Mike may not be in the mood to appreciate this at the moment, :b, but I actually agree with everything in his post, 100%.
Can We / Should We "Balance" Our Way To Our Desired Sound?
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
As Mike said, the, undesired, colouration is distortion, pure and simple. My 'method' of resolving this is the elimination of distortions, from any and every source - but I don't attempt to compensate for the distortions encoded in the recording in any fashion - this is where I differ from Jack, say.
IME, this process of seeking greater accuracy, or neutrality never results in the music being lost on the way. Never, ever. I always enjoy each and every recording to a greater degree when I hear what's on it more clearly, with the extra benefit that sometimes the "worst of the worst" end up becoming very magical places to visit, often the most satisfying of all to listen to ...
Oh we definitely differ in that regard. There are recordings that we might think are bad until we play them in systems that can resolve through the hash but there are recordings that sadly are real dogs. My point is simply that if faced with a bad recording of music I really like, you can bet I will exercise my latitudes to make it more listenable rather than kick the music to the curb. That said there is a limit to what I would do and that limit would be adding something to the system that is permanent filter, something I can't defeat or zero out when not needed. My equipment choices are all known to measure excellently but like others here have said, having the gear is one thing, getting them to sing is another. Yes to do that attention has got to be paid especially when as Mike says you scale up. In the end however wether doing things by ear, by measurement or in my case both, I find one would be defeating the purpose if the end result was not enjoyable.
You can bet that if you put the three of us in the same room with the same equipment, we'll end up with three different sonic profiles even assuming the nasties both electrical and acoustic have been dealt with. It is no different than sending multitrack masters to three different mix engineers. You WILL find the person's imprint on the final product. I am just pointing out that despite the philosophical indignation towards any alteration to the sacred signal, we are in truth active participants in the process of reproduction. I say embrace it instead of deny it. Ultimately, to me, the true test is versatility.
I'm in your camp. I want the basic foundation of my system to be relatively neutral...speakers, amps, wires and use the source component selection (phono pre, carts for vinyl), DAC/Transport/Server or Tape (variety of inboard and outboard tape pre's) to flavor the sound to my liking. That is one way to get better control of the sound you are trying to recreate that makes you happy.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your very thoughtful comments. As I tell my wife, I love this hobby not only for the music and the fun of creating sound and the amazing equipment, but also because I think there can be significant philosophical and intellectual aspects to the hobby.
I think of these issues through the prism of my three objectives of high end audio because I think that classification often allows us to reconcile seemingly irreconcilable views.
I believe there are three primary alternative objectives of high-end audio:
1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,
2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape, and
3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile.
In other words, conflicting views can each make sense and be correct (from different viewpoints) if you take a step back and realize that one member is making his comment implicitly from the point of view of one of the objectives and another member is making his comment implicitly from the point of view of one of the other objectives.
Some of us think explicitly of seeking to achieve one (or more) of those objectives and some of us think, I believe, think implicitly of seeking to achieve one (or more) of those objectives, even if not articulated in the terms of one of the objectives.
Some of us seek to achieve one of those objectives as primary and another of those objectives as secondary. Some of us think that by achieving one of those objectives we by definition are achieving another one of those objectives at the same time. (Someone who adopts and believes he has achieved Objective 1 "recreate the sound of an original musical event" is very unlikely to also believe that his system is annoying and unpleasant sounding and, therefore, has violated Objective 3 “create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile”.)
I subscribe to the first objective. I want my audio system to recreate as realistically and as believably as possible the sound of an original musical event. But am I using that objective as an intellectual smokescreen to really achieve only Objective 3 “create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile”? I like to think that my goal of Objective 1 “recreate the sound of an original musical event,” will also, causally and not coincidentally, achieve Objective 3. Putting it differently, maybe Objective 3 is my real objective because I would never keep a system which makes sound which I find uncomfortable or displeasing even if a station-wagon filled with musicians who are nuns told me that that that displeasing sound truly is the correct sound of an original musical event?
