Here’s an answer I’ve been kicking around: Your system is becoming more neutral whenever you change a system element (component, cable, room treatment, etc.) and you get the following results:
(1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique. (2) Your music collection sounds more diverse.
This theory occurred to me one day when I changed amps and noticed that the timbres of instruments were suddenly more distinct from one another. With the old amp, all instruments seemed to have a common harmonic element (the signature of the amp?!). With the new amp, individual instrument timbres sounded more unique and the range of instrument timbres sounded more diverse. I went on to notice that whole songs (and even whole albums) sounded more unique, and that my music collection, taken as a whole, sounded more diverse.
That led me to the following idea: If, after changing a system element, (1) individual pieces of music sound more unique, and (2) your music collection sounds more diverse, then your system is contributing less of its own signature to the music. And less signature means more neutral.
Thoughts?
P.S. This is only a way of judging the relative neutrality of a system. Judging the absolute neutrality of a system is a philosophical question for another day.
P.P.S. I don’t believe a system’s signature can be reduced to zero. But it doesn’t follow from that that differences in neutrality do not exist.
P.P.P.S. I’m not suggesting that neutrality is the most important goal in building an audio system, but in my experience, the changes that have resulted in greater neutrality (using the standard above) have also been the changes that resulted in more musical enjoyment.
I don't see how anyone could consider "correct pitch and timbre" part of "neutrality." I actually flinched when I read that - a musician's carefully crafted tone colors are NOT "neutral," and I personally would never want to listen for long to a system that removed subtle differences in this area...
I am not saying that a musician's "tonal colors" are, or should be, neutral. We have already had that conversation on this thread. In your second post, you wrote:
Music is not, and never should be "neutral." As a professional musician, the term has always been hilarious to me when applied in this context. No musician wants to sound "neutral," that's for sure!
To which I responded:
The term 'neutral' is not a description of the music. It is a description of the playback system and its components.
In a subsequent post, I wrote:
Again, neutrality is not a virtue of music or of recording. It is a virtue of a playback system.
And in a recent post, I wrote:
NEUTRALITY: The degree to which a component or system is free from coloration. Once again, this does NOT refer to coloration in the recording, but only to coloration introduced by the playback system.
As I hope is clear from this, my view is that neutrality is NOT a desirable characteristic in music or in recording. It is a desirable characteristic in a playback system.
As to your comment that "I personally would never want to listen for long to a system that removed subtle differences in this area," I am in complete agreement. But it is my view that the more neutral the playback system, the MORE it will reveal subtle differences in tone/timbre. That was my point in the original post, when I wrote:
This theory occurred to me one day when I changed amps and noticed that the timbres of instruments were suddenly more distinct from one another. With the old amp, all instruments seemed to have a common harmonic element (the signature of the amp?!). With the new amp, individual instrument timbres sounded more unique and the range of instrument timbres sounded more diverse.
Learsfool - I think our disagreement here can be reduced to two different answers to the following question:
WOULD A NEUTRAL AUDIO SYSTEM MAKE THE MUSIC SOUND "NEUTRAL"?
Judging from your posts, I believe you would answer this question "Yes." In other words, I think your view is that, the more neutral an audio system is, the more it makes things sound THE SAME. I have the exact opposite view, namely, that the more neutral an audio system is, the more it makes things sound DIFFERENT.
The reasoning for my view is the following: The more neutral an audio system, the less it colors the music with ITS OWN SIGNATURE. The less an audio system colors the music with its own signature, the more you will hear THE SIGNATURE OF THE MUSIC. And the more you hear the signature of the music, the more DISTINCT individual pieces of music will sound, and the more DIVERSE your collection of music will sound.
As to correct pitch and timbre, the rationale for including them under the concept of neutrality is the following: A system that is highly neutral contaminates pitch and timbre (with its own signature) less than one that is highly colored. And the less pitch and timbre are contaminated, the more "correct" they are.
To summarize my view on this: Neutrality (i.e. freedom from coloration) in an audio system does not lead to neutrality (i.e. SAMENESS) in the music played back on it, but rather the opposite. Neutrality in an audio system leads to DIVERSITY in the music played back on it.
Interesting posts, guys. First, the 50K systems example. I thought I had made it clear that I was also speaking of this level of system in my example. I do indeed maintain that even if heard in exactly the same space (easily done in a large dealer's biggest showroom, for example), that anyone, not just audiophiles, will hear significant differences between several different systems. I think the designers of the equipment in question would be appalled at the idea that someone couldn't. Frankly, I am baffled by the very idea that there should be eventual "convergence" - one of my favorite things to do is hear how different the exact same source material can sound on several different systems. I think the variety out there in high end audio is a good thing, and that it is a bad thing that new stuff coming out sounds more and more the same.
Dgarretson's comment about his vinyl and CD rigs sounding more and more like each other as he improves them (if I am paraphrasing properly) I think actually speaks more to my own point - they sound more the same not necessarily because the technology is "better" (though it certainly could be), but because he is refining his own personal "reference point," and only in this sense might it be considered more "neutral," and even then only for him and others with similar sonic tastes. A different person, audiophile or not, may think it sounds much less like live music, or "neutral," or whatever their reference point is. As I said before, I don't think this is a bad thing at all. Every audiophile has to decide for themselves what their own personal reference point is. Much of what Dgarretson says about auditory memory is true - but what can also be the case, it should be pointed out, is that sometimes in the quest to improve the sound of their systems, many audiophiles completely lose the forest for the trees, and begin thinking that their system sounds "better" than live music. I certainly don't consider my own system the best of all possible worlds. As far as "golden ears" go, I have never heard anyone actually claim to have them. This is usually used as a derogatory term in my experience. The fact is, some people do hear better than others, and there are a great many audiophiles out there who do not actually have very good ears. And among people with very good ears, there can still be big variation in the sorts of things they are good at hearing. Yet another reason why you will never get very many people to agree on which system is the most "neutral." Everyone hears differently, whether their ears are trained well or not.
Please do not take this personally, Bryon, but another comment I can't refrain from making is that I don't see how anyone could consider "correct pitch and timbre" part of "neutrality." I actually flinched when I read that - a musician's carefully crafted tone colors are NOT "neutral," and I personally would never want to listen for long to a system that removed subtle differences in this area (as many very expensive latest greatest systems do). Are you saying you really want us to sound the same every time?? This thought is very depressing to me. If "better technology" becomes more important than the music, to the great detriment of the latter, priorities aren't right.
Bryon, so much of this is about convergence. Interesting speculation that as we move up the food chain of components, instead of arriving at a convergence of opinion, distinctions continue regarding nuances. This is understandable, as once the worst of common coloration is removed, the more small differences are revealed for scrutiny.
In the past few years we increasingly read magazine editors & reviewers remark upon the accelerating pace of sonic improvement. The context for these remarks is usually highly-engineered solutions that stand out from previous designs. I'm inclined to agree with some of this-- particularly in the area of loudspeakers and piece parts. As a generalization, the best equipment is beginning to sound more alike, and the few remaining differences between the best components are more challenging to articulate. Yet even as a rising tide lifts all boats, small differences still tend to jump out at you. Reviewers continue to make distinctions using the same words, but the words describe a changed reality closer to convergence. Does this arise merely because of the all too human need to make distinctions(and to sell magazines), even without meaningful differences? If the pace of change continues, at some point ALL components will join Stereophile Class A Recommended Components, even as the magazine's reviewers continue to try to communicate uniqueness in the full reviews.
