|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Those posted by josh358 on March 20, 2012 at 14:04:10:
Actually you don't disagree with me at all. Which means I am not explaining my point very well or people are miss reading me.------- In part that's creative liberty, in larger part it's trying to make it good on lousy systems by playing it through Auratones or other such small speakers, in part it's because some control and mix rooms have lousy, uncontrolled acoustics, there are some pretty scary measurements out there. -------
The objective is to hear the greatest difference in the recordings whether they suck or are superb they should not sound the same/similar - unless they actually are the same/similar. The fact that rock and pop are highly compressed piles of caca most of the time is not in dispute. But that doesn't mean they all are. A lot of pop/rock is recorded quite well and should sound quite excellent. Poorer systems don't distinguish that very well IME. So quite a lot of recordings that are said to be lousy really are not. Dealers don't help because the bad sound they turn around and say - "the brightness you hear with the B&W is because your Amanda Marshal CD sucks Mr. Austen and the greatness of the world's best speaker designer - B&W - is merely showing you how bad the recordings are.
"Okay" says I there is some logic to this - ignoring the B&W high crossover and beamy kevlar drivers and non cohesive handoff of drivers that many many many people always find to be bright. Yes it's the recording's fault - or the CD player - or the CD technology, or the cables or anything except for the tweeter and Kevlar woofer that don't integrate. Can't possibly be that the brightness is actually caused by the speaker.
Ah but wait - using a bit of logic - which isn't seen in this hobby much - I notice - gee if you go up a model in the speaker range they have a better "fixed" tweeter in their tweeter on top approach - this tweeter reduces the "RINGING" in the lower model.
Oh but wait the dealer and reviewers didn't mention the ringing - no - one just has to look at the model up and the manufacturer practically tells you - this is a better loudspeaker because unlike the lower crappy model - this one has a tweeter that has much less audible ringing (ie doesn't sound as horrifically screechy). Gee just like the 1.7 improving the treble of the 1.6.
Suddenly the Amanda Marshal recording sounds a lot lot better. Oh wait - so it wasn't the recording after all.
------- As to whether a speaker can blast synth at the frequency extremes, I say, so what. There are far more speakers that can do boom thump screech than there are speakers that can do acoustical music convincingly. People should choose the speakers that do the best on the music *they* listen to within their budget. Why would someone who listens mostly to jazz, say, give a fig about synth? ------
I have no problem with the guy who buys a Quad 57 to listen to his Oboe based concertos - great - I played the oboe and the Quads do a great job.The ability not to be able to do remotely well rock/trance etc type music (Ie; Slipknot) may not have the guy care the least fig about. But chances are if it can't blast synth it also can't blast what is in my link.
And why would anyone want a speaker that forces them to only listen to oboe concertos? And worse only at very low volumes!
And what about those of us like ME who listen to everything classical, jazz, metal, rock, fusion metal/opera, trance, pop, country? I like different ice-cream too - not just vanilla and shadings of vanilla every time all the time.
I really don't want something that sounds like crap on half my music collection (either half). My little AN J speakers are equally happy with the classical and oboe and violin and cello and they do a very credible job on the amplified stuff. They're not really geared for that music but they do it better than most. The same store has the 1.7/3.6/20.1 and 2905 all of which sound worse with the oboe, violin and cello and piano and classical music (sans left to right holographic imaging and staging where the Quads win). Then with all the amplified stuff they sound worse - so much worse and cost so much more money and take up so much more space and require (according to their fans) so much more power. Makes no sense to me.
I want my cake and I want to eat it too. I want to play any music at any time at pretty good sound levels and quiet levels and everything in the middle. I want to play Oscar Peterson and then Madonna, and then Motley Crue, and then Loreen McKennitt. I don't want to groan when I do it and say better not put on Buckethead because the speakers suck at that kind of music.
A system that resolves the differences of genres - separating rock from classical will also do a much better job of separating genre specific recordings - classical from other classical or one recording of the 9th versus another recording of the 9th.
And all speakers that I have heard give something up somewhere. You choose the trade-offs. But I personally would like to make the least number of trade-offs as humanly possible. Some technologies simply do a poor job. Single driver and panel speakers (the small lower priced ones) make trade-offs - dynamics, bass, treble extension, volume level but they have gains in seamless midrange sound. Speakers for similar money like the the Cerwin Vega CLS 215 for $999 have a more uncouth sound, box is there but they bring scale and drive (music including classical has that too) - but you trade midrange acuity and seamlessness in.
What you listen to will impact which you might go for and for someone like me that listens to all music I tend to listen to how well the speaker does with music it doesn't do well. So the CLS stomps the crap out out of the MG 12 for the same money on all amplified music. The MMG is better with acoustic classical perhaps. So for me I want to now listen to the CLS on classical/jazz and see how it does and then I want to hear the MMG MG12 on Madonna's Ray of Light or the Evil Nine at reasonably high levels. I quite suspect that the MG12/MMG will doa very much worse job of this music than the CV 215 will do with jazz and classical.
And before you laugh at the Cerwin Vega name badge
http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/cerwinvega_cls215.htm
http://www.avguide.com/review/tested-cerwin-vega-cls-215-loudspeaker
You know a speaker that actually has some balls isn't a bad thing. maybe for the Frasier Crane Sherry drinking wussies out there but I want some Guinness in the speaker's delivery.
Edits: 03/21/12
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Those - RGA 01:44:31 03/21/12 (1)
- RE: Those - josh358 06:58:46 03/21/12 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
