neutrality vs. realism

Sof762, you might have preferred the CD version of Bofill to the live performance also!

Bob P.

Seems to me either goal is simply unreachable. And that most systems can even approach either goal in one or two areas. So we're down to "picking our poison", deciding for ourselves what is most important to the individual.

A small system can do a creditable job of reproducing reasonably accurate timbers, but will not play loud, have bass or dynamic power and will present a small soundstage. Bigger systems can create larger sound with extended height illusions, play loud and go deep but it seems the bigger they are the harder getting the actual "sounds of the instruments" right seems to be.

While I would not set up measurements as the be-all end-all, it is interesting to note in reviews where measurements are present how even a small relatively inexpensive speaker can measure pretty flat, but large systems almost always have very significant frequency response anomalies.

And in practice, I have heard many high$ high end systems that were very impressive but didn't seem to reproduce instumental timbers as well as my little pair of LS3/5A monitors. And I have a problem personally spending BIG bucks for a speaker that in some areas can be outdone by a much less expensive or involved system. I have focused mostly on speakers here, but the other components do add to the fun!

So where does that leave us? We go to concerts to listen live and try to get a system that gives the "gestalt" of music to each of us, all using his own criteria of what aspects of live sound most trigger our pleasure response. Hopefully. I have heard many audiophiles brag thet their system was so good and revealing that they could only listen to 10% of their recordings with pleasure! I am not sure what the fun is in that, but hey, whatever!

3ox, I am reminded of the joke concerning an audiophile going to a concert (classical) and saying "there isn't enough bass slam!" Most audiophiles are pursuing a system that gives them the sound that they are looking for, hence equipment that tailors the recording to their version of "reality".

Bob P.

Thsalmon -

I think your concluding sentence summed it well!! I've long since wearied of these endless wars about neutrality, tubes, SS and whose product(s) most closely approximate reality. You pick your poison and live with it. If a Marantz receiver gives you a satisfying illusion, stick with it. (Wish that would work for me. I'd have a lot more money in my pocket.)

Cheerio

Whether you call it "realism" or "musicality" or (probably the most correct term) "euphony," it is definitely not the same thing as neutrality. An analog rig is not neutral--the kinds of distortion inherent in that medium are well-known. But it sounds more "real" or "musical" or "good" to many people. And there's evidence that it's those very distortions that make it sound so appealing. No one who sought neutrality would touch a vinyl disk. But many people (me included) love them.

My general advice would be to pursue what sounds good to you, and don't waste your time putting a label on it.

(On the other hand, Floyd Toole's crew at Harman has done some interesting work suggesting that most people actually prefer more neutral speakers. So consider the possibility that "neutral" really is what you like.)