The aging of the high end consumer has also brought nostalgia into tastes and purchases. Vinyl takes us back, MM/MI takes us back, under-engineered SET amps takes us back. In the context of aging, coloration becomes a virtue.
Finally, through the economic bubble there has been a huge accumulation of high-end inventory in the marketplace-- much of it falling into the bland middle ground of the bell curve of performance. During this period boutique manufacturers and costly components proliferated all out of bounds, and with this the challenge to review and compare equipment. In some instances subjective opinions about the advantages of certain colorations may be used to advance hidden agendas or retroactively to justify unwise purchases.
It would be complicated for non-audiophiles to judge neutrality or any other metric of high quality playback...The general population-- widely exposed to norms of Ipod and boom box listening-- has insurmountable biases against neutrality.
I agree with this. I wasn't trying to suggest that a laymen's naive judgment about neutrality would be valuable. It would not be. I was trying to suggest that a layman's naive judgment about how different high resolution systems sound from one another would be valuable. I think the laymen would hear fewer differences than the audiophile, and as a result, judge those systems to be more similar than the audiophile does. This was a way of making the point that perhaps audiophiles exaggerate the differences among high resolution systems, as, for example, when they describe them as "completely and totally different." No doubt differences exist, and they are something audiophiles are passionate about. But my (admittedly optimistic) view is that there is more potential for common ground than some audiophiles suggest. I quite agree with you, though, that "consensus" is not often achieved.
Personally I agree with Bryon that resolving, neutral, and transparent are three of the best audiophile adjectives. But allowing even for wide disagreement among audiophiles regarding the meaning and significance of these descriptors, his three are in the final analysis somewhat static. They fail to account for time-domain factors like microdynamics, macrodynamics, pitch, timbre, and of course timing itself.
I agree completely that any concept of transparency must include time domain characteristics. I am inclined to think of time domain characteristics, like micro- and macrodynamics, as part of resolution. And I am inclined to think of correct pitch and timbre as part of neutrality. But now I really am being semantic. So on to more important matters...
The more technical improvements poured into each down unrelated analog & digital paths, the closer they converge on the same sound. And this convergence may be as good a demonstration of neutrality as any other.
This idea is fascinating. You mentioned it in your first post in this thread and, although no one ran with it, it stuck with me. I wonder how other posters feel about it...
It would be complicated for non-audiophiles to judge neutrality or any other metric of high quality playback. My wife does well in this regard despite a disinterest in audio, because her ears have been educated through long exposure to the “second-hand smoke” of my audio habit. The general population-- widely exposed to norms of Ipod and boom box listening-- has insurmountable biases against neutrality. Finally, the non-audiophile exposed to live music outside of a controlled studio environment or a cat-bird seat in a concert hall, may have a good sense of realism without having heard sound free of hall and pro audio affects. The best hope is that experienced audiophiles can gravitate to a convergence of opinion—which is unlikely given that most are hunkered down in private listening. Web reviews of RMAF and CES are unreliable, as room sounds at shows tend to morph over the several days of the show. For me the local Audio Club meeting is the only reliable venue to explore a possible convergence of opinion. In this month’s meeting in my area, about 45 members heard a presentation of second-from-top ATC active speakers—which are widely consider “neutral.” I know how I felt about these speakers, but will wait for the club president to compile separate reviews from all members before rejecting the theoretical possibility of consensus in a congress of audiophiles.
Seems to me the discussion is ultimately a dispute about the hierarchy of adjectives used to describe the listening experience. What are the properties(whether described directly in aural terminology, or indirectly by analogy drawn mostly from visual processes) that are most fundamentally descriptive of playback? What other less significant descriptors lie underneath? Does a "better" component reveal the interconnectedness between all the perceived properties of playback, or do the properties just float around independently inside a component like monads or seasonings?
Personally I agree with Bryon that resolving, neutral, and transparent are three of the best audiophile adjectives. But allowing even for wide disagreement among audiophiles regarding the meaning and significance of these descriptors, his three are in the final analysis somewhat static. They fail to account for time-domain factors like microdynamics, macrodynamics, pitch, timbre, and of course timing itself. Of the three static terms, perhaps neutrality is the broadest and most appealing, as it is free of precise visual metaphor and therefore available for a wide range of interpretations and contexts. For me the idea of neutrality refers mostly to flat frequency response.
As a modifier, in the course of making small changes inside a component I can hold control variables constant and listen to the effect of a single variable change such as a low-noise resistor or an improved power supply rectifier. Some of the biggest surprises occur around one's perception of neutrality in the sense of flat frequency response. For example, one of the most difficult things to eliminate in a tube system is loose bass. You can be absolutely convinced that your tube component is resolving and transparent and has realistic tonality in the midrange and treble, while rationalizing away a lack of bass control as warmth, embodiment, involvement, whatever. Now make a single improvement to PS, and bass control and perceived neutrality markedly improve. But note as well that dynamics have improved, and midrange & treble pitch, timbre, etc. have all improved. The funny thing is that with the vast majority of circuit changes made on solid technical grounds, all the descriptors of listening are dragged upward. Solving the most stubborn & obvious problem like sloppy bass usually ameliorates a range of lesser, even unrecognized deficiencies. In the rare case where something goes wrong when something else goes right, some further incremental change will usually redress the situation.
Assuming one accepts the possibility of continuous improvement (and what restless audiophile does not), as remarked several times in the thread, we still need an external reference point. For most this reference point is live music as recalled from memory. My experience is that this conviction that one has “golden ears” is mostly a conceit about the power of auditory memory. Auditory memory for most of us (and probably most pro reviewers as well) is problematic and more flawed than we understand. Hence I argue that the reference point needs to be present in the room. For me the side-by-side comparison of source formats—vinyl & RBCD— provides the best cues about neutrality and other metrics. I’ve had the same CDP and vinyl rig for many years. In stock form they were respectable but sounded very different. The more technical improvements poured into each down unrelated analog & digital paths, the closer they converge on the same sound. And this convergence may be as good a demonstration of neutrality as any other.
It's not for nothing that philosophy has been fascinated by the close relationship between music and mathematics. If there is anything to this view of music, it is reasonable to hope for consensus regarding terminology in audio.
Learsfool - I agree with your observation that it would difficult for a group of audiophiles to agree about which high resolution system was the most neutral. But I believe that (1) more agreement exists than has been generally acknowledged in this thread; and (2) more agreement is possible if the term neutral is operationalized (perhaps in the way I have suggested, perhaps not).
Al essentially made point (1) when he wrote:
I think that the validity of the underlying point can be most easily seen by considering a very extreme example. Consider a system purchased at Walmart for a total system price of $300, in comparison with say a $50K system such as some Audiogoner's have. I don't think anyone here will disagree as to which one will provide better and more enjoyable sound, and I don't think that anyone here will disagree as to which one is more neutral/accurate/etc.
