Thoughts on the most difficult instruments for speakers to reproduce?

My now possibly obsolete Klipsch Heresy IIIs are amazingly realistic and coherent, and I listen to piano stuff a LOT. Good gear upstream is key for this of course, but piano sounds great unless it's a crappy recording.

 "Don’t laugh but I would always bring the ultimate tweeter killer speaker shopping with me, BST Spinning Wheel."

SW is an excellent demo song. I have a first run press(XSM137878) along with a MONO South American press(not rare, but unusual)

The mono press actually sounds  more convincingly "real" to my ears. No instruments/vocal leaning left or right. Great album.

I heard a test LP of SW on a UBER $how system. Those horns can sound pretty real with the right stuff.

Its not just speakers. These things are difficult for every component in the chain. As my system has gotten much better over the past year or so one of the best most unexpected surprises has been the way every recording sounds so much better now. Every single one. So if you have one that's a "tweeter killer" I would look long and hard at what else might be going on there.

Steve...glad you were able to avoid an expensive mistake. Tweeter attributes are critical in speaker selection. Don’t laugh but I would always bring the ultimate tweeter killer speaker shopping with me, BST Spinning Wheel. The opening horns exposed serious flaws in many expensive speaker tweeters . Ultimately I went with  soft domes which is a trade off but worth it to me....not that those BST horns will ever sound good on any speaker :)

I was listening to a nice, well regarded pair of speakers and getting ready to pull the trigger when on a whim I asked to hear an older 70's rock recording and that's when the speakers tweeter showed its true nature and the salesman couldn't stop the playback fast enough. Resale on new speakers is horrible so when buying new play everything you can and listen to how the system handles less than stellar recordings, listen for compression and how the speakers handle everything. The harder  it is to hear the compromise, the longer they'll last in your home.

@isochronism Still worked for me!

Compare the frequency (both high/low) and dynamic (SPL) ranges of piano (or- any other instrument) and pipe organ, here: https://www.zytrax.com/tech/audio/audio.html#frequencies      Not a matter of opinion (all other considerations being equal)!

@mlsstl ,

'Given all of this, I am not surprised that I find most recordings mediocre and some downright bad. It is almost a miracle that a few recordings out there are extraordinary. There really is an art to the process that not every recording engineer and producer possesses.'


Sadly true.
But not surprising in what is after all a profit driven industry. 

If we're talking about recording a human voice then I'm betting that even a smartphone could do an adequate recording of it for our comparison purposes.

I've played back home movies made on a Sony digital camera and the sound was wonderfully uncompressed - in the way you might expect live sound to be but usually isn't - not even on live albums!

As for the voices of family and friends, they were uncannily real in a way that TV or Radio ones with the usual added bass rarely are. 

GLOCKENSPIEL BE-OTCH!!!!! (previous post algorithmly removed, offensive word. I re-spelled. The comedic timing is lost.

PIANO DUDE!!!!!

Lots of good comments in this thread, but the one wild card in all of this is how was the recording made? What kind of microphones and preamps were used? Where were they placed? Was dynamic limiting or compression used? What other processing effects were used in the mixing and mastering process? 

Another problem is that the majority of recordings involve multiple instruments. Different instruments have radically different radiation patterns and interact differently with their acoustic environment, whether in a studio or at a live event. As such, the engineer and producer end up making compromises when choosing how to make the recording. Yes, one often sees each instrument or group of instruments miked separately, but even then they have to be mixed down into a single stereo presentation. That means compromise. Even surround sound (which is often not used with this issue in mind) involves compromises.

Given all of this, I am not surprised that I find most recordings mediocre and some downright bad. It is almost a miracle that a few recordings out there are extraordinary. There really is an art to the process that not every recording engineer and producer possesses. 

I'd say a familiar voice recorded in the same location as it's played back. No futzing around with the sound via EQ and with all of its dynamics intact. 

This should also be easy enough to record and demonstrate on playback.

Slip on a blindfold and you can play 'Is it real or a recording?

