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
no_regrets
543 posts
 
I actually use the Dunlavy SCIV Signatures as my reference speakers and absolutely love them!  I bought them new back in 1994 or 1995 and have no desire to replace them.

I can easily hear the difference between the various makes of pianos and cellos with my Dunlavys in my system.

Best Wishes,
Don
daros71's avatar
daros71 OP
118 posts
 
I have been lucky to listen to them a while ago at the home of a musician in Milan, probably the same model you own (they where big). The best sounding speaker i ever heard.
brianlucey's avatar
brianlucey
162 posts
 
First off, it’s a snarky post, get over yourself. Secondly as was said, your adjectives are NOUNS. Thirdly, pianos sound VERY different even in the same size, just like speakers do ... from Steinway B (boring and predictably overused) to Mason and Hamlin DD (rich and ballsy) to Bosie of the same size (clean and precise and sterile) ... or the smaller Baldwin Acrosonic (usually plinky) compared to other smaller pianos. Finally, loudspeakers are in their infancy, piano tech is 150 years old. And it’s MUCH easier to make a sound than to recreate one. When more speakers sound in the same range as the current best in the world, then we will be in the future :) In the end speaker design is always some form of compromise. If you have $100,000 or so, the compromises are minimal. I can’t imagine a better result than my speakers, but time will tell :)
mikeydee's avatar
mikeydee
48 posts
 
I've said it before...for what you folks pay for equipment, you could hire a moving company to move a real Steinway B concert grand into your listening room and then hire Yevgeny Kissin to come in and play Chopin Etudes.

 
mattcrawley
1 posts
 
As a professional photographer and print designer I must point out that you are ignoring a lot of information in your reference to color reproduction. Perhaps similar to information you ignore in audio.

For Color:
  1. All color sources (like cameras and computers) must come with their own unique color profile for color management to work. 
  2. All color output devices (like printers, inks, and monitors) must come with their own unique color profile for color management to work.
  3. None of the above calibrate very well.
  4. None of the above are designed to be "accurate" They are designed to "look good."
  5. Change the "whiteness" or the "finish" of the paper or monitor and everything color related changes.
  6. If color is really important you do a press check and adjust color manually on press.
The #1 most impactful on color is the paper. If the paper has blue tone then the color will be bluer. If the paper has a yellow tone then the color will be more yellow.

Even after all of the above, we still can't control the environment where the end user sees the final colors. If the end user is inside a room with tungsten light the colors will be very different than the 5000K (or 6500K in europe) color proofing booths.

So... Color reproduction is actually an extremely nuanced art that continually proves how color "standards" are merely oversimplified  reference points. Change any one component and many adjustments are required to compensate

The same goes for audio. Just because you don't like these speakers  with your amp doesn't mean you wouldn't like them with a different amp. You should have the shop you purchased from send you a demo amp so you can hear what the shop thinks they should sound like.


Matt
More to discover