How to meaningfully audition speakers??

And Frogman, it would also be interesting to hear your thoughts regarding orchestral recordings in the modern stereo era where there seems even a greater variance. From the origins of the great recordings of RCA, Mercury and Decca to a seeming complacency as stereo took hold for the masses. I guess there would have to be a historical perspective of this that would probably take a volume or two to understand what really happened and why.

Wolf,
I understand the notion of pleasing the mass public, but I'd think most would appreciate bettet sound of their preferred music if given a choice. My preference is jazz on both major and obscure labels . Most of my friends who love jazz aren't audiophiles by any stretch of the imagination, just music lovers from all walks of life. I don't know what being a so called audiophile has to do with it.l own hardly any "audiophile" labels , the music most often is bland and un involving. So have the recording engineers decided that only jazz and classical music listeners care about the sound quality? If that's the consensus I say they're wrong. There are good sounding pop recordings just a smaller percentage than is surely possible.
Charles,

Hi Charles - your question has been touched on in a couple of different threads, including that jazz one. I think I'll let Frogman take a stab at it here if he likes, as he writes much better than I do. A short and flippant answer would be that almost all recording engineers are untrained (meaning self-taught, basically), and most really don't have any idea what they are doing. I am more than half serious when I say that, unfortunately.... Modern digital techniques have enabled any idiot to think they can make a great recording now, and there are many of them thinking they are doing so. They just stick a bunch of mikes all over the place and mix it however they think sounds cool. Even in the classical world. The musicians almost always have a much better basic understanding of how to record their own instruments properly than the sound guys do. But we almost never have any control over that whatsoever - this is true of musicians in all genres. The recording labels drive the bus in general. The musicians are lucky to be consulted at all, and in the orchestral world it would only be the conductor getting consulted, maybe a soloist too if there is one, except in very rare circumstances.

Yes, I could give a more serious reply, but this is actually an issue that very quickly makes me very angry. This is why most professional musicians roll their eyes at audiophiles that say they want to maintain "fidelity to the recorded signal" above all other priorities. Much of the time, the recording job was crap - why the hell should we be faithful to someone who we know did not record us well? Instead, the reference point for a system, auditioning speakers being the most important part of that, should be to the actual sound of un-amplified live music, as Frogman said.

Another flippant answer about why the older orchestral recordings sound much better would be that it has everything to do with analog vs. digital recording techniques, particularly the differences in the miking, but let's not start that argument here. OK, I'll shut up now.

Learsfool ..., happens to be that I agree with you. Just talking out loud for a minute, I wonder if the problem you touch on is exacerbated by the current state of digital media not conforming to a uniform industry standard. Seems to me that each digital media has its unique quirks, and sound engineers are lucky to figure out how to turn the equipment on, let alone effect reference point fidelity recordings.

I recall a few posts that described the engineering guys who handled analogue recording in the day as being artists in their own right. And that included dubbing and mixing, then the transfer of the recorded music from tape to master pressing disc and then on again to the skills needed to properly press the vinyl.

I look forward to reading other informed views. And as I said above, it seems kinda dumb to talk about this piece of gear or that if you can't get good source material.

****Type casting is a no-no as there are always exceptions to the rule: long
haired rockers who always use 11; studious geeks who defer to exactitude;
free thinkers who tend to experiment. **** - Nonoise

That was going to be, essentially, my first comment in answer to
Charles1dad's questions. This is a difficult issue to address because of the
above and because there is no way for me to address it honestly without
ruffling some feathers.

My absolutely honest, no-pulled-punches, sure-to-offend-some opinion,
which many will disagree with, is that there is an unavoidable and
fundamental conflict that always occurs when music and technology meet.
I am, of course, not referring to the technology that makes possible the
existence of electronic instruments, but the technology of the
record/playback and live-sound engineering processes. In these situations
the end result is not fully in control of the musicians but of those coming at
it from the technical side of things. Even in cases where the technical
engineers are themselves musicians they are usually not part of the
creative process, so it takes a very special and sensitive individual to fully
understand the need to get out of the way as much as possible; and by that
I mean, to use the technology to capture as faithfully as possible what the
musicians are creating without putting his own stamp (vision) on it. Of
course, there are instances when that is precisely what the musicians want;
wether it is by way of wanting the engineer to alter a particular aspect of the
performance, or the extreme case of surrendering every consideration to
the producer's vision for the project. The existence of this conflict is the
fundamental reason why I have always insisted that live unamplified sound
is, with all its problems and inconsistensies, the best reference for judging
what an electronic component is doing right or wrong. As far as gear goes
I have always been a fan of the "less is more approach". Gear
that has always sounded the most like music to me is: electrostats without
complex xovers, tube amplification (I use a passive pre) and analog (which,
from my perspective, is simpler in nature than digital). That's not to say that
I haven't heard great sound of a different persuasion, but in my experience
the "less is more" approach has a far better batting record.

