How to meaningfully audition speakers??


I think this topic has appeared elsewhere, even if worded differently. But I thought I'd ask anyway.

Just upgraded my amp and was thinking about auditioning different speakers. Problem is that there are only a handful of high-end B&M stores nearby. Another complication is that no one store has the 2 or 3 speaker brands that I want to check out.

Further, I am dubious that one can meaningfully audition gear by running from store to store because the test conditions are not identical. In addition, unless a piece is really terrible or incredibly terrific, I don't trust my aural memory. Perhaps other have a different view.

Seems to me that the best way to accomplish what I want is to have the speakers of interest brought to my house and hooked up to my rig. But -- I am NOT aware of any dealer willing to part with expensive gear like that, especially if it has to be specially ordered from a distributor because the model is not on display.

So the Q is what do most folks do? Just buy speakers on hope and a prayer?? Rely on reviews or Forum comments??
bifwynne
Learsfool, perhaps your disappointment with modern recordings is inherent with what constitutes a modern pop/rock recording. With rare exception they are purposely not trying to capture a acoustic instrument in a real space. Modern recordings are multitrack collages rather than some document of a real event. The tools used to construct these collages while not unique to pop/rock, don't really travel well to recording other music types. It's not that these techniques, methods or aesthetics are "wrong", but rather they are not artistically appropriate in other musical categories.

Outside of audiophiles you won't find too many people obsessed with the sound of real instrument in a real space as a critical goal in music reproduction.
Hi Onhwy61 - your last post expresses exactly what I was saying. However, it is not just rock/pop recording that uses multi-miking and tracking - ALL modern recording does this, whether appropriate or not. There are very few exceptions, even in the jazz and classical worlds. That's exactly the problem - these techniques DID travel to the other music types, very soon after these digital techniques were possible in the 80s. I have never seen less than seven or eight mikes at any recording session I have ever been a part of, even of a small ensemble (professional recordings, that is). As I said before - this shouldn't have to be inherent in theory to modern/digital recording - yet the fact remains that it is in actual practice. These techniques, as you say, have nothing to do with the sound of real instruments in a real space. They have everything to do with ease of editing and mixing, and almost nothing to do with the actual sound of the music being made by the musicians. This is why musicians laugh at the concept of "fidelity to the recording."
I wouldn't refer to appreciating the sound and beauty of well played
acoustic instruments an obsession. Is it too much to ask for instruments
and voices to sound as realistic and natural as we know they actually do?

Why do we have to settle for the lowest common denominator (well the
generalmpublic doesn't complain) . Yes I can enjoy music with my clock
radio if it's music I connect with. We know how wonderful skilled musicians
sound playing their precious instruments(and years of practice to reach
this level). I find it dismissive and disrespectful to the musicians to say the
sound they produce is a trivial concern. Shame on the tin eared sound
engineers who can't appreciate what they're recording. I want these
engineers to make a honest effort to preserve as much of the original venue
instrument sound as they possibly can. Anything less is short changing the
musicians and the listener.
Charles,
It sounds like what Frogman said. Jazz and classical for some reason have engineers that care more about the music and its end results. This is one of the reasons I gravitated towards these two genre of music after being a rock head for many years. I appreciated the difference in quality and I actually could hear the instruments the way they should sound. I was hooked in a very short time.
"It sounds like what Frogman said. Jazz and classical for some reason have engineers that care more about the music and its end results. "

Maybe. They definitely have priorities that tend to align better with the textbook "audiophile".

I shy away from better/worse judgements like this though. Its a matter of opinion and personal preferences to a large extent. Classical/jazz and popular music are two different beasts marching to two different drums. Good to very good recordings that enable one to enjoy what they hear seem to be more the norm I hear these days in general than in past years, at least since the mid 1990's or so.

I have read things about digital recording techniques and technical standards improvements over the years that explain why.

Not to say that many a modern recording targeting purely a large pop audience these days is not largely reduced to a fairly low common denominator in all regards including sound quality that keeps its market as open as possible.

I would not doubt jazz/classical music attracts more musical "purists" in all regards, including production, but I would probably just leave it at that.

"Monkey Business" by Black Eyed Peas is a somewhat modern pop CD with good production quality overall I would say that has a lot of music FBOFW packed into it and serves as a good challenge to determine if a playback system is underpowered and can deliver the goods without clipping or not.

Clipping is public enemy #1 IMHO in regards to good sound. Effects of clipping can range from subtle/hard to detect to blatant distortion and/or lack of large scale dynamics. No system that clips will sound as good as it might, high end or otherwise.

Inefficient speakers with extended bass often require surprising amounts of power to NOT clip with many recordings played at even moderate volume levels.