Christian does what I do (regardless of which objective he and I like to think we are operating under). Christian wants "the basic foundation of [his] system to be relatively neutral...speakers, amps, wires and use the source component selection (phono pre, carts for vinyl), DAC/Transport/Server or Tape (variety of inboard and outboard tape pre's) to flavor the sound to [his] liking." Christian and I cannot deny that we toss at least some Objective 3 in there!
Jack believes in Objective 3: “As hobbyists I believe our first priority is to enjoy ourselves.” But, I believe Jack is determined that his system achieves Objective 1, as well.
Caesar wrote: “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.’” Both of the guys to which caesar refers may believe in Objective 1 and, in fact, may, to their respective ears, be achieving Objective 1. That is totally possible to me, because I believe this is a subjective hobby.
Or is it? DaveC believes that to "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. The fact is the further you get from neutral the less resolving the system is. This isn't really subjective.”
I cannot agree with this. I do think the hobby is ultimately subjective. The achievement of any of the objectives does not have a determinate, formulaic path, akin to solving a mathematics equation, to get there, I believe.
For example, two audiophiles, both of whom believe in Objective 2 “reproduce exactly what is on the master tape,” may assemble systems which sound to DaveC to be very different, but because each of these audiophiles has different ears and different sonic sensitivities and, therefore, hears things differently, each of them is certain that his system creates a sound which sounds like the master tape. But, purely logically, they both cannot be “correct” because, in fact, their systems are producing sounds which, let's assume most audiophiles would agree, are different.
Caesar, too, does not agree with DaveC that neutrality is not subjective. Caesar wrote: “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.”
MikeL’s “over-riding philosophy of system building is to have the system 'get out of the way' of the musical message.” Does this mean Mike subscribes to Objective 1 or to Objective 2? I suspect Mike would say that achieving one of them by definition means you have achieved the other one as well. But I do not want to speak for Mike.
But back to DaveC. Is neutrality a fixed, definable, determinate, beacon? I just do not think so. I agree with DaveyF: “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.”
DaveC continues: "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." But that might be true if, and only if, "neutrality" is an objective, accepted equation we can knowingly solve.
Perhaps, as Microstrip wrote, and Gary agreed, neutrality itself is a coloration: the coloration of sounding "cold and unemotional." If that is true then audiophiles who select neutral components to avoid coloration and thus obviate the need to balance differently colored components are either: A) actually pursuing Objective 3 "create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile," while believing they are pursuing Objective 1 "recreate the sound of an original musical event or Objective 2 "reproduce exactly what is on the master tape," or B) they are, in fact, pursuing Objective 1 or Objective 2, but not by the objective guiding light of "neutrality" with which they believe they are pursuing one (or possibly both) of those objectives.
I think there is no fixed beacon or definition of “neutrality” on which we can universally agree. At that point I think we return to chasing our tail. Believing in a fixed version of neutrality and then satisfying that definition, to me, means that one merely has satisfied his own (subjective) definition of neutrality.
Microstrip, going one level of psychology deeper, believes “we choose the coloration we enjoy and then call it ‘neutral’ because it lets music flow in our perception.”
I think of these issues through the prism of my three objectives of high end audio because I think that classification often allows us to reconcile seemingly irreconcilable views.
I believe there are three primary alternative objectives of high-end audio:
1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,
2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape, and
3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile.
In other words, conflicting views can each make sense and be correct (from different viewpoints) if you take a step back and realize that one member is making his comment implicitly from the point of view of one of the objectives and another member is making his comment implicitly from the point of view of one of the other objectives.
Some of us think explicitly of seeking to achieve one (or more) of those objectives and some of us think, I believe, think implicitly of seeking to achieve one (or more) of those objectives, even if not articulated in the terms of one of the objectives.