Al chose this extreme example to make the point, but I believe that agreement among audiophiles concerning neutrality would not be limited to such extremes, particularly if they were to evaluate a variety of high resolution systems in acoustically identical rooms. This is merely a thought experiment used to illustrate my belief that there is more overlap in audiophiles' perception, including the perception of neutrality, than has been generally acknowledged in this thread. Learsfool expressed skepticism about agreement among audiophiles in his last post:
"Let's take Almarg's 50K system example. One could easily assemble several that would all sound really great yet completely and totally different. How could a group of people possibly agree on which one of them was the most "neutral?"
Perhaps these systems would sound "completely and totally different" to some group of audiophiles, because audiophiles are attuned to very subtle differences in audio, and we have very well defined preferences about those differences. But I think it's informative to also consider the perception of non-audiophiles. To them, I doubt these systems would sound "completely and totally different."
Which is more valid in evaluating how different these systems sound: the expert judgment of the audiophile or the naive judgment of the layman? I'm not sure there's an answer to this question. But it's useful to consider because it highlights the possibility that more convergence exists among high resolution systems than is commonly recognized among audiophiles. And if that's true, then perhaps the inability of audiophiles to come to an agreement says more about the audiophiles (myself included) than it does about the systems they listen to.
Fascinating discussion! Newbee, I agree with you 100%. Bryon, thanks for more clarification on your concept. I guess to summarize my objection about the use of the term "neutrality" - every person is going to have a totally different conception of it (to take just one example, someone who only listens to rock is going to have a completely different concept of what is a "coloration" than someone who only listens to small chamber music groups consisting of only acoustic instruments). Let's take Almarg's 50K system example. One could easily assemble several that would all sound really great yet completely and totally different. How could a group of people possibly agree on which one of them was the most "neutral?"
It seems to me that Samhar is on to something here. I believe that what you (Bryon) are describing as "neutrality" is actually your personal "reference point." If I can assume this, then the rest of your argument makes sense (though I do agree with what Newbee said about the false conclusion). In the above example of several 50K systems, though perhaps no one would agree on which one was the most "neutral," each person would have a very definite opinion on how close it was to their own personal "reference point." I personally would never describe my "reference point," or the sound of music, for that matter, as "neutral," so that's another reason I have a problem with that term. Maybe this is only a semantic issue, or "mental masturbation," as someone else put it, but going back to your original question again, I still say that there is no such thing as a system that does not contribute it's own "signature" or "coloration." And since everyone hears differently anyway (and has different sonic priorities), there is not much point to me to search for "neutrality." The "reference point" concept, however, I think has great value in your context for each individual.
Cbw723, You are right civility is very important and hostility is always out of place. I should have stopped at the end of my second sentence in the last paragraph by which time I had said all that was on my mind regarding the subject at hand.
My question is, how is there a necessary correlation between neutrality, as defined herein, and listener satisfaction? I submit part of the love affair with tubes is their added 'warmth' -- hardly neutral.
Good question, T, and I think that the answer stems from the fact, as I said in my posts, that the correlation is only a partial one. "Correlation," as it might be taught in a statistics class, can be any number between 1.0 (denoting perfect, absolute correlation) and 0 (denoting complete lack of correlation, the two variables being random relative to one another).
In this case, as I noted:
"A significant degree of correlation (although certainly not a perfect correlation) can be expected between listener satisfaction and lack of coloration/increased transparency/neutrality/accuracy or whatever such term may be preferred."
Euphonic (subjectively pleasing) inaccuracies that can be added by some tube designs would account for part of the difference between "significant degree of correlation" and "perfect correlation."
I think that the validity of the underlying point can be most easily seen by considering a very extreme example. Consider a system purchased at Walmart for a total system price of $300, in comparison with say a $50K system such as some Audiogoner's have. I don't think anyone here will disagree as to which one will provide better and more enjoyable sound, and I don't think that anyone here will disagree as to which one is more neutral/accurate/etc., and I don't think anyone here will disagree that the $50K system is likely to make different recordings sound more different than when those same recordings are played on the $300 system.
But would the $50K system sound completely "neutral," in the sense of recreating what is on the recording with absolute perfection? Obviously not. And would it sound the same as someone else's different $50K system? Also obviously not. But that is beside the point. Both $50K systems, which may sound very different from one another, will be far preferable to the $300 system, and both will make different recordings sound more different than the $300 system.
Which $50K system is preferable, on the other hand, is likely to be subjective, and the decision-making process choosing between them may be an example of one which will not be helped by the test Bryon has proposed. But that does not mean that the test won't be useful to many people, as components are compared, and systems evolve.
Way cool discussion going on here. Had a feeling this one would grow legs. If Almarg has summarized the OP's proposal succinctly and accurately --
1)A significant degree of correlation (although certainly not a perfect correlation) can be expected between listener satisfaction and lack of coloration/increased transparency/neutrality/accuracy or whatever such term may be preferred. And,
2)If a component change, or a change to the entire system, results in consistently increased differentiation of the sounds of different recordings, there is a good likelihood that "lack of coloration/increased transparency/neutrality/accuracy or whatever such term may be preferred" has been improved. Meaning, per item 1, that listener satisfaction stands a good chance of having been improved as well.
My question is, how is there a necessary correlation between neutrality, as defined herein, and listener satisfaction? I submit part of the love affair with tubes is their added 'warmth' -- hardly neutral. Apologies to all here if this has been brought up or discussed, I didn't have time to read this entire thread -- damn boss keeps coming over.
Al - You have stated exactly the intention of my original post. And yes, my name is Bryon, not Byron. It's a strange spelling of Bryan.
Cbw723 wrote: "Couldn't a system have a high degree of both neutrality and resolution, but have fuzzy image focus? "
I doubt this. I think any highly resolving system is also a system that images well.
Newbee - Your last post puzzles me. In it, you wrote:
"When you have an audio system that is highly resolved and highly neutral/transparent etc, as you describe, you will hear all of the warts in the recording process including mic placement, edits, mixing, instrument highlighting, etc. None of which is natural to a live performance..."
But, in your first post on this thread, you wrote:
"IMHO, a systems resolution, i.e. its ability TO RESOLVE AND PRESENT ALL OF THE INFORMATION IN THE RECORDING in a balanced manner, linear if you will, combined with an overall tone that pleases you is all that counts." [emphasis added]
These two statements appear contradictory. Similarly, in your last post, you wrote:
"If your interest is in sound and audio recording practices your optomized system is fine. You will hear all that is in the pits and grooves. But that does not cause ME to become absorbed in the MUSIC..." [emphasis original]
But in your first post, you wrote:
"There is no recorded performance that will ever sound like a live event...So what are we left with? 'Resolution' so we can hear ALL THAT IS IN THE PITS AND GROOVES' and tonality that pleases our ears and expectations." [emphasis added]
"The word 'unique' as you have used in your original post, is absolute, it cannot be (should not be) modified further by using terms like less or more as is so commonly done."
This is simply no longer true. Traditionalist grammarians didn't like it, but modern usage recognizes and allows qualification of "unique."
But even if it were true, it seems an odd issue to take when the meaning in the original post was clear. What point are you making about the application of the word "neutrality?" Do you want to substitute another word for "unique" in the original post? How would that affect the points being made?
