I just bought a Steinway which sounds like a banjo.

A individual I spoke to recently who has a unrestricted access to some of the Hi End Vinyl Source Devices that those with a generous
Disposable Income would veer toward, has informed me that their most wanted on the Wish List device, is the Steinway and Sons Speaker Model.
The Model with the Largest Bass Units was referenced,
this model is their Speaker of Interest if they can find a decent sum of money to put toward them.
As for Retail Price,   I do not know.
It all sounds expensive 'pardon the pun'

In the same conversation it was made known that the Scandinavian Ethic for home produced HiFi, and possibly a contributor to why Scandinavian Audio Devices are sought after,  is a result of a using a large proportion of a Female Workforce, as it has been proven in this country that there is a noticeable consistency in the audio quality of the end devices on the production runs.

I believe the reference to the assembly of devices was not just limited to Lyngdorf's practices.

I have a triangle that sounds like a square...

Wine tasting sensory analysis utilizes a wheel with descriptors EVERYONE can relate to.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/69805862948082256/

Maybe the audio industry should follow with a similar standard.

Daros, I thought your OP sounded “warm” and had a lot of “meat on the bones”.

I have the best audio system. 
Go ahead, stop me. 

pindac, I did look up Steinway loudspeakers. I was surprised to see that they are still in production. Any idea what the flagship model retails for?

Lyngdorf are producing the Steinway Speakers, known originally as the 
Brand, 'Lyngdorf Steinway'.
I believe recently the Lyngdorf name is not as prominent and the latest
collaboration for Speakers are to be found under the Brand name
'Steinway and Sons'.  

X djones 51 
Yes, exactly this is what i'm saying. You got it. 
And you are right, my tiny 1000 euro genelec monitors are able to reproduce sound in a far more natural way as my silly 10k shiny speakers, non matter with which amplification, source, space i let them play. That do not makes any sense. 

You're talking about the circle of confusion. There is no answer unless you standardize the entire production and reproduction chain. Unless that ever happens some recordings will sound great on your gear and some will suck. The closest I've come is using studio monitors that measure exceptional and DSP to compensate for room shortcomings.

I’d recommend a pair of Quad electrostatics. I have a pair of the 2905’s powered by an ASR Emitter II Exclusive, an Ayre DAC with a Bryston media player. The speakers are very temperamental in the way they are positioned but the results are beautiful when properly set up. The Quads shine where classical/art music is concerned and less so that with rock. Also, Steinway made a limited run of loudspeakers but they’re way too expensive and I don’t know how difficult it would be to even find a pair.

x Brianlucey: I understood my mistake. Maybe I haven’t explained my idea well, or, because other people have understood it, you simply have not understood it. You’re posing the problem as if I wanted to synthesize the sound of a piano ... I don’t want to synthesize the sound of a piano. I would like a speaker to be able to reproduce all the dynamic range, all the timbre and all the spatiality of real instruments. To do this one must have the possibility to compare the original with the reproduction and if there is any discrepancy, precisely identify the origin of each problem. He must also have the possibility to compare all reproduction techniques and all reproduction media, trying to identify the exact peculiarities of each one and its repercussions in the reproduction phase. Today we have many recordings available but they are all made in circumstances so different from each other that we cannot become wiser because the combinations are too many. It would therefore be necessary to remake masters in controlled situations, so that each variation can be related to a repercussion and mold the construction of the loudspeaker around that information.
It’s completely useless that some of you tell me that they are satisfied with their system! You simply are the champions of the silly "brute force empiricism" approach.
If i buy a source, an amp and speakers, i turn them on (ohhh yes! One year of burn in, i know!), play a known track and no instrument sounds like it should then the silly "brute force empiricism" approach is the only way i can go...i can pass the rest of my life thinking about hifi gear and go for the endless the try-and error highway, hoping to find the three components that song wrong enough to copensate each one. All that in my space in my home...completely useless to listen to a speaker at the resellers shop because wen you bring the speaker at your home it sound completely different. It’s your space!, It’s your amp! the cables!
Imagine i go to buy a sax, i play it in the store, i like it, i buy it, i play it at home and i’m disgusted. I go back to the shop to complain and they tell me that it’s probably because i’m playing the sax in the wrong space with the wrong t-shirt.
It seems that we cannot understand each other. It’s fine.
I like to use my head to formulate theories; you’d rather use it to bang it on the "wrong hi-fi component" wall. Brute force empiricism, or how to share a problem and never its solution. Only a logically structured solution can be a shared solution.

