Vienna Acoustics' Bach Grand fits your bill. See:
http://www.sumikoaudio.net/va/prod_bach.htm
I've got the Beethoven Baby Grands which are exceptional with strings. I've also heard the Bachs and they have similar mids.
I'm an orchestral trumpet player (hobby, but serious) and I listen to a lot of orchestra and string music. For instance, last night I was listening to Janos Starker and Josef Gingold play the Kodaly Duo for Violin and Cello, Op. 7. Man-alive that was stunning. Incredible string tones on 180 gram vinyl.
The Bach is going to roll-off around 45 Hz, but I think it's got one of the best midranges in your price range.
Compare to the Sonus Faber, also distributed by Sumiko. Most dealers that carry one carry both. As a musician I think you'll find the VA have more accuracy in the mids. Also, the VAs have great cabinetry. They're not as flashy as the SFs, but the quality of construction is equal.
Dave |
My goodness, those Strausses are my zip. Must resist... OMG, what a deal. Thank goodness they don't match my maple armoire.
Dave |
Mrtennis, you're not proposing a casual project. Mic selection is a mine field in and of itself. Also, NO MIC sounds like the instrument itself. A really good mic can get close, IF properly set up and feeding a very high quality recorder. You'll blow the OP's budget on one mic.
If you're really serious about understanding a speaker's ability to reproduce timbre accurately simply invite a few musicians over and ask them to focus on that part of the presentation. Timbre shouts out to muscicians. Listen to soprano, strings, trumpet and a good musician will easily identify inaccurate timbre.
Tacet makes some incredible string recordings of solo violin and small chamber groups. Any of the solo stuff by Janos Starker should put a cello in your listening room. (Cello is actually less challenging because of its mellow timbre).
Anyway, people that hear these instruments live day after day don't need a live vs. recorded demo to tell you if it's accurate or not.
Dave |
Yeah, that Stereophile Test CD is great. Every audiophile should get one and listen to it all the way through.
I love my B Babies. I paid full retail and don't regret it at all because I got great service from my dealer and they're incredible.
If you've got time to wait, save a little more and a good deal will show up on A-gon eventually. I wanted the Strausses originally but finally got the B Babies when it was apparent that I'd be in a sixth floor apartment until sometime in 2009. When I move to a larger place I may just add a REL subwoofer.
Dave |
02-05-08: Audiojan said:
"You won't be able to beat Magnepan MG1.6's for classical!"
I beg to differ. ;-)
Dave |
Classical music (the OP's interest) is often not recorded in a studio. More likely it's recorded in a concert hall, a church or a recital hall.
If you've every been privy to comparing a Neumann to a Schoeps, to an AKG, to a Shure, to an Audio Technica, to a Beyer, etc., etc. you'll know that the mic colors the sound at least as much as most speakers.
If you've lived with a recording from take through mixing through master, you'll realize that seldom is the final master the same as the original take. Tacet is one label that tries to keep that unalterred, but they use Neauman-based rebuilt tube mics that are noted as some of the most euphonic available. (I love them in fact).
I highly recommend Tacet to anyone wanting to test their system's string timbre. They really get it right, with a loads of overtone without undue edge. You hear the body of the instruments, not just the strings.
A cymbal... sheesh. Yes, a challenge to record well, but not really a great test of string timbre. Talk about letting the budget limit and influence the validity of the test. Mrtennis, don't you know any "real" musicians. (Drummers and percussionists are real musicians, but cymbal wackers are NOT). I'll bet neither your or your helper knew how to make the cymbal properly resonate. It's not as easy as it seems.
Dave |
Guido, his budget is 2-grand, so getting something higher up the VA ladder than the Bachs is going to require luck in the used market. If he could stretch for those used Strausses he'd be fixed forever, but by the time you add shipping and insurance, then you're well over his budget.
Also, with luck he could wait for some used Beethovens (Grands or Babies) but that could be a long wait.
Dave |
I ordered the mic sampler CD. That looks like a great resource. I'll review it after I've had time to play with it.
Dave |
02-08-08: Honest1 said:
"MrTennis' experiment would not work, unless it were conducted in an anechoic chamber, or with very close very directional microphones (which would not pick up all of the sound being rediated from all over an instrument). The reason is that the room acoustics would be doubled the second time around. The recording would have the instrument sound + the room acoustics' affect on that sound. When you played it back, you would have the instrument sound + the room acoustic sound on the recording + the room acoustic affect on both of those sounds."
I've re-read his post and I think that he's talking about recording an acoustic instrument live, not as played through the system. I quite often record my trumpet in my living room and then play it back through the 2-channel system to listen to my tone, articulations, resonance and presentation from the other side of the horn and there are no such issues. (BTW, my Vienna Acoustic Beethoven Baby Grands pass this test with flying colors).
I think that you may have been thinking of having an acoustic instrument play through a mic and then through the 2-channel speakers and then record that. I've never tried it, but I DO think you're right that it'd sound like mud, with the first reflections amplified at least and maybe doubled. It's interesting to think about, but I don't think that's what Mrtennis was suggesting.
Dave
No, I don't think so. |
02-08-08: Mrtennis said:
"i would say that there would be a significant difference between the sound of the instrument and what you hear coming out of your speakers."
I think you'd be pleasantly surprised.
My living room is large and has a lot of well padded furniture and a thick carpet. When I record trumpet in the middle of the room with the mic about 3-feet away I get a very pure trumpet sound with a touch of room ring. It comes through the 2-channel system very nicely, with accurate timbre, huge dynamics and enough realism to make the dog howl.
Dave |
02-08-08: Honest1 said:
"...
Having said that, I don't doubt that in a good large, dead, neutral room, Dave is getting surprisingly good results. If the room is contributing very little to the sound, then doubling that effect shouldn't be objectionable. He is also recording farily close to the instrument, which is pretty directional, that is, the sound comes straight out the bell, not from all over the trumpet body.
Are you using any processing (compression, eq), Dave, beyond perhaps a bit of peak limiting? I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is probably a major key to his success, compared to commercial recordings (see other recent thread on compression)... "
Correct, I use no compression or processing. I'm using 1-bit DSD at 5.6MHz, so I've got 130dB of dynamic range to play with. Thus there's no need to worry about overload (a very common problem with recording trumpet and trombone). My mic is out in the middle of the fairly dead room with high ceilings, thick carpet and overstuffed chairs and couches, so the main reflection I get is from the ceiling. I'm six feet tall and my speakers stand just under forty-inches and fire the opposite way into the room than from where I record. Hence doubling resonant frequencies is just not a problem.
The problems you mention would probably be most aggravated with a bass instrument, particularly an amplified bass. If you set it up in the same end of the room as the speakers and had the cab relatively near the speakers, then on playback you'd probably hear serious doubling. OTOH, I think that most treble string instruments and soprano brass and woodwinds are not going to present much problem, except in a very reflective room.
Dave |
I never said that you couldn't detect the difference between a live instrument and a recorded instrument. I'd get that right 100% of the time in most rooms. The room cues are just too numerous. However, speakers can easily get the timbre right and you don't need an A-B comparison to judge that. I think this is where we started, talking about timbre and not room acoustics:
02-04-08: Mrtennis said:
"in order to do a definitive test of a speaker's ability to reproduce timbre accurately, it is necessary to record an instrument in one's living room and compare the recording to a musician's presentation of the same music."
Maybe it's because I'm a musician, but my aural memory is sufficient to know a clarinet when I hear it. The timbre is intact in my room, even if the clarinet was recorded in an isolation booth.
Of course my musician's perspective may be distorted from the average audiophile's perspective. I'll grant that. I've heard live clarinet literally thousands of times, up close and far away, through mics and acoustic, with soft reeds and hard reeds, etc., etc. I suppose that many audiophiles haven't really heard live clarinet, or only from the orchestra seats a few hundred times, or less. That's a lot of difference in exposure.
That's just thinking about clarinet. On trumpet I've heard world class players from 3-feet and 300-feet, playing every possible combination of trumpet type. Excluding hearing myself, I've heard live trumpet ten of thousands of times.
Somewhere up the thread I think I suggested to ask a musician over to listen for timbre. I still think that's a realistic option and much easier than your proposed test. Given the difficulty of recording an acoustic instrument in a space where we also have a system set up, it's just an impractical test of a system.
Still, this is an interesting discussion and I appreciate your view.
Dave |
Well, I disagree. I've heard no evidence that my aural memory is not reliable.
Based on your premise, almost no one could judge the accuracy of their system.
Comparing non-musician's aural memory to mine is like a casual driver comparing his driving skills to a regional champion racer. I'm constantly listening and adjusting to sounds, timbre and pitch. I only do it a few hours per day, so that's nothing compared to a pro that puts in 8+ hours per day on his or her instrument.
Still, practice, repetition and performance hone skills that most people never develop. Even if you father is Michael Jordan, you'll never be a great basketball player without hours and hours of practice, week after week, month after month.
Listening to music enough CAN get a non-musician to a high level at judging a system's timbral accuracy.
We all need a reference and I agree that starting with a live acoustic instrument is one of the best ways to start, but at some point you learn enough that you don't need the instrument present to "know" the reference.
Dave |
Way to go. Get some leads and then listen for yourself, that's the way it's done.
Dave |
