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 
I play and RECORD lots of electronic instruments and synthesizers. These sounds have "pitch, timbre, dynamics and spatiality"..... none of which are adjectives as you stated.  So, I too am at a total loss as to what you are talking about, and what your actual question is.  What do you expect from this community??
If you are accustomed to LIVE acoustic music, then no audio system will ever sound as good.  But many talented designers & engineer dedicate their lives to creating audio products that do the best we humans can.  I've enjoyed many many different audio systems, and I'm sad for you that you don't seem to find joy in recorded music.   
Yeah, here I am sitting on this bar stool,
Talking like a damn fool
Got the twelve o'clock news blues
And I've given up hope for the afternoon soaps
And a bottle of cold brew
Is it any wonder I'm not crazy
Is it any wonder I'm sane at all
Well I'm so tired of losing
I've got nothing to do and all day to do it
Well I'd go out cruising, but I've no place
To go and all night to get there
Is it any wonder I'm not a criminal
Is it any wonder I'm not in jail
Is it any wonder I've got too much time on my hands
I am a Cognitive Psychologist and have spent most of my career measuring peoples' sensory and emotional responses to products. The aim has been to validate Marketing brand intent as well as to inform designers and engineers of possible gaps between design intent and actual human perceptions and emotions. More important, though, is that I can also determine how to manipulate physical qualities of products to close any gaps.

In this area it is important to realize that there are actually two fundamentally different types of perception. One is descriptive in natyure and has to do with the physical properties of products, i.e., force, texture, color, shape, acoustics, smell, taste, etc. In this domain manufacturers typically use trained experts to describe products because the typical person either lacks the sensory accuity to detect subtle phsyical properties of products, or the vocaulalry to describe them. A wine connoiseur is an example.

However, a wine connoiseur can't tell you if you will like any particular wine. So, manufacturers also measure the perceptions of typical consumers. But, here, a different vocabulary is required, one with more subjective words such as "like", "prefer", "pleasing", etc. Indeed, psychological reasearch shows that the perception of typical people requires four bipolar dimensions of meaning to adequately describe: a) Valence (good/bad), b) Potency (strong/delicate), c) Arousal (intense/mild) and d) Novelty (familiar/unique). I have used rating scales designed to measure these four dimensions in many product develpment projects (including acoustics) and can literally provide engineering requirements for desired livels of each perceptual dimension.

My point is that you have to decide what your deign goal is. If it is to replicate reality then you might need something like an audio connoiseur to describe the physical qualities of the output sound in relation to a live sample. But, an enjoyable sound from the standpoint of listening pleasure might not be veridically accurate. More and more I find I just want to enjoy the music and not worry about whether it sounds veridically "real". So, do you "like" your stereo or not. I would start there.