"But then, I listen to the MUSIC in the first place, so would never make these errors."
I don't see any need for this kind of hostility. This is a discussion about defining and applying some terminology. Is there any reason it can't remain civil?
Excellent last several posts, most definitely including Newbee's despite (and perhaps because of) it's non-emulation of a particular lesser light around here :)
I still feel, though, that the main thrust of the op has been diverted throughout most of this thread by unnecessary focus on semantic nuances, as well as on matters which (although well reasoned, and about which reasonable people can differ) are essentially extraneous to the issue at hand.
After I submitted my previous post, it occurred to me that when I used the phrase "lack of colorations/transparency/neutrality/whatever you want to call it," I should have added the word "accuracy" as well.
Basically all of these terms relate to how accurately what is reproduced by the system (and its room environment), resembles what is sent into it by the recording.
And my restatement of what I believe to be Byron's (Bryon's?) initial basic point, which which I agree, consists of two elements:
1)A significant degree of correlation (although certainly not a perfect correlation) can be expected between listener satisfaction and lack of coloration/increased transparency/neutrality/accuracy or whatever such term may be preferred. And,
2)If a component change, or a change to the entire system, results in consistently increased differentiation of the sounds of different recordings, there is a good likelihood that "lack of coloration/increased transparency/neutrality/accuracy or whatever such term may be preferred" has been improved. Meaning, per item 1, that listener satisfaction stands a good chance of having been improved as well.
Byron, It's hard to argue with your new, or restated, position. Not many nits, for me anyway, that are worth picking or restating. But you lost me with your conclusion that getting to your optimum combiniation of resolution, transparancy, and neutrality, allowed one to get lost in the music. It may allow YOU to get lost, but consider that this is a very personal experience and might well not be shared by many others.
You have stated, under the caption High Resolution, High Neutrality "Its easy to get lost in the music when listening to this system........".
IMHO listening to MUSIC is easily distinguished from listening to the sonic character of audio components by playing recordings of music. And I think this is worth restating, especially for those who might be inclined to adopt your conclusion about the value of a highly resolved, transparen/neutral system.
When you have an audio system that is highly resolved and highly neutral/transparent etc, as you describe, you will hear all of the warts in the recording process including mic placement, edits, mixing, instrument highlighting, etc. None of which is natural to a live performance in any sense but which is a construct for the purpose of reducing the music to a recording format in a manner that will reproduce a sense of space when played back at home.
Of course the more successful the recording process the more successful the illusion when played back at home. The perfect recording played back over a perfect system in a perfect room would be a wonderful experience (I must assume I'm afraid - I've never heard it). Not live, but one you could certainly get lost in listening to the music. Maybe that proves your point, but........
Very few recordings come even remotely close to recording a performance in a natural style that comes accross as such when played back at home. If your interest is in sound and audio recording practices your optomized system is fine. You will hear all that is in the pits and grooves. But that does not cause ME to become absorbed in the MUSIC unless and until I have to trained my ears/mind to listen thru all of the artifice that the recording process adds to the performance or my recordings are, or close to, perfect replications of the live event.
I must conclude that if one is inclined to prize neutrality to the source more than some of us music enthusiasts, who are comfortible in seeking systems that manage to combine both resolution and tonality which may not be up to the sound enthusiasts level of approval, but which allow us to get lost in the MUSIC without the constant reminders that we are just listening to a RECORDING of music, that it is a perfectly valid audio goal, but it is not exclusive of other goals.
Before you consider posting and reminding me of all of your qualifying statements, as you have previously done, consider that this post would not have occurred if you had not made the statement about what conditions allowed you to get lost in the music. That statement, to me nullifies most of your qualifying statements and reflects your real priorities, which many of us do not share, no matter how artfully you try to present them. But since you want to enlighten us, let me share the spirit. The word 'unique' as you have used in your original post, is absolute, it cannot be (should not be) modified further by using terms like less or more as is so commonly done. And, FWIW, my musical collection is very diverse - I fail to understand how changing the quality of my audio system will ever make my collection more diverse. But then, I listen to the MUSIC in the first place, so would never make these errors.
Almarg, I tried but I just can't emulate you. Damm......:-)
I think the original two point are valid but a third point is needed.
Dgarretson nailed it at the start. "a better term to use is a flat frequency response" Ignores correct pitch & timbre, the hallmark of a high-end system. "No real performing space is "neutral"...the room's acoustics always have a huge effect on the musician's sounds...The reference point should be what you want the music to sound like." Does the room in which the playback system resides really affect sonics as much as the original recording space? IMO not true of any high-performance system-- particularly at lower volumes.
A "reference point" is necessary and should be #3 on the list. For me that point is acoustic nylon stringed guitar something I played. Without a "reference point" it just all seems like mental masturbation. Very interesting but....
I like this definition, but what about imaging? Couldn't a system have a high degree of both neutrality and resolution, but have fuzzy image focus? That would tend to disrupt the impression of a live event or a well-integrated studio recording, and make the system fail to disappear as required by transparency. Or does resolution (in stereo) necessarily require imaging?
I started this thread with a proposal about how to identify neutrality in an audio system. The thread has become largely a debate about (1) the existence of neutrality; and (2) the value of neutrality. Several of the posters who deny the existence or value of neutrality have contrasted it with the existence and value of resolution and transparency. In light of that, I have a new proposal, one that addresses both the existence and value of neutrality. Here it is:
RESOLUTION + NEUTRALITY = TRANSPARENCY
Let’s define some terms:
RESOLUTION: The amount of information presented by a component or system. In a digital component, for example, resolution is measured by bit depth and sampling rate. But I take it that it is uncontroversial that every major component of an audio system, and the system as a whole, can be evaluated as to its resolution, whether that can be measured or not. Resolution is, of course, a matter of degree.
NEUTRALITY: The degree to which a component or system is free from coloration. Once again, this does NOT refer to coloration in the recording, but only to coloration introduced by the playback system. I have argued above that neutrality, like resolution, is a matter of degree.
TRANSPARENCY: The degree to which a component or system is sonically “invisible.” Transparency is a visual metaphor for something that is not visual. As the metaphor is used by audiophiles, a component or a system is transparent when it allows the listener to “see through” itself and perceive the recording, the event, or the music. Transparency, thus understood, is also a matter of degree.
The current proposal is that, as the resolution and neutrality of a component or system increases, so does its transparency. This can be understood in terms of four prototypical systems:
LOW RESOLUTION, LOW NEUTRALITY: This system lacks detail and it makes everything sound the same. Think: A boombox.
HIGH RESOLUTION, LOW NEUTRALITY: This system has lots of detail, but there is a certain “sameness” to everything played through it. It always sounds like THAT system.
LOW RESOLUTION, HIGH NEUTRALITY: This system lacks a certain amount of information or detail, but it is a chameleon. It’s hard to pin down what the system sounds like, since it sounds different on every recording.
HIGH RESOLUTION, HIGH NEUTRALITY: This system provides the information missing from the last system, while also being a sonic chameleon. It has a high level of detail within a recording, but also a high level of variety across different recordings. It's easy to get lost in the music when listening to this system, since the system itself never seems to “get in the way.” Of the four systems, this is the most TRANSPARENT.
