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
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
goofyfoot
1,357 posts
 
If your Steinway sounds like a banjo, you probably need a restoration so call your piano tuner. Aside from that, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
danvignau's avatar
danvignau
935 posts
 
Funny you should mention pianos. A pal gave me his speakers because the internal sub amp quit working.  I heard them a lot at his house, especially on acoustic piano, largely on what sounds like a (Oscar Peterson's) Steinway and whatever Gene Harris plays.  Do these speakers have pitch, timbre, dynamics and spatiality?  Yes, especially spatiality; spatiality out the ying yang!  Than being the case, they still do not sound right, so there is a lot more going on than these 4 dynamics.

The  powered 8 inch subs in each cabinet face  toward the rear at about a 15 degree angle out, with a 6.5 inch midrange above it.  This section seems to be a transmission line design.   The front faces dead forward, like a regular speaker, and is not supposed to be angled.  It has about a three inch mid/tweeter behind a non-removable grill, under the removable grill.  A smaller tweeter faces in a way that defies belief, inward at about a 45 degree angle, but with a fat, non-.attached whizzer cone looking surround thing a quarter in or so from the tweeter surface.  This squeezes and diverts the sound in a circle from the 45 or so degree angle of the speaker.

Strangely, it has a really redeeming quality:  It makes a piano recording spread out as if there were a  concert grand in the room.  He powered it with Bryston electronics, which I also have, but I have not heard the speakers in my house.  They just sit to the sides of my desk, as they have for a couple of years. 

Does anyone want to guess the brand and model number?
OH YEAH, they certainly are not super clean and crisp, like my similarly sized, older B&W 803's, but the piano is HUGE!  Maybe I'll put some B&W drivers in the cabinets and smear the sound all over the walls?  Should I place them in front of my mirrored glass wall? 
Post removed 
djones51
4,947 posts
 
I've  got a banjo that sounds like a piano. Want to swap?
More to discover