How do you add color?

@arafiq 

It's an evolutionary process ... not just in terms of how your equipment choices evolve, but also how you gradually learn what type of sound appeals to you the most. Honestly, when I started I had no clue what I liked. So it's not always about the synergy but also an exercise in self-exploration.

Profound observation and eloquently put. This is the kind of discovery that puts the lie to gear-churning and rash upgrading. I can imagine one engaging in this hobby not with the goal of reaching "the top" but of listening to as many kinds of systems as possible. And the best part about that goal is that it is best done by exchanges with others -- meeting people, talking, listening, developing a vocabulary which reaches across rooms and ears and tastes. It's really what makes this a "hobby" and not just a consumeristic merry-go-around. Of course, the influencer industry on YouTube (and magazines, etc.) finds such a method anathema to their business, but that puts their opinions into proper perspective for the rest of us.

I concur with your observation...

Because our own taste are grounded in our ears/brain neurological specifics among other factors and this is adressed in psycho-acoustics...

Then it is not only about the gear synergy and embeddings for sure...Our tastes reflect our history and neuro-biology of hearing ...

It's an evolutionary process ... not just in terms of how your equipment choices evolve, but also how you gradually learn what type of sound appeals to you the most. Honestly, when I started I had no clue what I liked. So it's not always about the synergy but also an exercise in self-exploration.

I find it interesting that there is scant reference in the OP and most responses to the simple fact that the sound of live music has a tremendous amount of color, naturally. So, when we talk about adding “color” should we not ask the question “compared, or relative to what”?

The terms “accurate” and “neutral” are often misused, imo. Those descriptions don’t (shouldn’t) represent any particular sonic qualities. Unfortunately, the terms are often used to mean a lean, sterile and what I like to call a “bleached out”, or “gray”  tonal quality. A tonal quality devoid of color. That is not the natural sound of music.

@roxy54 has it right. Systems that are tonally accurate, or neutral,

**** (the best ones) expose the timbre and texture that actually exists in the recording. It’s not an added coloration.****

Now, if by “adding color” we are talking about adding some pervasive tonal quality to the tonal character of one’s system through equipment choices, I suppose that this is a personal choice that one can’t argue with, but keep in mind that this will cause all recordings to have a certain tonal sameness. Not my cup of tea.

Indica LOL

@frogman

+1 I think you put your finger on it. I looked at this for a while and kept thinking… but…. but.
 

Most good high fi companies try to make their products sound like the real thing. I suspect those that use simple electronic measurement fail miserably. It’s great if you can parrot a sine wave… but real music is all frequencies and amplitudes being simultaneously varied.

All the great designers use engineering principles as a starting place, then listen. Ruler flat speakers sound terrible. I have heard this from speaker designers and reviewers. I don’t look at many specs. I read about or listen myself.

Different engineers approach getting to the best most natural sound from different directions… different designs, technology, materials to arrive at their best… and they arrive in slightly different places. Hence, you get different flavors.