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. |
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. |
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, |
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. |
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. |
Public Enemy #1In 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. |
"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.
|
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. |
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, |
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." |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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, |
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 |
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. |
.
One phrase that keep occurring in the answers..."buy and hope"
. |
You simply can't. Find a speaker that you like in the store and hope the rest of your stuff mates well with it. |
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? |
****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 ..., 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. |
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. |
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, |
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. |
Is Walter Becker's (Steely Dan bass, guitar, writer) latest solo CD rock? Because I think it's sonically astounding, and perhaps a reference of sorts. Modern pop music producers might insist on high gain compressed sound because they think that's what people want, and that approach is controversial but shows up all over the place. Hippity Hop/Rap and Norwegian Death Metal don't cater to audiophiles anyway, nor do Miley Cyrus and any other "modern" pop things, but I have only a vague idea of what that stuff sounds like anyway as life is too short to waste listening to music I don't like. I listen to a lot of modern jazz from Jason Moran and Jon Scofield to Bad Plus, etc., and it is often of reference sound quality...only meaning the producer has caring ears. |
I have no experience, first hand or anecdotal, in recording studios but I can see certain types of individuals gravitate to certain fields and endeavors and bring with them their disciplines. These disciplines may seem or appear to be stereotypical and not true as a whole but they do serve as a basis.
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.
I'd love to hear what the pros say as well and shed some light on why they think certain genres of CDs sound better and those who broke the mold or went against the grain to get the best sound they could.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Hi Bifwynne,
I appreciate your generous attitude, recording quality has been a persistent mystery to me. Why are there such wide fluctuations in the sound of recordings amongst engineers (there seems to be no established standard). Why do recordings done 40-50 + years ago sound as good or better than many current examples(did the engineers actually listen more in those days?)? It's as if the method of recording has regressed (even classical music in some cases) and this is contrary to most technology endeavors. Jazz really seems the genre that has remained the most consistent in recording quality over the decades.
I'm certain Frogman, Wolf or Learsfool could shed some light on this strange phenomenon.
Charles, |
Go for it Frogman. It's a free country and I don't own this thread. I'd like to read your thoughts too. :-)
And ... , Charles1dad's Q is not really so far off point because it indirectly touches on a related aspect of speaker selection. That is the availability of good source material which relates to Chares1dad's recording/engineering quality Q.
After-all, why spend a fortune on any piece of equipment if the availability of source material is limited. Just read all the threads which touch on the benefits and limitations of this or that music media, e.g., vinyl, redbook CD, SACD, streaming digital and so forth.
Seems to me the real starting point is how good a job do recording engineers and artists do in producing good music. Forget what comes downstream. Garbage in -- garbage out. :-')
P.S. apologies if any typos. Had eye surgery yesterday and my vision is still limited. Fortunately, my hearing is ok and I'm enjoying a great redbook CD recording of the 1812 Overture. Reminds me of when I was a kid and my Mom served me and my brothers Quaker Oats Puffed Wheat for breakfast. :-) |
Indeed a great question posed by Charles. Inquiring minds want to know! Please Frogman, what are your thoughts, if not here then on another thread. My guess is that like rock musicians, some do and some really don't care, maybe more thoughtful consideration by the sound engineers on jazz recordings than those in rock/pop? I would think that there are much fewer jazz recording engineers than those in the rock/pop genre so there would be more variation in sound quality. |
If Frogman wants to answer there I'm sure others will appreciate his thoughts and viewpoint. |
That is a great question that Charles asked. I am also interested. Perhaps the "Jazz for Aficionado" thread would be better answered on. |
Frogman,
Thanks, I didnt mean to disrupt this interesting thread. |
It is tough today to meaningfully audition speakers now that there are so few dealers in close range. Shows can help but still...they often play music to highlight strengths. I HAVE to hear a wide range of music to be able to consider whether or not the speaker might be satisfactory long term. Like Elizabeth, I have specific recordings used to evaluate. The other wild card is the system you are listening to vs your own. Is the speaker going to match well with your amplifier or are you going to have to reconfigure the system to accomodate the new speaker?
There is no easy way today to audition so I guess one has to spend a lot of time reading, sorting through and finally try to locate someone reasonably close that will let you listen or buy used and try that route. I find speakers the most complex component to satisfactorily describe that would make you feel comfortable that it is going to work. We each have different priorities and can live with some ommissions or commissions more than others. Is it too forward, laidback, warm, resolving enough, tonally accurate, dynamically convincing...?