Some of us seek to achieve one of those objectives as primary and another of those objectives as secondary. Some of us think that by achieving one of those objectives we by definition are achieving another one of those objectives at the same time. (Someone who adopts and believes he has achieved Objective 1 "recreate the sound of an original musical event" is very unlikely to also believe that his system is annoying and unpleasant sounding and, therefore, has violated Objective 3 “create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile”.)
I subscribe to the first objective. I want my audio system to recreate as realistically and as believably as possible the sound of an original musical event. But am I using that objective as an intellectual smokescreen to really achieve only Objective 3 “create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile”? I like to think that my goal of Objective 1 “recreate the sound of an original musical event,” will also, causally and not coincidentally, achieve Objective 3. Putting it differently, maybe Objective 3 is my real objective because I would never keep a system which makes sound which I find uncomfortable or displeasing even if a station-wagon filled with musicians who are nuns told me that that that displeasing sound truly is the correct sound of an original musical event?
Christian does what I do (regardless of which objective he and I like to think we are operating under). Christian wants "the basic foundation of [his] system to be relatively neutral...speakers, amps, wires and use the source component selection (phono pre, carts for vinyl), DAC/Transport/Server or Tape (variety of inboard and outboard tape pre's) to flavor the sound to [his] liking." Christian and I cannot deny that we toss at least some Objective 3 in there!
Jack believes in Objective 3: “As hobbyists I believe our first priority is to enjoy ourselves.” But, I believe Jack is determined that his system achieves Objective 1, as well.
Caesar wrote: “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.’” Both of the guys to which caesar refers may believe in Objective 1 and, in fact, may, to their respective ears, be achieving Objective 1. That is totally possible to me, because I believe this is a subjective hobby.
Or is it? DaveC believes that to "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. The fact is the further you get from neutral the less resolving the system is. This isn't really subjective.”
I cannot agree with this. I do think the hobby is ultimately subjective. The achievement of any of the objectives does not have a determinate, formulaic path, akin to solving a mathematics equation, to get there, I believe.
For example, two audiophiles, both of whom believe in Objective 2 “reproduce exactly what is on the master tape,” may assemble systems which sound to DaveC to be very different, but because each of these audiophiles has different ears and different sonic sensitivities and, therefore, hears things differently, each of them is certain that his system creates a sound which sounds like the master tape. But, purely logically, they both cannot be “correct” because, in fact, their systems are producing sounds which, let's assume most audiophiles would agree, are different.
Caesar, too, does not agree with DaveC that neutrality is not subjective. Caesar wrote: “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.”
MikeL’s “over-riding philosophy of system building is to have the system 'get out of the way' of the musical message.” Does this mean Mike subscribes to Objective 1 or to Objective 2? I suspect Mike would say that achieving one of them by definition means you have achieved the other one as well. But I do not want to speak for Mike.
But back to DaveC. Is neutrality a fixed, definable, determinate, beacon? I just do not think so. I agree with DaveyF: “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.”
DaveC continues: "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." But that might be true if, and only if, "neutrality" is an objective, accepted equation we can knowingly solve.
Perhaps, as Microstrip wrote, and Gary agreed, neutrality itself is a coloration: the coloration of sounding "cold and unemotional." If that is true then audiophiles who select neutral components to avoid coloration and thus obviate the need to balance differently colored components are either: A) actually pursuing Objective 3 "create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile," while believing they are pursuing Objective 1 "recreate the sound of an original musical event or Objective 2 "reproduce exactly what is on the master tape," or B) they are, in fact, pursuing Objective 1 or Objective 2, but not by the objective guiding light of "neutrality" with which they believe they are pursuing one (or possibly both) of those objectives.
I think there is no fixed beacon or definition of “neutrality” on which we can universally agree. At that point I think we return to chasing our tail. Believing in a fixed version of neutrality and then satisfying that definition, to me, means that one merely has satisfied his own (subjective) definition of neutrality.
Microstrip, going one level of psychology deeper, believes “we choose the coloration we enjoy and then call it ‘neutral’ because it lets music flow in our perception.”