I once witnessed at a show where a female vocalist was accompanied by a solo piano. The aim was not to show off any speakers but how accurately you could record live onto an SD card of all things.

I wish I'd paid more attention  (I didn't like the equipment being used) but I remember there was a difference between live and the recording but it was tiny - a hint of less depth and space.

Failing that you could try any familiar piano or violin recording which hasn't been overly bleached out with the usual proviso that it be a fairly clean and natural recording.

None of your multiple splicing editing or EQ tricks. 

If any exist.

Piano , I think the father of Bill Eggleston told him , if he can make the Andra Eggleston sound right on piano, more likely other instruments will sound right too.I own Andra , to me they sound good on piano.

One needs to be careful about conflating poor recordings with poor playback. They are two separate issues!

Traditionally, the ability to discern the difference between an oboe and a cello playing in its higher registers has been a benchmark of fidelity for the last 100 years- and its still a thing.

Most piano recordings are terrible, unfortunately.

piano

due to the nature of the instrument it is also very hard to mic well for a recording

that is part of the problem... garbage in garbage out

1) Piano (analog or digital)

2) Tutti strings played on bow (digital)

3) Cymbals (analog or digital)

(in any order)

Voice cymbals piano

Completely agree. I think we spend far too much time (and money) on equipment variation and not enough on recordings quality. This has been a constant challenge and frustration over the years, first with vinyls (dirty, worn, warped, and poorly engineered), and now with digital.  Few dig recordings come with a provenance and are a real crap shoot. I still haven’t figured out what “remastered”even means, it definitely doesn’t assure that it isn’t just an upsampled dupe of the original cd made 15 years ago. Recording quality is the most important piece in the chain, because no matter what equipment comes after it, it is still garbage in garbage out. Ironically often times the better the equipment the worse it sounds, because it doesn’t hide the warts. All I know is that half the recordings I download from jd tracks land up unplayed. There is one benefit over vinyl though, at least they don’t collect dust. 

@vinylfan. Agreed, even with the best equipment, a poor recording won't sound good, however too often people blame the recording whilst it is the equipment not capable of reproducing what's on the recording. Not many speakers will be able to reproduce the dynamics of percussion to the full extend. Most rooms will not allow to enjoy such dynamics to the full extend either. It's always a bit of a compromise I guess. On the other hand, using higher end (not necessarily the highest end) audio equipment will indeed often reveal that the recording wasn't done properly.  

Yes speakers and equipment have limitations. But Its the recording that is often the real limitation. Several on this thread stated that the speakers can compress the sound of instruments like violin, piano, or just a simple cymbal crash. Speakers are not always the root cause. As a drummer I know most recordings of percussion are not captured at full dynamics. Other instruments have the same issue. If it's not on the recording how are you going to play it back. So much of what you hear live or in a studio still isn't captured by mainstream recordings. What's the hardest instruments to reproduce? Any instrument that wasn't fully captured. 

xylophone
upper octaves of the piano

Drum kit

Digital is not always bad, so with the proper set-up we can get quite acceptable quality, meaning a lot of instruments sound very acceptable. Of course, the rest of the system should support such elevated quality levels as well. Nevertheless, even with the current high end audio, it is still easy to differentiate life from recorded music. (analog and/or digital). It al comes down to what we find acceptable, which is personal. Some people are prepared to go further than others. I believe that the sound of certain instruments is harder to reproduce using audio equipment within a certain price class. To reproduce the sound of certain instruments properly, it may take a higher investment, perfect room acoustics and so on.... (however, I (and you) believe I (we) can easily detect if what I hear if life or recorded music, so...the engineers are not yet done with it...)

Piano.

