more toward louder
music I would have a different opinion.
DF
wrote:
They do certain things extremely well and I enjoy those things. They
have pinpoint clarity and they can create the illusion of image beyond
that of any cone speaker that I've heard. However, live music doesn't
image either. So it gets back to the age-old question of what your
goals are in listening to music - realism or the most pleasant
experience? I'm addicted to the sound of planars and make no bones
about realism. Similarly, other people like highly-colored
underpowered tube amps that have lousy benchmark statistics but really
have a special beauty when playing certain types of music with a
limited dynamic range (small jazz combos, chamber music, etc).
Planar speakers cannot push air like cone speakers and that is their
major limitation. Large, dense orchestral music like Mahler climaxes
and obviously loud rock music work much better with cones. The new
breed of expensive cones (e.g. Wilson, Magico) do the best job of
blending the clarity of planars with the heft of cones, but planars
still beat them hand-down IMHO in vocal, jazz, chamber, and most
classical recordings. If my listening mix skewed more toward louder
music I would have a different opinion.
DF
Thornhill
May 24, 2012, 12:37:38 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 12:21 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
type speaker to the next can widely vary.
<grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> This only confirms my belief that planar speakers come closer to being truly
> neutral than cone-type speakers.
That's a pretty big sweeping generalization. The sound from one cone-
>
> This only confirms my belief that planar speakers come closer to being truly
> neutral than cone-type speakers.
type speaker to the next can widely vary.
Gerard
May 24, 2012, 12:46:57 PM5/24/12
to
William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> typed:
remastering)?
Surprising is that you was startled about it.
> It
> was warm and very "immediate".
Surprising is that you did not notice this before.
> (The guy is not audiophile, but he
> said he liked the sound very much.)
>
> This only confirms my belief that planar speakers come closer to
> being truly neutral than cone-type speakers.
Because the sound was "warm"?
Strange that this confirms your /belief/ .
> I sometimes get dumped on when I recommend electrostatic or
> planar-magnetic speakers. Such speakers are often criticized as
> sounding "cool", "distant", "analytical", or "uninvolving". I
> disagree, but I understand why people feel that way.
>
> Yesterday I got a pleasant surprise. A guy from the condo-management
> association was repairing water damage, and said he wanted to hear
> some music while he worked. I pulled out "Kind of Blue" (which I'd
> never heard") and was startled at how the sound was completely
> //unlike// the sound generally associated with planar speakers.
Isn't that simply because of the characteristics of that specific recording (or
> planar-magnetic speakers. Such speakers are often criticized as
> sounding "cool", "distant", "analytical", or "uninvolving". I
> disagree, but I understand why people feel that way.
>
> Yesterday I got a pleasant surprise. A guy from the condo-management
> association was repairing water damage, and said he wanted to hear
> some music while he worked. I pulled out "Kind of Blue" (which I'd
> never heard") and was startled at how the sound was completely
> //unlike// the sound generally associated with planar speakers.
remastering)?
Surprising is that you was startled about it.
> It
> was warm and very "immediate".
> (The guy is not audiophile, but he
> said he liked the sound very much.)
>
> This only confirms my belief that planar speakers come closer to
> being truly neutral than cone-type speakers.
Strange that this confirms your /belief/ .
Steve Emerson
May 24, 2012, 12:56:46 PM5/24/12
to
In article
<392501c0-f38d-47c0...@wp3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
e.g. Sonus Faber, do a superb job with the airiness and
instrument-placement of jazz, chamber, and vocal.
Getting that to happen in a floorstanding box speaker is a trick, but it
has been done, most often in transmission-line designs. JMLab, Joseph
Audio, and the d'Appolito-designed Thor speakers that I use are
examples. JMLab's own focal drivers and the Seas drivers used in the
latter two are also large factors.
I wonder how many people who make across-the-board statements that
planar speakers beat box designs -- have ever heard the JMLab Grand
Utopia. (Not that anyone can actually afford them....) Or some of the
more exotic array designs built by boutique outfits and frequently
discussed in the Madisound forums.
SE.