Last edited:
I absolutely will visit Mike someday. I would like to join you Gary, for your break-in of the new Genesis Prime but, unfortunately, I will not be in the USA those days.
I knew you would, Frank, and I thought of some of your comments as I read Mike's post. Though you both approach the hobby from radically different places, it appears you share the same goal. Mike's post is one of the most clearly articulated approaches to this hobby that I have read on this forum. It is a wonderful post and one that should be returned to as a reference. Thank you Ron for extracting Mike's earlier comment from a previous post and launching this very interesting thread.
Though I have not heard Mike's system, his writings seem to correlate to what he and many others have heard from his system. Because he seems to be such a gracious host, and generous with his time, many members have heard his system and described its sound. In that sense, it seems to be a "known" reference in the audiophile community.
I suspect that Mike is correct. If Ron were to hear Mike's system, he might realize that they in fact have pretty similar goals.
The problem, though, whether you define the end objective to be faithfully recreating the sonics of the live event, or trying to achieve fidelity to the master tape or record (which is itself typically a faint simulacrum of the real event or is "juiced" to give you some audiophile "WoW" factor as a substitute) requires a combination of equipment, wires, room and set-up to create what is, at best, an illusion (sometimes a pretty effective one, but still, an illusion). Are you judging each component to be uncolored and then combining such uncolored devices into a system? If so, by what means do you judge an individual component to be uncolored? I'm reminded of those early HP reviews where he declared a particular piece of equipment to be the most uncolored, truthful to the music [cartridge/preamp/amp speaker] he had encountered, only to discover by changes in his system and the evolution of the products (and perhaps his ears) that the previously "uncolored" device was flawed in some significant way. And those flaws were only revealed as he continued on his journey. I can usually live with sins of omission rather than commission, but one change in my system usually makes me reassess what the other components are doing. I'm certainly not advocating buying something deliberately colored, but if I understand the OP's point, I do think that realistically, we are in some ways combining various pieces of gear to work synergistically with each other as part of a system. That isn't to say there aren't certain pieces of gear that, in many different systems, under different conditions, have proven to work well. But, I do think you are defining fidelity in the context of the system and room, not to mention listener preference. The biggest revelation for me, several years ago, was the dramatic difference in presentation of particular pressings or masterings of the "same" record. And these, of course, bear little resemblance to a real performance of any event.
With all due respect:
1) Absent being at the event when the recording was made, it is impossible to "determine" the sound of the original event that you are trying to recreate.
2) Absent having the access to the "master tape" or a very good transfer thereof, it is impossible to determine and replicate the sound of the master tape.
3) I agree with you. In the end, this hobby is totally subjective.
Best.
I think by 1 Ron means our extrapolation of our live show experiences, so that the sound creates as close an illusion as practically possible of the concert halls we have been in.
By 2, there should be no added coloration, e.g. 300b or koetsu flavor. A bad recording should sound bad, a bright one bright, etc...
On 3, I disagree partially...the hobby is subjective, but sometimes it is so because our experiences are different. Someone who has been to many live shows and listens to classical by nature of that experience will have a different subjective liking from someone who listens to amplified vocals, while 2 people who both go to live classical concerts could both have different subjective choices. My guess is the latter would be less different, if experience with gear is the same. If gear experience is different, that would be another cause of differing choices. What we do through reading other people's posts is benchmark those who have similar choices, for whatever reasons.
Also, if my objective was 1, and if I perceive that I have created 1, 3 would naturally follow. I know I don't want 2.
Inserted the Trinity pre in to my chain . Super low noise floor , demonic speed , great great control . However the chain now is all SS While an engrossing listen , it doesn't relax me into my chair A touch of the tube in the chain, will provide that intangible something , call it what you may.......pleasurable distortions , a touch of humanity / tonality .... So surely for me a matter of balance , subjective depending on the listeners experiences with live concerts and other gear . 
Last edited:
Sir, no disrespect meant. I've been following Ron's journey with interest because I've treaded those waters myself, both experientially and intellectually.