These hypothetical systems are merely prototypes, in the sense that they describe categories whose members are (1) joined by resemblance, and (2) differentiated by degree.
I hope that this proposal illustrates the value of neutrality, insofar as it links neutrality to other sonic characteristics - resolution and transparency - that are valued by the the detractors of neutrality.
Upon careful reading and re-reading of Byron's well written initial post, it seems to me that it makes perfect sense, and that it proposes an evaluation criterion that will often be useful.
Al, We agree (as usual) - see the first posted reply in this thread.
I've been doing critical listening lately from 12-24" away. You can hear a lot more hash and detail from the driver than the normal 6-10 feet.
You may have an issue with room acoustics (extremely common - so don't worry) - if your space is fairly reflective and on the small side then it can clutter the sound - you need space between primary direct arrival and reflected sound in order for things to sound clean and clear.
I've been doing critical listening lately from 12-24" away. You can hear a lot more hash and detail from the driver than the normal 6-10 feet. Cuts out room interactions too. I don't know why but listening farther away smooths out the sound and also removes a lot of micro-detail.
Cbw723 - Don't you have any financial limitations?
If not, I can recommend an amp (Stereophile class A few years ago) that costs $350k - perfect sound, no compromises there. For the rest of us it is always choice between many factors. Many audiophilles give up extension to get better transparency or imaging etc.
I assume of course that we're talking seriously and not about "imaginary gear"
Kijanki wrote: "no I would not adjust sound for individual songs but rather pick affordable system that sounds best to me on average with the type of music I listen to."
Affordable? What does affordable have to do with anything? I thought this was an audiophile discussion.
So, for the fourth time: In my view, neutrality is one virtue AMONG MANY in an audio system. My intention in starting this thread was to propose a way to develop that particular virtue, not to suggest that it is the virtue to be valued above all others.
Well, after 61 posts so far in this thread, I'll throw in my own brief $0.02. Upon careful reading and re-reading of Byron's well written initial post, it seems to me that it makes perfect sense, and that it proposes an evaluation criterion that will often be useful.
It seems obvious to me that there will be a significant DEGREE of correlation (although certainly not a perfect correlation) between colorations/lack of transparency/lack of neutrality/whatever you want to call it, that may be introduced by a component or system, and the degree of enjoyment that system will provide to the average discriminating listener when averaged across a wide range of recordings. An inverse partial correlation, to be perfectly precise.
Byron has proposed a means of facilitating assessment of that coloration/lack of transparency/lack of neutrality/whatever you want to call it that, while perhaps not commonly recognized, seems to me to be both valuable and self-evident on its face. It's as simple as that.
Learsfool wrote: "I can tell you that no two of us would agree on what this "neutrality" would sound like."
I agree with this. But I do not conclude from it, as many of the posters seem to, that neutrality is either (1) unreal, or (2) unknowable.
Learsfool wrote: "Every piece of equipment, every system, every recording, has what you are calling 'coloration.'"
I agree with this. But I do not conclude from it that every piece of equipment, every system, or every recording is EQUALLY colored.
Learsfool wrote: "I would be fascinated to hear you try to describe what this "neutrality" goal of yours would actually sound like..."
That is precisely what I tried to do in the original post, namely, to describe something that is, admittedly, very difficult to describe. My description was:
"(1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique. (2) Your music collection sounds more diverse."
Learsfool wrote: "What you are really trying to define, ultimately, is your own sonic ideal."
No. In my original post, I wrote: "I’m not suggesting that neutrality is the most important goal in building an audio system..."
In a subsequent post, I wrote: "As to the doubt, expressed by several posters, that neutrality is a vital consideration in assembling a satisfying music system, I am actually somewhat agnostic."
In my very last post, I wrote: "I do not think that neutrality is of paramount important, of exclusive importance, or of essential importance."
So, for the fourth time: In my view, neutrality is one virtue AMONG MANY in an audio system. My intention in starting this thread was to propose a way to develop that particular virtue, not to suggest that it is the virtue to be valued above all others.
Great posts - Byron, I guess what myself, Newbee, Kijanki, Shadorne, and others are saying here is that no two people are ever going to agree on just what "neutrality" sounds like. A couple of recent posts mentioned "if we could hire conductors, musicians" to assemble systems. Well, I am a professional musician, and many of my colleagues, including conductors, instrumentalists, vocalists, engineers, and many others in the music world are also audiophiles. I can tell you that no two of us would agree on what this "neutrality" would sound like. As Newbee said, this is as hopeless as defining exactly what the "absolute sound" would be. Every piece of equipment, every system, every recording, has what you are calling "coloration." Every live music venue has it as well. Every room I play my horn in sounds totally different, and has a great effect on what I sound like. There is no possible way to "eliminate" it (recording studios being the closest thing, as I and others have said before, but every one of these sounds totally different as well), nor would this even necessarily be desirable. There are a great many different great sounds - how could anyone declare one of them arbitrarily to be the best?
Every audiophile must decide for themselves what their sonic preferences are, and try to build their systems accordingly. No one is denying that you can change one component and like your system's sound better. What we are saying is that just because you like the sound better doesn't mean you have either a more or less "neutral" system. I would be fascinated to hear you try to describe what this "neutrality" goal of yours would actually sound like, and I am all but certain that you couldn't find one single other audiophile who would perfectly agree with it. What you are really trying to define, ultimately, is your own sonic ideal. And there's nothing wrong with that! Variety is the spice of life, and that goes for music as well.
Shadorne - I don't question existence of better recordings or better equipment. I just don't want to have gear that sound natural to experts and wrong or boring to me. Somebody mentioned going to studio and listening to what they listen to (to have reference point). Lets imagine that you are professional violin player and in studio playback violin doesn't sound right to you. Should you get system that faithfully will reproduce this (wrong) sound. To get again wine analogy - renown American wine expert Parker said once that anybody can taste good wine but what expert does is to predict based on 6 month old unfinish product how it will taste in the future (because restaurants place orders a year ahead). I don't know much about recording business but I suspect that recording engineer adjusts sound having in mind average system it will play on. He would not release record without compression even if it sound good to him.
Gawdbless - Do you still have her phone number? At my age I go for anything.
I had a girlfriend once, who was quite neutral looking, neutrally shaped (or shapes), in fact it was all rather boring and very nondescript, beige is how I would describe her. I now want an edgy, spikey, sharp, exciting, intoxicating woman, bit like my hi-fi setup.
If neutral system could be really defined we could hire people with best hearing ability (conductors, musicians etc) to rate systems or pick them for us.
Isn't that what part of what these talented people do? They have the know how to create music we like - sounds we like - musical arrangements that fit together beautifully. Some experts are in heavy demand for mastering for the sound quality they create. Others provide key artistic input during the production. Whilst some have great skill in getting the microphones setup perfectly (and to know by ear immediately what is wrong when it ain't right)
I believe there is such thing as great sound or excellent equipment and that this can be measured and rated by experts. (Dr. Floyd Toole spent years researching people's perceptions of sound quality and found that we are not so completely different - but I grant you that there are many here who at extremes of the bell curve, as one might expect from obsessive behaviour about sound rather than "music", which Newbee pointed out so well)
Cbw723 - no I would not adjust sound for individual songs but rather pick affordable system that sounds best to me on average with the type of music I listen to.
