neutrality vs. realism


What is actually the final goal of high-end audio: to reproduce recorded music as neutral as possible or to give the highest possible level of realism? For some manufacturers (like Spectral and Madrigal) it is the ultimate goal regarding their amplifiers, to sound like no amplifier at all. There is less coloration, less "house sound", more "truthfulness". I think this is a good basic consideration, but it must not derive the sound of it's musicality. Those amplifiers are generally sounding lifeless! Don't get me wrong, this is not about the tubes vs. solid state controverse at all, because I think that solid state amplifiers are able to give a high level of musicality without sacrificing neutrality (Boulder, FM Acoustics). What seems perfect on paper is not always the way to go: "neutrality" and "perfect measurements" are not the synonyms for musicality and realism.
dazzdax
Realism. Always. Because Neutrality implies measured flat system response from 5 hz (or whatever that low is ) to 20K hz (or whatevr that high is) at certain intervals say 16 hz , 20 hz, 32 hz and so forth. What happens in between is what the Realistic well nuanced musical system sounds.

Realistic well nuanced musical system reproduces realistic tonal balance not only fundamentals but also lower and upper harmonics of an instrument. Analytical Neutral systems don't necessarily does that hence could be uninvolving.

Other way to look at this is: A piano notes from 25hz lowest to 8 K hz highest. Analytical system can measure flat even say (but may not) 25 hz, 26 hz, 27 hz and to 7999hz , 8000 hz of piano notes. But what happens at undertones, overtones, overall tonal balance. There is no way to measure the' flatness' of these wide band at each freq cut-off.

Therefore a realistic, Well nuanced musical system, if there is way to measure, will come close to live sound of the same very well recording.

GOD IS IN THE NUANCE (realistic). An audiophile slogan.
Since mics, etc. will always take away something from the original sound, it would seem components would have to add some of that back. Meaning the must put out more than they get in.
Not the best example but: say SET's are quicker than reality. Since some speed is lost in the recording process, SET's just put it back at the realistic amount of the original event.
Cdc, an argument like that could be used to justify engineers using EQ, harmonic enhancers and other creative outboard devices.
There are some wonderful comments here and I want to posit a few thoughts.There is a simple way to check "real" in your room in your home.I assume some of us own and play acoustic instruments or can go to acoustic house concerts in there cities and or invite musicians to your home to play and get some free grub(they love that).Sit in your sweet spot,listen, make notes,how does the attack,decay and timbral qualities sound to you with a real instrument in your room.My wife plays her taylor guitar in the living room where the system is so I can make comparisons.Is this the perfect solution?,no but it is one way to reference sans opinion and hyperbole.I like to find solutions to questions like these and not run down my battery on conjecture.Between the hundreds of us here we can find a referencing tool for checking the realism of our systems and a guitar,violin,horn,singers,drummers and others in your listening room does it for me.
I've occasionally had esteemed, graying jazz musicians play live alongside my Steinway, between my Parsifal Encores.
Mostly standup, acoustic guitar, voice, and violin.
I'm impressed by the fact that I can REPRODUCE my piano by careful mic placement such that its bottom end sounds BETTER than live! Ha! There's no mystery, here, afterall, as the left Earthworks mic sits so close to the soundboard and lower strings that I can "make" my beloved "B" sound bigger and better through my Encores than the set of wavefronts that hit me when I'm playing the thing. It's all about wave propagation and summation at the listening (playing) position. Sure the top octaves are more complex live, with that truly wonderful "B magic octave", etc.
So the more-neutral (huh?) reproduced position sounds BETTER (thanks to purely-objective, science-proven stuff about physics, mic placement, Earthworks' transient response, a fully-Class A amp chain, etc.) than my oh-so-"REAL" 800 lb, 7' friggin acoustic transducer IN THE ROOM!
So the above discussion's "it's so nice that them poles should meet" near-waltz resolution and male-bonding now has to address THIS redefining of the turf! Would ya?...could ya? (And PLEASE keep Jung, Mazwell (my collegiate days fave) and Kant (especially, you engineers!) outta this.
And Asa's only allowed 20% of the thread-inches (sorry, I love ya too, buddy, but my eyes grow tired at these early AMs).....
So I'm a pig cryin' in shit: I'll be able to make recordings of MYSELF IN MY ROOM that sound as good as the near-best commercial ones (except for room ambience, of course), so I can't complain...'ceprt I can't figure out how to use this Alesis Masterlink....
A grateful and happy Thanksgiving to all!