<392501c0-f38d-47c0...@wp3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
David Fox <davidf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The new
> breed of expensive cones (e.g. Wilson, Magico) do the best job of
> blending the clarity of planars with the heft of cones, but planars
> still beat them hand-down IMHO in vocal, jazz, chamber, and most
> classical recordings.
Apart from the bass factor, some of the superb bookshelf box speakers,
> The new
> breed of expensive cones (e.g. Wilson, Magico) do the best job of
> blending the clarity of planars with the heft of cones, but planars
> still beat them hand-down IMHO in vocal, jazz, chamber, and most
> classical recordings.
e.g. Sonus Faber, do a superb job with the airiness and
instrument-placement of jazz, chamber, and vocal.
Getting that to happen in a floorstanding box speaker is a trick, but it
has been done, most often in transmission-line designs. JMLab, Joseph
Audio, and the d'Appolito-designed Thor speakers that I use are
examples. JMLab's own focal drivers and the Seas drivers used in the
latter two are also large factors.
I wonder how many people who make across-the-board statements that
planar speakers beat box designs -- have ever heard the JMLab Grand
Utopia. (Not that anyone can actually afford them....) Or some of the
more exotic array designs built by boutique outfits and frequently
discussed in the Madisound forums.
SE.
William Sommerwerck
May 24, 2012, 1:02:17 PM5/24/12
to
>> This only confirms my belief that planar speakers
>> come closer to being truly neutral than cone-type
>> speakers.
> That's a pretty big sweeping generalization. The sound
> from one cone-type speaker to the next can widely vary.
>> come closer to being truly neutral than cone-type
>> speakers.
> That's a pretty big sweeping generalization. The sound
As I said, it's a "belief".
Nevertheless, I think most (???) listeners would agree that good planar
speakers sound more like each other than do good cone-type speakers. (You
may interpret this as you wish.)
William Sommerwerck
May 24, 2012, 1:05:41 PM5/24/12
to
>> Yesterday I got a pleasant surprise. A guy from the
>> condo-management association was repairing water
>> damage, and said he wanted to hear some music while
>> he worked. I pulled out "Kind of Blue" (which I'd never
>> heard) and was startled at how the sound was completely
>> condo-management association was repairing water
>> damage, and said he wanted to hear some music while
>> he worked. I pulled out "Kind of Blue" (which I'd never
>> //unlike// the sound generally associated with planar speakers.
> Isn't that simply because of the characteristics of that specific
> recording (or remastering)?
> Surprising is that you was startled about it.
You're correct about the "sound" of particular recordings. The fact that the
> Isn't that simply because of the characteristics of that specific
> recording (or remastering)?
> Surprising is that you was startled about it.
character of this recording was (presumably) preserved, shows that the
things for which planar speakers are generally criticized are almost
certianly not inherent.
David Fox
May 24, 2012, 1:09:23 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 9:56 am, Steve Emerson <eme...@n-n-nospamsonic.net> wrote:
> In article
> <392501c0-f38d-47c0-9b2e-0c995266e...@wp3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
I can't claim to have heard everything, but I listen to as much as I
can. I like to attend audio shows every once in a while. This is a
pretty good way of keeping track of new developments. There was an
excellent audio show in Newport Beach last June and it looks like it's
become an annual event. The next occurrence is June 1-3rd.
http://www.theshownewport.com/
I've heard some very, very nice box designs. A very good friend of
mine has a pair of Wilson Sophia's that I get to listen to with some
frequency. As nice as they are, I wouldn't trade them for my Martin
Logan ReQuests nor have I yet heard the box speakers that would
convert me.
DF
> In article
> <392501c0-f38d-47c0-9b2e-0c995266e...@wp3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
can. I like to attend audio shows every once in a while. This is a
pretty good way of keeping track of new developments. There was an
excellent audio show in Newport Beach last June and it looks like it's
become an annual event. The next occurrence is June 1-3rd.
http://www.theshownewport.com/
I've heard some very, very nice box designs. A very good friend of
mine has a pair of Wilson Sophia's that I get to listen to with some
frequency. As nice as they are, I wouldn't trade them for my Martin
Logan ReQuests nor have I yet heard the box speakers that would
convert me.
