Classical speakers that do violins well??

I never said that you couldn't detect the difference between a live instrument and a recorded instrument. I'd get that right 100% of the time in most rooms. The room cues are just too numerous. However, speakers can easily get the timbre right and you don't need an A-B comparison to judge that. I think this is where we started, talking about timbre and not room acoustics:

02-04-08: Mrtennis said:
"in order to do a definitive test of a speaker's ability to reproduce timbre accurately, it is necessary to record an instrument in one's living room and compare the recording to a musician's presentation of the same music."

Maybe it's because I'm a musician, but my aural memory is sufficient to know a clarinet when I hear it. The timbre is intact in my room, even if the clarinet was recorded in an isolation booth.

Of course my musician's perspective may be distorted from the average audiophile's perspective. I'll grant that. I've heard live clarinet literally thousands of times, up close and far away, through mics and acoustic, with soft reeds and hard reeds, etc., etc. I suppose that many audiophiles haven't really heard live clarinet, or only from the orchestra seats a few hundred times, or less. That's a lot of difference in exposure.

That's just thinking about clarinet. On trumpet I've heard world class players from 3-feet and 300-feet, playing every possible combination of trumpet type. Excluding hearing myself, I've heard live trumpet ten of thousands of times.

Somewhere up the thread I think I suggested to ask a musician over to listen for timbre. I still think that's a realistic option and much easier than your proposed test. Given the difficulty of recording an acoustic instrument in a space where we also have a system set up, it's just an impractical test of a system.

Still, this is an interesting discussion and I appreciate your view.

Dave

as much as a musician has exposure to an instrument, either playing it or listening to another musician playing, aural memory is the issue. it is not reliable.

so, you need a reference. a memory is not a reference. it is a collection of experiences stored in the brain.
i would not rely on someone's memory as to what an instrument sounds like. i would prefer to hear the instrument.

if the instrument is not available, preference and opinion takes over.

Well, I disagree. I've heard no evidence that my aural memory is not reliable.

Based on your premise, almost no one could judge the accuracy of their system.

Comparing non-musician's aural memory to mine is like a casual driver comparing his driving skills to a regional champion racer. I'm constantly listening and adjusting to sounds, timbre and pitch. I only do it a few hours per day, so that's nothing compared to a pro that puts in 8+ hours per day on his or her instrument.

Still, practice, repetition and performance hone skills that most people never develop. Even if you father is Michael Jordan, you'll never be a great basketball player without hours and hours of practice, week after week, month after month.

Listening to music enough CAN get a non-musician to a high level at judging a system's timbral accuracy.

We all need a reference and I agree that starting with a live acoustic instrument is one of the best ways to start, but at some point you learn enough that you don't need the instrument present to "know" the reference.

Dave

...and all I did was ask for a few speaker recommendations!

-Bob (OP)

Yes, well, your thread got hijacked!

Good luck - do lots of auditinoing.