Music Lovers Speaker vs. Audiophile Speaker

I thought this article by Jeff Day from his blog at jeffsplace.me regarding his "Listening Bias" might be helpful. I know it was for me. Jeff is a writer/reviewer for Positive Feedback and 6 Moons in the recent past. Here is what he says on the topic. 

Listening Bias

I thought it might be handy for those following my writing at Positive Feedback Online to know what my listening biases are to aid you in interpreting and decoding my reviews. Just to alert you, my listening perspective is somewhat of a minority opinion in the Hi-Fi community of North America, but will be more familiar to those listeners in Turkey, Africa, and Japan, who tend to be more familiar with timbral ways of listening. My hierarchy of importance is aligned more closely to how well a Hi-Fi rig plays the musical content of recordings (I know, it’s a heretical concept), rather than how it ‘sounds’ in the more traditional audiophile ‘sonic’ sense.

As a result of my being drawn towards the musical content of recordings, I tend to be a bit more of a timbral listener than is typical for a lot of Westerners, meaning that the reproduction of the textures, colors, and tones & overtones in the music are really important to me. To this end I look for timbral realism at the band level (the band’s signature ‘sound’) and at the individual instrument level (the unique ‘voices’ of instruments). I want them to sound recognizably like themselves in tone and texture, so that their full tone color can develop, which I think helps lend a feeling of beauty and expressiveness to the music. I like the melody (the tune you ‘whistle while you work’), harmony (treble & bass accompaniments to the melody) and rhythm (the steady beat that determines the tempo) to have a life-like flow and connectedness in how the musicians interact—just like in real life. I want dynamics (variations in loudness) to evoke that which I hear in life for an emotional connection to the melody and rhythm. For loudness I like my music playback to be similar to live loudness levels, which for the kind of music I listen to the most, jazz, usually means 80 dB or louder. Finally, I want tempo portrayed so that both the mood and speed of the music are conveyed through it, just like it is with music in real life.

I consider the sonic performance of a Hi-Fi rig on the non-musical artifacts of the recording process to be of value, but of less importance to me than the performance on the musical content of recordings (as above). So things like transparency (being able to ‘see’ into the recording), soundstage (the three dimensions of the recorded space in width, height and depth), soundspace (the acoustic ‘space’ of the soundstage), and imaging (the feeling of solidity and localization of instruments & musicians on the soundstage) are important to me, but they are not my primary focus – the musical content is.

So I like my cake (the musical content of recordings) with a little frosting (the sonic artifacts of the recording process) for a balanced taste treat. Too much frosting and not enough cake puts me off. So that’s me, and you might be different, but at least now you know how.

Hope this helped. Best, Rob

Don't get hooked on only one design like I have to have only first order x over speakers. Many of the best speakers out there are a combination of different order networks. If the designer knows what he is doing you should not be concerned of the x over. Just listen to the speaker and judge for yourself.

Hi Rob,
    I understand the post, but for me, some I agree with and some is the opposite.  I agree with tonal balance and the texture of music that brings timbral realism, but an important part of pulling me into the music is seeing into the soundstage,  not only hearing the resonance of a string or the wind blowing through a trumpet,  but to hear how far they are in relation to each other and to get the image of a ensemble, quartet, band or orchestra in front of me.  It very much helps pull me into the musical enjoyment..... That more of "Live, Being There" experience.
Of course,  that's the joy of our hobby... I say, "but for me"... that's why one system can be incredible to one person and not so much to another... the whole discussion of Musical vs Analytical speaker is not far off from this.  Depending on taste... the same speaker could be Musical to one person and Analytical to another.  Tim

Music speaker follows music standards and audiophile speaker follows audiophile standards.

Music Standards vs. Audio Standards? Do those standards actually exist? I imagine Audio Standards have something to do with pink noise…or white noise…or, to be inclusive, "blacker blacks." (!) Speaker preference is an utterly personal and taste driven thing, and you can bet two people claiming to be either "audio geeks" or "music lovers" might not agree on what's right, and why should they? If a speaker masks some element of tone by being too bright or too dull or no bass or whatever it simply means it's not meshing with the rest of the system or room or yo MAMA, or maybe the designer had his (or her's) own ideas about tone and they're not yours. Signal goes in, sound comes out tainted by design. I'm a tube head (SS subs though …is there a tube sub?) for my primary listening through speakers reviewers have called "not bright" (like me), and these speakers have been praised for their mid-range by somebody (they're correct by the way).  Brightness appears in them anyway if the music contains it…not surprising, and after many hours of full range (and de-ranged) time spent with my rig I can hear a system at Goodwins that costs more than my car and it sounds "meh"…and perhaps too bright. Back to the drawing board Magico and Boulder! (heh heh...now Rockport…oh yeah, uh huh) I mix live concerts here and there and go for "less is more" flatness to fool people into thinking they're having fun…usually this works well.