neutrality vs. realism

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.)

I think that we are all looking for the same things i.e. a system that can deliver all of the subtle and delicate details of a recording :

A) without loosing any warmth in the mid-bass, liquidity of mids or definition of low frequencies

B) without introducing any artifacts of the systems own doing

C) present it with slam, impact, delicacy, shrillness, etc... as necessary

D) do it with excellent spatial characteristics

E) maintain an even, natural tonal balance

F) reproduce all of the subtle, yet mandatory, harmonic overtones in the proper structure that one hears in nature

G) have limitless dynamic range at any listening level.

The main variables as to how we end up in different places in terms of systems has to do with the fact that we all have different listening skills, hearing abilities and personal preferences.

We do not all know how to "listen" nor do we all hear or like the same things. The first part ( listening skills ) can be learned. Their are actual courses that one can take in their own home that can teach you how to become a better, more skilled listener. Personally, i think that this can be both beneficial and a drawback. Critical listening has both ups and downs.

The second part ( hearing ) has to do with the shape of our inner ear and how our brain and nerves process that info. We might hear identical notes, yet due to the size and shape of our ear passages, that identical note could be processed by our individual brains with slightly different frequency responses, amplitudes, etc... Obviously, this is a variable that we as a group could never overcome due to physical attributes.

As to the third variable in the equation, personal preference is just that. I can not tell you how something sounds, tastes, feels and know for a fact that you are experiencing the same joys, displeasure or lack of concern that i did about the subject. You might be able to better understand how i feel about the subject though communications, and you might even agree to a large extent, but that does not mean that you will go through the same exact experience / emotions if put into the same situations.

With that in mind, it would be difficult to find two people that would build identical systems even if they had identical rooms. Now throw in the fact that both could listen to the same system yet hear / listen for different things. They would obviously take note of the specific attributes of the system ( or food, clothing, etc.. for that matter ) and process the things about that system that they PERSONALLY found most important. After all, we all rank the various aspects of system performance with different levels of importance. While some might consider accurate tonal and timbral balance most important, others might think that imaging and soundstage are more important. Then you'll have some that feel that dynamic range, spl and bass extension should carry more weight in the rankings, etc... We all like different things and rank different system attributes in importance as individuals. While doing all of this "ranking" and "critical listening", our levels of enjoyment and personal involvement during that situation might vary wildly. Some would rank "musicality" or "personal involvement" with the music higher than any of the above, regardless of how well other aspects of performance measure up.

To me, it is about ALL of the various aspects that make up a music reproduction system. While i might rank my personal values about system attributes different than you, we all strive for something that WE as individuals can enjoy. As such, audio reproduction becomes a very personal quest and we should all buy what we prefer as individuals. Nobody can tell me what i like or how something sounds. I have to experience it for myself, fully digest the situation and then form my own opinions as to likes, dislikes, etc... That is why we have different brands, makes, models, flavours, colours, textures, shapes, sizes, etc... Every manufacturer has their own ideas as to how to fill your needs but only you know EXACTLY what your needs are as an individual.

There IS something out there for everyone, it is just a matter of finding it. Hopefully, we can share our experiences in a manner that helps others locate what they are seeking out in a system. Sean
>