Jackleiss’ first comment is the best ever. To think some of these guys post none sense 50 times per day. 

adam817956 posts03-22-2021 4:57pm

I am a professional pianist and I feel that piano is one of the hardest instruments to really reproduce. Maybe I’m biased because its my instrument but I think because of its enormous range and complexity of interacting overtones, not just with sympathetic vibrations or the strings but interactions with the soundboard and cabinet, it’s really hard to get it right. That being said, I feel that 9 times out of 10, it’s the recording that gets it wrong, not the speakers or the electronics. Bad mic placement, bad EQ, bad mic choice all contribute to pianos not sounding like pianos. One of the micing techniques that has become en-vogue is to put two ribbon mics less than an inch away from the strings. Who listens to a piano like that with their ear inside the lid inches away from the strings! I’m sure speakers and electronics can contribute to the timbre of a piano from being off, but there are a whole slew of bad things that can happen before that sound reproduction gets to the hi-fi.

THIS 100%;
IMHO, most everything we do seems to be an exercise of making the best out of what we have no control over- the recordings;

At home I have a Yamaha baby grand piano, acoustic, and electric guitars. I have a high quality (44.1 KHz / 16 bit sample rate) portable USB recording/mixing product from PreSonus as well as the DAW to capture, process (mix multi-tracks, apply compression, etc) and accomplish final stereo mix down. When I record these instruments in their pure form with no compression and play them back, the sound coming from the speakers sounds properly harmonically rich and dynamic; In the case of the guitars it’s very much like being plugged into my guitar amps, and the piano sounds like it sounds to my ears in its space; If compression is applied to the recording you can hear these effects most profoundly in the playback; The piano loses its force and becomes more artificial sounding; Add in multiple tracks and various processing and what we have left is a far cry from the original instruments on their own; I’m amazed however how some recordings sound awesome and natural despite the homogenization of post processing;
These are simple tests anyone can do if so desired, and it proves that it’s (mostly) not our gear at fault but simply that what we struggle with, IMHO, is how we tune our systems to provide the average best response to the recordings we like;
Of course there are basic component mixing and matching loose rules to follow, such as try not to use an 8 watt SET on your Apogee’s, try not to use a Crown amp on your ultra sensitive $20K horn speakers;

I guess the point of this is, garbage in garbage out;

Happy listening

Great comment @jakleiss this makes a lot of sense to me.

I think most Steinway's sound dull and boomy. And yes, on my system, I can hear the difference between one of their overrated instruments and a Boesendorfer, or an upright Baldwin for that matter. Maybe you need better gear. Forget about ALL jargon, the object is to reproduce something that will make your hairs stand on end and transport you to another place......

Great comment, if you don't like it, systematically start making thoughtful changes with the help of reviews or knowledgeable experience and move from there.  

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.

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 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.   

I've  got a banjo that sounds like a piano. Want to swap?

Funny you should mention pianos. A pal gave me his speakers because the internal sub amp quit working.  I heard them a lot at his house, especially on acoustic piano, largely on what sounds like a (Oscar Peterson's) Steinway and whatever Gene Harris plays.  Do these speakers have pitch, timbre, dynamics and spatiality?  Yes, especially spatiality; spatiality out the ying yang!  Than being the case, they still do not sound right, so there is a lot more going on than these 4 dynamics.

The  powered 8 inch subs in each cabinet face  toward the rear at about a 15 degree angle out, with a 6.5 inch midrange above it.  This section seems to be a transmission line design.   The front faces dead forward, like a regular speaker, and is not supposed to be angled.  It has about a three inch mid/tweeter behind a non-removable grill, under the removable grill.  A smaller tweeter faces in a way that defies belief, inward at about a 45 degree angle, but with a fat, non-.attached whizzer cone looking surround thing a quarter in or so from the tweeter surface.  This squeezes and diverts the sound in a circle from the 45 or so degree angle of the speaker.

Strangely, it has a really redeeming quality:  It makes a piano recording spread out as if there were a  concert grand in the room.  He powered it with Bryston electronics, which I also have, but I have not heard the speakers in my house.  They just sit to the sides of my desk, as they have for a couple of years. 

Does anyone want to guess the brand and model number?
OH YEAH, they certainly are not super clean and crisp, like my similarly sized, older B&W 803's, but the piano is HUGE!  Maybe I'll put some B&W drivers in the cabinets and smear the sound all over the walls?  Should I place them in front of my mirrored glass wall? 