As you can tell by the subjective tone taken here, what's at play here can be gleaned from Winston Churchill’s quote: we shape our building , thereafter they shape us.
What the heck does Bloom mean? Obviously a creation of one's imagination...
The only Bloom I know is Allan Bloom, the brilliant University of Chicago Professor, a Platonist and author of the The Closing of the American Mind. Great and stimulating read for the intellectuals on this site....
Bloom is how the music expands into the room. ....is it constrained ? Does it sound realistic ? Does the music/voices decay from the soundscape in a natural manner ? I find SS phono amps lacking in this area. They just aren't as engaging as tube topology. Bloom is everything if your interested in reproducing music in a natural and engaging way.What the heck does Bloom mean? Obviously a creation of one's imagination...
The only Bloom I know is Allan Bloom, the brilliant University of Chicago Professor, a Platonist and author of the The Closing of the American Mind. Great and stimulating read for the intellectuals on this site....
Ron , great thread! (AGAIN!)
Those 3 categories above are from "Sterile" Jon Valin. He created them when he usurped the power from the fading Harry Pearson. Unfortunately, they only capture the reality from a marketing segmentation perspective - nothing more.
This move, of course, allowed TAS to expand their readership by giving a platform to analytic reviewers like "Sterile" Jon and his buddy, "worthless to the audio fan" Robert Harley, and, of course, catering to analytic (”transparency to source” vs. transparency to music) listeners with gear like Magico Q5/ Q7, berkeley dacs, and prior generation Soulution.
Let’s touch on and expand on # 1 again. Creating a musical event in your home is a Platonic ideal. However, I'm an Aristotelian.
So let's look at how it's impossible. Let's say that I were to dump my family, cash out my kids college funds, cash in retirement savings, etc. , and buy a full blown Mbl x- treme system, since it's the only system I have heard that does so many things real. Even then – unfortunately - the Grateful Dead will not sound like they did at red rocks or winterland. The Stones and Zeppelin will still not sound the way they did in Madison square garden....even if one were to take several big hits from a 6 foot bong.
. Live music and high end audio are just very distinct experiences…. people need to accept this fundamental reality!It just happens the microphones did not capture all the musical information in the beginning , and the equipment chain, as good as it is - in combination with even the best room will not deliver "real".
That's why it's so psychologically DANGEROUS for guys to compare their system to live music. They can spend all that time and money. And in the end they will be frustrated because, unfortunately, in reality they may not even get a finger snap to sound real . (Furthermore, psychological studies show that unhappy people compare a lot instead of being happy with what they got or comparing their better sh!t with someone’s pathetic junk…. Reality of life is that someone will always have a better system, car, yacht, woman, home, plot of land, golf course, art, etc. Comparing your sh!t to something better is bad psychology.)
As for 2, I completely agree with Microstrip: "transparency to source” gear is just imparting an analytical coloration to the music, making many to think instead of getting lost in the "flow" and finding bliss. Unfortunately, Too many guys in this hobby listen to their stereos way too long and listen to sounds instead of music. So they get excited about a new detail they hear.
Others have been convinced by the brand marketing of a superior engineering approach. So they call analytic gear the "best": take any analytic product: Berkeley reference dac, magico q5/ q7, spectral, sanders magtech (a new born boy's balls look bigger than Sanders capacitors, so how can they deliver the needed current to drive anything???), etc.
Analytic / "transparency to source" is just a marketing segment that appeals to mindset of audiophiles who get sold the myth of better engineering, and they convince themselves to like that sound. yet guys who only go by "great engineering" claims measurements are just satisfying their psychoses and psychological needs, just like everyone else in this hobby. But these guys are mentally blocked: these guys come across as holy priests, acting like their religion is better than everyone else's. But they just lack basic understanding of psychology and imagination that someone can prefer something else.
Great post, Bill. One point of contention: because this is a subjective hobby, one man's commission is one man's omission. One man's colored is real, while another man's less colored is bleached...
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky