-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Which speakers are the Classical Music Pros using?
- Thread starter tuga
- Start date
Galliardist
Major Contributor
It isn’t so easy..,Oxford Dictionary defines it as
"Serious music following long-established principles rather than a folk, jazz, or popular tradition."
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!www.lexico.com
Larousse:
Se dit, par opposition à la musique folklorique, légère, de variétés, au jazz ou à la musique contemporaine, de la musique, des œuvres des musiciens composées dans le cadre de la tradition musicale occidentale.
As opposed to folk, light, variety music, jazz or contemporary music; music, works of musicians composed within the framework of the Western musical tradition.
Wikipedia has an entry too:
Art music (alternatively called classical music, cultivated music, serious music, and canonic music[1]) is music considered to be of high aesthetic value.[2] It typically implies advanced structural and theoretical considerations[3] or a written musical tradition.[4] In this context, the terms "serious" or "cultivated" are frequently used to present a contrast with ordinary, everyday music (i.e. popular and folk music, also called "vernacular music").[2]
"Art music" is mostly used to refer to music descending from the tradition of Western classical music. Musicologist Philip Tagg refers to the elitism associated with art music as one of an "axiomatic triangle consisting of 'folk', 'art' and 'popular' musics".[5] He explains that each of these three is distinguishable from the others according to certain criteria.[5] According to Bruno Nettl, "Western classical music" may also be synonymous with "art music", "canonic music", "cultivated music", "serious music", as well as the more flippantly used "real music" and "normal music".[1] Musician Catherine Schmidt-Jones defines art music as "a music which requires significantly more work by the listener to fully appreciate than is typical of popular music". In her view, "[t]his can include the more challenging types of jazz and rock music, as well as Classical".[6]
The term "art music" refers primarily to classical traditions (including contemporary as well as historical classical music forms) that focus on formal styles, invite technical and detailed deconstruction[3] and criticism, and demand focused attention from the listener. In strict western practice, art music is considered primarily a written musical tradition,[4] preserved in some form of music notation, as opposed to being transmitted orally, by rote, or in recordings (like popular and traditional music).[4][7]
Art music - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The first two definitions exclude twelve tone composition which is usually put in the classical music category,
All three definitions exclude music which when composed did not sit in tbe classical category but have been appropriated - the dance music of Johann Straiss I, operetta, some movie scores, etc.
There’s also a blurring of the lines with more zeros elements of “world music” - do we include Asian composition for Western orchestra or not?
The term is modern, bends tbe intent of at least some of tbe composers who were writing dance music, sacred music, or striving for commercial hits.
Classical music is really defined not by the written word, but by a shifting group of gatekeepers- critics, scholars, those booming classical music events, and so on. We
They get this right, though: Classical music is more easily defined by what it isn’t. It isn’t intended to be amplified on initial presentation, for example. That means real instruments in a real space provide the reference sound, not recordings or mixes or PA speakers (even if all of those may be involved at some stage or other for whatever reason or in whatever context). Those who listen to a lot of it in person know what it sounds like, and don’t want playbacks to violate those expectations. The sounds of different rooms aren’t a problem. The problem is a reinterpretation of the composer’s or conductor’s balance, or the natural tone of the instruments, intended or not.
It’s not necessary for a mix monitor to be like a playback speaker, or even all that accurate on its own, I don’t think. It is necessary for it to be standardized using whatever processing is necessary to achieve that. It’s the lack of standardization that Toole discusses, because it leaves playback systems unable to predict the intended sound.
It seems to me that if it’s mixed to sound unrealistic or with coloration, speakers won’t fix it, no matter where they are, beyond the adjustments listeners make to conform as well as possible to their expectations. They are correcting, with only the guidance of their own experience, for the lack of standardization in upstream response and equalization, and that’s the circle of confusion.
Rick “not confusing correction with targeting” Denney
It’s not necessary for a mix monitor to be like a playback speaker, or even all that accurate on its own, I don’t think. It is necessary for it to be standardized using whatever processing is necessary to achieve that. It’s the lack of standardization that Toole discusses, because it leaves playback systems unable to predict the intended sound.
It seems to me that if it’s mixed to sound unrealistic or with coloration, speakers won’t fix it, no matter where they are, beyond the adjustments listeners make to conform as well as possible to their expectations. They are correcting, with only the guidance of their own experience, for the lack of standardization in upstream response and equalization, and that’s the circle of confusion.