One of the most often mentioned music cliches is that there are only two
kinds of music: good and bad. Absolutely true, but it would be naive to not
recognize and acknowledge that, while not necessarily an indication of
ultimate value and worth, some music is simply more sophisticated or, at
least, more complex than others. To be honest and direct, anyone who
thinks that there is as much sophistication of sheer craft in the Beatles', or
even Frank Zappa's, musical legacy as there is in that of Bartok, R.
Strauss, Wayne Shorter or Miles is kidding himself and should do a little
more listening. Anyone who would question that should take a look at the
score for "Der Rosenkavalier" or a transcription of Coltrane's
"Giant Steps"; then, let's talk. Please note that I am not passing
judgement on ultimate merit; rock and pop music bring different things to
the table: the visceral aspect, current social relevance (for better or worse),
and in the case of the best of the genre, SOPHISTICATION IN ITS
SIMPLICITY AND ACCESSIBILITY. Good music is not about complexity
but about its ability to touch our emotions; and that is what makes it good or
bad. Still, the level of nuance in tonal and dynamic shading that one hears
(and is required) in great classical and jazz performance far surpasses that
heard in most rock/pop performances.

What does any of this have to do with Charles1dad's questions? The
sophistication (complexity) of much classical and jazz music DEMANDS a
similar level of sophistication from the engineers if the music is not to
suffer. One example: When a composer orchestrates a piece of music he
takes into account how the chosen set(s) of instruments interact
acoustically to create a certain tonal color via the balance of the volume at
which each instrument is expected to play each individual part; an effect
that no amount of artificial ambience created by the engineer can recreate
and is utterly destroyed by multimicing. Detractors of the live-music
reference often cite how the pin-point imaging heard from high-end audio
systems is missing in live music. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO; it's
seldom what the composer wanted. The multimicing used by some
engineers to "help" matters usually do little more than destroy
those delicate balances; which is but one of the reasons why so many of
the classic recordings form the "Golden Age" sound so great.
Simple mic techniques and respect for the effort that the players put into
balancing their individual parts within the whole is key. Additionally, my
own personal experience in recording studios is that the more commercial
(pop/rock) the project, the less likely it is that the engineer will leave the
booth, stand in front of the players and actually listen to what the music
actually sounds like in the room before it gets picked up by a mic. I think
the implications of that are obvious.

There is an often expressed opinion among musicians that the proliferation
of technological toys to "fix" and "help" the product
in the recording process was not born out of a need for them, but rather,
that engineers actually had to find uses for them. Clearly, many of these
electronic band-aids are put to good use and there clearly are many really
good sounding rock/pop recordings, but it is easy to see how this can also
lead to less reliance on ingenuity and very careful and sensitive
LISTENING on the part of many engineers as was the case in previous
eras when all that gear didn't exist. From my perspective it is not difficult to
understand why the absence of (or, arguably, the absence of a need for) a
true reference (live acoustic sound) in rock/pop could yield fewer examples
of really great sound.

Learsfool,
I can hear your frustration and I understand why . But why do these "untrained sound guys" record jazz well and wreck havoc on most of the other genres? Or are these types as you describe them barred from the jazz sessions?

You simply can't. Find a speaker that you like in the store and hope the rest of your stuff mates well with it.

.
One phrase that keep occurring in the answers..."buy and hope"
.

I dont think it's as simple as the old digital vs analogue argument. I've heard enough good sound and bad with both formats. I blame the ability (or lack )of the recording engineer. There are excellent sounding digital jazz recordings, so it obviously can be done.there are some vinyl pop and rock efforts that are awful.

Frogman, I didn't intend to limit the obvious possibility of type casting as it's usually based on a kind of truth: I just wanted to avoid generalities though they most certainly apply (and I didn't want to be the first to say it, not having the expertise).

What you say about the industry, in general, speaks volumes. Solutions in search of a problem that never really existed. Technologies used that overstep their intentions.

