2. speakers
  3. 123896-79400

Forward or laid back

To quote a recent comment by a member: "The most salient characteristic (to me) is that the acoustic presentation of some of these speakers seemed quite forward (row D), whereas that of others was really quite laid back (row M). There was also, quite often, a second correlation between that forward presentation and a (relative) brightness in the treble. As far as I can tell, these features are often preferred and indeed seem to be aimed for in the voicing of many models during their development. To my ears, speakers in this category were the Treos, O/93s, and Veneres. Somewhere in the middle were the CM10s and the Liutos. A bit more laid back were the Dynaudios and the Vienna Acoustics"

You may be in the minority but then so am i! However, little do these audiophile misanthropes know that they do not or can not hear or appreciate the sound of an orchestra or a vocalist in a natural concert hall setting!

I agree again on another point. I can not STAND most of these so called " reviewers" who have lynched the press with their stupid ass observations about live acoustic sound and what it is to appreciate its truthfulness. Every word they utter is punch, Liveliness, BOOGIE (lmao) , exciting, drive etc, etc. Is that how a frickin orchestra or a female ( operatic) voice should sound??? I read their source material used and I want to throw up!! ( not because of the music per say , but that this is the material they use to evaluate loudspeakers??? ( Maybe they've picked the wrong hobby..?) They can spend their money on these components and fool themselves into believing this hobby they enjoy (high end audio) is fulfilling their supposedly objective needs; which is all well and good. It's not , however, the" real " sound of unamplified music. 
I guess, in the final evaluation, their " employers" no little either, or why would they adhere to or accept the rantings  of kids who are engulfed in this music for evaluating music reproduction in the home??????
So admittedly, not having heard everything of the newest designs around today, I can still proudly look back and thank a few people ( some gone now) who have truly..... contributed to the development of natural sound reproduction: Nelson Pass, Spencer Hughes, Peter Walker, to name a few!
PS. I used to publish a small subscription newsletter review myself in the early 1980's.

128x128hm1
dave_b's avatar
dave_b
2,267 posts
 
Far to many variables and subjective preferences to be as rigid as hm1 presents himself to be.  I am sympathetic to the "symphonic" experience as a gold standard, but as we know there are innumerable differences even in the great halls across the globe. What remains is the core fundamentals of live music...clarity, wide dynamic contrast, accurate instrument voicing/tone, unrestricted frequency range and zero distortion!  Not all of this is perfectly obtainable in a system, but one can try to replicate these crucial aspects of the "live" experience.  
whart's avatar
whart
1,930 posts
 
Don't we have to start with how the recording was recorded? Some audiophile records and some classical and jazz records were set up to get a pretty natural perspective on the proceedings. (Simple two track recordings of a blues band, or man + guitar can be riveting-I'm thinking here of Hoodoo Man Blues or Chris Whitley's Dirt Floor). When I listened through Quad electrostats, (for decades), all that sort of thing sounded good, but it failed on bigger orchestral or hard rock (scale and dynamics). In addition, a lot of stuff is gimmicked in the process from the event (if there was one) to the finished product. So, there isn't necessarily anything 'natural' about the recording itself to begin with, but the trickery may be necessary to better create the illusion at home.
 I don't want to confine myself just to stuff that sounds good, or to one type of music- I can go from reggae to cello music to progressive rock to whatever. I want all of it to sound as good as possible at home. And in each case, the recordings dictate what I'm hearing, at least from the standpoint of "perspective." Getting piano to sound 'right' is really hard; far less weight, power and fewer harmonics if recorded with other instruments in a natural perspective- think about how much better it sounds when things are less congested and only the piano is playing. Or close-miking, which gives you the 'in your face' qualities of being almost inside the piano, but all perspective is lost- it sounds too big and too close. I think that all gets manipulated through multi-miking and mixing (along with EQ) so what the recording is doing isn't exactly "accurate" but the process makes it sound more real in some ways. But the perspective, up front or laid back, really starts with the recording, doesn't it (along with the processing it goes through)?
And, I do like my hard rock to be punchy! :)
hm1's avatar
hm1 OP
29 posts
 
Hard rock, amplified music is not a concert hall. An electric guitar hooked up to an amp and speakers playing on a stage in a " hall" is not or should not be portrayed as 'accurate reproduction' of the absolute sound. A loudspeaker that portrays your recording of that music in that fashion, in your home is not accurate, per say. So if the speaker in your system at home sounds like the amplified electric guitar on stage, you're not listening to an accurate loudspeaker. It may sound the way you like it to sound, but it's not a neutral transducer

Post removed 
dave_b's avatar
dave_b
2,267 posts
 
bcgator....such a bastion of unquestionable insight on the human condition as it pertains to audio and a true master grammarian.  Now that the acknowledgements portion of our program is done, let's move on to hm1's rather meaningless, albeit correct, statement regarding the recording process and it's irreducible effect on the resultant listening experience.  We can not change what we can not change....move on.  There has always been variability in the recording chain.  To argue the point is absurd as it is outside the realm of our control.  As I stated, we are left with the fundamentals of music as is demonstrable in the live concert experience.  Of course, acoustic instruments would be considered the most accurate representation of said experience, but even an amplified concert shares some DNA with the former.  The common denominator(s) is zero added distortion, unrestrained dynamic range and full frequency extension.  One could even argue that certain amplified instruments still retain their unique acoustic signatures through the recording process.  Our ears know when something sounds live or not...still the best tool ever!  When you hear those unique clues of a live performance in a stereo system, you have achieved something very special.  Enjoy the process and play around with what works for you and remember to relieve yourself of the stress regarding things outside of your control.  
More to discover