Rick “not confusing correction with targeting” Denney
Very interesting. Yes, I also think Genelec 8030c sounds better than Revel m105 in stereo, and maybe some of the differences depends on the dispersion.I think both interpretations are valid interpretations of the provided data. From mono to stereo, the Rega went from 1st to 2nd, KEF from 2nd to 1st, and Quad from distant 3rd to very close 3rd. We would need more data(presumably Harman has it) to say which interpretation is more valid than the other. While I personally tend to lean more towards your interpretation(given the data we have), I have to assume that Dr. Toole's interpretation is based on far more data than what is shown to us. If I had to bet on one being correct, I'd have to bet against my own intuition here.
This is definitely true for me. Rating purely the "Spacial" component, I rate wider dispersion higher in mono, and medium or narrow dispersion higher in stereo.
For mono listening, I prefer the spatial presentation of my Revels far more than I do my JTRs(narrow dispersion) or Genelecs(medium dispersion). The Revel throws a wider soundstage and disappears much better, which are the 2 components of how I rate "spatial" quality from 1-10.
In stereo, I actually rate the Revel the worst of the 3. The Revel still disappears a bit better, and it still throws a wider soundstage, but, it now does worse on the (new) third component, which is the tightness of the phantom center image. This may just be a personal preference, but I love tighter phantom imaging more than I love wider soundstage, excluding some types of symphonic music. For certain types of symphonic music, I actually enjoy a more diffuse phantom image, as it sounds closer to what I hear at live symphonic events.
A year or two ago I blinded the Genelec 8030c against the Revel M105, but only in stereo. I really wish I had done a subsequent mono test to see if the results changed. The Genelec won the stereo test, but I'm pretty confident the Revel would win a mono test. The reason I think this is twofold:
1. Tonality is almost identical, so it's gonna come down to the "Spatial" rating
2. The Genelec slightly won(imo this is why it won) because of the spatial component, which was due to the tighter phantom image it throws. I'm somewhat guessing this is why it won based on why I prefer it, and comments from the listeners. A common comment in favor of the Genelec was something like "this one sounds more like the singer is there in front of you". In mono, though, I actually rate the Revel higher for its spatial representation. There is no phantom image anymore, and the narrower dispersion makes it clearer that the sound is coming from a speaker right in front of you, which means the Genelec doesn't "disappear" as well as the Revel.
I definitely plan to redo this experiment and more, which is why I purchased the 3 way ABX Comparator by Van Alstine(though I still haven't had a chance to use it).
One thing that may be the cause of some difference is: "What question are you trying to answer with this blind test?". Are you trying to find which speaker sounds best with "average" placement/toe-in? Or, are you trying to find which speaker sounds best with "optimal" placement/toe-in? I think the Harman research was aimed more at answering the former, whereas my tests were aimed more at answering the latter.
For answering the first question, the way Harman does it(speakers in same spot with same toe-in) makes the most sense, as user room placement and toe in will likely be all over the place. Doing it like this does definitely bias the results towards wider dispersion, and Dr. Toole has even mentioned this too. But, Dr. Toole also brings up the great point that this bias is not really a bad thing, as placement insensitivity is an inherent advantage of wide dispersion. My Revels sound great without much setup at allb at almost any position. Sure, you can optimize it a bit(maybe 10%?) by messing with toe-in, but they pretty much always sound great. My JTRs on the other hand are much more finicky. They go from sounding bad to sounding amazing just by adjusting the toe-in a bit.
For answering the second question, you would need to first find the optimal position and toe-in for each speaker under test, and then design a machine that can quickly place each speaker in that optimal position and orientation. Such a machine would likely be much more expensive and complicated, and maybe isn't answering the question that is most important to a manufacturer. The way we handled this was by spending a few days prior to the event finding the optimal placement/toe-in for each speaker, and then marking those positions with color coded tape for each speaker. On test day, when the listener called for the switch, we had two people to move the current speakers out of the way, and two people to move the new speakers into the color coded position/angle. It seemed to work really well, but requires a good number of people, and also our switch times weren't 3 seconds or less like the Harman switcher is(I'm hoping the ABX comparator can assist with this).
Anyways, glad to see Dr. Toole participating here, and this is something I'm super curious to see more research about. A loudspeaker like the Beolab90 would perhaps be an excellent test subject. Maybe the "wide" or "omni" mode is preferred in mono? Maybe the "narrow" mode is preferred in stereo? To truly answer this mono vs stereo debate for myself, I need the ability to hold the FR component as a constant, and let dispersion width be the only variable.
Last edited:
Stockhausen might have disagreed.
I've not heard any Stockhausen, but I think I've trodden in some.
(wrongly attributed to Sir Thomas Beecham.)
S.
You won't miss much unless you are interested in music history.
£57,000 for a pair of bookshelf speakers. Blimey. Well, they have earned it.
Presently42
Active Member
And Steve Reich
To make up for my inexcusable foray into Stockhausen and Abba, a return to topic (which speakers are the classical music pros using):
Here's an article on how the English Session Orchestra recorded in a restored church in London (the home of the LSO) with the help of a 11m portable studio that uses a Neumann 7.1.4 system and two Barefoot MM27 Mark II.
I hope I am absolved.
Here's an article on how the English Session Orchestra recorded in a restored church in London (the home of the LSO) with the help of a 11m portable studio that uses a Neumann 7.1.4 system and two Barefoot MM27 Mark II.
I hope I am absolved.
Last edited:
Galliardist
Major Contributor
Well, not yet… I’m pretty sure that if we could find out what of today’s music gets to be “classical” in 300 years’ time, we’d be surprised.
It may be "classic" but it will likely never be "classical". It's just a name, unmoored from it's original chronological meaning, like "modern" and "post modern".
Galliardist
Major Contributor
To give an example, take "The Beggar's Opera". Sure, the composer involved was trained, but the work consists of tunes from a range of different popular sources, the work is satirical and meant clearly as a popular entertainment.
Today, it's clearly accepted as classical music in the commonly accepted meaning of the term.
So, can we accept that work as "art music" or "classical music" and see, say, DSOTM which is clearly conceived as an artistic musical project, permanently rejected from the same classifications? In fact that is quite likely what will happen.
At the same time, posterity will collect a seemingly random assortment of late 20th century music into the "art" or "classical" music canon - I mean that music that gets performed by trained musicians in concerts of what is perceived as serious music in the future. We don't get to choose, and it's quite likely we would get it wrong - maybe even by just thinking that such a thing as a recognisable music tradition of this sort will exist in the future.
As an example of getting it wrong - no way would the guardians of good taste ten years after Bach's death have included him in any list of "great composers".
Today, it's clearly accepted as classical music in the commonly accepted meaning of the term.
So, can we accept that work as "art music" or "classical music" and see, say, DSOTM which is clearly conceived as an artistic musical project, permanently rejected from the same classifications? In fact that is quite likely what will happen.
At the same time, posterity will collect a seemingly random assortment of late 20th century music into the "art" or "classical" music canon - I mean that music that gets performed by trained musicians in concerts of what is perceived as serious music in the future. We don't get to choose, and it's quite likely we would get it wrong - maybe even by just thinking that such a thing as a recognisable music tradition of this sort will exist in the future.
As an example of getting it wrong - no way would the guardians of good taste ten years after Bach's death have included him in any list of "great composers".
killdozzer
Major Contributor
If there's onyl one impression you shouldn't worry yourself about leaving on people who read your comments...
killdozzer
Major Contributor
I'm not talking perfect speakers. Just flat. You use flat because it's a safe bet that when you hear a certain sound characteristic, it's probably not coming from your speakers. If you have speakers with a pronounced sound signature, you end up correcting the speaker, so to speak, and not your mix. When you skew your mix to fit a speaker with a pronounced sound signature, your mix won't fit speakers with different sort of sound signature. It's the triangle Toole talks about at the beginning of his book, where you use a speaker to asses your work, but in fact you are assessing the speaker's flawed reproduction of your work and, naturally, this is not the easiest way to lead you closer to what the musicians were playing.
It ads up. Your referent speaker is bright, you lower treble, you play it on a speaker with "laid back" tweeter, you end up with "lack of treble from your mix" + "lack of treble from the other type of speaker" and it sound "muddy".
Can you even call a speaker with too much refraction an ideal flat speaker?
These sentences I didn't understand, if you want to explain:
Or, you can, perhaps, demonstrate through examples. Let's take the heavy weight champion of flat (thus far) from this site Genelec 8341A and the NS10s. Can you point out the benefits of NS10? Can you point out the refraction problem? Can you explain how and why would using NS10 make something sound good on anything else as oppose to facing some problems when using 8341A?
Maybe a good comparison would be trying to do film-productions with a tv-monitor with wrong colours.
Its impossible and everyone agrees on that.
The same happens with bad loudspeaker monitors ( non-flat and/or with bad directivity ) when used in sound productions.
Its impossible and everyone agrees on that.
The same happens with bad loudspeaker monitors ( non-flat and/or with bad directivity ) when used in sound productions.
