"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...


Andy made an interesting post on this subject some time ago.
He stated the crux of the matter to be a difference in timbre, which
is exactly the parameter used in instument recognition/differentiation.


Once the basic criteria have been met, exceptional tone and timbre is
what makes the difference and *sets the price* of a musical instrument
(and a pair of speakers)!!

Yes indeed.

I tend to evaluate speakers and musical instruments with
the same criteria. It's not at all about "high fidelity" (if it
were, then Tannoy, B+W, JBL etc would all sound the
same) but producing a sound which presents in the best
posible/most pleasing way the music to which you wish
to listen (or in the case of a musical instrument - to play)


Of course.

What never ceases to amaze me that there are those who don't seem to
realise that *no* speaker produces sound without colouring it and all
instruments produce a unique sound (timbre) - the trick is to get the most
effective combination that gives the most acceptable result.

Perhaps the most blameless is the ESL which does indeed sound
very good indeed on some material - spoken word is exceptional
But the incredibly narrow sweet spot for a stereo pair, an unconvincing
bottom octave, and an inability to handle high monitoring
levels greatly reduces their useability in professional applications.

What also amazes me is that they also don't seem to realise that some
speakers do a better job with some material than others. Usually, these
are the clowns who are *playing it safe* with some popularly-accepted
brand/model that will set all the heads nodding with approval down at the
Old Women's Club. (I suspect you could guess most of the makes that will
feature in the front line and you may depend they will be used with
material that is all of a muchness.)

:-)


The important thing is either to select a sound which, as you say, is
pleasing to you, or simply get used to the speakers you have - sooner or
later, they will imprint their own *sound* as 'normal'.

Indeed.
Now we are back to my original contention:-)

Iain

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I tend to evaluate speakers and musical instruments with
the same criteria. It's not at all about "high fidelity"

Nothing new there, then, from you.

(if it
were, then Tannoy, B+W, JBL etc would all sound the
same) but producing a sound which presents in the best
posible/most pleasing way the music to which you wish
to listen (or in the case of a musical instrument - to play)

So you don't object to the sound from your 'ideal' instrument being
altered by your loudspeakers?

You seem to have (perhaps deliberately?) missed the point.
Having found your ideal instrument (say for example the artist,
producer and engineer choose from a Guild, Gretsch, Martin or
Olson guitar) you then are faced with finding a speaker that
can reproduce your choice as it should be reproduced.
Speakers (mics too) are definately horses for courses.
There is no one-make-fits-all, even though there are some
pretty good all-rounders.


Just how many pairs of speakers do you have, Iain, to allow you to
'evaluate' the best ones for a particular task?

For my personal use I have three pairs, Tannoy, Kef and JBL.
They all excel in different ways with different material. It is
no coincidence that material recorded on JBLs usually sounds
best when replayed on them:-)


Iain
Relastivity for musicians EW = Fb

In article , Keith G
scribeth thus

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...


Andy made an interesting post on this subject some time ago.
He stated the crux of the matter to be a difference in timbre, which
is exactly the parameter used in instument recognition/differentiation.


Once the basic criteria have been met, exceptional tone and timbre is
what makes the difference and *sets the price* of a musical instrument
(and a pair of speakers)!!

Yes indeed.

I tend to evaluate speakers and musical instruments with
the same criteria. It's not at all about "high fidelity" (if it
were, then Tannoy, B+W, JBL etc would all sound the
same) but producing a sound which presents in the best
posible/most pleasing way the music to which you wish
to listen (or in the case of a musical instrument - to play)


Of course.

What never ceases to amaze me that there are those who don't seem to realise
that *no* speaker produces sound without colouring it and all instruments
produce a unique sound (timbre) - the trick is to get the most effective
combination that gives the most acceptable result.

Ever tried Quad ESL63's or the like?...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Iain Churches
scribeth thus

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...


Andy made an interesting post on this subject some time ago.
He stated the crux of the matter to be a difference in timbre, which
is exactly the parameter used in instument recognition/differentiation.


Once the basic criteria have been met, exceptional tone and timbre is
what makes the difference and *sets the price* of a musical instrument
(and a pair of speakers)!!

Yes indeed.

I tend to evaluate speakers and musical instruments with
the same criteria. It's not at all about "high fidelity" (if it
were, then Tannoy, B+W, JBL etc would all sound the
same) but producing a sound which presents in the best
posible/most pleasing way the music to which you wish
to listen (or in the case of a musical instrument - to play)


Of course.

What never ceases to amaze me that there are those who don't seem to
realise that *no* speaker produces sound without colouring it and all
instruments produce a unique sound (timbre) - the trick is to get the most
effective combination that gives the most acceptable result.

Perhaps the most blameless is the ESL which does indeed sound
very good indeed on some material - spoken word is exceptional
But the incredibly narrow sweet spot for a stereo pair, an unconvincing
bottom octave, and an inability to handle high monitoring
levels greatly reduces their useability in professional applications.

What, were people are a bit deaf;?..

Quite loud enough in my detached gaff.. and sufficient low end too...

and bloody good at showing up what's -not- right with a lot of
recordings;(...

--
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer" wrote


What never ceases to amaze me that there are those who don't seem to
realise
that *no* speaker produces sound without colouring it and all instruments
produce a unique sound (timbre) - the trick is to get the most effective
combination that gives the most acceptable result.