Really there is no way to know for sure without some serious listening which for many of us means buying used and gambling that it's going to work out and if not, reselling and moving on. I'm not too sure I would ever again purchase without hearing first unless there was some audition period, used possibly if the price was good enough that it could be resold if things didn't work out. It is a good question with few really satisfactory answers. The only thing I WOULD say, particularly to those with little experience, never purchase new without hearing first, particularly based on what others might tell you. This is the time to listen to as many speakers as possible to determine exactly what it is you want to hear to minimize costly mistakes. |
Charles1dad, thanks for the kind words. Out of respect for the OP's request, I will send you a private message with my thoughts. Cheers. |
Hi Frogman,
I always appreciate your well reasoned and insightful contributions on this
site . I'd like your perspective as a professional musician concerning
recording quality as related to genres. Jazz recordings with rare exception
are much better sounding than most pop and rock recordings. Are jazz
musicians more demanding and insistent of good sound or is it a case of
more respect and effort from the recording engineers?
It seems regardless of the era or the label jazz is produced to a much
higher standard(both studio and live venues), they're more natural and far
less compressed/processed. I'd assume that the pop and rock artists want
their music to be given the same consideration and respect as the jazz
musicians seem to routinely get during the recording process.
Thanks,
Charles, |
This is a huge problem in today's audio world.
Decades ago I used to invite customers to bring their amp, their old speakers, anything they wanted into my room for demo.
I would loan out speakers if someone was serious. I used to go there to help carry big ones and set them up. It was work but my success rate was very high, so it was a viable business model.
Certainly I would move speakers to a different smaller demo room in my place of someone had a much smaller room than my main demo room.
I have no idea if any dealers at all do this these days.
For myself, a show can certainly show if there is promise in a speaker, and I will buy used at market value to try, then sell if I don't like them. If I love them and want used ones I just sell again at market value and buy new ones.
Nothing worthwhile is accomplished without putting out effort, risk. So be as smart as you can about demoing, borrowing, buying used at market value to eval, then sell what you don't like.
Getting to a show is a lot better than taking someone's word on a forum. Try to find someone who agrees with your taste when discussing equipment or when they describe their system. Then at least you know you roughly line up with their evaluation ability / alignment with yours. |
Sorry about that dyslexic first sentence. As I read it now.... |
I think the discussion about so called "live" music being a gold standard reference is ok by me and I find the discussion interesting. So by all means, please continue. But since I am the OP, I would like to add my thoughts and then "seg" back to the original topic.
As far as MY personal home audio is concerned, I am looking for a musical experience that I find satisfying and enjoyable. The standard I used to judge whether the experience is satisfying and enjoyable -- simply put -- is whether or not it is.
Now, going back to the original topic, it seems to me that whether one wants to judge any particular piece of equipment by this or that standard is ok. But isn't the real issue as it pertains to speakers, or pretty much any item, is how can one meaningfully audition the speaker of interest or other item??
My sense of the early responses is that many members expressed similar frustration as me. Yeah ...., sometimes one can luck out and a dealer will arrange for a home audition. But most times, many just do the best they can by way of research, perhaps an occasional visit to a B&M store, and so forth. After all of that, in the end, they buy and if they like what they picked up, all is well. If not, hope to sell the piece at not too great a loss, and then try something else.
Thanks,
BIF |
Is suspect most people are quite happy listening to whatever it is they are listening to for whatever reason. Only audiophiles are "smart" enough to let it bother them.
Hey, wait a minute.....
|
****The reason live drum sounds don't go through your hifi is the fact that uncompressed drums would blow up most any home system's speakers, unless you're using large, professional, huge coil 15" or 18" woofers****
Understood, and I agree. But, that does not change the truth in my premise; and in a sense you make my point: if you don't know ( through experience) what is possible as far as speed and visceral impact, how can one best judge which component (speaker, in this case) gets closest to that ideal.
****Try it****
No thanks :-) |
It all comes back to what is your reference for good sound.
As long as you know what it is for you, there is a good chance of a happy ending. Otherwise, chances are slim. |
****Live music is the reference when but one can NEVER it replicate in one's room****
I couldn't agree more. But here is the problem: because of that unfortunate (?) reality, most audiophiles are very quick to abandon the POSSIBILITIES from using that benchmark simply because perfect replication can never be attained. To my ears, far more audiophile sound systems owned by listeners who regularly attend live music performances sound closer to GOOD live sound than systems owned by audiophiles who don't; regardless of preferred music genres. |
"The reason live drum sounds don't go through your hifi is the fact that uncompressed drums would blow up most any home system's speakers, "
Not to mention the amp clipping that would probably occur and totally ruin the sound anyhow in most cases even if the result is not blown speakers.
