2. speakers
  3. 165297-138652

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?
daros71
bigkidz
3,303 posts
 
"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.
kijanki's avatar
kijanki
4,394 posts
 
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."

lhasaguy's avatar
lhasaguy
329 posts
 
Piano reproduction is one of the true tests of a system.  It is the most difficult instrument to faithfully reproduce in your room.  
mmrmd
3 posts
 
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
replicnt6
1 posts
 
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.
More to discover