Whole issue of neutrality is very fishy since there is nothing to compare to. Should my wife get neutral system if she doesn't like strong bass. Some people have ears more sensitive to certain frequencies than others. Older person with loss of hearing at high frequencies (we're all getting there) shouldn't be forced to listen at home to neutral system that plays what they hear at the concert with lack of highs. He should rather pick a little brighter system to compensate. Even gender matters - woman hear and see differently than man. Do all people have the same taste for the food. Do all people like spicy dishes? Neutral food to hindu is too spicy for you. It is similar with hearing to lesser degree.
If neutral system could be really defined we could hire people with best hearing ability (conductors, musicians etc) to rate systems or pick them for us. It will never happen.
Byron, IMHO we simply disagreed on the use of the term neutral as it applies to this hobby and it appears that we just continue to do so. My ignorance, or inflexibility, perhaps. So be it. I've said far more than I ever intended.
BTW i never thought you had a commercial interest in audio but if by using this thread to expose a tad of contempt for those that do, when what they do is based on false premises, I've go to plead guilty to availing myself of the opportunity without regards to your sensitivities.
Kijanki wrote: "Well - I'm my own playback engineer and I choose the sound I like."
I think most of us do this to some extent, since we put a fair amount of effort into modifying our system and keep the changes that we think make things sound better.
But what makes things "sound better?" Sometimes it's a change in resolution. Sometimes it's a shift in tonal balance. Sometimes it's improved dynamics. And so on. In each case, we use our experience and our taste to make a judgment. The point of this thread is to talk about another aspect of one's system that may make things sound better.
We each weight these things as we see fit. Some people might not care about anything but resolution or pinpoint imaging, to the exclusion of everything else. Some people, like Newbee, don't think neutrality exists. So these people weight neutrality zero when considering system changes. You seem to prefer some degree of coloration, so there are at least some aspects of neutrality you don't care about. But to me, if I make a change and different instruments sound more different (while, obviously, remaining true to what they are), as Bryon suggested in his original post, then I've affected something that may make the music more enjoyable.
As for being one's own engineer, it's intriguing to think that we could individually EQ every song in our collection. It would even be worth the effort on some tracks. But, honestly, I think compression is our biggest enemy in the source, and I don't see a way to restore that without the cooperation of the record companies.
Newbee wrote: "Using the term neutrality as a goal is, for me, no different that using the phrase absolute sound, i.e. live music (thanks to Harry Pearson). It is unachievable and serves no really purpose other than to put consumers on an endless (and expensive) pursuit (goal) of the achieving the impossible. It works well for folks with commercial interests though."
I have no commercial interests of any kind in the audio industry. I don't even know anyone who has a commercial interest in the audio industry.
In addition, I don't see how treating neutrality as a virtue in an audio system is any more likely to lead to equipment addiction than treating resolution, transparency, dynamics, imaging, etc. as a virtue. Any one of these characteristics can be fetishized, if a person is so inclined. I do not believe that I have fetishized neutrality in this thread. In fact, in my original post, I wrote:
"I’m not suggesting that neutrality is the most important goal in building an audio system..."
In a subsequent post, I wrote:
"As to the doubt, expressed by several posters, that neutrality is a vital consideration in assembling a satisfying music system, I am actually somewhat agnostic."
As I believe is obvious from these comments, I do not think that neutrality is of paramount important, of exclusive importance, or of essential importance. In my view, it is simply one goal among many. That is the view I have expressed throughout this thread. To suggest otherwise is to make a straw man of me.
Bryon, you say that 'neutrality is not an all or nothing thing'. We disagree!
At the risk of being redundant, neutrality is the end result of combining many components of sound, including absolute resolution and perfect frequency response. Rather than refer to 'neutrality' I think it is more productive to refer to its components, if for no other reason than it helps folks achieve their goals. Using the term neutrality as a goal is, for me, no different that using the phrase absolute sound, i.e. live music (thanks to Harry Pearson). It is unachievable and serves no really worthwhile purpose other than to put consumers on an endless (and expensive) pursuit (goal) of the achieving the impossible.
It works well for folks with commercial interests though. Nothing better in fact. How would you ever be able to sell stuff without having pretention to moving one closer to the goal of live sounds or neutrality. And, somehow, I sense from a lot of posts in these pages that folks who don't buy into these goals as having great value to them are gently (or not so by some self absorbed, self proclaimed sound experts) treated as audio's leapers.
Someone mentioned in this or another post that in his pursuit of some form of audio perfection he had lost his ability to just get involved with and enjoy the music as he had experienced in the past with lesser equipment and different interests. His experience is not unique. In fact there is a long lived thread "How do I get off this carousel" or something like that. Many folks, myself included, have at some point, become so absorbed with counting the trees we can no longer see the forest. When we sit down in the listening chair we are more focused on the 'sounds' and get sucked into questioned ourselves about how we could improve the sound, i.e. how can I get better depth of image, how can I get a higher image, how can I get better bass, ad infinitum. At one point I realized I was so sbsorbed when I found I was actually enjoying the MUSIC more when I was listening to it from a nearby room (my office) and couldn't hear all of those highly prised 'audiophile' attributes such as imaging etc.
Jult52 wrote: "When you are asked whether you like a particular recording, do you ever say, with great approval, 'It was neutral!' Didn't think so."
I agree with this, as I said in an earlier post. Again, neutrality is not a virtue of music or of recording. It is a virtue of a playback system.
Newbee wrote: "Consider that perhaps none of the components previously assembled by you are in fact neutral but just complimentary and happen to meet your expectations of what you think neutrality sounds like, and the new component introduced is just synergistic with these other components."
I have considered this. In fact, it is the motivation for the title of this thread, "How do you judge your system's neutrality?" In my original post, I proposed one possible way of judging a system's neutrality.
Newbee wrote: "I have a bit of a challenge for you. How will you know when what you are hearing from a component is true neutrality to the source, or if not, how much it deviates from true neutrality, if not by hearing it thru a collection of components previously assembled by you."
It is, of course, impossible to hear a component individually. We can only hear it in the context of a system. Because of this inescapable fact, there is always a potential fallacy when we hear a characteristic of an audio system and then attribute that characteristic to an individual component. A system might sound bright. Is it the speakers? Is it the cd player? Is it an impedance matching issue? If we get this wrong, we’ve made the Fallacy of Division, i.e., the misattribution of a system characteristic to one of the system’s components. But the danger of making this mistake does not mean we shouldn’t try to understand a system in terms of the contribution of its components.
As audiophiles, we are constantly confronted with situations that require us to make educated guesses about how to attribute system characteristics to individual components. Sometimes we get it wrong. Sometimes the system characteristic cannot be reduced to a single component, but only to the interaction of two (or more) components. But we have no choice but to try understand the contribution of each system element. That is an implicit assumption every time we upgrade a component. In our efforts to improve a system’s performance, we try to identify which component is the weak link and replace it with a stronger one. Because of this, the attempt to reduce system characteristics to component characteristics is unavoidable. It is fallible. But it is what we have.