If using your speakers for home theater, which sports a wide dynamic range with Blu-ray’s and UHD’s, there are some interesting sonic categories that, while not falling under acoustic instruments as such can be a challenging effort for speakers to reproduce, and also reflect on their abilities into music reproduction. Take for example a ships horn from a warship or commercial ditto, like from the Blu-ray to the film “Captain Phillips” (2013) where towards the end there’re some serious bursts from such a horn flaring off on a warship. If the speakers are up to the task here you’ll experience a startlingly forceful, dry, dense and present sound, demanding dynamic prowess, ample air displacement area and very little smear (i.e.: transient “snap”), but also calls for a high degree of coherency. These are important traits reproducing instruments like (concert) piano, solo violin, drum kits and saxophone, and so is a telling ability on your speakers performance over an even wider arc, I find. A banal example on the face of it, perhaps, but I’ve found it to be quite useful; watching films from such high quality formats over your stereo brings along a new set of tools to evaluate your speakers worth in many regards, some of which may not be readily exposed with music only.

@jdliguori, please do not do it here, as there are too many snake oil threads already ( which I am a contributor ). Enjoy the Jack Johnson, as it is awesome ! Always, MrD.

Mrdecibel...Thanks for the tip on Miles's " A Tribute To Jack Johnson, very good.

Glad to see that this fairly long chain has remained so informative and positive. Amazing that it hasn't morphed into a hardware p*match (no hardware mentions at all!), I knew it was possible on the forum!

Hmmm...should I say something about cable snake oil and see what happens? J/K

My wife plays piano. I am a lapsed student of the instrument.

I put on some audiophile record (forget what it was, but it had excellent piano reproduction) on the big system and she called from the other room - "Is that YOU??"  It sounded so much like her piano in the next room.

Most of the time recorded piano doesn't really sound like a real piano played (even in the next room).

I tried it later on my Electrostat system and it works there too - pretty sure it wouldn't if it was a hybrid speaker mating a cone woofer with the main panels.

Massed (not single) violins, I agree, and (surprised no one mentioned) full bodied, contrapuntal choral singing.

The obvious/tried-and-tested options are all mentioned above (ie, piano; massed strings; muted trumpet). 

But another instrument that tests speakers/entire system in a very different way is the vibraphone ("vibes"). This is primarily played in acoustic jazz and/or modern percussion composition.

The layout of brass keys is piano-like, but the sound is very different: keys are struck with mallets, so you get that 1st-strike transient, followed by lengthy sustain (courtesy of sound propagation tubes beneath each key). My favorite players use 2 mallets per hand & can play many notes, simultaneously or in fast sequence.

The result is a characteristic "shimmer" to the sound. It's a louder than you think, something microphones readily react to if not set up properly. 

I find that speakers & electronics that fully convey the complex sound of this instrument can generally hit it out of the park on just about every instrument.

Digital recordings are a terrible weakness of my system. Far too stucotto.

kdude661,121 posts04-23-2018 11:49pmPiano,Piano,and Piano.

When you have a system that gets all aspects of the Piano correct everything thing else will be there,with maybe the exception of the lwr Organ notes being totally realistic.

Kenny.

100% agree.  In building components, I spent a few years on how to get the piano right.  I wanted to not only hear the wood of the piano and the hammers hitting the strings but I also wanted to hear the length and thickness of the strings and the attack and the decay.  It was a long road but now at the end, it was worth the effort.  Happy Listening.

Violins. High notes. 

I would chose voices and acoustic instruments, especially piano, violin and trumpets.

Back eons ago I was a rock and roll drummer and with some (but not all) well-recorded ride cymbals, you can "hear" the ping of the stick against the brass and "feel" the timbre of the cymbal vibrating.

Easily , massed symphonic strings .

I read this whole thread, and thinking about it, it seems like it's much easier to list instruments that are reproduced successfully by good quality speakers than those that aren't.
I would say sax, trumpet and brass in general are not that hard to get right. Same goes for acoustic guitar, as well as some small percussion instruments like blocks, shakers and bells.
Pianos, violins and other bowed instruments can be dogs to reproduce convincingly. Of course , part of the blame for that goes to the way they are recorded.

