The Role of Program Material on Audio Quality:

[swan24]

I would like to know people's opinion as to the role of program material in the overall quality of any audio system... Some people feel it is paramount... Others, only that it plays a minor role... I've heard several only so-so systems really shine playing good recordings... Conversely, I've heard really good systems sound absolutely terrible with bad recordings...

Also, I've experienced disappointment trying to find adequate program material for some of the better systems I've owned over the years... And a few friends who have what I would characterise as superior equipment really lament that their current collection of CDs and LPs sounded terrible on their new equipment, and sent them into a purchasing frenzy to buy better program sources... ???... (m.)

[Feanor]

I would like to know people's opinion as to the role of program material in the overall quality of any audio system... Some people feel it is paramount... Others, only that it plays a minor role... I've heard several only so-so systems really shine playing good recordings... Conversely, I've heard really good systems sound absolutely terrible with bad recordings...

Also, I've experienced disappointment trying to find adequate program material for some of the better systems I've owned over the years... And a few friends who have what I would characterise as superior equipment really lament that their current collection of CDs and LPs sounded terrible on their new equipment, and sent them into a purchasing frenzy to buy better program sources... ???... (m.)
Quality of the recording is critical. Better quality recordings almost always sound better than lesser ones regardless of the system they're played. When comparing systems of roughly similar quality, the record quality will always outweigh system differences.

However superior record quality might not be appreciated on a inferior systems. In particular, recordings with excellent detail and air might not sound that way if the system isn't good at conveying these qualities.

Also, I firmly believe that many people select their equipment to mitigate the nasty qualities of their less-good recordings at the expense of optimizing the sound of their best recordings. I'm not sure how many of them would admint to that, though. Personally I optimized for the best.

[Mr Peabody]

All good comments. You want your system to be able to reflect whether a recording is good or not. The recording plays a large part in whether you hear a good presentation.

I remember when Supertramp released Breakfast In America they insisted on the cassette version being a high bias tape because they knew the sound would be better. There are recording companies who strives for excellence in their albums like Telarc or Mobile Fidelity.

[pixelthis]

I would like to know people's opinion as to the role of program material in the overall quality of any audio system... Some people feel it is paramount... Others, only that it plays a minor role... I've heard several only so-so systems really shine playing good recordings... Conversely, I've heard really good systems sound absolutely terrible with bad recordings...

Also, I've experienced disappointment trying to find adequate program material for some of the better systems I've owned over the years... And a few friends who have what I would characterise as superior equipment really lament that their current collection of CDs and LPs sounded terrible on their new equipment, and sent them into a purchasing frenzy to buy better program sources... ???... (m.)

THATS the prob with really decent equipment, it shows up the flaws in music, warts
and all.
Maybe Bose knows this, and makes their stuff suck deliberately.
But I prefer accurate. Was told that B&W would end a lot of love affairs with various
albums, and everybody was right.
But I still prefer as honest an image as possible.:1:

[swan24]

THATS the prob with really decent equipment, it shows up the flaws in music, warts
and all.
Maybe Bose knows this, and makes their stuff suck deliberately.
But I prefer accurate. Was told that B&W would end a lot of love affairs with various
albums, and everybody was right.
But I still prefer as honest an image as possible.:1:


Know what you mean... Previously had a pair of these:

http://pic4.audiogon.com/i/a/f/1299446636.jpg

B&W DM 620s... With the passive radiators...

Loved the speakers... Hated most of my CD collection [at the time]... (m.)

[atomicAdam]

See - I'm rather confused by this topic.

Lets start with a couple questions and possible answers.

What is a bad recording?

Is a bad recording something where you hear the background noise at a high level? Or is a bad recording something that is too compressed? Or how about is a bad recording something where the instruments or direct feed keyboards are so closely mic'd you don't get any since of air, space, and a stage that some recording engineer set up. Typically hard pan right and left sound, and dead on center?

What is a good recording?

Something where you can hear the air and stage around the musicians? What about something that is so clean you hear no back ground music. Something so produced every sound is so perfect and comes from such a deep black background that there is absolutely no since of space? What about a recording with all these qualities but with compressed dynamics shifts? Is a perfect recording something where you can't hear any mistakes, you know those things that happen all the time AT A LIVE SHOW?