When you speak of SOPHISTICATION IN ITS SIMPLICITY AND ACCESSIBILITY, I'm reminded of MA Recordings, Mapleshade, ECM and others that always seem to get it right. They can capture the moment, the intent, flow and emotion and bring it to your living room.

All the best,
Nonoise

Frogmam,
Thanks for your very insightful perspective. You mention the engineers having less reliance on actual listening to the musicians play and are instead in the booth. This one factor explains plenty! This approach would seem to lead to fixing a product that requires no (or minimal) fixing or tampering. There's probably an overwhelming desire to utilize available technology and gadgets just simply because you can rather than true need.
I also agree with vyour point concerning microphones, it appears mutimicing is over relied upon and often does more harm than good. The simpler microphone use of the 1950s stereo era have clearly stood the test of time.
Charles,

It has nothing to do with analog vs. digital, specific mics, multi miking or even the experience of the engineers. There really is no simple answer and therefore no simple fix.

Basically it has to do with differing aesthetics. How a classical or jazz recording is supposed to sound is very clearly defined. For jazz it should sound like "Kind of Blue", one of RVG's Blue Notes, or maybe like an ECM recording. Because jazz has such a well defined sound there are a whole list of things you don't do when recording/mixing a jazz album. For instance you wouldn't use a non-lin reverb on the drums. No compressor on the bass. No vocoder effects on the vocalist. Don't shift the sax from the left to right channel during his solo. There are just things that you won't think of doing on a jazz recording. There are no such rules or prohibitions in pop/rock recordings. Because of this the sound of pop/rock recordings is very variable. For some engineers it's a case of too much freedom and the sound quality can suffer.

Ultimately, talented musicians working with talented engineers are more likely to make good sounding good music than other combinations.

Note that most musicians are surprisingly clueless about sound mixing regardless of their talent as musicians. The good news is there are zillions of great sounding recordings to enjoy, and some are new...Also you really can't "train" engineers to do anything but know what knobs to turn as recording esthetic is more in the "talent" or "art" genes and that quality remains mysterious. Example: A very well regarded female singer/songwriter came to play at a concert I was mixing (I designed the system and had been mixing this monthly concert series for years), and brought along a young dude she trusted to mix for her (a few higher profile artists liked to do this, and I usually don't mind at all since they're usually fine)...this guy was amazingly incompetent in every way, although he claimed to be a professional studio engineer. NO idea how to use trim pots for mic balance, no sense of the room sound...man...and this resulted in our first show EVER where people thought the sound kinda sucked. The end.

Bifwynne/OP: As many have already said, it often boils down to buy and try, prefereably used, so as not to take too big a financial hit. Right now I am A/B/C'ing three different pairs of monitors. All three are great speakers, but each is unique. I think it is worth reading all available reviews and user comments, but our experience invariably is that, in our system, in our listening space, a speaker's performance (or most any component's performance) is always a bit different from the write-ups, sometimes to the better, sometimes not so much. Having three pairs compete side by side at the moment is a bit nuts I guess (and not cheap), but sooner or later two of those pairs will find new homes, where someone else will have a good time finding what works best for them.

Well based on the comments it safe to say that sound engineers aren't formally trained like electrical, mechanical or chemical engineers. So it is a case of an art form/ practical experience rather than an established technical approach. I'm coming to the conclusion that the folks recording jazz are just using their ears(more often) and have more talent and concern regarding the sound quality of their work. What other explanation is there? This genre's consistently good results aren't by accident or random chance.

Some great things here - first, I knew that Frogman would write a much better response than mine, and I am pleased to see it does not conflict whatsoever with mine, either.

Charles, I believe his post answers your next question to me, I think?

Bifwynne, I think that is a good point you make. With digital editing techniques as they are now, an engineer who knows what they are doing can pretty much make anything sound like whatever they want. This is another big reason why there is not much standardization.

Onhwy61, while I understand your point, I have to disagree. Unfortunately, one thing Frogman and I are basically saying is that there is not much aesthetics involved at all in recording nowadays, particularly the really commercial pop stuff. I think you are giving the engineers too much credit there. As Frogman said, recreating subtle tonal colors and balances of acoustic instruments, no matter what the ensemble size, just cannot be done artificially with multi-miking and a mixing board. So yes, those things do matter very much in the equation. Multi-miking and mixing tends to almost completely obliterate spatial cues, for just one example. That's why they add reverb, to make it sound more "live" again - but all sense of the actual recording space (assuming it was in a decent concert hall or jazz club or church) is gone, and with it many other important aspects of the sound. This unfortunately applies to all but a very tiny percentage indeed of the digital recording that has ever been done, so that does have quite a bit to do with it, too. This is not to say that you can't mike things for a digital recording the same way for an analog recording - you could. But this is almost never done.

