Ndeslions, To get that focus and air hifi components cheats, it's all in the meds and high meds, a bit less meds, a bit more high meds and you get the details, the air, the focus BUT you loose timbral accuracy, fullness. The technical term is a "scooped midrange' - it has been extremely successful in high end audio. Add a metal tweeter and you can often achieve an "etched" sound. If you are after timbral characteristics more than a wow soundstage, ambience or atmasphere then try to audition a Harbeth or ATC speaker. Internally damped drivers like pulp paper cones or polypropylene or doped fabrics seem to work well at preserving the timbral information on the recording - these are all very old as the hills type speaker designs. I am not a fan of newer metal or ceramic cones (often ringing issues) unless you go for the best designs like accuton. Because of the preponderance of two way designs with 6" woofer/mid drivers the midrange scoop is the most common sound from speakers today (a large cone will tend to beam in the midrange leading to a midrange scoop and an emphasis in upper mids and air when you listen far field). I may be barking up the wrong tree but this is likely part of your problem. |
Sineburst - there is an interesting paper in the latest AES journal on concert halls - you will be pleased to know that Boston is rated very highly and its dimensions are based on a famous hall in Europe ( also Sabine from Harvard got involved in the design ). Anyway the paper is fascinating stuff - it lists several features that have been found to be important in the acoustics of a great concert hall. Anyway - it is more interesting then circular philosphical arguments on Audiogon that a radio is good enough to appreciate msuic and that, by similar logic, the qualities of a concert hall are not important to music appreciation - anyway there is a chance you come away with some deeper understanding if you were to delve into this paper.... |
In my opinion, when it comes to loudspeakers, those that possess the necessary dynamics and instaneous swings in volume, for example, horns, tend to sound far more agressive, brash, and threadbare than real life, while those that can reproduce the proper timber, liquidity, relaxed nature, voluptuousness, or flow such as electrostatics (which often overshoot the mark) are woefully inadequate when it comes to dynamics and being able to reproduce both the suddenness and power of the real thing. Typical cone/dome speakers fall somewhere in the middle of those two, determined mostly by their crossovers and/or their drive units.
Trelja, Your point about horns and electrostats is valid. The fact that cone/dome speakers fall in between may explain why they are the most successful and popular form of speaker. To me the closest you can get to the dynamic realism of live sound today (with a quality that approaches the timbral accuracy of some electrostatics) would be ATC's but I would agree with you that nothing out there is perfect. I would add that most people are not looking for "live" type sound at home and prefer something much more relaxing. |
Undertow, The audiophile curse*** I agree about the Armani purse. Basically many like to say "we all hear differently" Agreed. Many like to stay with anjou pear, definitely The actual truth is we have varying degree's of deafness :-) And of course, most are wearing dungarees of denim! What else are dunagrees made from these days! BTW - What happened to the Economy and Hi-fi thread - did it get zapped? - the silence on that front is deafening! |
i can listen to music on a radio and get what ever the composer intended as i would on a "high end" stereo system. What? You can't be serious. Do you just listen to melodies then? What about the musicians and conductor and arrangement? I mean bass guitar riffs not hidden behind the drums on rock. I mean to be able to follow precisely the contribution of each instrument throughout an entire complex piece with 11 or more band members or a whole orchestra? Sorry but I don't agree at all. You need both a good recording and a good system to really hear deep into the music. Of course, if you only concentrate on lead guitar and the lead singer and pretty much ignore the rest as mere backing instruments then I do agree. |
Mr Tennis,
On second thoughts I guess I must add that I probably listen very differently from most people. I listen to recordings and concentrate on a particular individual instrument and then play it again listening to another. Perhaps this is why I like studio speakers so I can hear deep into the mix as opposed to having the more general overall pleasant warm sound. So I know what you mean about simply enjoying the "tune" or "melody" and nothing more (for which a radio is sufficient) |
if you are focused upon accuracy of reproduction, than i would agree with you. however, much of the purpose of the music is transmitted by means of a radio If you are referring to my post then you are incorrect. I am not trying to hear "accuracy". As accuracy for accuracy sake has absolutely no value to me. I am actually trying to hear the notes, accents and timing of each individual musician - to hear exactly what they are doing. Between a radio and a high end system there is complete night and day in being able to hear what is actually going on. |
it seems that you are more interested in the parts than the whole. No I would say that as a music lover I am interested in both. How the parts fit together to make a whole is one of the most interesting aspects of complex musical pieces. It is why I have several version of the same pieces of music and it is interesting to compare and contrast how they are played differently (even if the melody is the same). I think some people hear only "melodies" when they listen to music whilst others hear things like the relative timing of specific notes, instruments and their relative emphasis. Like in any field, there is a superficial level and a detailed level. An engineer might marvel at the visual beauty of a bridge spanning a river in the same way as a layman but the same engineer may also be looking at structural details and complexity: the engineer may marvel at the beauty of how it was designed, clever use of materials and how well it has been constructed. There is nothing wrong with being a layman but to suggest that listening to music on a radio is good "enough" is to ignore an entire aspect of the beauty of the creation process and the artistry of the musicians. Frankly, the hyper compressed garbage being put out by major labels on CD these days (particularly in the pop genre) means you can't tell a Keith Moon from John Bonham from adam. The sound is so clipped and gated and manipulated that it becomes irrelevant who the musicians are! Unfortunately, layman don't know the difference and don't care to know the difference => and we get what we deserve: the lowest common denominator in music reproduction - mostly manipulated noise completely lacking subtlety or artistic expression from highly trained and skilled musicians! |
Shadorne, I tend to focus more on different individual or group played lines or elements in the music when I listen also. I think that any audiophile would necessarily want to do this but I begin to suspect that many are just proud collectors of shiny glowing cabinets, cables with precious metal and veneered towers that come with high price tags. Like a Rolex watch - it begins to have very little to do with teh accurate telling of time and much more to do with pride of ownership - the feeling of exclusivity - a conversation piece. A high resolution system is just jewellery if there is absolutely no interset in listening to details, IMHO. |
I like nice looking things as much as the next guy, but the irony is that good looks is not required for good sound though many may equate the two. To quote the fab four, "What do you see when you turn out the light?" |
OMG, we are on an audiophile website and people are actually arguing that a boombox is better suited to appreciate music to the greatest possible extent....go figure!
Perhaps we don't even need ridiculously expensive musical instruments to really appreciate music - after all vocals and clapping are more then enough - who cares for a nice sounding steinway - after all expensive things like pianos are just a nonsensical rich diversion for those who are unable to appreciate music.... |
It would be a bit condescending to suggest that they do not or cannot appreciate music as a result. Agreed. I feel bad. What do you suggest - should I sell everything and buy a Bose wave radio.... ;-) Rush had a good song about this "The Trees" - the theme was that the short Maples (Canadians)were jealous of the tall Oaks (Americans) - the proposed solution was a law that all trees were cut to the same height removing the height advanatge of the oaks. (does the forest look better now?) I propose we pass a noble law and outlaw all Hi-Fi systems that are not Bose or Sony.... |
shadorne, using terms like "circular argument" fallaciously hurts whatever point you are trying to make. Quite right. I think Dpac996 got it. I realized I wasn't going anywhere - but have you? |