I just don't understand. Yes, some recording are dense and it is hard to get every last detail out of the sound, because it just isn't there. Or some recordings are a bit thin in the low end. Or some recordings, like for instance, Belle & Sebastian's Tiger Milk on vinyl, in this Zu Melody combo I have right now,I put in on the other day and was blown away by all the mic and tape and back ground noise I could hear. Sure the staging wasn't great from the record, or instrument separation and a lot of things were panned hard left and right with too much right in the middle, but the damn detail I could hear was astounding. And you know what I LOVE IT. Does that mean I loved a bad recording or is this a good recording cause I could hear all of it or because I loved it?

I put on Massive Attack's Mezzanine on CD and was kind of bored because everything was so produced. Behind the sounds there was only blackness, there was no space. I figure I heard to just about the lowest level of detail and new that there could be more if it wasn't so produced. If it was more raw. So what type of recording is that?

I put on Heifetz playing Tchaikovsky and could hear little sounds from the string sections just before they would kick in. I figure they put down their instruments during the ungodly long solos and I heard the sounds of them picking them back up? Is that good or bad?

I played Dead Can Dance Towards the Within on CD on this Zu Melody combo, and heard more of the amphitheater/hall is was recorded in than I had ever before. Is that good or bad?

Honestly, the only thing I can constantly say kills a recording is too much compression. Everything else is subjective to what you get out of the recording.

[Mr Peabody]

Adam, you just had to come in and make the water murky :). Good point though.

[swan24]

Ex: I put on a few Naxos label CDs this morning, and they sounded flat and lifeless... Now, Naxos is a discount label, no less... But every recording sounded as if it had been re-re-re-mastered, and the sound left me flat...

Took a BBC CD-- that I got free with the magazine-- of Brahms Clarinet Sonatas, and it sounded like I had cleaned out my ears... What was it?... More air around the instruments... More definition... Depth... The illusion of a performance right in front of you was evident in every selection... Now, this was a free CD... Obviously, care was taken for this CD to sound good on good equipment...

Truth be told, I've often purged my CDs, just throwing out as many as 50 at a clip... Just because they don't do it for me... I didn't even give them away, because I think it's really bad karma to give away things you don't think are any good... (m.)

[Mr Peabody]

It's really hard for me to pin down a distinct good and bad, recording characteristics vary a lot but we know good or bad when we hear it. For instance, I have an early CD of Zepplin 2 which has a lot of noise but I am afraid to buy a remaster because I like the basic way it sounds. Many discs that aren't great to me are like 80's Rock and almost all Pop. As Adam mentioned compression makes a recording not so enjoyable. I don't like recordings that sound thin. I don't throw albums away even though the recording may not be great it's still about the music, most of the Stones early stuff isn't very well recorded but I couldn't do without them. There were a couple exceptions, I bought a Jerry Lee Lewis out of a budget bin and it sounded like it was recorded from the bathroom of the bar, I couldn't believe something that bad was ever released. Another discard was a Staple Singers CD that sounded like it was recorded on a shoebox tape recorder from the back of the church. Something like these two examples was beyond my listening tolerability.

Any way Swan don't worry about your mojo just send your next batch of rejects to me. :)

[swan24]

Any way Swan don't worry about your mojo just send your next batch of rejects to me. :)

Mine is not a smoke-free home, I'll warn you... I smoke a pipe... Constantly... http://www.smileyshut.com/Smoking/smoking-pipe-024.gif

[Mr Peabody]

Mine is not a smoke-free home, I'll warn you... I smoke a pipe... Constantly... http://www.smileyshut.com/Smoking/smoking-pipe-024.gif

Medical use only I presume, LOL

[swan24]

Medical use only I presume, LOL


Mostly Irish Peterson Pipes, like this one...

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa208/signet02/001-5.jpg

[Feanor]

Ex: I put on a few Naxos label CDs this morning, and they sounded flat and lifeless... Now, Naxos is a discount label, no less... But every recording sounded as if it had been re-re-re-mastered, and the sound left me flat...

Took a BBC CD-- that I got free with the magazine-- of Brahms Clarinet Sonatas, and it sounded like I had cleaned out my ears... What was it?... More air around the instruments... More definition... Depth... The illusion of a performance right in front of you was evident in every selection... Now, this was a free CD... Obviously, care was taken for this CD to sound good on good equipment...
... (m.)
I own many Naxos CDs and I don't agree that they are all bad. But I think Naxos has generally improved in recent years; earlier Naxos tended to be much as you described.

