"forward' vs "laid back" speakers


Over the past few months I’ve auditioned a number of speakers, with a view—eventually—to replacing my current ones. I’m content with their overall presentation, but they are getting long in the tooth and I’ve also been hankering for a little more bass.

Models that I’ve been able to hear (as for many of us, there are geographical challenges) are, in no particular order, B&W CM10, Dynaudio Excite X38, Vandersteen Treo, Sonus Faber Venere 3.0, Devore Orangutan O/93, Dynaudio Focus 380, Vienna Acoustics Beethoven Baby Grand Symphony Edition, Sonus Faber Liuto. Although not on my list, I also happened to hear along the way Totem Sttaf, Golden Ear Triton 2, Neat Classic Elite SX, and Vienna Acoustics Liszt.

It’s probably naïve of me to say this, but one thing that surprised me was how little my own listening impressions aligned with published reviews that I’d read of these speakers. Another thing that was a little surprising was my eventual ranking of them.

Two caveats in regard to the following observations: (1) de gustibus non est disputandum—these are purely my personal tastes and preferences (which seem to be in a minority); (2) all speakers were driven by highly competent and sometimes megabuck electronics, but I’m not going to get into every variable of the audition, otherwise this post will turn into a short novel.

The most salient characteristic (to me) is that the acoustic presentation of some of these speakers seemed quite forward (row D), whereas that of others was really quite laid back (row M). There was also, quite often, a second correlation between that forward presentation and a (relative) brightness in the treble. As far as I can tell, these features are often preferred and indeed seem to be aimed for in the voicing of many models during their development. To my ears, speakers in this category were the Treos, O/93s, and Veneres. Somewhere in the middle were the CM10s and the Liutos. A bit more laid back were the Dynaudios and the Vienna Acoustics.

I have to say that I like row M. I like the soundstage to start at the plane of the speakers’ drivers, and extend well behind them, with the speakers pulled well out into the room to achieve that sense of depth. And I don’t like bright.

The X38s, which I heard a while ago, were overall “polite”, and now I’m thinking they may not have been fully broken in. The Focus 380 sounded good but somehow a little homogenized or artificial; the timbre and the presentation were pleasant, but it was harder to forget that you were listening to a stereo system. The Baby Grands were a clear favorite among the models so far (only surpassed by the Liszts, as was to be expected). They were natural, relaxed, with all the characteristics I’ve been looking for, save that ultimate few hertz in bass extension.

I conclude from this that I am in a distinct minority. So be it. I haven’t been able to hear the VA Beethoven Concert Grands (that experience suggests should fit the bill), nor any models from Harbeth, Spendor, Silverline, Aerial, or Joseph Audio that I suspect—but cannot be sure—I might also like.

And so the search goes on; paradoxically, my experiences so far lead me to put little to no faith in reviews, but it’s only reviews (and on-line audio forums like this one) that allow me to construct a short-list of what to try to audition in the future.
128x128twoleftears
yeah, Zd542, I found the exact link to one of the PDFs of the article you mentioned & it said "link not found". Looks like The Audio Perfectionist removed those articles.
In lieu of that, I offer 2 articles on the subject off Green Mountain Audio's website (no affiliation to this speaker manuf. Used to own his speakers & loved them but do not own his speakers any more. I do believe that he knows what he is doing tho' hence my repeated references to his articles & his products):

[ur]http://greenmountainaudio.com/speaker-time-phase-coherence/>http://greenmountainaudio.com/time-and-phase-coherence/[url]

[ur]http://greenmountainaudio.com/speaker-time-phase-coherence/


Twoleftears, I realize that you asked whether the speakers stated in your penultimate para were worthy of hearing or not & this discussion of time-coherence seems to be at a tangent (it is not once you read & understand), it's worth understanding why the speakers you heard are such a far cry from the rave reviews you read in the magazines & why you felt some speakers were row D & others row M. Once you understand, you might be able to answer your question; if not, you'll be able to make better judgements on speakers the next time around.
03-19-15: B_limo
Bombaywalla, Thanks for that informative response!
Thanks B_limo, glad that you found it useful.
If you have a chance give the Nola KO a try ;I moved from Soundlab M2's to them and am very pleased.
I run tubes but also put my Roland Model 6 Monoblocks on them and they sounded excellent with both.
What amps are you going to be using or will you be replacing them after you purchase the speakers?
I read you cleary- Twolftears.
I have been subscriber to both TAS & Stereophile since 1993. Over these years I have read too many articles on "great" speakers. (2) disappointments that come to my mind Aerial & Revel. I tried to get "into" these lines, sorry but, they are over-priced junk IME.

The remedy, is to go out into the marketplace and listen, listen, listen w/ your own ears!
Keep me posted & Happy Listening!
I don’t know if anyone will be interested in this ongoing saga, but here’s an update.

I recently was able to audition a bunch more speakers: the VA Beethoven Concert Grand, Focal Aria 926, Harbeth Super HL5 Plus, PMC Twenty 24, PMC Twenty 23, PMC Fact 8 (briefly), and Chapman T-5.

I was able to audition the Concert Grands alongside a pair of Baby Grands, which was an interesting experience. The CGs obviously went deeper, but not as deep as the increased number, size and enclosure of the bass drivers would have led me to expect. The CGs were also the more revealing, analytical speaker. As usual, against my expectation, I ended up preferring the Babys: they drew me into the music, the experience, more, they put it all together whereas the Concerts were kind of teasing it apart.

I liked the Focals more than I expected to. Their presentation is different in ways that I find difficult to describe. The perspective is closer, and there’s something about the timbral profile too. Bass extension was good, and you could definitely hear into the music. Listened to on their own, I think they could be more than satisfying; auditioned shortly after the VAs, I preferred the Beethovens.

The Harbeths were a real surprise. I don’t want to use the word bright, so let’s just say that they were a lot less warm, less mellow and less forgiving than I’d expected. I didn’t listen to them very long, because frankly I wasn’t enjoying the experience, although the bass extension was a pleasant surprise (specs really tell you very little). The salesperson said that in his view the Super HL5 Plus had the least warm/mellow/etc. sound of all the models in the Harbeth range.

The Chapmans were good all-rounders. I couldn’t really fault them. Imaging, sound-staging, bass, timbre, etc. Perhaps it was the room, perhaps me, perhaps the equipment (Marantz and Rogue), but ultimately they didn’t draw me in. Still, they’re an impressive speaker and a definite dark horse.

And so on to the PMCs. I really liked the 23s and the 24s. Again, they did everything well, obviously more bass extension on the 24s, and they did draw me in with their musicality. Perhaps a little less so than the Baby Grands, but the 24s made up for that when listening to full-scale orchestral music. The more expensive Facts I didn’t care for as much, more analytical/neutral, and hence—for me—less musical.

The PMC Twenty 24s and the VA Beethoven Baby Grands are the winners in my own, subjective ranking. There are plenty of other makes and models out there at this price point that I haven’t been able to audition, but that’s the reality of the situation. Spendor, Totem, Aerial, come to mind. And so it goes.