Note though that proximity to music source and venue room acoustics is a big factor in how loud something really is.
I was listening to a rock band play outdoors from about 20 feet away recently. It was loud overall and sound mix was good but nothing there that could not be reproduced at home easily with the right gear. |
Note that live drums go through plenty of processing at concerts including compression, digital reverbs, input pads, etc. The reason live drum sounds don't go through your hifi is the fact that uncompressed drums would blow up most any home system's speakers, unless you're using large, professional, huge coil 15" or 18" woofers. Try it...get a 1200 watt pro PA amp and a mic, and stand back. I record and mix live drums for jazz concerts, and get away with input pads and sensitive overhead condensor mics. Now that's LIVE! Also note that small jazz combos are often completely unbalanced if not miked somehow, unless you sit in the middle of the band which isn't usually allowed even for Elizabeth. |
Live music is the reference when but one can NEVER it replicate in one's room. One has to settle for what one uses as clues to convince oneself that what one is listening to is real enough to satisfy.
I like tone, detail and ambient clues while others prefer soundstage width and depth or instrument placement, frequency extension, bass performance, etc.
Whatever floats your boat should be what you're looking for in a speaker since it's the most colored performing piece of equipment you'll have in your system.
You'll encounter more compromises at the lower cost end of the equation than at the more expensive (generally) but those compromises have to be factored in with the rest of your equipment and what clues you like when deciding.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Live music, in studio or otherwise is the reality, FBOFW. Right?
How much anyone cares about it though is totally up to them.
Alan Parsons has never invited me into his studio, so I will never know what that was supposed to sound like.
But I can walk down to nearest pub, recital hall outdoor concert and listen. My daughter will play her violin for me in our house for free (with some coaxing).
I find listening live FBOFW helps my ability to enjoy music in that I find the way things sound in general to always be interesting. Doesn't even have to be music. Ever hear a rooster crow from close up? Or listen to the sound of the surf breaking on a beach? How about the birds waking up at daybreak? Very cool! |
The subject of the value of the sound of live as a tool for establishing a (at
least partial) benchmark for the accuracy of reproduced sound is a topic
that always elicits strong opinions; some of which are simply misguided.
Misguided because the reasons cited for why it is not a useful tool are, at
best, misunderstood; and, at worst, agenda driven and made by listeners
who seldom (if ever) attend live music performances. The reasons why it
IS a very useful tool should be obvious; problems not-withstanding.
First of all, note that my original comment clearly states: "IF the sound
of live is your goal....". Not everyone has that as a goal, nor is it a
requirement for the enjoyment of reproduced music. However, having said
all that, IMO using the sound of live as a reference can lead one to the
BEST and most satisfying reproduced sound.
Part of the misunderstanding is the exaggeration of the problems with the
live experience; particularly as concerns live classical music, and this is
where most detractors miss the forest for the trees. Sure, SOME classical
music venues do occasionally use sound reinforcement. So what? The
vast majority of venues don't; and even if they do, there is still plenty of
merit in those live experiences that can be very helpful to the audiophile:
the tonal/harmonic complexity of a string section which is seldom heard in
reproduced sound, the proper scaling of instruments in relation to each
other, the beautifully subtle micro-dynamics, and much more. Now, we all
know how horrible the sound can be at many rock and pop concerts; but
even then there are things to be learned. For instance, I have never heard
a kick drum or rim shot reproduced over a stereo (ANY stereo) that had the
visceral feeling and speed heard at even less than great live concerts.
Why? Because in spite of often inferior equipment, bad venues, and
tasteless mixing (NOT Wolf; of course :-) ) there is so much less processing
and sheer stuff that the musical signal has to go through from instrument to
PA speaker than what the signal has to go through when recorded in a
studio, then mastering, pressing; and THEN, all of the stuff in our playback
systems.
No one is suggesting that we subject ourselves to bad sound simply
because it is live, and not be critical of it. But, the truth is that there is
plenty of really good, and sometimes great live sound to be heard if we
keep an open mind and keep our too-fragile audiophile sensibilities in
check. |