Naxos still tends, like most labels, to be quite variable. Telarc tended to be more consistently better than average, and Reference Recordings output is pretty much all excellent.

[Worf101]

Hey Adam thanks for making my brain hurt so early in the morning.

Bad Recordings: To me a bad recording is one where, regarless of technology at the time, there are key areas of the musical soundscape missing. No bass, no mids, no treble or too much of the above is a bad recording. There are also some recordings where the music is just plain wrong or corners were obviously cut, but that often is the fault of the record producer as anyone else.

Good Recordings: Regardless of the era or the equipment used a "good" recording has sufficient bass, mids and treble to hear the full musical spectrum. The presentation is "balanced" and works. Some leeway can be given for "live' recordings where obvious compromises need be made. And addditional consideration must be given to mono recordings and still some of those are masterfull. It's amazing what George Marting and Berry Gordy were able to do with such primative gear.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Worf

[Mr Peabody]

Good job framing an explanation Worf.

[dean_martin]

I was excited about and in to analog FM tuners for a while. I found a Yamaha T-2 that I really like. My interest didn't last long because I could get only ONE station that did not use compression. It sounded great - extension in both bass and treble, smooth shimmering top end, wonderfully warm, but the station's programming changed from jazz/world music in the evening (when I would listen) and classical during the day to all classical all the time. I rarely listen anymore. Imagine your favorite source was FM broadcast. You'd be listening to compressed, crappy sound all the time.

[atomicAdam]

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Worf

Worf -

What about dynamics, clarity, staging? All these play a huge roll in music. Frequency unbalance can be addressed with an EQ. Granted most hi fi don't have any tone controls - but I find it much easier to drop in a high roll off IC or bass thickening speaker cables than it is to create a stage that just isn't there or breath dynamic life into a recording that is too compressed.

Sorry if I make your brain hurt more - but I prob wouldn't have said anything if you didn't say 'that's my story and i'm sticking to it' - cause now of course i want to un-stick you. (umm...don't take that in a nasty way)

[Feanor]

See - I'm rather confused by this topic.

Lets start with a couple questions and possible answers.

What is a bad recording?
...
What is not a good recording: see below.


...
What is a good recording?
....
A good recording has all of the following qualities:

Excellent balance across the frequencies, including deep base.
High resolution of detail which greatly contributes to 'air' and transparency, i.e. the ability to distiguish individual instruments and voices in larger ensembles
Great soundstage appropriate to the type of ensemble; (this also contributes to transparency). In Classical music it pertains to the apparent perspective of the music, e.g. far back in the hall vs. front row, or even in the midst of the ensemble (which I generally hate). Chamber music generally tolerates a closer persepective than orchestral music.
Freedom from excessive stridency and brightness. People often forget, however, that some instruments, (esp. brass, strings), can naturally sound strident depending on the performance venue and the performance itself. Personally I suspect the close-microphoning is often the culprit when these are excessive.
Good dynamics appropriate to the type of music.
Freedom from electronic noise and recording artifacts.

[recoveryone]

Great info Adam, and I would not just go with how the recording was engineered, but I would throw in the type of music (Jazz, Classical, PoP, Hip Hop, Rock.....)

[swan24]

What is not a good recording: see below.


A good recording has all of the following qualities:

Excellent balance across the frequencies, including deep base.
High resolution of detail which greatly contributes to 'air' and transparency, i.e. the ability to distiguish individual instruments and voices in larger ensembles
Great soundstage appropriate to the type of ensemble; (this also contributes to transparency). In Classical music it pertains to the apparent perspective of the music, e.g. far back in the hall vs. front row, or even in the midst of the ensemble (which I generally hate). Chamber music generally tolerates a closer persepective than orchestral music.
Freedom from excessive stridency and brightness. People often forget, however, that some instruments, (esp. brass, strings), can naturally sound strident depending on the performance venue and the performance itself. Personally I suspect the close-microphoning is often the culprit when these are excessive.
Good dynamics appropriate to the type of music.
Freedom from electronic noise and recording artifacts.


I too think that close mic-ing is the culprit many times when music sounds too strident or even too fat... Esp. on piano... But contrabass as well... A piano does have a tendency to ring at certain freq./volume levels... And that is natural... (m.)