Learsfool, perhaps your disappointment with modern recordings is inherent with what constitutes a modern pop/rock recording. With rare exception they are purposely not trying to capture a acoustic instrument in a real space. Modern recordings are multitrack collages rather than some document of a real event. The tools used to construct these collages while not unique to pop/rock, don't really travel well to recording other music types. It's not that these techniques, methods or aesthetics are "wrong", but rather they are not artistically appropriate in other musical categories.

Outside of audiophiles you won't find too many people obsessed with the sound of real instrument in a real space as a critical goal in music reproduction.

Hi Onhwy61 - your last post expresses exactly what I was saying. However, it is not just rock/pop recording that uses multi-miking and tracking - ALL modern recording does this, whether appropriate or not. There are very few exceptions, even in the jazz and classical worlds. That's exactly the problem - these techniques DID travel to the other music types, very soon after these digital techniques were possible in the 80s. I have never seen less than seven or eight mikes at any recording session I have ever been a part of, even of a small ensemble (professional recordings, that is). As I said before - this shouldn't have to be inherent in theory to modern/digital recording - yet the fact remains that it is in actual practice. These techniques, as you say, have nothing to do with the sound of real instruments in a real space. They have everything to do with ease of editing and mixing, and almost nothing to do with the actual sound of the music being made by the musicians. This is why musicians laugh at the concept of "fidelity to the recording."

I wouldn't refer to appreciating the sound and beauty of well played
acoustic instruments an obsession. Is it too much to ask for instruments
and voices to sound as realistic and natural as we know they actually do?

Why do we have to settle for the lowest common denominator (well the
generalmpublic doesn't complain) . Yes I can enjoy music with my clock
radio if it's music I connect with. We know how wonderful skilled musicians
sound playing their precious instruments(and years of practice to reach
this level). I find it dismissive and disrespectful to the musicians to say the
sound they produce is a trivial concern. Shame on the tin eared sound
engineers who can't appreciate what they're recording. I want these
engineers to make a honest effort to preserve as much of the original venue
instrument sound as they possibly can. Anything less is short changing the
musicians and the listener.
Charles,

It sounds like what Frogman said. Jazz and classical for some reason have engineers that care more about the music and its end results. This is one of the reasons I gravitated towards these two genre of music after being a rock head for many years. I appreciated the difference in quality and I actually could hear the instruments the way they should sound. I was hooked in a very short time.

"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,

Hi Onhwy61 - everything in your last post is correct; there were indeed multi-track experiments in the analog era, especially in the opera world. However, what I am trying to say is that it was not done anywhere near as much as it has been in the digital era - the main reason being it is so much easier to do it with digital technology than with tape. It is indeed possible to make purist recordings in this modern era, but pretty much no one does anymore, which is the main point I am trying to make.

One prominent engineer in my area, when asked why he doesn't do them anymore, answered that he was afraid he would be fired by people who couldn't understand why he wasn't using all of the capabilities of the new technology. Other engineers have said the same. It's the whole "it's newer, it must be better" mentality. Many engineers are afraid they will be called Luddites. It's very sad.

Czaivy and Mapman are very much on track. Listen to a real instrument in the room you will listen to music in. Compare that sound to the speakers with similar music. If possible, record. Also record your wife's voice, kids' voices, play it back.

The most realistic, closest sound is likely the best.

Folks sometimes say "what if I don't want the most accurate"?

Well, deviations from accurate means distortion. You will be further from the musical experience.

And folks have come to bastardize the term "accurate". Accurate and uncolored, which means low distortion, is not harsh, hard, or bright. Salesman trickery ruined the word "accurate" in audio, as this would be their retort for folks complaining about bright, harsh speakers. "Oh, no, that's accurate, that's why it sounds that way, can't you hear the clarity?" The supposed "clarity" was really exaggerated brightness range and tweeter response, as well as ringing, which can make things seem "super detailed" on first listen.

The most accurate speakers I know of are also easy to listen to.

