Some music sounds better than other types?

[admin_exported]

I know I have a cheap system DM37 £329 (with speakers), however jazz music sounds really really good, but other music sounds bad, Barbera Streisand with her high notes sounds slightly piercing, and other music sounds a little flat

With a more expensive hi-fi system I presume all types of music would play very well?

How much can changing speakers change the sound say on my DM37?

Do you know of any good headphones, less than £100?

 

[Sizzers]

I gather that you're running the Denon SCM-37 speakers? I haven't heard them myself but there was no mention of this in the WHF review (please check it out). I would look at your speaker placement first and, if you haven't already done so, invest in some decent speaker stands. Whatever speakers you run, decent stands will transform the sound; what they did for my Tannoy's was truly remarkable.

 

[the record spot]

garyjos:

With a more expensive hi-fi system I presume all types of music would play very well?

All things being equal you might think so, however, it depends on the quality of the recording and mastering of the discs as much as the quality of the equipment you're playing it on. Same applies to LPs and music sourced via a hard disk.

 

[matthewpiano]

Generally slightly warmer sounding equipment is kinder to a range of different recording standards.

The advice already given about speaker stands is very valuable.

 

[up the music]

All music will benefit from an improved system. It's often noted though that rock and indie tends to improve less. As system transparancy improves the faults in compressed recording and engineering become more noticeable. It seems to be this type of music which suffers in this way because it's harder to record and produce cleanly. Jazz and acoustic stuff fares far better.

 

[8009514]

There doesn't appear to be many people, forum members anyway, who are running the DM37 with the SCM-37 speakers. Most seem to have gone for Tannoy, Wharfedale, MS and MA speakers which are pretty well all in the same price bracket. The 5 star review though, conducted by WHF, was done with the Denon speakers supplied. So on that basis I would think they are pretty much OK. As Sizzer has suggested, stands should make a big difference, or if like me you have them wall mounted them some real good quality wall brackets are much better than 'hanging' them from a screw or something.

Have you tried the set up in the manual for 'matching' the unit to the speakers. Can't remember the full info. on it or exactly what it does, but its in the manual somewhere.

Have you decided on your speaker cable yet after the thread you initiated?

 

[jaxwired]

Great question. My opinion is that no speaker will sound good with all music, period. The quest for this will get you into trouble. If you find a speaker that sounds great with most of your music, you've found a gem. The reason is, of course, the way the CD is recorded will affect how is sounds with you speakers. As an example, speakers that are very strong in bass reproduction will sound great with music that has weak bass because it will compensate. But if you play some heavy bass R&B, it might sound over the top and boomy.

I would recommend springing for some replacement speakers. The brands already suggested will be a huge step up from the denon supplied speakers.

 

[manicm]

jaxwired:

Great question. My opinion is that no speaker will sound good with all music, period. The quest for this will get you into trouble. If you find a speaker that sounds great with most of your music, you've found a gem. The reason is, of course, the way the CD is recorded will affect how is sounds with you speakers. As an example, speakers that are very strong in bass reproduction will sound great with music that has weak bass because it will compensate. But if you play some heavy bass R&B, it might sound over the top and boomy.

I would recommend springing for some replacement speakers. The brands already suggested will be a huge step up from the denon supplied speakers.

Dare I say it but my old Technics (!)/Pioneer(!) system did sound good with all music. I have eclectic taste. Your point about recorded music - well if a recording has inherently weak bass or whatever then I'd rather take it as it is, don't want anything to compensate for it as ultimately this will just colour the sound.

To me a good speaker is an accurate one and does not have to be less musical for it. And to sound like a stuck record, this is also why I never use tone controls at home.

And to stir further, Chebby guess you're not missing tone controls on your Naim huh?

 

[idc]

Hi garyjos. Regarding the recommendation for headphones, try either the Sennheiser HD555 or the Grado SR60i. Bear in mind both are open backed so will leak sound. Soundwise both are good and which one you find more comfortable to wear will probably make more of a difference to how much you enjoy them. The Grado's sit on your ear so some find them uncomfortable, the Sennheisers sit round your ears on cushions so can get too warm after a while. My preference is for Grado. I was listening to some Sennheiser HD 595s today and they were good with a full, rounded sound, but I prefer the brighter sound of the Grados.

 

[Anonymous]

Mancim, when you say a good speaker is an "accurate one" could you explain what you mean?

If you mean one that accurately reproduces a live performance could you tell me whereabouts in the venue your hypothetical listener is standing such that you personally know that sound is being reproduced accurately?

Also how it is that you remember what exactly that sound is such that you can judge your speakers to be reproducing sounds accurately?

Could I also ask how you know that recordings made before your birth or ones you were not present at are being reproduced accurately?

And last but not least, could I ask how it is that you know how each producer who mixes the sound of a recording explains it to you personally in such detail that you can judge your speakers to be reproducing that sound accurately?

