How to meaningfully audition speakers??

"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.

Public Enemy #1

In order to "meaningfully" audition speakers, clipping must be avoided.

The best insurance policy is to start with the biggest best amp possible for the initial audition, as an insurance policy against clipping.

Most smaller speakers that promise any kind of flat response below 50 hz or so will require amps capable of delivering 250 w/ch or more into 8 ohms (doubling to 500 w/ch into 4 ohms) for that "insurance policy".

More power is always better than less to establish an initial reference.

From there, you might find less power suitable in the end, but not until you have a performance reference that is best assured to not involve clipping.

Most tube amps and some SS amps "soft clip". SOft clipping has less offensive distortion characteristics than "hard clipping" but clipping is always a form of distortion and best to avoid altogether to the maximum extent possible, unless the best dynamics possible are not a concern.

I suppose that my distaste for studio recordings in general is the mixing involved which is readily heard and certainly not appreciated by me. This being the primary reason I gravitate more towards live recordings. Case in point just the other day a friend sent me a youtube link to a live clip of Melody Gardot singing "Baby I'm a Fool" recorded during a TV show. I liked it so much I spent time trying to find a live disc with this cut. I ended settling for the studio album "My One and Only Thrill" which I just received last night. The mixing involved in the studio version with the overdubbed orchestra robbed the immediacy and connection of the live performance. To most folks maybe many audiophiles, this wouldn't matter but it did to me as my first experience was that live performance which so much better communicated that song to me than the studio version. The mixing that these "sound engineers" use often times robs so much of the magic of the live performance, this one was no exception. The voice was certainly there but the recording just sounded so disjointed and pieced together and didn't have the same magic.

It does seem there really isn't enough interest outside of audiophiles that obsess over these matters. If the artists don't insist on a better end product it seemingly won't happen downstream.

My apologizes to the OP for continuing to not discuss the original question.

Multitrack recording and digital recorders are two separate issues. Multitrack recordings originated in the late 1950s and continued for decades with analog tape machines. Digital multitrack recorders didn't become available until the mid-1980s. You can make purist, audiophile oriented recordings with either analog or digital equipment.

Here's a link to an interview with Rudy Van Gelder. I take it as a fact that RVG knows more about music recording than anybody participating in this thread.

RVG mentions Bob Weinstock (Prestige producer) and his description of Wienstocks approach makes sense. I've lways preferred RVG's Prestige sound more than his Blue Note sessions and I own many of both labels. He said Weinstock was a jazz fan and gave the musicians more sway and control. Prestige along with Columbia, Riverside and Contemporary all had better tone and natural sound than the Blue Notes Rudy did. Blue Note certainty had the big talent musicians in the early portion of their careers before they moved to bigger labels.

Personally I prefer RVG's earlier two track recordings compared to his later multi track/
mic efforts. Contrary to his comments, his early stereo Prestige were his best sounding recordings in my opinion they just were more natural and truer in tonality. It's simply a matter of taste.
Charles,