"The most accurate speakers I know of are also easy to listen to"
Kiddman, so very true. You are right that the term accurate has been bastardized and seems to be used when clinical and analytical are the more appropriate words. We both probably prefer the term natural with its connotations.
Charles,

I think personal taste rules the day in this discussion. An analogy I think might be useful (or not) regards guitar amp speakers...the tonal coloration that exists with various brands becomes extremely important to a guitar player with any reasonable amount of experience, and I've found that taste changes and evolves usually. If a home hifi speaker seems to be delivering the goods in your system and YOU think it's great, other people's opinions should become moot. And I rarely use the word "moot."

Well, at least you are not saying "mute" as my dear wife insists on saying :-). But, while I agree that "personal taste rules the day", the concept as an analogy is flawed. True, guitar players choose an amp/speaker based on its tonal colorations as a way to create his "sound". But, isn't the goal of a speaker in a playback system to then recreate the sound of that player's chosen amp/speaker's intrinsic sound? The goal in this case is fidelity, not choice; or, at least, that is the traditional definition of "hi-fi".

Frogman, I agree as a general principle that an "audiophile" grade rig should be able to create the real thing as closely as possible. True "fidelity" I suppose?? But I am dubious that even the very best rig (and all that the term entails) can do more than approach the aspirational standard. Further, it is my experience that each incremental improvement is coming at a cost that increases at a rate that is disproportionate to the incremental improvement.

At this stage of the game, I have become more circumspect about what any component change can really achieve. Instead, my goal is to assemble a system whose individual components are compatible and whose musical presentation is engaging and enjoyable. Further, as a number of folks have mentioned above, even if one is able to assemble a perfect rig, the quality of source material is spotty.

Last point -- an obvious truism I think. This OP was about how to meaningfully audition speakers. I was hoping for some new insight that I may have overlooked. It seems that the bottom line is that it's a very difficult thing to do given the state of our hobby. And that goes to other components as well. My experience has been buy pre-owned top grade components, try them, keep what works and sell what doesn't.

Best and thanks for all the comments.

BIF

Frogman, you have arrived at the nub of the issue.
In my experience, I had a very high end audio shop in the late 80's, and subsequent experiences with "audiophiles", very few people want high fidelity.
Most want what they think or would like music to sound like and this mostly reflects their personality. Some want razor sharp images and warp speed on everything, others want a polite inoffensive sound. Some want gut wrenching bass.
Very few would be happy with an accurate sound ( of a studio recording ) or live music in their living room.
This fundamental driver of what a person wants from an audio system, which is NOT high fidelity, I believe is almost certainly the root cause of many of the debates in this forum.

When you will use the amp you own now bring it to the shop. This is a very important start. Listening to speakers with a different amp does not make any sense. For cables same story. I Always advise my clients to bring in there amp. spource and cables and own music. It is that simple, so keep it simple!

Since 2007 I focus on what I call 3-dimensional sound. Because the difference between 2 and 3-dimensional is very big. The emotion you feel with 3 dimensional sound is a lot bigger. So I let people listen to both to understand the difference. Sound is the most important part in audio. Because this is the most important part to listen to your favorite music for many hours in a row. Music is emotion, that is why my focus is on the emotional sound of music. I try to get the maximum level of emotion out of music. Music is the essential part in audio. In this world there are too many people who focus too much on audio instead of music. First you need to understand music before you can understand audio. After this you need to understand all the different properties brands have. This you need to know of all the different amps. sources, speakers, cables, conditioners etc. Audio is the art of using and making the right combination of the different properties amps, sources, speakers, cables, conditioners have. These days my focus is only on 3-dimensional sound. Because this is the only and best way to the absolute sound. I see it at the smiles on people there faces and see people tapping with there feet. Audio is all about music and emotion. It is that simple!

Bo's response is, again, even if read closely, useless, if only because of his annoying disregard of the fact that people hear things differently. That is the Monkey Wrench of personal opinion that trumps all else in audio appreciation. Opinions of "different properties" is always subjective and that's what my guitar speaker analogy is about. All speakers have a "sound" of their own and nothing exists as a reference, since the nature of even acoustic sound isn't absolute since we all hear things in individual heads. Room correction is using somebody else's head by the way...and I'm fine with my own. Listen to one of my acoustic guitars with your face 10 inches from the soundbox...you think that's a reference? Hmmm...stick your head in my piano...same thing...I prefer the image my hifi gives me (if I'm not actually playing the instrument), because it feels right for me, and all the gizmo swapping bullshit would do is waste my listening time, although I can swap anyway if I feel it needs it, or I simply feel like it due to boredom and/or compulsion. I recently attended a Ricky Lee Jones show that was packed with emotion (and the sound at my local venue was actually good...better than usual), and this weekend mixed the live sound for a pile of world class veteran jazz dudes (with 2 astonishing female singers) doing a tribute to Billy Holiday. Even in a concert hall with dreadful acoustics, everybody got the emotion and I don't think anyone cared about the "sound"...except me since I was getting paid for that.