If your Steinway sounds like a banjo, you probably need a restoration so call your piano tuner. Aside from that, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

As a professional photographer and print designer I must point out that you are ignoring a lot of information in your reference to color reproduction. Perhaps similar to information you ignore in audio.

For Color:

1. All color sources (like cameras and computers) must come with their own unique color profile for color management to work. 
   
2. All color output devices (like printers, inks, and monitors) must come with their own unique color profile for color management to work.
3. None of the above calibrate very well.
4. None of the above are designed to be "accurate" They are designed to "look good."
5. Change the "whiteness" or the "finish" of the paper or monitor and everything color related changes.
6. If color is really important you do a press check and adjust color manually on press.

The #1 most impactful on color is the paper. If the paper has blue tone then the color will be bluer. If the paper has a yellow tone then the color will be more yellow.

Even after all of the above, we still can't control the environment where the end user sees the final colors. If the end user is inside a room with tungsten light the colors will be very different than the 5000K (or 6500K in europe) color proofing booths.

So... Color reproduction is actually an extremely nuanced art that continually proves how color "standards" are merely oversimplified  reference points. Change any one component and many adjustments are required to compensate

The same goes for audio. Just because you don't like these speakers  with your amp doesn't mean you wouldn't like them with a different amp. You should have the shop you purchased from send you a demo amp so you can hear what the shop thinks they should sound like.


Matt

I've said it before...for what you folks pay for equipment, you could hire a moving company to move a real Steinway B concert grand into your listening room and then hire Yevgeny Kissin to come in and play Chopin Etudes.

 

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 have been lucky to listen to them a while ago at the home of a musician in Milan, probably the same model you own (they where big). The best sounding speaker i ever heard.

I actually use the Dunlavy SCIV Signatures as my reference speakers and absolutely love them!  I bought them new back in 1994 or 1995 and have no desire to replace them.

I can easily hear the difference between the various makes of pianos and cellos with my Dunlavys in my system.

Best Wishes,
Don

This company. it seems, was doing something like that:  https://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/99dun4/index.html

X @ replicnt6, what a shame for making such a mistake! Ahhhh .... Can I try the subjectivity game? For me they are adjectives! Joke. Shame.
Let’s get back to the sound ... Obviously there is no system that can perfectly reproduce the sound of a piano. The same happens with color reproduction in print. Perfect color reproduction is not possible. Despite this, in this sector they do everything possible to get as close as possible to the ideal result. Measure everything possible and agree on certain standards. Converting RGB to CMYK is already a huge problem, because the CMYK space doesn’t have its own light, so it relies on an auxiliary light. More or less the problem of space when playing an instrument on a speaker that has its own space. A similar problem is faced by those who produce a Fazioli who have to grasp a lot of objective aspects, and then, right at the end, there is a small space for the "character" which is part of the differences between a great Yamaha, Steinway, Fazioli and so on. But in this area it seems they don’t want to define any stadard. It would be easy to agree even on multiple stadards. Imagine defining 128 recording standards, using different microphones, media and recording approaches in order to have the masters of something like a "history of audio recording" in controlled environments. You can do a lot of things with something like this. It is also possible to use this material to train neuronal networks in order to improve the digitization of old recordings. Now imagine you have a Steinway Spirio (it can mechanically record itself almost perfectly so you have the same live performance at your disposal as many times as you want), 128 recordings of the same Stainway and the most neutral amplification possible, and a new pair of Speakers in one space that matches the size of the recording space. Now you can start comparing the original with the master recordings played on the new speakers and learn a lot. If you want to agree on standards in an industry, you can raise millions so you can really do something like this with multiple music instruments. In other sectors they always do. In the meantime I have a pair of $ 10,000 speakers that sound much, much, much worse, from every point of view, than my father’s 1986 Bose 505, worth $ 300 driven by a cheap denon. It does not make any sense. P.S. Yes i sent them even back to the manufacturer and they come back almost identical. 

Maybe you should have just bought a Banjo and saved a whole hell of a lot of money

I am a professional pianist and I feel that piano is one of the hardest instruments to really reproduce.  Maybe I'm biased because its my instrument but I think because of its enormous range and complexity of interacting overtones, not just with sympathetic vibrations or the strings but interactions with the soundboard and cabinet, it's really hard to get it right.  That being said, I feel that 9 times out of 10, it's the recording that gets it wrong, not the speakers or the electronics.  Bad mic placement, bad EQ, bad mic choice all contribute to pianos not sounding like pianos.  One of the micing techniques that has become en-vogue is to put two ribbon mics less than an inch away from the strings.  Who listens to a piano like that with their ear inside the lid inches away from the strings!  I'm sure speakers and electronics can contribute to the timbre of a piano from being off, but there are a whole slew of bad things that can happen before that sound reproduction gets to the hi-fi.