[pixelthis]

a good recording and good music are apples and oranges.
Tragic Kingdom, an excellent album, sounds flat to me. Whoever produced this one
oughta be shot.
One of the best examples of both good music and a decent recording is Kinda Blue.
Its like Miles killer horn is in your room.
THE SADDEST thing is great music on a poorly produced album.
When CD first came out I heard quite a few of these(Starship) but also some that
are legendary(DSOTM), AND way ahead of their time.
IF ONLY ALL albums could be this well made.:1:

[pixelthis]

Know what you mean... Previously had a pair of these:


B&W DM 620s... With the passive radiators...

Loved the speakers... Hated most of my CD collection [at the time]... (m.)

Know what you mean, old sot.
Excellent set of speakers, kudos.:1:

[atomicAdam]

Feanor -

While I agree with you in a way - I have to say your view is pretty jaded since you tend to listen to only classical. Do these "good records" points work in all music? I'm not sure they do.

[RGA]

The problem for the consumer is knowing when they're being fed BS about when dealers are blaming the recording or when it''s the stereo system that is causing the problem. When I fist started out I got fed the line "our speakers are so high in detail and resolution that it's telling you how bright and thin your album is." And gee it makes some sense in a way that something so "revealing" could reveal flaws in the recording while a less revealing system would cover over the cracks.

It is so logical that one usually accepts it as gospel. I remember a big high end dealer telling me my Amanda Marshal CD was total crap playing on his Cabasse and later B&W and Apogee Duetta Sig II loudspeakers because it was rather dynamically weak on two of them and rather bright on the B&W's. So file that album in the pile of garbage camp. Unfortunately for them, I later discovered that the album is quite well recorded and should sound rather excellent - lesson - it wasn't the album at all - it was their high priced overrated and bright or dynamically crappy systems that were the problem. And they dumped two of the lines because everyone walking in and listening, despite reviews, concluded the same damn thing.

Treble is the area that IMO tricks people because a well recorded album can still sound good on speakers that add grain and ringing. The additive isn't noticed as much on shorter duration listening but eventually it is IMO.

I first realized it when I compared two Standmount speakers - B&W was one the other was a boring box with a silk dome. I was playing a Barber classical piece - I can't recall it - I think it was the one played in Platoon. There is a busy crescendo with strings that goes very high into the treble. Very well recorded piece and what I noticed was the B&W reaching that peak with power but a very audible ringing. It wasn't very audible in isolation and not really noted as a problem UNTIL the other speaker was auditioned. The silk domed speaker went every bit as 'high" and had the power too but came without the surrounding fuzz. It was quite simply clearer and came from a blacker backdrop and basically had less of the etchy glare.

Keep in mind that at that time I was there to purchase the B&W N805 speakers - they were very high on my list along with the De Capo. The B&W is a speaker that dealers bring out the old "it's so revealing your CD's sound bad" accuracy claptrap. Yet the other speaker brought out the instrument - extended just as high you could hear the conductor's tapping, etc - all of the music attributes were there but without that spurious "what the hell is that noise" coming from the tweeters.

Perusing the website the tweeter design has an admitted ringing distortion that as you pay more and more for the next model up - they have bigger tweeters and longer tapering that reduces the ringing artifacts - they had it right there on the website!! And this is the biggest selling high end speaker brand on the market.

This problem is what I believe to be a speaker or system that "adds" grain which is mistaken for detail because when we hear "more" we assume that the more is supposed to be there when in reality the more is just added noise or grit that we never heard from live unamplified sources - I usually hear it incidentally from ribbon tweeters which are often described as being terrific treble producers but always seem to have a shhh quality of added artificial noise. So there is more treble but it's not heard in any live event. Classical composer and critic Leanoard Norwitz wrote about this artifact for enjoythemusic.com

"Detail And Resolution
We'd like to briefly examine one of the more interesting misperceptions common to audio critique. Many listeners speak of a playback system's resolving power in terms of its ability to articulate detail, i.e. previously un-noticed phenomena. However, it's more likely that what these listeners are responding to when they say such-and-such has more "detail" is: un-connected micro-events in the frequency and time domains. (These are events that, if they were properly connected, would have realized the correct presentation of harmonic structure, attack, and legato.) Because these events are of incredibly short duration and because there is absolutely no analog to such events in the natural world and are now being revealed to then by the sheer excellence of their audio, these listeners believe that they are hearing something for the first time, which they are! And largely because of this, they are more easily misled into a belief that what they are hearing is relevant and correct. The matter is aided and abetted by the apparentness of the perception. The "details" are undeniably there; it is only their meaning which has become subverted. The truth is that we only perceive such "detail" from an audio playback system; but never in a live musical performance.