The way how I use audio is very effective. I can easy let people hear a higher level in quality than other shops give to the same people. This is not subjective. This is what people can hear and understand. So your words are useless ( again, like they often are) Depth and wide is not subjective, it is what everyone can hear ( when you have a normal hearing) The same about how big an instrument or voice is projected during listening. There is one thing we agree that is about sound. This needs to be invloving or you never will be happy with it. The misstake you make is focussing on persons. I read some of your answers on treads, you do it more. I never will be personal, maybe this time a little. Because you never stop. Wolfy focus on the threads and the discussion about audio. When I read your answers I see an amature.

I try to keep audio as simple and understandable for every single person. The same about how I use Audyssey. I demonstrate it on and off so people understand and hear the difference what it does. Same about Audyssey EQ and Volume. Just put it on and off. Audio Always will be a personal thing. Listening you have to do yourself. Making the best decision is using your own preference. But there are rules which makes it more easy for every person. When you only looking for speakers you take all your stuff with you what you own. I Always took my amp, preamp, cables, conditioner and source with me to distributers when I was looking for a new speaker. When I took a dscision I took that speaker with me at home. In my country this is the most common way to buy audio.

Bo,
It's clear that sound stage dimensions and presentation are of highest priority for you (we all have our preferences for what defines a successful component). You refer often to sound stage width and depth. What degree of importance do you place on tone, timbre and harmonics preservation of instruments and voice? Do you find these qualities essential for realism in an audio system?
Charles,

Good question Charles; tone, timbre is very important is music. One of the reasons why I like Pass Labs a lot is also about the tone, tembre and the harmonics as well. When I bought the XA100.5 from Pass labs I heard many things what I also heard at my friends house during a classical home concert. A recording with different acoustic guitars let me hear the difference in sound of these guitars. For the first time I could hear why some recordings used 2 or 3 voices togheter. The change it gave in hammonics was never this clear. When you listen to many systems and audio stuff you understand and keep in mind that what you love. All the things I loved I wanted to use in 1 system. So it is all the parts togheter. That is why I say: I try to sell emotion instead of audio. Emotion in music is getting bigger when the harmonics, tone and tembre gets better. It influence our brains. The same about the freq. in the lowest octaves. When a system can go lower ther will be more emotion. When you get a 3 dimensional image instruments and voices become fully touchable. When voices and instruments are smaller and have the right and small dimension as in real you get closer to the music. This is what I call intimate sound. I know that it influence people emotionally. When you are a perfectionist like me you want every single part what is important for the absolute sound in your system. But also in other people there system. I use the same perfectionism for my clients as I use it for myself. because I want every single person to enjoy there music as best as possible. These parts can be understand by every person. It is easy to understand. My clients Always say; Bobby's words are the same as the sound he creates. I like things to be clear and simple as possible. Before I let people hear a speaker, amp, source, conditioner, cables etc I explain very simple what it is and what it does. After this I let the music do the work. The music played by a system is like a copy of the words I used. So it is more easy to understand for everyone. My new Olive 06HD with the Purist Audio powercable and brand new Audioquest Wild Blue Yonder give me even new qualilies. It made the stage of my system wider and deeper. So instruments and voices become more loose from eachother. The sound realims is getting to a higher level. Like classical music. The sound of a violin or cello is even more like in real. Harmonics in voices become more clear to hear. For example; Timshel from Mumford&Sons. When I heard it the first time with the O6HD I became very emotional cause of the harmonics. I love Diana Krall and I have all here albums. The Olive with the stunning cables give a lot more air around the voices and instruments. She is singing there as she is in your room. I can hear her breathing and I hear here opening her mouth because I hear her lips. Recordings like Kraftwerk and Yellow are extreme holographic. I also hear many parts of recordings I thought I knew well moving from behind to more forwards. So my set is a combination of all the parts which I loved when I auditioned many sets. And the classical concerts at my friends house play a very important part in how big I want instruments and voices to be comming from a system.

