The Role of Program Material on Audio Quality:

[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.