Not worrying about neutrality

[Kal Rubinson]

Having said all that, its important to understand what neutral isn’t. Its not grey, bland, boring, uninvolving, colourless, veiled or thin. Essentially its a term that should be applied to a system that truly and honestly reveals the full extent and beauty of the recording without artefact or artifice.
Getting back to the OPs question, he stated he preferred a system with some warmth vs a neutral system, the inference being that neutral systems lack warmth. All I’m stating is that neutral systems should lack nothing and warmth should be present on a neutral system, as long as its present in the recording.

While I, again, fully agree with you, I think that the issue of consistency cannot be over-emphasized. A system that consistently applies any characteristic, no matter how warm, wonderful, exciting and musically rewarding, to all recordings is simply wrong, not neutral and, imho, distorting*. While certainly not (yet) achieved, a neutral system should present recordings and, indeed, performances in different venues as distinguishable as they are in fact. Whether such reproduction is presented as warm or not should be purely a function of the recording and the performance event.

Let me add that I have no argument for those who want a particular sound and achieve it by a system which imposes it on all recordings, I do not consider such a high quality and/or high fidelity system, regardless of price, size or dynamic output. Fun for some, maybe.

*An analogy would be to the observation that a stopped clock is right only twice a day (and for barely a fleeting moment).

 

[PeterA]

If your recordings are good it will. And good engineers on good recordings are the closest you will get to having the original venue sound, if you can play it back properly.

On the other hand if you try to create 4, and for each recording you get the same venue sound for 4, the system is colored.

This is just the problem, Ked. Ron does not presume that you are using only "good" recordings in his #2.

 

[microstrip]

(...) While certainly not (yet) achieved, a neutral system should present recordings and, indeed, performances in different venues as distinguishable as they are in fact. Whether such reproduction is presented as warm or not should be purely a function of the recording and the performance event. (...)

The main question is that we do not have recordings in different venues with differences in quantity and diversity enough to test systems with any statistical validity. IMHO we are systematically addressing just a few and people tune their systems to show the differences of some specific aspects in a specific kind of records, something that is not an warranty of neutrality.

BTW, should we consider that identifying the characteristics of the sonic signature of the subway or traffic in some recordings is a sign of system neutrality?

 

[bonzo75]

The main question is that we do not have recordings in different venues with differences in quantity and diversity enough to test systems with any statistical validity. IMHO we are systematically addressing just a few and people tune their systems to show the differences of some specific aspects in a specific kind of records, something that is not an warranty of neutrality.

BTW, should we consider that identifying the characteristics of the sonic signature of the subway or traffic in some recordings is a sign of system neutrality?

I think this was already clarified by blackmore. You know if 10 of your recordings sound similar, system is obviously colored since the 10 concerts in different venues by different performers cannot sound similar

 

[bonzo75]

This is just the problem, Ked. Ron does not presume that you are using only "good" recordings in his #2.

Agree.

 

[Number9]

We either need to redefine the word neutrality in this context or come up with a new word altogether unless it is perfection we’re talking about which we know where this will lead. If you use a color chart as a reference and look at “nueteral” colors there are too many variations to help hone in on anything helpful and even if here were how would my chart that was printed from my xerox with x stock paper with z ink carridges compare wih the one that Bonzo printed out? We only have to get so close with a hand grenade to get the target.

 

[microstrip]

I think this was already clarified by blackmore. You know if 10 of your recordings sound similar, system is obviously colored since the 10 concerts in different venues by different performers cannot sound similar

The main question is that is the criteria for sounding similar is extremely subjective. It looks hat you are addressing is system resolution, not coloration. But I would be very happy if you told us the 10 recordings you refer and what you look in them when looking for your "neutrality".

 

[microstrip]

(...) “Neutrality” suggests to me the objective 2) “reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played.”

Perhaps you are replacing that objective with, or adding to that objective, 4) “create a sound that seems live.”

Perhaps our sonic preferences, interests or objectives change over time as our experience in the hobby progresses?

Yes, 2) is not compatible with 4). Although some people consider we should aim at 2) with electronics and source and at 4) with speakers and room.

And yes, sonic preferences change over time.

 

[thedudeabides]

The main question is that we do not have recordings in different venues with differences in quantity and diversity enough to test systems with any statistical validity. IMHO we are systematically addressing just a few and people tune their systems to show the differences of some specific aspects in a specific kind of records, something that is not an warranty of neutrality.

Thank you. You said it better than me.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . A system that consistently applies any characteristic, no matter how warm, wonderful, exciting and musically rewarding, to all recordings is simply wrong, not neutral and, imho, distorting*.

. . .
Let me add that I have no argument for those who want a particular sound and achieve it by a system which imposes it on all recordings . . .

. . .

I think the audiophile in your second paragraph has adopted 3) “create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile.”

I think you are suggesting that the audiophile in your first paragraph also is pursuing objective 3). But maybe he is pursuing objective 1) or 4).

Isn’t it possible that there is a consistent gap in realism or believability between live, unamplified music and what we hear from our stereos, and, for some audiophiles, when this gap is filled consistently, their stereos sound to them consistently closer to 1) the sound of an original musical event or to 4) the sound of live music?

 

[bonzo75]

I think the audiophile in your second paragraph has adopted 3) “create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile.”

You are suggesting that the audiophile in your first paragraph also is pursuing objective 3). But maybe he is pursuing objective 1) or 4).

Isn’t it possible that there is a consistent gap in realism or believability between live, unamplified music and what we hear from our stereos, and, for some audiophiles, when this gap is filled consistently, their stereos sound to them consistently closer to 1) the sound of an original musical event or to 4) the sound of live music?

If you use 2 to create 1 and 4, you will achieve 3.