I agree with your comments Dover, this has been my experience listening to other's systems as well some of which might benefit from "polite, inoffensive sound" IMHO.
I also agree this is the reason there are so many diverging opinions on this site about what constitutes "good sound" when it is obviously driven by preference more so than necessarily attempting to accurately represent what's on the recording.

Me too Charles, accurate tone and harmonics I mean :)

I haven't taken the time to read most of the posts in this thread, but fwiw here's my take on the two questions that seem to be under discussion:

1)Re the original question, I'm not sure if it has been mentioned yet that some speaker manufacturers who sell directly provide in-home audition privileges, usually less two-way shipping and a restocking fee. Daedalus, for example, provides 30 day return privileges, less two-way shipping and $300. I believe that Salk and Audiokinesis, among others, also offer return privileges on at least some of their models.

2)Re the discussion of accuracy vs. emotional appeal, etc: It seems to me to be self-evident that if the goal is to allow the (sonically) best recordings to sound their best, the system should be as accurate as possible. While if the goal is to allow the majority of recordings to sound as good as possible, the accuracy of the system will have to be compromised to some degree, in a manner that is consistent with the preferences of the listener, and that is best suited to the kinds of recordings he or she listens to the most.

Regards,
-- Al

Dover, I agree completely with your comments. Personally, I think it's an unfortunate state of affairs. A few thoughts re some other recent comments:

- I don't understand the notion that because absolute fidelity is not attainable (it isn't) we should not bother striving for it. Makes no sense to me. I am not willing to "dumb down" the excellence in a minority of my recordings in order to make the majority sound a little "better". I suppose I am in the minority, but I like to hear how a performance was recorded; warts and all.

- We shouldn't confuse the emotional content of a performance with the emotional reaction that "impressive audio" can elicit. Dimensionality ("3D sound") in audio has nothing to do with emotion in music. When an artist performs he is not thinking about how "dimensional" his sound is going to be.

- As usual, when we discuss emotion in music we omit the aspect of music which communicates emotion: dynamics. Not how loud something is or can be, but HOW it gets from soft to loud and every micro-step in between. Is the increase (or decrease) in dynamics from soft (p) to medium soft (mp) every bit as exciting in its seamless (perfectly continuous) quality as the very loud? That is where emotion in music lives because that is what communicates a performer's phrasing and feeling. Then you have subtle tonal color variation which is a performer's second most important way of communicating emotion. If we don't strive for fidelity those things suffer; if only because the end result is not what the performer intended.

- Yes, there is a reliable reference: live, acoustic sound. Anyone who has not made a commitment to listen to a substantial amount of it on a regular basis simply has no basis for claiming otherwise. The idea that because we all have "different heads", different hearing apparatus, or simply hear differently the concept of a reference is invalid is mistaken. Think about it: sure, we each probably do hear differently. So what? If a given listener hears live sound with (for example) a dip at 10K cycles and an emphasis at 2K cycles, that listener will hear a recording of that sound with the exact same dip and emphasis; so, using live sound as a reference is certainly valid. Of course, some will be quick to point out that if we weren't at the original event we don't know what the recording is supposed to sound like. This is where familiarity with live acoustic sound comes in. The more we are exposed to it, the more "common threads" we learn to recognize no matter the venue, recording equipment, or recording engineer. The differences in sound between an oboe and an English Horn are obvious even over the crappy speaker in the elevator. Yet, that "component XYZ made those differences inaudible" as I have heard stated several times only means that the listener simply doesn't know what either instrument really sounds like. There really is no shortcut: if you want to really understand "accuracy" you have to attend live performances. Of course, not everyone has that as a goal.

Frogman, you make some very fair points about listening to live performances to train the ears to understand accuracy. A little while ago, my wife and I attended a performance of the Philadelphia Orchestra at the Kimmel Center. I forget how I managed to get affordable front/center Orchestra seats, maybe 15 or 20 rows back, but I did. I also forget the musical selections.

But it doesn't really matter. The point is that I still recall the incredible experience of being that close to the performance. Not just hearing the music, but feeling it. Be it the tympani, the bass section, violins. Whatever.

Does my rig recreate that experience?? Sadly, ... no. Nevertheless ..., I still enjoy the musical presentation. Is the deficiency the rig or the source material? Both. But every once in a while, I spin a great recording (CD or LP) and I'm having a ball.

