First off, it’s a snarky post, get over yourself. Secondly as was said, your adjectives are NOUNS. Thirdly, pianos sound VERY different even in the same size, just like speakers do ... from Steinway B (boring and predictably overused) to Mason and Hamlin DD (rich and ballsy) to Bosie of the same size (clean and precise and sterile) ... or the smaller Baldwin Acrosonic (usually plinky) compared to other smaller pianos. Finally, loudspeakers are in their infancy, piano tech is 150 years old. And it’s MUCH easier to make a sound than to recreate one. When more speakers sound in the same range as the current best in the world, then we will be in the future :) In the end speaker design is always some form of compromise. If you have $100,000 or so, the compromises are minimal. I can’t imagine a better result than my speakers, but time will tell :)
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?
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?