What exactly is colored sound?


I guess the definition would be a deviation from what what was originally intended but how do we really know what was originally intended anyway?  I mean solid state mostly sounds like solid state.  I guess that would be a coloration, push pull amps and set have their own colorations.  It seems we try to denote certain definitions to either promote or dis certain sounds I guess.  We could have a supposedly neutral amp but their just is not enough bass so we turn up the subwoofer or the bass, a coloration per se.  I guess one could say that colored sound would be a good thing.  after all, each instrument has its own sound (color).  A mullard, a telefunken, I mean who knows what tubes were in the recording studios at the time of the recording.  Syrupy, sweet, rich, NEUTRAL, forward, backward I mean really...  I guess its all about certain preferences for each person.  even in the studio.  who knows, maybe a recording may be meant to sound syrupy or sweet and then we try to make it as neutral as possible.  Maybe thats a coloration in itself.  I guess what I am asking is why do reviewers use the word colored in reviews anyway?
tzh21y
Colored sound is anything that is different from the recorded commercially available music as produced in mastering. Despite many claims to the contrary, it is actually the opposite of high-fidelity. It can be highly engaging and enjoyable - just as condiments (salt pepper, ketchup, mustard) can enhance your meal but it is not faithful to the original recording and not high-fidelity.
If it sounds good it is good. Pretty much works for me as a philosophy goes.
tzh21y,
You asked the question, and I think that you also answered it pretty well.
One way to reduce sound coloration is by CD colorization. You know, turquoise, black, orange, purple, what have you. Ironic, no? 🌈

When the original audiophiles in the 1950's coined the term "coloration", they used it in the same way video technicians do now with video projectors and monitors---in terms of the accurate reproduction of color "temperature". In video, that means greens look green, reds red, etc. In sound, that means a violin sounds like a violin, not like a cello. An alto singer sounds alto, not tenor. No "color" (deviations from flat frequency response) added to or subtracted from the recording. But as the op said, how does one know what a recording "should" sound like?

Gordon Holt, creator of Stereophile in the early 1960's, and the reviewer credited, even by Harry Pearson, as the man responsible for creating, or at least codifying, the audiophile vocabulary, was very serious about lack of coloration, considering it the number one priority in the reproduction of music.

Gordon recommended everyone make their own recordings, so as to have a known reference in terms of evaluating a components lack of coloration. I did just that, recording a Jump/Blues Swing Band live, using just a pair of high-quality condenser mics straight into a Revox A77 reel-to-reel. One can never be completely certain what any given commercial recording should sound like; one made by yourself is a different story.

Record friends talking, or an a cappella group live; we are very familiar with voices, and immediately hear coloration in the reproduction of them. Record an upright bass; you immediately hear any "thickening" a speaker adds to it's reproduction. Another instrument very revealing of added coloration is a piano; that instrument has a very wide frequency response, and reproducing the two strings of every key equally in tonality, attack and decay, etc., is still far beyond the capability of any system to do perfectly.