Newbee wrote: "You asked how I could question your views on neutrality in a post subsequent to my last post."
Newbee - My questions in response to you last post were not designed to ask how you could question my views on neutrality. I am happy for you to question my views on neutrality. That is the fun of these threads! My questions were just a rhetorical device, in an attempt to make the point that neutrality is not an all or nothing thing. If I gave the impression that I am not open to you questioning my point of view, I apologize. I have been enjoying this thread a great deal, precisely because we don't all agree with each other.
How will you know when what you are hearing from a component is true neutrality to the source
Good question.
They have the same problem in pro audio. Sound engineers are constantly concerned with how the mix translates to other (often inferior) systems like cars and radio.
Here is a suggestion: If you want to hear Telarc recordings as close to how they intended (as neutral as possible) then you can find out what gear they use and use the same. It still won't be totally neutral unless you acoustically treat your listening environment to a high standard but at least you will be closer to hearing what they hear and what they intended you to hear or as "neutral" as possible...
Bryon, I don't know why your use of the word 'neutrality' bugs me so, but it does and I hope you will forgive my deviation from neutrality and sort of reiterate what I said in my last post.
I have a bit of a challenge for you. How will you know when what you are hearing from a component is true neutrality to the source, or if not, how much it deviates from true neutrality, if not by hearing it thru a collection of components previously assembled by you. Consider that perhaps none of the components previously assembled by you are in fact neutral but just complimentary and happen to meet your expectations of what you think neutrality sounds like, and the new component introduced is just synergistic with these other components.
IMHO, when it is all said and done, if we care at all, we all have systems consisting of complimentary components reproducing our software in a manner in which we believe it was originally set down, or, god forbid, a manner in which we found great pleasure. There is no evil in using colored components, especially if you conclude as I think you must, that there is no such thing as an uncolored component. Its just a matter of degrees and sensitivities. Recall that my 'god' is resolution, something far more achievable and observable.
You asked how I could question your views on neutrality in a post subsequent to my last post. I hope you have now, after reading this and rereading my previous post(s) come to an understanding of what I disagree with you about and why.
When you are asked whether you like a particular recording, do you ever say, with great approval, "It was neutral!" Didn't think so. I usually bless favorite recordings with adjectives like "beautiful" or "exciting." The elevation of "neutral" in audiophile discussions is odd.
I have recently been wrestling with this issue and just made what will probably a permanent preamp and DAC change away from "neutrality" to what is admittedly a more colored, but more attractive sound. Very educational for me in establishing my persoal preferences.
(1) Was cable A preserving detail while subtracting harmonics? (2) Was cable B subtracting detail while preserving harmonics?
Or could it be more complicated…
(3) Was cable A adding “perceived” detail by, for example, acting as a high pass filter? (4) Could cable B somehow be adding false harmonics?
And so on.
Without going into details, the basic engineering design philosophy of neutral equipment is such that the interconnect should not matter. Effort is made to design equipment (at both ends) that will remain unaffected by slight differences in wires. Therefore, if you have an audible difference then you have a problem with neutrality of the equipment. (assuming ordinary wires and not an IC that contains a filter network)
Recently, I had a dilemma that nearly every audiophile faces, and that I believe demonstrates the importance of judging a component’s neutrality:
I was comparing two pairs of analog interconnects in my system. Both interconnects were from highly regarded manufacturers. Both had considerable sonic virtues, and very few flaws. But they didn’t have the same virtues and flaws. Interconnect A had spectacular detail, but was a touch thin harmonically. Interconnect B was harmonically perfect, but was less detailed than interconnect A. This situation left me with the following questions:
(1) Was cable A preserving detail while subtracting harmonics? (2) Was cable B subtracting detail while preserving harmonics?
Or could it be more complicated…
(3) Was cable A adding “perceived” detail by, for example, acting as a high pass filter? (4) Could cable B somehow be adding false harmonics?
And so on.
Similar questions could be asked, of course, about cd players, amps, speakers, etc., and about other sonic characteristics like dynamics, soundstaging, and so on.
I believe that audiophiles ask themselves these kinds of questions – about what a component adds, subtracts, modifies – all the time. When they do, they are implicitly asking themselves about the NEUTRALITY of the components under consideration. That is because many additions, subtractions, and modifications to a signal are DEVIATIONS FROM NEUTRALITY. Here neutrality need not be defined so elusively as “the absolute sound” or “what is on the source” or “what the recording engineer heard” but simply: The signal fed to the component’s input. Under this definition of ‘neutrality,’ many (perhaps most) of the alterations to the input signal are deviations from neutrality.
My point here is NOT that every alteration to the input signal is a deviation from neutrality. The addition of gain, for example, might not be considered a deviation from neutrality. My point is that MANY of the alterations to the input signal constitute deviations from neutrality. An uncontroversial example might be: Intermodulation distortion.
If we, as audiophiles, don’t ask questions about how neutral a component is (in the sense above), then we will very likely face a frustrating upgrade path. Without having some hypothesis, however fallible, about how each component adds to, subtracts from, or otherwise modifies the signal fed to it, then efforts to improve the sound of the system by replacing components will be stabs in the dark.
And if you’re lucky enough to assemble a system that sounds good to you without asking questions about how each component alters the signal (i.e. deviates from neutrality), then you have probably found a set of components with complementary colorations. There are at least two problems with this approach: (1) Those complementary colorations accumulate, diminishing the system’s transparency; and (2) The system runs the risk of being a house of cards. That is to say, when a component is replaced, it must be replaced with one that alters the signal IN THE SAME WAY, or the results will be unpredictable, and probably disappointing. And how would you know what new component to choose if you did not ask how the old component altered the signal (i.e. deviated from neutrality) in the first place? I think this illustrates that trying to judge a component's neutrality is not just important, but virtually unavoidable.
"But if the goal is to make a recording sound, as much as possible, like the source, neutrality seems important in achieving it."
No - Neutrality does not achieve that because the goal of recording is to sound good on average cheap system or boom-box hence introduced compression.
Grand piano has dynamics reaching 96dB but is never recorded like that because most of people wouldn't be able to hear it and would complain about buzzing speakers.
Guitar sound, that you mentioned, is defined by Presence, Projection, Separation, Sustain and Tone. All of it can be manipulated in (sonically dead) studio. It has nothing to do with absolute objective reality but more with the way recording guy sees it. This reality can vary so much from one recording engineer to another that some classical guitarists like Julian Bream come to studio, wherever they record, with their own recording engineer.
Well - I'm my own playback engineer and I choose the sound I like.
Kijanki writes: "Would "neutral" system sound the same to young Hindu and old Latino?"
No, it would sound different to every person that listened to it, but that's not the point. The point is whether or not it recreates their version of reality, and only a neutral system could do that for everyone. If each person listens to a guitar, each person hears something different. But if the goal is to make a recording sound, as much as possible, like the source, neutrality seems important in achieving it.
"Are we trying to find best tasting or most neutral wine?"
In our case, "wine" is the music, and our systems are the glass you drink it from. Do you want a glass that flavors all of your wine?