You can create 3 by any approach that the audiophile feels satisfied with

 

[Kal Rubinson]

BTW, should we consider that identifying the characteristics of the sonic signature of the subway or traffic in some recordings is a sign of system neutrality?

Why not? But the real point is the converse: If there is an abiding and consistent tonal character shared by all recordings (including traffic), it is a sure sign of the lack of neutrality.

 

[NorthStar]

Dear all

I had an epiphany today visit a very good dealer called Analogue Seduction in the UK.

I was testing 3 speakers with which I used my own amp:
Spendors
Harbeth 30.1
Dynaudio 40th anniversary standmounts

Now I must say I found the Spendors utterly dull with my amp.
The Harbeths added a real touch of warmth and tone likewise the Dynaudio - that we're perhaps a tad warmer and more musical.

Now the Harbeths, although very good were ever so 'matters of fact' to my mind very 'correct'
I knew in my heart that the Dynaudios were not entirely neutral (although wee are not talking gushing lush warmth).

But what I found out, perhaps a tad embarrassingly so, is my appreciation of some warmth, body and colour. In other words I preferred a sound away from 'the Absolute Sound' - the aspiration to neutrality that as an audiophile I have always claimed to aspire to.

1- Now do you think this is at all odd? 2- moreover, it is anything for me to feel a tad embarrassed about? 3- Or is it a case of me simply 'growing up' and thinking 'c'est la vie' and just enjoying it?

It then poses the question - perhaps related to Rons thread about neutrality - 4- what is our reference?
5- My question is how important is this against connecting our souls to the music?

In my defence I will say that when I have heard live music un-amplified it surprises me how much warm and full of body it is than 'precise image placement hi fi'.

I'd love to hear your thoughts

thanks

My thoughts ...

1- Absolutely not, we all have our preferences; it's our own best friend...just like our dog.

2- To feel a tad embarrassed about, no.

3- Simplicity of life is a good philosophy to live happier, I think.

4- Perhaps a good quality pair of headphones? A professional music recording engineer monitors through a good set of headphones and a pair of quality monitors (loudspeakers). Bruce our resident might have some of the best insights for good reference.

5- Your last question made me smile pleasantly. It brings all the other questions with their answers to our own personal satisfaction in life about our close connection to the music we like and how it sounds to us...physically and spiritually...the soul of the music.

 

[DaveC]

The main question is that is the criteria for sounding similar is extremely subjective. It looks hat you are addressing is system resolution, not coloration. But I would be very happy if you told us the 10 recordings you refer and what you look in them when looking for your "neutrality".

I'd agree and also say that the element of subjectivity can't be eliminated entirely as we still have the "Circle of Confusion" wrt recording and playback that most here are familiar with already.

Because of this we have to rely on relative comparisons to determine neutrality, without any system that can be defined as actually neutral.

Some of this is not so difficult... resolution is an easy comparison to make.... other things are more problematic, such as the perception of "correct" timbre, tonal balance, etc.

I would also say that almost everyone without exception prefers some added warmth and "extension" of harmonic decay in a system to make up for imperfections in the system and recording/playback process.

 

[morricab]

Let’s take 3 different systems....one is built around bookshelf speakers in a small room, another is built around floor standing speakers in a large room, the third is built around panel speakers.
Within their operating bandwidths all 3 systems can be neutral, neither adding to nor subtracting from the tracks they play, but their presentations will be very different

No they will all be colored differently.

 

[morricab]

While I, again, fully agree with you, I think that the issue of consistency cannot be over-emphasized. A system that consistently applies any characteristic, no matter how warm, wonderful, exciting and musically rewarding, to all recordings is simply wrong, not neutral and, imho, distorting*. While certainly not (yet) achieved, a neutral system should present recordings and, indeed, performances in different venues as distinguishable as they are in fact. Whether such reproduction is presented as warm or not should be purely a function of the recording and the performance event.

Let me add that I have no argument for those who want a particular sound and achieve it by a system which imposes it on all recordings, I do not consider such a high quality and/or high fidelity system, regardless of price, size or dynamic output. Fun for some, maybe.

*An analogy would be to the observation that a stopped clock is right only twice a day (and for barely a fleeting moment).

Same goes for any system that is consistently cool, analytical and providing only an intellectual exercise...this too is wrong and is unfortunately the prevailing “high end” sound of “neutrality “.

 

[morricab]

The main question is that is the criteria for sounding similar is extremely subjective. It looks hat you are addressing is system resolution, not coloration. But I would be very happy if you told us the 10 recordings you refer and what you look in them when looking for your "neutrality".

Coloration May or May not impact resolution...

 

[morricab]

I'd agree and also say that the element of subjectivity can't be eliminated entirely as we still have the "Circle of Confusion" wrt recording and playback that most here are familiar with already.

Because of this we have to rely on relative comparisons to determine neutrality, without any system that can be defined as actually neutral.

Some of this is not so difficult... resolution is an easy comparison to make.... other things are more problematic, such as the perception of "correct" timbre, tonal balance, etc.

I would also say that almost everyone without exception prefers some added warmth and "extension" of harmonic decay in a system to make up for imperfections in the system and recording/playback process.

When a systems distortion pattern mimics our own ear/brains pattern then warmth or lack thereof will be almost entirely recording dependent. What I hate to hear is when decay is unnaturally truncated , which I often hear even very high end systems and when most recordings come off as analytical or cold tonally...just as wrong as always warm but less pleasant...

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Same goes for any system that is consistently cool, analytical and providing only an intellectual exercise...this too is wrong and is unfortunately the prevailing “high end” sound of “neutrality “.

Agreed. In such cases, the term is improperly used.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

When a systems distortion pattern mimics our own ear/brains pattern then warmth or lack thereof will be almost entirely recording dependent.

What "ear/brains pattern" is being mimicked? Do you really mean personal bias?