Can We / Should We "Balance" Our Way To Our Desired Sound?

[Ron Resnick]

In Christian's "Lamm LP2.1 Deluxe" thread Mike L. replied to my question about the progression of the phono preamps Mike has enjoyed in his system over the years. In Mike's reply he wrote: "[O]nce coloration enters, balance is a constant drag on system building."

I believe I understand what Mike is writing about. If each component is selected significantly on the basis of its own neutrality -- that it does not on its own introduce a coloration of some sort -- then there is no coloration or sonic fingerprint which needs to be balanced or remediated by one or more other components in the system.

As much as I agree intellectually and in theory with Mike's point, I think that is not what I do myself. Is this because Mike subscribes (I think) to Objective 2) "reproduce exactly what is on the master tape," and I subscribe to Objective 1) "recreate the sound of an original musical event"?

I suspect Mike believes that by avoiding any component which introduces a coloration and thereby obviating the need to balance out and neutralize that component with a component exhibiting an off-setting coloration he, too, seeks to assemble a system which achieves Objective 1) (as well as Objective 2).

I believe that if I were to select each component based significantly on neutrality and absence of obvious coloration then I would end up with a system which my ears find slightly too clinical and detailed and dry. Regardless of how I may rationalize it with my Objectives classification I know that I want a sound which is on the slightly bloomy, slightly harmonically rich, slightly "liquid" side of the spectrum. That is what I believe I hear in real life and that is what I know is pleasing to my ears.

I do not think of my process as balancing different colorations to net out to a neutral sound (but I am open to the critique that that is exactly what I am doing). I think I pick mostly neutral components and then select one or maybe two components to steer that basic neutrality towards the slightly bloomy, slightly harmonically rich, slightly "liquid" side of the spectrum.

At the end of the day we have to accept that we truly have difference sonic preferences. And that, of course, is ok!

 

[JackD201]

In a word my answer is yes.

As hobbyists I believe our first priority is to enjoy ourselves. I'm for whatever it takes to make that possible. Of course if I was doing professional work like archiving my priority would be to preserve the signal as best as I possibly can. If doing creative professional work then the priority would be to deliver a product that both the musicians and their audience enjoy. As a provider of reproduction components and systems, my responsibility is to deliver stuff my clients will enjoy. So as end consumers I sincerely believe that we are actually less encumbered.

We all know that owning stuff and getting different sound profiles out of the very same stuff is extremely easy. It could take as little as half an inch in one direction as far as speaker placement goes just as one example. When people visit me they only get my own personal set of preferences within the performance envelope of the room and the gear. Some people like it and some people might like a different balance. I guess my point is that while the gear and room defines the envelope, finding that area of performance that proves satisfying within the envelope is just as important. I find that it is within this context that the question at hand lies.

 

[rbbert]

One downside is that if you change components at all frequently, then balancing will force you to continue to change components frequently. Even if you don't... i'm sure you get the picture.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Ron,

my over-riding philosophy of system building is to have the system 'get out of the way' of the musical message. it lets the music come thru and come to life. and that includes the room and power grid. also know that I am a musical omnivore.......meaning I want a system that can do everything and allow all types of music to be optimized. I want full orchestral scale and agility and also intimacy and nuance for small scale music. I want to play a tape of side 1 of Led Zepplin 1 and have that be awesome. I want to play a Dean Martin vocal and melt into it. if my system is knife edge clinical, or warm and fuzzy....or degrees of either....then some types of music will be less profound.

if a fundamental system building block is colored, then I have to worry about balancing it somewhere else. and having to do that gives up optimal information retrieval in the name of musical balance. less reality to work with. and having system headroom in bass performance and dynamics demands considerable neutrality. coloration does not work well at warp 9. distortion (that's what coloration is) does not scale well. and a system with headroom and that scales well can pull off the trick of 'suspension of dis-belief' more effectively.

I want to hear each recording optimally. yet; I want as many recordings as possible to sound involving......and hear what is distinctly wonderful about them. if the system is imposing it's signature on each recording then that signature is in the way of the music.

on Tuesday night at the club meeting in my room and subsequently the frequent comments written and said to me was that the system simply ceased to be the focus and it was just the music. Gary said it better than I can....

Mike, what a fantastic evening that was. I almost couldn't leave. Your room is to die for - with the system doing the thing that only the best systems can do. That is to get away from being between you and the music, and being a conduit for the music to flow.

and that is where I'm coming from as far as avoiding colorations. yet demanding the most natural sounding gear. one does not need to choose between those directions.

the most revealing gear does place demands on sources, media, power grids, cables, etc. etc. it can be easier to hide behind colorations. without colorations everything matters more. but moving forward is more direct. and as you go down the road everything matters more and more and more. but the payoff is bigger and bigger.

my choice of darTZeel electronics is no accident. it's the most tube like solid state and strikes the balance of not sounding solid state, yet having the low noise and dynamic grip of solid state. it sounds like music. it's natural but not colored. and when pushed it retains it's even handedness. it get out of the way of the musical message.

same with the Evolution Acoustics MM7's. they have the headroom and amp friendliness to bring ease to any real world musical demands.....so they get out of the way of the music.

and lastly getting out of the way of the music demands system synergy and system fine tuning. it's not just check marks on a list. it takes lots of effort and passion.

added note; there is not just one way to do this. i can only speak to what is right for me on my path to music reproduction enlightenment.

 

[caesar]

Hey Ron,
I hate to be a party pooper and burst people's fantasies, but creating a musical event is the work of your imagination. Guys listening to magico q5 with spectral and guys listening to a kondo ongaku amp with million dollar horn speakers both have found their "real musical event".

Some outsiders would find the former system kill -me -right -now sterile or shoot- me - right now badly -colored. As others have said, This hobby is all subjective. The only real musical event you generate is the one your mind creates (based on your references). Guys who claim their version is "real" or "neutral" are just snake oil salesmen.

Yes, Harry Pearson and Valin are great salesmen because they are great writers. But unless you share their taste, you will be disappointed.

Look , there are no 2 identical systems in this world. Even if components are the same, the rooms will make the sound somewhat different. Ask musicians , music professors, and experienced listeners - and no one ever agrees on what is real!

So based on the systems you have heard, buy the one you have enjoyed most.

 

[DaveC]

I agree with Mike on this one, and IMO most folks will end up agreeing with him sooner or later once they realize that doing it any other way results in a system that isn't as resolving and versatile as it could be.

OTOH, there really is no wrong answer, some people have preferences, a sound in their head they are trying to match, or they get caught up in enjoying pleasant distortions. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it's not exactly the pursuit of high fidelity anymore.

I believe "reproduce exactly what is on the master tape," and "recreate the sound of an original musical event" are one and the same. The more neutral and resolving your system is the more information you hear in the original musical event, and this makes the event sound more realistic.

Also, I do have a couple of cables in my lineup that are intended to satisfy folks looking for a warm tone, because there are a lot of them out there. My other cables are made to be as neutral as possible. The results are the warm cables get mixed reviews, loved by some hated by others. My most neutral cable though, the D4 IC and SMSG SC, are universally liked, and even people who think they want a warm tone often change their mind after hearing the D4, because it provides a perfect example of what the effects are of warmth vs neutrality. When people hear what neutral does for their system they often change their mind and start pursuing actual high fidelity. As a result my D4 is preferred over other cables it's compared to over 95% of the time and the demo to sale rate is over 90%. Most of the time the sale doesn't happen is only because it's relatively expensive to them. The figures for my warm cables are far worse.

Finally, a question... is it true a small amount of pleasant distortion in the right places (good tubes) can make the timbre of acoustic instruments and voices more realistic? Render the soundstage with more dimensionality? Without effecting resolution?

 

[DaveC]

Hey Ron,
I hate to be a party pooper and burst people's fantasies, but creating a musical event is the work of your imagination. Guys listening to magico q5 with spectral and guys listening to a kondo ongaku amp with million dollar horn speakers both have found their "real musical event".

Some outsiders would find the former system kill -me -right -now sterile or shoot- me - right now badly -colored. As others have said, This hobby is all subjective. The only real musical event you generate is the one your mind creates (based on your references). Guys who claim their version is "real" or "neutral" are just snake oil salesmen.

Yes, Harry Pearson and Valin are great salesmen because they are great writers. But unless you share their taste, you will be disappointed.

Look , there are no 2 identical systems in this world. Even if components are the same, the rooms will make the sound somewhat different. Ask musicians , music professors, and experienced listeners - and no one ever agrees on what is real!

So based on the systems you have heard, buy the one you have enjoyed most.

I don't agree with this and neither does Harman preference testing.

The fact is the further you get from neutral the less resolving the system is. This isn't really subjective and the view that we're all such special snowflakes with different preferences is not the full truth either.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Thank you for describing your philosophy, Mike. I understand it and it makes sense.

I am very happy for you that you have pursued your audio journey so tenaciously and successfully that both you and someone as experienced and expert as Gary conclude that you have fully achieved your goal!

 

[caesar]

I don't agree with this and neither does Harman preference testing.

The fact is the further you get from neutral the less resolving the system is. This isn't really subjective and the view that we're all such special snowflakes with different preferences is not the full truth either.