"Resolution" on the other hand is the effect produced when these micro-events are connected.... in other words, when the events are so small that detail is unperceivable. When these events are correctly connected, we experience a more accurate sense of a musical performance. This is not unlike the way in which we perceive the difference between video and film. Video would seen to have more detail, more apparent individual visual events; but film obviously has greater resolution. If it weren't for the fact that detail in video is made up such large particles as compared to the micro-events which exist in audio, we might not have been misled about the term "detail", and would have called it by its proper name which is "grain". Grain creates the perception of more events, particularly in the treble region, because they are made to stand out from the musical texture in an un-naturally highlighted form. In true high-resolution audio systems, grain disappears and is replaced by a seamless flow of connected musical happenings." http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0601/audiohell.htm

And the above goes to the B&W example earlier. One notices the "treble more and notices that there is an added level of brightness to Amanda Marshal's album that the treble of the acoustic guitar playing is bright leaning and thin sounding (also because the speaker doesn't have much bass so the ear is now really focussing on the treble). The fuller range standmount in direct comparison had a real bottom end and thus the ear could focus on the guitar box sound not just the strings and because the micro events were much better connected the treble extension remained in full but the added "grit" was removed, the ear has more range to focus on and all of a sudden what was supposedly a "bad" recording is now quite a solid recording - what was bad - were the three systems that made a good recording into a horrible one.

If 90% of your pop recordings sound bad it's your stereo system. I have hundreds of albums and most of them sound quite decent. Some don't. Some sound compressed as hell some have treble issues but they're in the minority and they still sound listenable. If you can't listen to your music and your stereo forced you only to listen to classical string quartets then your system sucks. Buy a new one. If AC/DC and Lady Gaga and Madonna's Ray of Light album sound like crap your system sucks - PERIOD.

Granted there are some speakers that thicken up the mix a little bit - vandersteen is an example - but on the whole this is favourable to the alternative. Decay is critical as is transients and 3 dimensional organic presentation of acoustic instruments. Cello and Piano and vocals are pretty much the first three things I listen to when making any evaluation on a system. If it can't recreate the full woody box sound of a Piano it's crossed off my list.

Anyway, systems that contrast recordings to the greatest degree are the systems that I generally like - a lot of speakers present a sameness and a washed out quality across a large number of recordings - they can still sound quite nice or good - but to me it's when a speaker makes all rock albums or hip hop or metal sound a certain one dimensional way is when it has problems - because some of these albums have HUGE dynamics and huge bass and midbass thwack - it's on the recoding and if the speaker system can't present it when it's there it is 100% the fault of the system not the recording. When one puts on the Evil Nine at 100db and the midbass is undistorted tight and can POUND then the system MUST produce this regardless of the technology. If it can't do this on comparatively compressed albums then there is no reason to assume it will be able to meet the dynamics or bass qualities of Beethoven's 9th.

Plenty of systems simply lie by omission - if you don't produce the bass and the dynamics then you "avoid" problems associated with resonances (speaker or room induced resonances) and this is why many seem to prefer small standmounts to big floorstanders or panels to big floorstanders. Big Floorstanders bring more problems because they tend to offer up a lot more bass, a lot more grunt and it causes room induced problems in that bass causes the boxes to resonate and the walls to become more noticeable. So throw the baby out with the bathwater - if we simply scale down the dynamics and hack of the bass then the problems (along with large chunk of what is on the disc) gets tossed out and we hear a clearer presentation that many find easier to live with. Until of course they can't and they usually wind up buying something bigger and bigger and bigger. Amplifiers do this to. It amazes me that some SET and amplifiers like some of the Sugdens really go down low into the bass and have a full rich bottom end and tight - while SS (supposedly superior) sound brittle thin and seem to have a frequency limiter. It amazed me that my Sugden A48b went down deeper on paradigm Studio 100 speakers while a Musical Fidelity with a much higher watt rating sounded as if the bottom end was truncated (in other words the amp itself sounded "compressed" and gee what do you know when listening to pop music the music sounded even WORSE than usual. You have a compressed album playing through a compressed amp and it's a math made in hell. You need the big dynamics of a classical album to make up for the pathetic dynamics of the big name expensive SS amplifier. Though the MF did sound more expansive in the left to right staging and had more "grain"' (air) added to the mix. Not heard in real life but whatever - it had more "sound" output even if it is fake.

