Coytee Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 After reading a post, I visited what I believe to be the B&W forum. If not their official one, at least a forum where guys talk about them. Someone there said:"Wilson audio is reguarded as the reference standard.What everything should be measured to.They are detailed and very true to the sound. B&W also is highy reguarded as a reference standard.Very different sound speakers." Someone else said: the 802 is sweet and musically lyrical whereas the Watt Puppy 7 was more in the driving and clinically detailed space This kind of stuff confuses me...(seriously) If someone is standing in front of me and blows a trumpet it's going to sound like a trumpet. Same for beating their drum or plucking their G-string (Please Fini...no comments []) So, if the trumpet, drum, other... has a sound in front of me... isn't it fair to presume that sound is 'real', 'accurate' and 'musical' ? (presuming they're in tune of course []) Second... if we then juxtapose that sound next to two different speakers, isn't it fair that the speakers are going to impart their own flavor on the sound? Next, is it reasonable that the speaker that most accurately reproduces the original sound, simply does that? It reproduces the original sound most accurately? If that logic works (because it seems to me, one of the two above mentioned speakers should be more accurate than the other, no?) anyways, if that logic works then wouldn't the more accurate speaker simply be more accurate? no more, no less? What does someone mean when they suggest a speaker is more 'musical' or (and I hate his word choice) "lyrical" As for the first comments mentioned... how is it possible to have two "reference standards" yet at the same time, evidently having very different sound? Seems to me that a trumpet toot, is the reference and when reproduced by a speaker, the toot most closely resembling that which tooted in front of me would be the one most eligable to be called reference standard?? How could a toot that sounded 'very different' even be up for consideratioin? What am I missing here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 JBL 4430's .. one listen will explain a lot .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Duke, Do you have the 4430s mounted flush in a wall? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdaddy Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Ok maybe I'm a pessimist but I think a lot of those terms are used to disguise the fact that someone "DON't KNow SH!t" Imaging I understand or bright, soundstage, punch, these are terms that to me have meening. When I hear someone say a speaker is dry WTF? I want to hear one that is not. When I hear clinical I don't know what that means either. Go read a few reviews and you'll see a lot of terms like these and a bunch of others. Personally it doesn't matter anyway people tend to buy what they like. Speakers either sound good or not to each individual. As a lot of people will tell you room accoustics play a huge role. And two different people will give you two different descriptions. Of course that is just my Opinion and I could be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seti Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 To me dry is the exact opposite of live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Dynamic would be called "wet" then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbuckster Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 KY Jelly might help !!!!!!!!!!! Never realized listening to music was so, technical .......... Doesn't anyone just listen anymore ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 KY Jelly might help !!!!!!!!!!! Never realized listening to music was so, technical .......... Doesn't anyone just listen anymore ? Oh OB! You're all wet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerwoodKhorns Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I don't claim to be an experienced audiophile or to even have experience with a wide range of high end gear. But I think that a good comparison is the difference between a lush tube amp and bright SS amp. Same source but the sound is very different. I was listening to a friend's Thiel's yesterday. I would describe them as bright and clinical (meaning that they did not have a warm sound). Notes seem to hit and end quickly, and they have a pronounced midrange (too much for my liking). This was with an all tube front end (VTL Pre and VTL 300 wpc monoblocks). Around here everyone seems to use the words "Grainy" "Bright" "Warm" "Lush" "Dynamic" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Mark, I know what you are talking about. OTOH, maybe I am more like the Buckster here. I only need one word to describe a speaker, along with a with a modifier..."accurate/not accurate." Personally, I think Coytee is spot on. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Personally, I think Coytee is spot on. Me too, but then...such a simple perspective doesn't serve the image some audiophiles are always trying to tout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdaddy Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 My mom had a word for that image and it wasn't nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike stehr Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Wouldn't a speaker (three-way for example) sound dry and clinical if the lower midrange and bass were overly attenuated with respect to the midrange and higher frequencies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Wouldn't a speaker (three-way for example) sound dry and clinical if the lower midrange and bass were overly attenuated with respect to the midrange and higher frequencies? Yezzir, and downright inaccurate, too. Mark: My statement was about me and my house. Equipment means nothing to me. It's all about the music. I am fully aware of the equipment enthusiasts and ecstatic that a new interconnect will send them into orgasm. I visited a gathering of home near field speaker builders a couple of years back and found absolutely no one to talk to. They were using complex strings of adjectives and adverbs to describe the characteristics of their work. BTW, some these things were pure sex and works of great art. OTOH, nobody seemed to care about the music. Diversity is a great thing. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 ...Someone there said:"Wilson audio is reguarded as the reference standard.What everything should be measured to.They are detailed and very true to the sound. B&W also is highy reguarded as a reference standard.Very different sound speakers."Someone else said: the 802 is sweet and musically lyrical whereas the Watt Puppy 7 was more in the driving and clinically detailed space This kind of stuff confuses me...(seriously) ...What am I missing here? Richard,While it is clearly opinion on whether or not to use the full spectrum of the English language to describe speaker or sound reproduction system performance, I believe there is at least one "50,000 foot" view here: think about art, wine, interior decorating, or even the use of the English language (e.g., W.F. Buckley factor), I think some people actually like the use of language to describe phenomena which I would probably use different, more technically oriented words to describe. For instance, I see comments about "timbre" and "loudspeaker matching". Clearly, these terms just do not compute for me but that is a function of who I am and where I came from. Others like to use the terms "bright", "fast", "punchy", etc. All these terms mean to me is that the speakers are putting something into the music that probably wasn't in the original recording. (This is a domain that Roy D. could probably give you a dissertation on and is probably a big part of how he makes his living.) Think of it this way: if the reference standard were to have perfect reproduction then all the best speakers in the world would sound exactly alike and they would sound just like the real performance (i.e., indistinguishable in "behind the curtain" tests). But people typically interject all these extra terms to describe what they hear. As I understand it, rating high-end speakers that are very neutral-sounding is a somewhat boring profession. I think that the reviewers do everything they can to make it otherwise. To me, my sound reproduction system should reproduce the recorded performance as closely as possible, and I wouldn't like to be the one that rates them. So when you see one speaker being touted over another one, understand it's just like wine or art - it pretty much all boils down to opinion, and opinions are not debatable where I come from - they are what they are - and everyone's got one. Regards, Chris P.S. Note that when people go to buy something that has competitive products on the open market, they tend to use comparative judgments to maximize their apparent value--paradoxically, even if they subsequently don't benefit from those attributes in use--but when we take those products home, we tend to use logic that asks "is it good enough?". Only those chosen few that are constantly worried about whether or not their purchase was the "best one" typically go on to selling/buying/selling cycles, and they probably will never be truly satisfied for long. Those people are typically called "maximizers" where I come from. There was a very good short article in Scientific American magazine a couple of years ago on that very subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillH2121 Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I think several posters have hit on it - people with specialized interests like to have a specialized language or "terms of art" that convey meaning within the group. Think about reviews of cigars, wine, art, ....whatever... I mean, I love cigars, but some of the descriptions floor me. A speaker or system should have but one goal - to reproduce the original sound of the musical instument(s). That, in many cases, might disappoint many sterophiles or audiophiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 FiNi ... they are flown upside down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfellini Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 The speaker and gear I want is the one which sounds the most like actual music when the system is translating bits from a CD, or the translation of motion on an LP. What if the recording (ie the source) is poorly done? Should your system stillmake it sound like music? And if it does, what will it do to a recording that was done right to begin with? Do you want your system to sound like "actual music", or have it sound like the recording? I don't think you can have it both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Mark: Very spot on. In my case, I'd much rather hear first class source material on a car radio than the vast majority of recordings on a world-class system. Given my two basic terms, judgement of source material comes easy to me. All the things I hear...iky directional mikes, wild multi mikeing, mixing, poor placement, etc. are things I can describe in detail, but why bother? It just adde up to "inaccurate." End of story. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 The speaker and gear I want is the one which sounds the most like actual music when the system is translating bits from a CD, or the translation of motion on an LP. What if the recording (ie the source) is poorly done? Should your system stillmake it sound like music? And if it does, what will it do to a recording that was done right to begin with? Do you want your system to sound like "actual music", or have it sound like the recording? I don't think you can have it both ways. I'd love to respond, but since you addressed Mark will button it. I look forward to his reply. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.