Fukc Harmon and their preference testing!

 

[DaveC]

Fukc Harmon and their preference testing!

Harman's testing and my own strongly correlate. People do notice different things about the sound and have their own areas of prime importance, but at the end of the day when it's time to choose their preference they all choose the same.

 

[DaveyF]

As a former pro musician, it might be helpful to state that music and certain sounds do have a different appeal to different people.The "memory" of the real event may differ from person to person as well. However, I do believe that all listener's can determine what is more realistic to their 'memory' of the real event. Unfortunately, I also think that we are 'chasing our tails' a little when it comes to reproducing the sound of the real in our homes. The sheer scale and size of a large hall...like Carnegie, or the sound of the huge venue....like most rock concerts, IME cannot be delivered accurately into the spaces that we call our listening rooms. I guess it also depends a little on what one person's definition of 'neutral' is. To one listener that may differ greatly than to another. To my ears, a 'neutral 'sound may well have what others perceive as either a) warmth or b) sterile and cold. IME, most great instruments have a lot of 'warmth'!!! Something that when reproduced can lead to the listener proclaiming that the system is either a) too colored b) too warm c) too bright or d) you name the coloration! ---and to some of course, just right, LOL.

 

[caesar]

Harman's testing and my own strongly correlate. People do notice different things about the sound and have their own areas of prime importance, but at the end of the day when it's time to choose their preference they all choose the same.

With all due respect, I don't think Ron is interested in Harmon testing.

 

[microstrip]

Ron,

All electronics I enjoy must have some coloration, as no two pieces sounded the same. IMHO we choose the coloration we enjoy and then call it "neutral" because it lets music flow in our perception. Unfortunately, because coloration has gained a pejorative sense, most people do not want to admit their loved system is not 100% neutral. The competition for more neutral is always in the background.

I have had in my listening room very recently complete systems of Audio Research, conrad johnson, Atmasphere and Dartzeel. IMHO fortunately none of them is "neutral".

Also IMHO, the components most people refer as "neutral" because they sound cold and unemotional sound so because they have such coloration, not because such epithets are intrinsic of neutral equipment.

 

[DaveC]

With all due respect, I don't think Ron is interested in Harmon testing.

Wow, sorry to comment. Maybe I'll PM you for your approval before I post?

 

[microstrip]

Harman's testing and my own strongly correlate. People do notice different things about the sound and have their own areas of prime importance, but at the end of the day when it's time to choose their preference they all choose the same.

Did Harman test your cables?

Your definition of neutral seems quite different from Harman's definition - they clearly specified what "neutral" meant to them according to their measurements. Do you have an electrical definition of neutrality in cables?

 

[garylkoh]

It took me a long time to learn that coloration is not the addition of color, it is the subtraction of the other colors. Hence, a "glorious midrange" is usually at the expense of the bass and the highs. Once you start using filters to achieve the balance of coloration you want to achieve, you end up with washed-out colors.

Ultimately, you buy what you enjoy. It is a journey, not a destination. What's most important is to enjoy the trip.

And I do agree with microstrip in this regard -

Also IMHO, the components most people refer as "neutral" because they sound cold and unemotional sound so because they have such coloration, not because such epithets are intrinsic of neutral equipment.

If you get the chance, come and listen to MikeL's system. In fact, come to the Pacific Northwest in July and come join my party too!

 

[DaveC]

Did Harman test your cables?

Your definition of neutral seems quite different from Harman's definition

I wouldn't be so sure of that...

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Thank you for describing your philosophy, Mike. I understand it and it makes sense.

I am very happy for you that you have pursued your audio journey so tenaciously and successfully that both you and someone as experienced and expert as Gary conclude that you have fully achieved your goal!

thanks Ron.

I would wager at the end of the day our views will take us to the same point, but maybe not in the same way. reading your reviews of systems I would say we hear things more the same than different.

 

[andromedaaudio]

In a word my answer is yes.

As hobbyists I believe our first priority is to enjoy ourselves. .

Another Yes , why not , listening to music or watching movies is an escape from real life / reality anyway , so why not make it nicer then reality they do it all the time in hollywood

 

[the sound of Tao]

Ron, great topic.

Would be great to know everyone's thoughts and understanding of colouration as Gary makes some particularly great observations on this.

There is perhaps much confusion caused by the use of the word coloured here as music has colour and without it it is largely lifeless and neither natural nor real. Also that analytical does not necessarily correlate with the notion of neutral and that ultimately there are distortions in everything as long as we are separated from the experience that music brings in terms of making us feel what the musician is expressing. Even the most neutral and balanced systems are not expressing any truth if the musical message is lost along the way. So perhaps chasing neutrality is not the complete answer.