I am the OP of this thread. I admit there's plenty of room for improvement in my system, the room, power delivery, etc. What's frustrating is that speakers are so essential, yet so difficult to select. That's why I started the thread. Almarg makes a great point that some speaker manufacturers allow home trial. I'll keep that in mind if I decide to switch out my current fronts.

Thanks for the great posts and terrific insights.

Bruce

Dover, you and Frogman are right on. I especially agree with the last part of Frogman's post: "The differences in sound between an oboe and an English Horn are obvious even over the crappy speaker in the elevator. Yet, that "component XYZ made those differences inaudible" as I have heard stated several times only means that the listener simply doesn't know what either instrument really sounds like. There really is no shortcut: if you want to really understand "accuracy" you have to attend live performances. Of course, not everyone has that as a goal."

People may not like to hear this on this board, but this right here is a large part of the reason why many musicians don't give an audiophile's opinions the time of day. It is a sad thing that not everyone has that as a goal - for a musician, no other reference point makes any sense. If this is not your goal, you are just sitting at home playing with your own toys, and while you might like the sound you have created, it probably doesn't even come close to what a musician would call "accurate."

What part of the "live event" is the reference? Certainly not what the musicians hear unless it's a string quartet sitting around in a circle. If you can't detect an oboe you might want to put the Kraftwerk away for a while. Most musicians would think most hifis that have been attended to and fussed over sound fine and seem accurate enough. I know a LOT of professional musicians, and most don't have "reference points" per se, and often they couldn't adjust a mix...some can, most don't care. Although it's rarely admitted to by audio freaks, you ARE just sitting around at home with your own toys, and that's fine. It's utterly obvious that actual live music makes you want your rig to sound good and if it does to you, you're there, but my main point is simply that there is no univeral standard that applies to taste. Except pianos...maybe...I love pianos...if acoustic pianos sound good on a hifi I'm happy.

In the last 3 years I bought a lot music on Bluray. Many of these are recorded in 24/96 khz. The sound is often stunning. My speakers let me play at extreme volums. ( 118 db spl) My subwoofer goes down till 16 hz. I like to play sometimes at very high volumes. And yess this can become very addictive as well. All my speakers use ribbon tweeters. You get a stunning level of acoustics of the room where it was recorded. This is an extra and important part for a more realistic performance just at home. What I mentioned earlier is that I love Diana Krall her music. The sound ( a Steinway does have his own sound) of her Steinway needs to be as it is in real. The Olive 06HD cannot only give you a very realistic sound, but also the palpable image it has. And the low freq. of the pedals as in real. There is one thing I have to say again. Instruments and voices are very small in dimension in real. This part is very important for an intimate sound of voices and instruments. I use this part to compare it with the same music played at bigger proportions of instruments and voices. People say that is is a lot less involving. So also this part is important for the emotion it gives to people. For example; I have a 24/192 kHz recording of Seal Acoustic. The number Colour is using a piano. I never heard the piano this clear and open as with the 06HD. Sound realism for pianos does a lot with your emotion That is why I hope to give demo's in the US as well to let people hear it. Because hearing is believing. It is that simple!

Hi Bo, Do you care to show us your system, in your room, that you can play at 118db? Which albums do you play that loud?

Bob

10-15-13: Bo1972 writes:

My speakers let me play at extreme volums. ( 118 db spl)

Wow - that is very loud. Keep those listening sessions short. I guess your neighbours are some distance away.

Regards,

Bo,
Be cautious, you're putting your ears at risk with the ultra loud volumes you describe . What would you say are your average listening levels at home?
Charles,

The spl of the speaker is maybe 117.9 db. It is just a number, but I can play still very loud. It is detached house, no problems with neigbours. Monitor Audio uses very big magnets and the speaker units are made of ceramic coated aluminium/magnesium. They are light but very stiff. I can even play louder with the Monitor Audio Platinum speakers than with my old B&W 800 Signature. At concerts I often use earplugs, my hearing is very important. I am Always very careful with it. I know when I need to stop. When you have more control and authority you Always can play louder. Even when I play loud there is no harshness at all in the mid and hig freq. I will buy the Pass Labs X600.5 within a year. You need also control in the mid and high freq. to play loud. Many people are stunned how relaxed listening it is even at very high volumes. The PLW-15 subwoofer can be played also at extreme volumes cause of Audyssey Pro, Purist Audio powercable and Audioquest subcable. They use a massive magnet and the material of the 15 inch unit is very light and stiff. I use it from 16hz till 140 hz. I can use it this high cause of the stunning response and control of the bass unit.