[pixelthis]

A SYSTEM needs to be able to "fix" minor problems(like turning up the bass a tad),
but still most music should be able to stand on its own.
CONCERT music is easy, kinda hard for it to not sound bad.
There is one main criteria for speakers that is extremely important, one that will determine
whether or not its listen-able.
Mainly, the human voice. If a speaker can reproduce this the other stuff will be tolerable, mostly. The human ear is very discerning in this area, evolution in action.
IF a speaker can get this right, we tend to be able to tolerate the rest a lot easier.
For someone who pays close attention its still a problem. EVERYBODY needs a reference when buying speakers. A beloved piece of music you know inside and out SEVERAL,
as a matter of fact. PEEPS always bring along the "good" stuff, but how about a selection
of stuff you love that sounds like it was produced by a bunch of drunken monkeys?
Only way to do it.:1:

[Feanor]

Feanor -

While I agree with you in a way - I have to say your view is pretty jaded since you tend to listen to only classical. Do these "good records" points work in all music? I'm not sure they do. Jaded, eh? Are you implying also that classical music is jaded?

Rather than simply dissing classical music, how about you point out which of my "good records" points don't apply to all music. On the flip side, (pardon the LP metaphor), what additional good or bad record points apply to other music genre that don't to classical?

Classical music at least has the advantage that it is acoustic music, i.e. music listened typically listened to without amplification, either by the instrument itself, (e.g. electric guitar), or by a sound reinforcement system. Thus it provides a benchmark for accuracy and authenticity which is absent from many popular genre. Of course, much jazz is also acoustic music but you don't get the very large orchestral and choral ensembles as with classical.

[RGA]

I agree with Feaner on acoustic instruments because there is a direct comparison available to the sound of an instrument versus say an "explosion" in a movie soundtrack since generally speaking we don't hear many live explosions of cars to make a comparison. Although there is also a direct comparison that can be made with amplified instruments such as electric guitars. This is more difficult but we know what electric guitars sound like if we listen to rock music - even if it is amplified.

This also goes to the "pyrotechnics" of sound of something like a Synthesizer which has the full spectrum of frequency response available to it as well as the complete dynamic envelope which exceeds ALL acoustics intruments including the biggest pedal organ. Thus music that uses a lot of synthesizer such as trance, hip-hop, house etc have a lot of frequency and drive behind it that acoustic music doesn't posess.

So it's not a terrible way to judge a system's ability since this music is typically geared to generate loud levels with a lot of hit you in the chaest bass response. If a system can't generate the loud hit you in the chest bass/midbass that is DEFINITELY on the recording then it's the speaker's fault or the system's fault.

A system should not care what type of music is being played - a stereo system's job is to react to input signals at an electrical level and move drivers to generate the desired sound of the artist and recording engineer. Thus a recording made for night clubs is a recording with a lot of bass and "thwack" and deep driving bass lines. A home speaker can't generate those levels but the room is typically a lot smaller than a club so a home speaker doesn't have to achieve those levels but it needs to achieve a satisfactory level in my view to recreate the "jump factor" that one would get in a club.

There is more to it than just playing real loud with mid bass thwack though as many club speakers are truly abysmal in the midrange and blur all the vocals and sound shrill and lumpy. It costs money to have both good sound and the ability to play everything well whether it is an Izhak Pearlman violin piece to Oscar Peterson on Piano to Sophie Millman's wonderful jazz recordings and breezy vocals, to AC DC's Back in Black a terrific rock recording in virtually every sense, to Pink Floyd, to Delerium's trance take with Sarah Mclachlan.

I think though that most systems have an unfortunate quality in that they do one side of the spectrum well but not the other. Some systems do well for rock and the macro dynamic thwack and hit very hard but are not so good with subtlety and finer points of micro and mid dynamics and depth and organic richness of acoustic instruments. My Wharfedale Vanguards with the horn tweeters and 10 inch woofer falls into this camp. It has a great ability to hit very hard at very high levels and is quite clear and throws voices out into the room quite well but it's a little rough sounding and not so at east with instruments. But it does PRAT well for the money which is why I still have them (need to be fixed up though).