DF
Jenn
May 24, 2012, 1:23:07 PM5/24/12
to
In article
<d9e453f6-c9fb-4d7a...@si8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
I'll be there. Should be fun!
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
<d9e453f6-c9fb-4d7a...@si8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
William Sommerwerck
May 24, 2012, 1:26:44 PM5/24/12
to
> Getting that to happen in a floorstanding box speaker is
> a trick, but it has been done, most often in transmission-
> line designs. JMLab, Joseph Audio, and the d'Appolito-
> designed Thor speakers that I use are examples. JMLab's
> own focal drivers and the Seas drivers used in the latter two
> are also large factors.
I was a "friend of Bud's" and very much approve of TL designs.
> a trick, but it has been done, most often in transmission-
> line designs. JMLab, Joseph Audio, and the d'Appolito-
> designed Thor speakers that I use are examples. JMLab's
> own focal drivers and the Seas drivers used in the latter two
> are also large factors.
> I wonder how many people who make across-the-board statements
> that planar speakers beat box designs -- have ever heard the JMLab
> Grand Utopia. (Not that anyone can actually afford them....) Or some
> of the more exotic array designs built by boutique outfits and frequently
> discussed in the Madisound forums.
Dave Wilson's latest design, I be shocked and awed.
Nevertheless... planar speakers "fight" fewer physical laws, and this
translates into more-neutral reproduction. There is a way to show this
mathematically, but I've never been able to figure out how to model the
system correctly. Any bright mechanical engineers out there?
Jenn
May 24, 2012, 1:25:10 PM5/24/12
to
In article <jpln56$b9n$2...@dont-email.me>,
shine. I want a pair of Maggies or perhaps Quads, but I'm in the
process of selling our house in order to buy a new one, and I won't
invest until the new listening room is determined.
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I sometimes get dumped on when I recommend electrostatic or planar-magnetic
> speakers. Such speakers are often criticized as sounding "cool", "distant",
> "analytical", or "uninvolving". I disagree, but I understand why people feel
> that way.
>
> Yesterday I got a pleasant surprise. A guy from the condo-management
> association was repairing water damage, and said he wanted to hear some
> music while he worked. I pulled out "Kind of Blue" (which I'd never heard")
> and was startled at how the sound was completely //unlike// the sound
> generally associated with planar speakers. It was warm and very "immediate".
> (The guy is not audiophile, but he said he liked the sound very much.)
>
> This only confirms my belief that planar speakers come closer to being truly
> neutral than cone-type speakers.
I'm very fond of planar speakers, but the room must be right for them to
> I sometimes get dumped on when I recommend electrostatic or planar-magnetic
> speakers. Such speakers are often criticized as sounding "cool", "distant",
> "analytical", or "uninvolving". I disagree, but I understand why people feel
> that way.
>
> Yesterday I got a pleasant surprise. A guy from the condo-management
> association was repairing water damage, and said he wanted to hear some
> music while he worked. I pulled out "Kind of Blue" (which I'd never heard")
> and was startled at how the sound was completely //unlike// the sound
> generally associated with planar speakers. It was warm and very "immediate".
> (The guy is not audiophile, but he said he liked the sound very much.)
>
> This only confirms my belief that planar speakers come closer to being truly
> neutral than cone-type speakers.
shine. I want a pair of Maggies or perhaps Quads, but I'm in the
process of selling our house in order to buy a new one, and I won't
invest until the new listening room is determined.
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
J.Martin
May 24, 2012, 1:26:34 PM5/24/12
to
A guy from the condo-management
> association was repairing water damage, and said he wanted to hear some
> music while he worked. I pulled out "Kind of Blue" (which I'd never heard")
> and was startled at how the sound was completely //unlike// the sound
> generally associated with planar speakers. It was warm and very "immediate".
> (The guy is not audiophile, but he said he liked the sound very much.)
>
You'd never heard "Kind of Blue," but just happened to have a copy on
> association was repairing water damage, and said he wanted to hear some
> music while he worked. I pulled out "Kind of Blue" (which I'd never heard")
> and was startled at how the sound was completely //unlike// the sound
> generally associated with planar speakers. It was warm and very "immediate".
