Recomendation for speakers BEST for Piano?

As I was reading a review in Absolute Sound, they were mentioning that the suckout that comes from adding a subwoofer to 2 ch music playback systems and the mayhem it causes, may not make it worthwhile to add subs, unless you can have 2 (due to phasing issues), and a 4th order xover....they argue that most 2nd order xovers included in most hardware doesnt do the job at all, and they actually have changing "Q's" as you adjust the freq cutoff./

Have you guys with subs measured your curve lately?

I've found that my system reproduces lifelike piano music. I prefer SACD recordings of piano, though some CD labels can get pretty close (Reference Recordings, Chesky, JVCXRCD, Emil Berliner Studios etc).

We have a 1976 Kawaii grand that my wife teaches on in the studio. It has a very pleasing tone, though the action is a little heavy for small hands. I love the music that a piano is capable of.

My SACD's are sourced through a Denon DVD 2900 "hybrid" player, CD through Cambridge Audio DiscMagic/S700 DAC combination, with Creek 5350SE amplification, Totem Forest speakers and Wireworld Atlantis cables throughout.

IMO the transducer is only part of the equation in optimizing the realism of the reproduction of acoustic music. If you truly want to accurately reproduce acoustic instruments, you need to optimize source, amplification and the transducer.

I've yet to hear a recording of a piano that sounds "the same" as our piano. Given that I haven't hired a professional to come in and record our piano in its space to create a fair "test", that isn't too surprising. Having said that, I am totally satisfied by the realism offered by my modest stereo system.

Jsuso, you are correct; the use of subwoofers is problematic. Piano recordings are particularly good at demonstrating just how difficult it is to integrate a sub into a quality system. The timbral "sameness" of the piano throughout it's wide frequency range, make the problems at the "crossover" points, very obvious. I use a REL Strata III with three very different speakers (Stax F-81, Maggie IIIA's, Genesis IM8300), and while the added fullness that the REL contributes is, at times, appreciated, I am always aware of the fact that the lower frequencies are reproduced by a very different, and in the case of the Stax and Maggies, much slower transducer.

dmmcgregor, nice post. I agree, point for point. The issue is really about being satisfied. We don't need perfection to achieve that.

Best.

Hey Frogman, how do you know that the expanded soundstage added by your subwoofer isn't due to the 0.2msec delay between the sub and your mains at 80 Hz? Or the phase shift between running a mono sub with binaural mains? Why are you so sure that it's due to 20 Hz "undertones" that only a nearly inactive subwoofer can produce? Do you really think these practically inaudible tones are present on redbook CDs? As a recovering subwoofer user my opinions on this matter could be suspect but I offer them honestly. Jsujo is absolutely correct but Sam Tellig says it best in the current 12/03 Stereophile (p.36, col.2, p6): "Deep bass is almost always more trouble than it's worth." Free your ears from the tyranny of frequency response. Try going "subless"!

Khrys...I think that your "going subless" is certainly reasonable. As I have observed, most of the time the SW cones are doing nothing. And "doing nothing" means exactly that. There is no subsonic hall sound that somehow gets reproduced without any motion of the cone. However, there are some recordings that do have hall sound, with cone movement, and there is some music that does really give the sw a workout. But these cases are few and far between.

I have an elaborate SW system built into the wall (3 systems/6 drivers), but it did not cost me a lot because I designed, built, and tweeked it. I enjoyed the construction process as much as listening. The amps are on a separate power switch. Sometimes I join the subless gang by throwing the switch.