Ever tried Quad ESL63's or the like?...


I've heard them at Classique Sounds in Leicester - with a sub. Very nice,
but no good to me - I don't have the room for them, as you might remember.

But what are you saying they don't colour the sound?

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote

So you don't object to the sound from your 'ideal' instrument being
altered by your loudspeakers?


Ay oop! Poochie's on the 'so you's then? :-)



You seem to have (perhaps deliberately?) missed the point.
Having found your ideal instrument (say for example the artist,
producer and engineer choose from a Guild, Gretsch, Martin or
Olson guitar) you then are faced with finding a speaker that
can reproduce your choice as it should be reproduced.
Speakers (mics too) are definately horses for courses.
There is no one-make-fits-all, even though there are some
pretty good all-rounders.


That is my also belief, but I would even go as far as to say that the
'all-rounder' speaker's 'sound' can become so *ingrained* it becomes the
norm and nothing else will do - perfectly OK of course, if it is an *Old
Dear Approved* make....

It seemed there was a spate of people trying to rediscover their original
70s (?) sound a while back - mostly the likes of Tannoy and Wharfedale. I
don't know if it's still the case?




Just how many pairs of speakers do you have, Iain, to allow you to
'evaluate' the best ones for a particular task?

For my personal use I have three pairs, Tannoy, Kef and JBL.
They all excel in different ways with different material. It is
no coincidence that material recorded on JBLs usually sounds
best when replayed on them:-)


Nothing for Poochie to get hold of there - he does like to obsess about my
'horns' and affects to ignore that I have Tannoy, Ruark and B&W on the go
also - the Tannoys and Ruarks being used on a daily basis.

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
What never ceases to amaze me that there are those who don't seem to
realise that *no* speaker produces sound without colouring it and all
instruments produce a unique sound (timbre) - the trick is to get the
most effective combination that gives the most acceptable result.

Perhaps the most blameless is the ESL which does indeed sound
very good indeed on some material - spoken word is exceptional
But the incredibly narrow sweet spot for a stereo pair, an unconvincing
bottom octave, and an inability to handle high monitoring
levels greatly reduces their useability in professional applications.

You need to decide what you're discussing. You're certainly right that a
speaker without a cabinet is less likely to add colouration. But seem to
apply to the original Quad designed some 50 years ago. Have you not
'evaluated' later ones?

Monitoring speakers in your industry are often required to satisfy the
needs of sometimes deaf musicians (and engineers) and to sell a possibly
shoddy product to the money. Hence your love of Tannoy, JBL, etc. And
valve amps. Anything to 'improve' the signal.

--
*Always borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I tend to evaluate speakers and musical instruments with
the same criteria. It's not at all about "high fidelity"

Nothing new there, then, from you.

(if it
were, then Tannoy, B+W, JBL etc would all sound the
same) but producing a sound which presents in the best
posible/most pleasing way the music to which you wish
to listen (or in the case of a musical instrument - to play)

So you don't object to the sound from your 'ideal' instrument being
altered by your loudspeakers?

You seem to have (perhaps deliberately?) missed the point.
Having found your ideal instrument (say for example the artist,
producer and engineer choose from a Guild, Gretsch, Martin or
Olson guitar) you then are faced with finding a speaker that
can reproduce your choice as it should be reproduced.

Back pedalling are we? For a speaker to reproduce your favourite guitar
accurately it must add (or subtract) as little as possible. Anything else
would be a nonsense. But then, you seem to only be familiar with coloured
speakers.

Speakers (mics too) are definately horses for courses.

Many of those 'courses' have little to do with accurate sound
reproduction. More to do with robustness when abused and selling a product
to a client in your industry.

--
*Horn broken. - Watch for finger.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
What never ceases to amaze me that there are those who don't seem to
realise that *no* speaker produces sound without colouring it and all
instruments produce a unique sound (timbre) - the trick is to get the
most effective combination that gives the most acceptable result.

Ever tried Quad ESL63's or the like?...

Obviously not.

--
*It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I tend to evaluate speakers and musical instruments with
the same criteria. It's not at all about "high fidelity"

Nothing new there, then, from you.

(if it
were, then Tannoy, B+W, JBL etc would all sound the
same) but producing a sound which presents in the best
posible/most pleasing way the music to which you wish
to listen (or in the case of a musical instrument - to play)

So you don't object to the sound from your 'ideal' instrument being
altered by your loudspeakers?

You seem to have (perhaps deliberately?) missed the point.
Having found your ideal instrument (say for example the artist,
producer and engineer choose from a Guild, Gretsch, Martin or
Olson guitar) you then are faced with finding a speaker that
can reproduce your choice as it should be reproduced.

Back pedalling are we? For a speaker to reproduce your favourite guitar
accurately it must add (or subtract) as little as possible

Absolutely. Record a Rickebacker fretless bass (5 string if
you can find one) with DI straight into the console. Listen
to it on the ESL. Dissapointing isn't it? What's happened to
the low B? Play it on a Tannoy Westminster, or a B+W
Nautilus 802D As the player said "Now you're cooking".

Record some spoken word, male (baritone) voice preferably.
The Tannoy makes a good job of it, but the ESL is closer to the
original -clearly more natural. Horses for courses.

*Horn broken. - Watch for finger.

Hope it wasn't a Lowther:-))

Iain