 

[idc]

Hi FolsomBlues. We have had a lively debate before about whether you can accurately reproduce live sound and the answer was pretty much no. Hifi, of high fidelity is about being true to the original recording and is a very subjective topic. Generally an 'accurate' sound is one that reproduces the recording as is, warts and all. So it will shine with well recorded music and be a bit brutal with poorly recorded music. Another analogy would be if you have a system with tone controls or an equaliser, accurate would be the tone controls and equaliser switched off.

 

[Anonymous]

And how do you know what the "original recording" was intended to sound like such that you can judge your hi fi to be reproducing it to a lesser or greater extent?

 

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately good hi fi does not turn a bad mastering into a good one. The best example I can think of off the top of my head is a revered hip hop album, Nas - Illmatic, the mastering on it is terrible and the better the speakers, the more apparent this will be.

 

[idc]

FolsomBlues:

And how do you know what the "original recording" was intended to sound like such that you can judge your hi fi to be reproducing it to a lesser or greater extent?

There are those with a far greater knowledge of how the original recording was intended to sound like than me. But from my little knowledge certain porducers are know for the quality of their work and also their style, the most famous of which is Phil Spector and his wall of sound. From that knowledge certain hifi manufacturers get a reputation for producing kit which sounds 'accurate'. One such manufacturer is Musical Fidelity, where the owner, a former professional musician, makes a big point of how his ideal is a sound that is true to the original recording. So he is not that impressed with kit from Bose because Bose are known for their heavy bass. Bose on the other hand might react by saying, your kit may be accurate, but ours has more attack, is more lively and is more enjoyable because of that. The use of 'accurate' is more of a descriptive to try and convey the type of sound a certain bit of kit has. Other terms include 'forward', 'recessed', 'bright' etc.

 

[8009514]

Thread is definately drifting away from the original question, but heyho, lots of others do as well so I'll carry on with something I seem to be picking up on now.

Seems to me from the last few posts that there appears to be a 'purist' approach to hifi and music, in that the use of tone control may be frowned upon. A cd or other music souce needs to be listened to 'as is' whether brilliantly or shockingly recorded.

Hmm, all I can say is thank god for tone controls so I can compensate for any type of recording and make it sound like I want it to.

Not saying I'm forever adjusting them but treble is turned up a bit and the bass a bit more, so definately not 'flat' but sounds just great to me.

Hope I'm not making a serious faux pas here.

 

[manicm]

FolsomBlues:

Mancim, when you say a good speaker is an "accurate one" could you explain what you mean?

If you mean one that accurately reproduces a live performance could you tell me whereabouts in the venue your hypothetical listener is standing such that you personally know that sound is being reproduced accurately?

Also how it is that you remember what exactly that sound is such that you can judge your speakers to be reproducing sounds accurately?

Could I also ask how you know that recordings made before your birth or ones you were not present at are being reproduced accurately?

And last but not least, could I ask how it is that you know how each producer who mixes the sound of a recording explains it to you personally in such detail that you can judge your speakers to be reproducing that sound accurately?

FolsomBlues - I will not admit to knowing perfectly what an 'accurate' speaker exactly is, but just in the context of prior comments that would prefer speakers and/or other equipment to compensate for perceived poor recordings.

All I have said is that from my preferences and listening preferences I would rather listen to such recordings unvarnished/unembellished. I prefer a 'purer' sound without resorting to tone controls or speakers with exaggerated bass/treble or any other such equipment. And with some of my favourite recordings which I am very familiar with I will make out myself what I think is a faithful reproduction as I'm sure most others do as well.

And my listening automatically tries to perceive imaging and depth - to me it's about musical communication. So from listening to my own evolved systems and others' I will create my own truth of what I think I an accurate reproduction is.

I think many others do the same here. The crux of what I'm saying is that I don't like embellishments like tone controls, as from my experience/listening I find using them is always at the expense of some piece of the sonic picture.

So when I say I like an 'accurate' speaker, I just like one with a natural unforced balance.

And I have my own example of a bad/poor recording - it's the CD of Pink Floyd's Animals. I have the vinyl which is stunning but this remastered CD clearly has exaggerated bass with the result that the life is sucked out of the music. And I could increase the treble on my system but that won't improve the damaged imaging - it will only do exactly that - increase the treble.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[manicm]

Another good example of where no amount of IC sophistry will improve things is Metallica's latest CD. Everyone is up in arms about its heavily compressed mastering where everyone seems to be be playing at the same volume i.e. very little dynamics.

In such an extreme recording it's really hard to imagine anything improving it. Tone controls or other equipment which exaggerates/subtracts anything is not going to improve matters in this specific case.

On the other hand I can see the value of tone controls for others like Igglebert who states he has such a revealing system that he's forced to use them occasionally.

So it's different strokes for different folks I guess.