While some other speakers I like like the Teresonic and Magnepans, King Sound and Quads(and note two of these I chose as two of the best rooms at CES) are far more at home with the acoustic matieral and run into serious problems with other kinds of music. Still I tend to weight more heavily the system's ability to play acoustic unamplified music and thus while these speakers can't do what my Wharfedales can do in the amplified music camp they are all superior at unamplified musie.

So it comes down to a balance IMO of how the speaker/system handles acoustic music and it's ability to not force the listener in never expanding beyond the unamplified music genre.

My desire has always been the single driver that can be run with SE tube amplifiers and to have good bass (doesn't have to be earthquake levels but good tuneful and mostly full range). I have spent decades listening to speakers and the ability to play piano, cello, and big hard hitting rock,metal, trance is very hard to find and it's never cheap. My speakers are probably the cheapest speakers I've heard that do a credible job and even here only in a medium sized room and only if corner loaded and only if I give up some at the upper volume range(although it plays louder than I need), and giving up the ultimate low level bass (pedal organ). So no matter what you have to give up something to get something. I personally would choose the speakers that did acoustics better and gives up the amplified thwack if I was on a tight budget. Thus, I would choose a Magnepan 1.7 under $2k over pretty much anything else I've heard in that price range - and it worked surprisingly well with a lowish powered, but robust, tube amp. Under $1k I like the AX Two because it so terrific at acoustic instruments like piano but perhaps not as ballsy as a B&W 602 or Dynaudio in the amplified bass departments. So if listen to more metal and rock I would choose a Dynaudio over the AX Two but if I listened more to Chopin then the AX Two easily wins out.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Excellent balance across the frequencies, including deep base.

High resolution of detail which greatly contributes to 'air' and transparency, i.e. the ability to distiguish individual instruments and voices in larger ensembles

Great soundstage appropriate to the type of ensemble; (this also contributes to transparency). In Classical music it pertains to the apparent perspective of the music, e.g. far back in the hall vs. front row, or even in the midst of the ensemble (which I generally hate). Chamber music generally tolerates a closer persepective than orchestral music.

Freedom from excessive stridency and brightness. People often forget, however, that some instruments, (esp. brass, strings), can naturally sound strident depending on the performance venue and the performance itself. Personally I suspect the close-microphoning is often the culprit when these are excessive.

Good dynamics appropriate to the type of music.

Freedom from electronic noise and recording artifacts.

I was totally with you until you got to the close microphoning comment. Close microphone placement in and of itself does not contribute to stridency or brightness. It is the choice of microphone, and the choice of 44.1khz sample rate that is the problem. I think I have mentioned this before. Acoustical instruments require mixing with the air to get the proper tonality and timbre. If you choose a microphone whose pickup characteristics lean more towards the mid and high end of the spectrum and place it close to an instrument, it will sound strident and top heavy. If you choose a microphone that is more balanced across the frequency spectrum, the sound will NOT be strident because there is no emphasis on any particular frequency.

A 44.1khz sample rate and close miking does not allow enough air to mix with acoustical instruments. If I pull the microphone away from the instrument, then 44.1khz works just fine. Using an 88.2 or 176.4 sample rate allows for close placement and enough air for the instrument to mix with, as the sample bandwidth is sufficiently wide enough to allow the system itself to provide the air for the instrument to mix with.

[Feanor]

I was totally with you until you got to the close microphoning comment. Close microphone placement in and of itself does not contribute to stridency or brightness. It is the choice of microphone, and the choice of 44.1khz sample rate that is the problem. I think I have mentioned this before. Acoustical instruments require mixing with the air to get the proper tonality and timbre. If you choose a microphone whose pickup characteristics lean more towards the mid and high end of the spectrum and place it close to an instrument, it will sound strident and top heavy. If you choose a microphone that is more balanced across the frequency spectrum, the sound will NOT be strident because there is no emphasis on any particular frequency.

A 44.1khz sample rate and close miking does not allow enough air to mix with acoustical instruments. If I pull the microphone away from the instrument, then 44.1khz works just fine. Using an 88.2 or 176.4 sample rate allows for close placement and enough air for the instrument to mix with, as the sample bandwidth is sufficiently wide enough to allow the system itself to provide the air for the instrument to mix with.
Thanks, Terrence. I defer to you knowledge of course. So I wonder if too many recording engineers use 44.1 and/or use inappropriate microphones.