Terminology is wonderful, in the studio every producer, engineer and musician must communicate with terminology that is meant to relate a feeling in the sound. Very rarely will a musician say I need 605hz taken down 3.5 db but it does happen sometimes.
Pianos are very hard to record because of phasing (a term not on your list) when you have a lid on the piano there are phasing issues by definition, when you have 2+ mics out you have phasing issues by definition. Creative people come up with new terms so an engineer can turn that feeling into technical manipulation of the signal.

Ah, but there are Hamburg Steinways and New York Steinways.

Is that like British speakers vs. American, or like East Coast sound vs. West Coast?

I see a lot of Yamaha grands now- like their woodwind cousins a bit brighter in tone than other makes but intonation usually more accurate maybe at the expense of 'tone'. My less PC friend always says 'velly reliable and always uses Yam. We had a monster of an Estonia at school in the main hall and a Bechstein that was crammed with crisp packets underneath...

There's a Yamioli near me (half Fazioli) owned by a certain jazz pianist.

Our piano tuner always deliberately tunes to give the sound a brightness

Most of you guys can't read.  But then we already knew that.
The OP isn't complaining about his system.
Indeed he says nothing about his system at all.

Nor is his system relevant to his post.

OP is saying we are using the wrong terminology to describe sound.  An over-complex terminology.  A terminology that does not describe the sound of the music.

OP is coming from a somewhat different place than the rest of us.  We are aiming to describe the sound of the system, not of the music.
That's why he doesn't get where we are coming from.

However, I think he has a good point.  It relates to our obsession with the system, rather than with the music.

For instance, if Miller had a Steinway, he would try to make it sound 'better' by standing it on Townshend pads, or on springs.  That would be wrong.  As OP says, a Steinway sounds like a Steinway.  Or perhaps more accurately, a 9 foot concert Steinway in piano black sounds like a 9 foot concert Steinway in piano black.  etc.

What a great answer by @replicnt6 !

Regarding being serious I think a lot of manufacturers take this very seriously. A lot of us who buys gear also take it seriously, maybe a bit too much sometimes. We know a lot of people don't. It is perfectly ok. If you mean that high end hifi doesn't sound good I disagree. You can hear a lot of things from the recordings. 

Seem more like a rant than a question ... again. 

I may have the correct degree of brain damage (I heard that...😣), but I understood what the OP was 'on about'.  Noun vs. adjective, the intent and impression is similar enough to comprehend....
"Spatiality/resolution" edge into room acoustics, but another issue for another day...mho, and yours may vary...
The great majority of equipment can render a piano as recognized as a piano.  Personally, I'd find it amusing to hear a piano sound like a banjo.  I suspect it'd be difficult to tune one to do so.
The tuner of same should be hauled off to detox unless the deed was done for a lark by a paying customer...a whole different scenario. *G*

OK, seriously....IMHO, no speaker has yet to accomplish Perfect Reproduction in an absolute sense.  Many of varying sizes, formulations, pricing, et al may and can approach that goal but still fall short of achieving All of the Four Aspects stated by the OP.
Given the plethora of forums and postings by the denizens of AG, and the variations of commentary and responses garnered....

..No One has either.  Regardless of equipment, ICs', format played, room characteristics, power supply....

The Quest continues for some....others find a level of solace they can enjoy and stop, accepting the deal they've made with the chimera....;)

Will Perfect Repro ever be achieved?

No.  Even if the measuring devices swear in their absolutist way '...we're here, listen to It...', no.

Remember the old computer comment:

PEBKAC

Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair.

Even if we were presented with perfection, we likely wouldn't recognise it as such, so used to imperfection, things fraught with flaw.

daros71, sorry you got hosed.  'Net sales can be like that.  If you've no recourse to solution, send the seller an unmarked box of dog waste.

Yes, rude.  But some suspect you of being AKA 'Mr. K'; not a pretty status for one complaining of speakers....🤔

(Delete this if one must....I haven't attacked anyone in specific nor even in general; a tasteless suggestion, perhaps but one born of ennui...)

I thought the OP's point was a criticism of audiophile terminology.
On that point I totally agree. Who doesn't?