> (The guy is not audiophile, but he said he liked the sound very much.)
>
hand in case a plumber requested some music to work by? Well ... glad
you finally heard, and approved of the sonics!
> This only confirms my belief that planar speakers come closer to being truly
> neutral than cone-type speakers.
>
the point where I can longer make judgments on the subtleties of
audiophilia. I'll leave those kinds of arguments to others and try to
be happy with my mid-fi system.
William Sommerwerck
May 24, 2012, 1:44:52 PM5/24/12
to
> I'm very fond of planar speakers, but the room must be
> right for them to shine. I want a pair of Maggies or perhaps
> QUADs, but I'm in the process of selling our house in order
> right for them to shine. I want a pair of Maggies or perhaps
> to buy a new one, and I won't invest until the new listening
> room is determined.
Unfortunately, few homes have rooms appropriate for music listening,
> room is determined.
especially for four or more channels. Good luck.
William Sommerwerck
May 24, 2012, 1:49:06 PM5/24/12
to
>> A guy from the condo-management
>> association was repairing water damage, and said he wanted to hear some
>> music while he worked. I pulled out "Kind of Blue" (which I'd never
heard")
>> and was startled at how the sound was completely //unlike// the sound
>> generally associated with planar speakers. It was warm and very
"immediate".
>> (The guy is not an audiophile, but he said he liked the sound very much.)
>> association was repairing water damage, and said he wanted to hear some
>> music while he worked. I pulled out "Kind of Blue" (which I'd never
heard")
>> and was startled at how the sound was completely //unlike// the sound
>> generally associated with planar speakers. It was warm and very
"immediate".
> You'd never heard "Kind of Blue," but just happened to have
> a copy on hand in case a plumber requested some music to
I have big pile of Columbia jazz recordings (plus some from other labels),
and that particular title lust happened to fall under my finger. It was
immediately to the right of a Billie Holiday's "Lady in Satin".
>> This only confirms my belief that planar speakers come closer to being
truly
>> neutral than cone-type speakers.
> I've sadly come to the conclusion that my hearing has deteriorated
> to the point where I can longer make judgments on the subtleties
> of audiophilia. I'll leave those kinds of arguments to others and try to
> be happy with my mid-fi system.
listen. You might decided your hearing isn't as "gone" as you think it is.
Thornhill
May 24, 2012, 2:56:47 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 1:02 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Well, I don't think more consistency is necessarily a benefit.
The last time I demoed speakers (because I was buying), I liked the
fact that there was so much variation in the sound of cones -- it
allowed me to find something that fit the kind of music I listen to
and my own personal tastes on recorded sound.
wrote:
The last time I demoed speakers (because I was buying), I liked the
fact that there was so much variation in the sound of cones -- it
allowed me to find something that fit the kind of music I listen to
and my own personal tastes on recorded sound.
jeffc
May 25, 2012, 7:26:27 AM5/25/12
to
Much as I liked some of the qualities of the planars, I found that
proper placement was just too fussy for my situation.
Perhaps in the stratospheric price range and in a 'tuned' dedicated
environment they are unbeatable -- I chose Ohms because they
had a much larger sweet spot, were a reasonable size and didn't
require a bank loan. And most of my listening is
to opera recordings that pre-date digital.
Yesterday, for the first time in months I was able to re-arrange
furniture and get them properly placed.
It was a great pleasure listening to Fritz Wunderlich -- so much so, I
didn't even hear the speakers.
proper placement was just too fussy for my situation.
Perhaps in the stratospheric price range and in a 'tuned' dedicated
environment they are unbeatable -- I chose Ohms because they
had a much larger sweet spot, were a reasonable size and didn't
require a bank loan. And most of my listening is
to opera recordings that pre-date digital.
Yesterday, for the first time in months I was able to re-arrange
furniture and get them properly placed.
It was a great pleasure listening to Fritz Wunderlich -- so much so, I
didn't even hear the speakers.
0 new messages