Many instrument's sounds are difficult to accurately reproduce but the one that clearly is the most difficult is the piano because of the range, attack of notes and nuances that seems to transcend most other instruments.  I love organ music but I can hardly say that it doesn't sound realistic (except some close to subsonic notes).  If you listen to recorded piano music, it doesn't take a golden ear to tell it's not quite right.

As a drummer I am sensitive to acoustic drums on jazz, or singer songwriter records. Cymbals have complexity and air. Not on rock records and for sure not on modern electronic records where samples are the thing, but actual beautiful cymbals at the hand of a sensitive player. When they're right they touch my heart.

@glow_worm, I am assuming you are a Miles Davis fan, as am I. A real test for any speaker ( system really ) and an awesome musical experience is Miles's " A Tribute To Jack Johnson ". Could be my favorite of his ( although he has an amazing library ). There are 2 editions I am familiar with. A 1992, and a 2005, both on Sony. I prefer the performance and mix of the 1992 release. If you do not have it, it is a must. Enjoy ! MrD.

Most real instruments sound horrible in most speakers, specially in digital recordings which sound horrible bright, thin, edgy, sometimes not even within the note, like a good $20k hand made Spanish guitar, piano sounds harsh, violins sound thin & harsh, cymbals without extension at all, toms not silky at all, bad bass drum, electric piano without proper decay, well the list goes on and on. 

(jmcgrogan2, you’re dead on about massed strings and digital. I did some compares and you’re right the difference is striking. Goes to show that dig, though getting very good, is not yet on par with vinyl).

Sorry to disagree with you but have you ever heard a 32bit / 192 master recording of massed strings. If not then you can't say vinyl is better, even well produced SACDs of orchestral strings can be superlative. It is usually the playback equiptment that does not perform to par. A lot of people think nothing of spending many many thousands on analogue playback gear and sometimes a couple of grand if that on digital gear. Some people even think an i phone is ok to play digital on. Can you even imagine how much jitter is being produced from those things. For too long the rivalries between vinyl and digital carriers have been goin on and people don't realise they are two completely different carriers. I say that if someone spent the same kind of money on a top tier digital system then the goalposts would be changed forever. No most people spend large amounts on one carrier and not on two. And of course there is the old chestnut of some people don't want to rock the boat by saying that yes it must always be vinyl but don't forget some people used to say shellac was better than vinyl and soft needles were better than hard when it came to massed violins on 78s. I have heard 32/192 master recordings , I have even made some and I have between my computer and CD player a huge amount of money invested and I have been hard pressed to say I have heard vinyl produce a breathtaking dynamic range and all round atmosphere that my digital system. I am not saying every one can have that kind of system because it demands parts and software that are second to none. But do remember jitter or the suppresion of it is just about the most important thing to slay in digital.

The instruments that are most difficult for a microphone to capture.

Thanks for the excellent comments, interesting they lean mostly to piano. I agree, but IMO systems generally recreate piano sound that, while lacking, is still pleasurable to listen to. In my original post I was thinking more of instruments that are “off” in otherwise excellent recordings, enough to make you hit the switch.

Anyway, this has me thinking that any equipment audition absolutely needs to include bringing along familiar recordings that are difficult to reproduce. This will help greatly to narrow down the selection and spot significant strengths and weaknesses (especially in speakers).

I went to a high-end audio shop recently and auditioned a well-respected tube integrated and well-reviewed speakers (combined about $13K). The owner started by playing the Blood S&T Spinning Wheel opening horns (digital), truly a horrifically hyped disaster. It sounded like a screeching crow being attacked mid-air by a hawk…just unbelievable. That’s what convinced me that dealer supplied material is no way to audition equipment, and not bringing my own was a missed opportunity. There were some challenging recordings I could have brought that would have given the equipment a chance to shine…or not.

(jmcgrogan2, you’re dead on about massed strings and digital. I did some compares and you’re right the difference is striking. Goes to show that dig, though getting very good, is not yet on par with vinyl).
JL

I find most speakers having difficulty presenting the size of the piano on the stage same with vertical instruments like double bass. The sound may be close but the overall experience is not very real as the fingers move up and down the neck.