Audioengr - Most of recordings have some form of compression and some are really bad. Wouldn't they sound better with an amp that expands dynamics (instead of being neutral). What about soundstaging? Is deeper and wider better than more accurate positioning. Could it be too deep or too wide? How do we know what studio intended?
Warm tube amps sound wonderful on guitar or voice bot not so good on instruments with complex harmonic structure like percussion or piano? What if I don't listen to piano?
One can measure identical frequency response of two components with very different sound (tube vs. SS). What you compare it to. How do you measure it. In my opinion measurements can offer some clues but I would not use them to buy a system. If I cannot trust measurements then it comes to my or other people opinion - and that is highly subjective. It might depend on many factors including age. Would "neutral" system sound the same to young Hindu and old Latino?
I'm not even sure if being neutral is a virtue. What if system has its own wonderful personality. What's wrong with that? Are we trying to find best tasting or most neutral wine?
you had me worried there for a minute... I thought my preamp wasn't any good and I needed a better one, quick.
Thankfully as you alluded, each source thru mine sounds OK, good, better, or best, as the case maybe.... yet any source once attached is improved noticeably.
Preamp in or out of the system - most preamps, except the very best in the world tend to "homogenize" the sound IME, even the ones that I have modded. This causes the turntable, CD player and computer to all sound very similar. Because this is not jitter or frequency response, I believe the difference is added compression. This is the inability of the preamp to reproduce accurately the transient excursions in the music. The preamp has changed the dynamic response.
When the preamp is effectively eliminated, the different sources tend to sound much different from each other.
Also, tracks that previiously were not very interesting to listen to are now compelling.
I believe this is one of the major problems with analog audio equipment.
This is what I call the liveness factor.
Neutrality usually refers to an evenhandedness from top to bottom, which can certainly be changed with frequency response. Hoever, most high-end gear has excellent frequency response, so the explanation for this is likely transient response, not frequency response.
It never ceases to tickle me how such ambiguous and subjective terms can become so widely articulated when brought into the audioland context.
Of course by now, any member here must not only have their own quite music with which to audition but the latest edition of an unabridged dictionary. Dealers would be well advised to make a display of some right next to the cash register.
Adjacent to the encyclopedias & dictionaries, there should be titles such as “Everything you’ve always wanted to know about audio and how to speak it. ” or “The audio speak to English Translator” or “Is what you are hearing what was meant to be heard and would you like it if you did?”
On a more practical note, another title I feel would sell better perhaps, might be, “How To Wind Up With Great Sound and Keep Your Checking Account & Sanity in Tact” The forward of this book would say, “Pay no attention to the other books for sale here… see? You’ve saved $100 already, doesn’t that make you feel better?”
Or something like them…
As importantly as is knowing something of the build of recording studios for their dead acoustic, and the engineer whose hand is on the various kknobs & sliders, is the intended audience for the music being recorded.
A prominent maker of high end cables, formerly a studio musician himself, told me he’s personally seen board ops, engineers, etc., mix their end products for the sort of more commonly used methods the intended audience is likely to replay the music on. A single car speaker. A boom box. Mass fi audio or HT theater, or All in a box, clubs or bars, discos, an or all in one wonders where cost is more than an issue systems.
The short answer of how to affix or determine neutraility is merely by the use of your own ears, which immediately taints the result, and your own ears experience with a multitude of products. To better fill out the experience pallet, one should also gain some exp with recordings, recording venues, room acoustics voices of the singers, various instruments, strings, reeds, mouthpieces, and so on.
If one doesn’t have a solid beginning foundation for the sounds of certain instruments, how then does one go about contriving a system to reproduce them? There’s a whole bunch of instruments. It kills me when some article indicates with a given piece, they can hear if it’s a this or a that… well, some liner notes will tell you that too.
I want to know if they were wearing a wrist watch…. And which kind? They probably were, but I’d venture they were LCDs.
Naturally, this is IF and only IF, neutrality means a lot to you or is your ultimate goal in building your room, and system. Other factors too interplay as importantly. Power & resonance too are further considerations.
I feel at times, when I am visited upon by a fleeting, yet quite sane moment of clarity, a lot like this current instance, I think to myself, : “So freaking’ what!!”
Should I become entangled into aspiring to at best an illusive or unachievable goal in most practical applications, OR…. Should I follow a more pragmatic and attainable end? This end being that which finds my knees bobbing and the corners of my mouth turned up routinely?
I say this as the result of experience. My own. It has to do with priorities and realities.
As laudable as it is for any one of us to so aspire. To fill out a rig which captivates the body and mind I have to say it’s not that remote a thing to do. It does cost money though, perhaps not as much as some are able to spend but it do need dough to make it do what it do, as mr. Charles was so fond of saying. Further it’ll take a modicum of common sense and good judgment. Niether does it have to adhere rigorously to the vices of neutrality nor to those of sheer transparency.
Even negligees shouldn’t be totally transparent. Sometimes they are at their best in the light of total darkness.
I don’t know if I’ve ever heard a completely flat, entirely neutral, or definitely transparent system, and I’m not terribly sure I would either want to or for that matter, actually own one. In the case of my own current preffs, ‘vacuum tube power trains’ many can justifiably argue with such a philosophy, neither neutrality nor transparency can ultimately be achieved if spending is handcuffed at all.
What’s a boy to do then?
I aim in each buy to find those things that are faithful, honest, organic, complimentary to the rig, and within my means as is possible…. Mostly. I’m OK today with mostly. Especially when I see such accounts of components which have such high a price tag affixed to them as to make them other worlkly appliances, and merely ‘”the stuff that dreams are made of’”, as one noir actor is remembered for to this day.
The capacity for ‘reason’ and ‘accomodation’ or ‘compromise’ steer the majority, so maybe, just maybe, we can only aim to acquire a portion of a thing, than the thing itself. I intend nothing derisive by discounting aloud these precepts, but aim only to submit the contrast from the practical to that of the grandiose.
I’ll by my own nature still try to clutch the audio nut creedo of “no compromise” in the one hand, but perhaps heed more the voice of that hand resting upon my wallet, while coming to grips with their differences. If when in this endeavor, my accomplishment, or handiwork makes me want to turn on my gear more often, and makes me abhor turning it off, and in the intervening time I am involved and happy, I’ll not take issue with anyone else who finds my outfit straying from neutral, or less than transparent, regardless my feelings, or it’s subjective nearness to them both.
As for the actual disposition of whether or not a newly integrated thing has become subtractive or additive to the sound, I’m pretty sure you’ll know. Past that summation, who cares?
It is after all, your verdict that matters most. Don’t sweat the petty stuff, and give it your best shot, that’s all anyone dcan do anyhow. The only times I’ve been disappointed were those times I listened to someone else’s ideas, and not my own ears.
Again, great posts everyone! I have to agree with Newbee overall, especially his line "What makes you assess the resulting sound as neutral is nothing more than the free use of your imagination." I also agree that "natural" would be a better term. I don't believe that there is any such thing as freedom from what we are calling "coloration" in an audio component or system. I also don't believe that this is necessarily a bad thing. I don't believe that all of what we call distortions are necessarily bad, either (nor that it is possible for there to be zero distortion in an audio component or system). Live music has plenty of both of these elements. If it didn't, it would sound, well, unnatural.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
