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
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.

keithsax
107 posts
 
I see a lot of Yamaha grands now- like their woodwind cousins a bit brighter in tone than other makes but intonation usually more accurate maybe at the expense of 'tone'. My less PC friend always says 'velly reliable and always uses Yam. We had a monster of an Estonia at school in the main hall and a Bechstein that was crammed with crisp packets underneath...

There's a Yamioli near me (half Fazioli) owned by a certain jazz pianist.

Our piano tuner always deliberately tunes to give the sound a brightness
twoleftears's avatar
twoleftears
5,318 posts
 
Ah, but there are Hamburg Steinways and New York Steinways.

Is that like British speakers vs. American, or like East Coast sound vs. West Coast?
donavabdear's avatar
donavabdear
507 posts
 
Terminology is wonderful, in the studio every producer, engineer and musician must communicate with terminology that is meant to relate a feeling in the sound. Very rarely will a musician say I need 605hz taken down 3.5 db but it does happen sometimes.
Pianos are very hard to record because of phasing (a term not on your list) when you have a lid on the piano there are phasing issues by definition, when you have 2+ mics out you have phasing issues by definition. Creative people come up with new terms so an engineer can turn that feeling into technical manipulation of the signal.
adam8179
68 posts
 
I am a professional pianist and I feel that piano is one of the hardest instruments to really reproduce.  Maybe I'm biased because its my instrument but I think because of its enormous range and complexity of interacting overtones, not just with sympathetic vibrations or the strings but interactions with the soundboard and cabinet, it's really hard to get it right.  That being said, I feel that 9 times out of 10, it's the recording that gets it wrong, not the speakers or the electronics.  Bad mic placement, bad EQ, bad mic choice all contribute to pianos not sounding like pianos.  One of the micing techniques that has become en-vogue is to put two ribbon mics less than an inch away from the strings.  Who listens to a piano like that with their ear inside the lid inches away from the strings!  I'm sure speakers and electronics can contribute to the timbre of a piano from being off, but there are a whole slew of bad things that can happen before that sound reproduction gets to the hi-fi.
More to discover