2. speakers
  3. 165297-138652

I just bought a Steinway which sounds like a banjo.

I have a question: I’ve seen a lot of terms in audiophile jargon: laid back, top end, low end, harsh, soft, smooth, etc.
I don’t understand them. I only listen to recorded music, almost nothing synthesized. So the adjectives I know are: pitch, timbre, dynamics and spatiality. I cannot think of sound characteristics that are not inscribed within these four adjectives.
I believe that a sound reproduction device must first of all take care to satisfy these 4 characteristics.

When I read that a loudspeaker sounds harsh to me it means that the timbre is wrong because nobody would describe as harsh the reproduction of an instrument that has a harsh timbre. That would be a speaker that has a correct timbre. It can only be described as harsh the reproduction of an instrument that does not have a harsh timbre. The same goes for the other terms listed at the beginning. For spatiality it is even simpler because it is a geometric, spatial question. An ensable of which occupies 5 meters must sound like an ensambe that occupies 5 meters, not as one that occupies 2 meters nor as one that occupies 20 meters. Then the dynamics is linear so it is the simplest of all.

When Steinway puts a Steinway on the market it does so by taking care of a certain amount of objective characteristics, i would say 96-98% and 2-4% are probably left to the "character" of the instrument.

In the audiophile field, judging by the immense difference between one reproduction technology and another, it seems that the opposite meter is used, that is 4% of objectivity and 96% of character.
As if a Steinway sounded like a forgotten Pleyel in a basement, and a Pleyel sounded like a Boesendorfer. The whole is defended with sword drawn by the audiophile community as and cleared as subjective perceptions or eventually as an incompatibility between the elements in play (source, amplifier, speakers, cables) Hahah! Obviously, if all the products that follow the 4% objectivity meter and 96% "character", it takes a lot of luck to have a system in your hands that allows you to recognize a Pleyel from a Steinway.

When will sound reproduction become serious?
128x128daros71
Post removed 
asvjerry's avatar
asvjerry
4,701 posts
 
I may have the correct degree of brain damage (I heard that...😣), but I understood what the OP was 'on about'.  Noun vs. adjective, the intent and impression is similar enough to comprehend....
"Spatiality/resolution" edge into room acoustics, but another issue for another day...mho, and yours may vary...
The great majority of equipment can render a piano as recognized as a piano.  Personally, I'd find it amusing to hear a piano sound like a banjo.  I suspect it'd be difficult to tune one to do so.
The tuner of same should be hauled off to detox unless the deed was done for a lark by a paying customer...a whole different scenario. *G*

OK, seriously....IMHO, no speaker has yet to accomplish Perfect Reproduction in an absolute sense.  Many of varying sizes, formulations, pricing, et al may and can approach that goal but still fall short of achieving All of the Four Aspects stated by the OP.
Given the plethora of forums and postings by the denizens of AG, and the variations of commentary and responses garnered....

..No One has either.  Regardless of equipment, ICs', format played, room characteristics, power supply....

The Quest continues for some....others find a level of solace they can enjoy and stop, accepting the deal they've made with the chimera....;)

Will Perfect Repro ever be achieved?

No.  Even if the measuring devices swear in their absolutist way '...we're here, listen to It...', no.

Remember the old computer comment:

PEBKAC

Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair.

Even if we were presented with perfection, we likely wouldn't recognise it as such, so used to imperfection, things fraught with flaw.

daros71, sorry you got hosed.  'Net sales can be like that.  If you've no recourse to solution, send the seller an unmarked box of dog waste.

Yes, rude.  But some suspect you of being AKA 'Mr. K'; not a pretty status for one complaining of speakers....🤔

(Delete this if one must....I haven't attacked anyone in specific nor even in general; a tasteless suggestion, perhaps but one born of ennui...)


iseland's avatar
iseland
144 posts
 
Seem more like a rant than a question ... again. 
headphonedreams
527 posts
 
What a great answer by @replicnt6 !

Regarding being serious I think a lot of manufacturers take this very seriously. A lot of us who buys gear also take it seriously, maybe a bit too much sometimes. We know a lot of people don't. It is perfectly ok. If you mean that high end hifi doesn't sound good I disagree. You can hear a lot of things from the recordings. 
clearthinker's avatar
clearthinker
1,582 posts
 
Most of you guys can't read.  But then we already knew that.
The OP isn't complaining about his system.
Indeed he says nothing about his system at all.

Nor is his system relevant to his post.

OP is saying we are using the wrong terminology to describe sound.  An over-complex terminology.  A terminology that does not describe the sound of the music.

OP is coming from a somewhat different place than the rest of us.  We are aiming to describe the sound of the system, not of the music.
That's why he doesn't get where we are coming from.

However, I think he has a good point.  It relates to our obsession with the system, rather than with the music.

For instance, if Miller had a Steinway, he would try to make it sound 'better' by standing it on Townshend pads, or on springs.  That would be wrong.  As OP says, a Steinway sounds like a Steinway.  Or perhaps more accurately, a 9 foot concert Steinway in piano black sounds like a 9 foot concert Steinway in piano black.  etc.

More to discover