neutrality vs. realism

my view of this issue is the concept of your system "getting out of the way of the music". when you are able to concentrate on the performance and not on the influence your system has on the musical message.....you have gone beyond 'HiFi' into 'just the music'......when it is the musical whole instead of particular pieces. i have pursued this concept for awhile.

my efforts have brought me to the realization that sometimes the absense of items in the signal path allows the music to come thru unrestricted. so neutrality or accuracy or realism or sounding 'live' or whatever you want to call it is attainable to some degree.

it is not neutrality verses realism.......but that neutral components or cables have the least influence on the musical message and ALLOW realism.

the biggest barrier to success in this challenge is that if you have a component in the signal path that is not neutral (i.e. it has it's own sound) then you need other components to balance that distortion with their own.....pretty soon it is a hopeless case. so you must build your system around neutral components initially if realism is your goal.

one real barrier to this approach is that components that are neutral are many times 'not exciting' when initially encountered.....it is not until many of these 'neutral' components are put carefully together that the synergy can happen and bring you closer to the musical event.

Oh, boy! Here we go again.

My take on this is that our ears are the ultimate judge, and I will grant that impressions may vary from person to person. If this makes me a "subjectivist" so be it.

Now, alot of the controversy and confusion come from the idea that psychological phenomena play a part in product auditioning, and that may very well be so. I do not discount that totally.

The other part of the controversy comes from the idea that bench measurements will tell us whether our listening impressions could be correct or not. Some people say that if an amp sounds right, then who cares what the bench measurements say. I am one of them. Other people say if the bench measurements are not "good" then the amp is no good no matter what it sounds like. The description given to them is "euphonic distortion"(pleasing distortion- whatever that might be). IMO the major fallacy with this latter method, is that it relies on electronic tests that have no direct bearing on the amplifier in "real world" use. It depends on largely test-tones, and and meters, in steady state conditions to make its tests. 20 years ago, this method was proved to be flawed, and thrown out the window, by anyone serious about audio, but it has kept "hanging around" ever since then. The classic foil for this is,"How come my Technics receiver has .0000000001% distortion, but that $10k amp has 1% distortion and sounds way better. My Technics has lower distortion, doesn't it? So the Technics should sound better." Now, granted, this is a simplified case, but the fact is that the measuring methods and equipment are simply not measuring the right things. They are measuring the things that they were designed to measure. Electrical characteristics. They were not designed to measure the listening quality of music. That is what ears are designed to do. And that is why ears should be the measuring instrument, and not meters. To think that meters can measure the complex interaction between the reproduced music, and the emotional reactions of the brain, by testing the function of a negative feedback circuit is quite humorous indeed. In fact, it appears that amp designers and measurement technicians do not even have a good grasp of how their products will interact with other components, like speakers, which is what they are supposed to drive. But they know all about how it will perform on an oscilloscope. Too bad we don't listen to oscilloscopes.
Ultimately the only measurement we need to know, is whether the product sounds good to us. All else is merely an attempt to quantify "why" it might sound good. I have read on these pages, that any experience in listening, which may contradict the measured numbers, is simply "explained away" by the red herrings of "self-delusion for the purpose of justifying expenditures", or "unverifiable subjective responses that could not withstand double-blind testing". Both cases calling into question, the abilities of the listener. I call into question the abilities and methods of the testers and equipment, and state categorically that they cannot withstand scrutiny, because they do not always conform with the actual real-world performance. The "psycological" argument is nothing more than a smoke-screen to mask the mis-application of the test methodologies that cause incorrect conclusions to be drawn about the actual listening performance of a product. These mis-applications, and the conclusions drawn, cause design changes to be done, that may actually detract from the listening performance of a product, as is the case with some high-negative-feedback designs.

I liken this to deep philosophical discussions, where there is great amount of study given to "why" or "what" is existence. But, ultimately, you have to live your existence, regardless of whether you can explain it or not. This is where the "rubber hits the road" and, so it is the case with listening impressions of audio gear. The measurements don't matter, if the gear sounds like crap, or if it sounds like heaven, for that matter.

I don't totally disregard measurements, but I don't let them tell me what I hear and what I don't hear. I would use measurements for what they are designed to do, and use my ears to do what they are designed to do.

I believe that neutrality and realism are one in the same when it comes to the goals of audio components and the reproduction of music. However, many (maybe all) companies that use such adjectives to describe their equipment do so only for marketing purposes. Understandably, they're in business to make a profit. Some manufacturers, such as Levinson/Madrigal, produce equipment that is lifeless and unemotional, painting a "two dimensional" picture and robbing the music of microdynamics and pace. The audiophile press has praised the "neutrality" and "accuracy" of such gear. Others companies, like Krell, tout "authenticity" and "realism," but have a highly polished, chrome plated, "larger than life" sound that is great for a brief audition and a quick sale but eventually proves to be too bright, too brash and fatiguing. Many users and purveyors of tubed gear assert a claim of "musicality," which I gather is supposed to a higher plane of both neutrality and realism. Unfortunately, tubed gear often produces a warm, euphonic and overly romantic sound that exaggerates the midband and smears the timing of music. I'm sure others will disagree with or be insulted by my opinions and examples, but ultimately, it comes down to what flavor of coloration you prefer.

i will try to add to this post as best i can. please disagree at will if you need to, i don't mind, i can always learn something as far as i am concerned
i have come to believe that if you want real music you should make a habit of attending live concerts.
however, how many of us can afford this habit, in terms of time and $$$, as often as we would like is another matter altogether. i cannot
thus we search for the means to reproduce the event in our homes, and can do so with surprising results given the tech and artistry in high-end equipment today.
i think many of us approach this hobby with something of a straight line postulate. we believe we know what 'musicality' is as a function of hi-fi equipment, though specs cannot necessarily prove it, we believe this musicality exists and we search for it under the assumption that with the right gear we can create a musical truth that satisfies our notion of what we expect in the absence of the actual musicians and venue.
personally i know when it comes to gear in my home that i do not want that truth of associated with say levinson amps. in a conversation i had recently someone described levinson gear to be extremely satisfying and well-engineered, but in the long run it is the world's best vanilla ice cream in a very expensive white bowl. some people will love this and such neutrality will be part of what they expect or believe their hi-fi experience should be.
i on the other hand have recently found that cary amps have moved me much closer to the musicality that i am searching for in music reproduction. the cary amps are anything but as neutral as say levinson or spectral, but long term whatever the coloration or warmth there is designed into dennis's amps is something that i believe i will very happily live with.
this hobby is not much different from an arbitrary, though purposeful and useful, axiomatic system.
not all of us will agree on what 'straight' is and our ideas of reproduced music will vary as do geometries.
this is what i love about this hobby

oh yeah, the search for musicality also allows us to indulge the obsessive compulsive aspects of our personalities without doing much harm except to our wallets
gotta love that

if what ive said has been said before, im not surprised, i imagine i have read similar posts in the past
i tried to contribute and keep this thread alive

The listening room has more to do with realism then most equipment.Measurements are good but those measurements are done in a whole different enviroment then ones listening room.
To get the most of ones equipment and ultimately the sound of realism you must adress the home listening room and set up.A reference system with great measurement set up improperly well sound high end and not at all realistic.
This hobby to me is about how realistic I can get my rig to sound.There are so many ways to achieve realistic sound it takes years of tweaking to truely acheive this goal.
Synergy between ones equipment like stated earlier is second to acheiving realistic sound in YOUR listening room.