There needs to be a collective effort to better define the 
"Terms of the Trade".  Otherwise the CJ will continue forever.

My position is that words can never achieve this goal.

On the contrary,  words are what put us here.
Here meaning everyone has different spin on the precise meaning
of a term.  So the babel continues.

My solution is to get a group of competents together in a studio
and churn out a CD that properly exhibits in sound what a term means.

Now if someone has a better idea how to create a coordinated strategy 
of getting the world on the same page I'd love to hear it!

😳
OP:

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.

replicnt6:

Not to be snarky but, those aren't adjectives.

😂😂😂

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.

Please do not take this as snarky. I am actually sympathetic. But I can't help but note that those four terms are nouns, not adjectives, and therein lies the difficulty.

No system can produce all four of those things perfectly. Depending on what resources you have to work with, you will have to make tradeoffs. What's more, the best reproduction depends on the quality of the recording, too. And tradeoffs are made in recording. Sometimes those tradeoffs will complement the tradeoffs you've made in your system and sometimes they won't.

The actual adjectives people use describe aspects of those four nouns. For example harsh usually means a bit to much amplitude at certain frequencies, an aspect of timbre. People talk about the soundstage and instrument separation which are aspects of spatiality.

So people are actually talking about what you want to talk about.

Not all Steinway's are made alike.   Certainly the company took a dive during WWI and after but Steinway still a reference piano.   I have a Fazioli and a Steinway and love the sound of the Fazioli over the Steinway.   

As for sound reproduction...you might try a Theta Digital IVa with powered speakers.   I personally prefer ATC actives...all the way around.  150a for the front, 100a surrounds, 25a for the rears and the C6 center and C6 sub.  The sound is silky smooth when it needs to be and explosive when it needs. I don't hear much color to the sound. jmho

As for headphones...I have MEZE Empyrean's.  With a good DAC...even portable...it is the best sound I have ever heard in headphones. Again jmho

Piano reproduction is one of the true tests of a system.  It is the most difficult instrument to faithfully reproduce in your room.  

John Siau, chief engineer of Benchmark Media wrote:

"Personally, I do not like what warm sounding equipment does to the sound of a piano. Warmth is wonderful on vocals, guitars and certain instruments, but it beats against the stretched overtones of a piano. The overtones in a piano occur at slightly higher than harmonic ratios, and these create beat notes with the exact integer ratios produced by electronic equipment (and speakers). Too much harmonic distortion will make a piano sound out of tune."

"it takes a lot of luck to have a system in your hands that allows you to recognize a Pleyel from a Steinway"

Interesting but I don't agree with this statement.  IMO it comes down to the equipment you use.  I will agree that it is hard to get there for most people who typically purchase a standard manufactured product and then try to match it to their speakers, etc.  Trial and error is sure a hard way to get the results you mention above.

I have said this hundreds of times, you have to know what makes the sound you are looking for to start off with or know someone who can assist you with this.  This is the reason why so many are spending time buying and selling gear and also why you get two different opinions on a piece of equipment.  Plus you have people who follow reviews.  Good luck with that.

If you want to hear the difference between piano types or violins you need to purchase a source that will allow you to hear that feature.  Without that, you probably won't get there any time soon.

Happy Listening.

You are correct 99 percent of audio/stereo reproduction is of the play it pretty/as you like it type of sound the key is to find the gear that plays music like the microphone picked it up and those types of components will better serve you in the long run than the tone control, pretty sounding gear that tires with time.

Even the cheapest of the cheap speakers will differentiate a Steinway from a banjo.

I will help you. What are you trying to accomplish with your system? 
List your system entirely. Then, describe in detail the problem with the sound. 

BTW, your perception of the speakers available in the industry I believe is impoverished. The performance spectrum of audio systems for the home is incredibly large. All the four characteristics you mention can be realized to a great or small degree relatively. One of the most important characteristics of an audio system you missed, resolution/definition. This directly impacts the others. It is quite possible that due to a difficult setup that does not please you, you have overlooked the relationship of a system's resolution in favor of these others. 

There is no way for anyone here to appreciate your predicament when they have no idea of your electronics. One glance could reveal a low end rig, in which case you may be expecting too much of a budget rig, or it may reveal an operational incompatibility which could be corrected, i.e. use of a lower powered amp with an inefficient speaker. 

If you wish to do more than simply rant, and perhaps rant out of ignorance of establishing fine audio systems, then provide more detailed information so the community can be of assistance.  :)