Mrtennis, I have given up that quest, nor will I trust most who might tell me there is such a speaker.
Norm, don't tell me you purchased a speaker just because it sounds good and you enjoy it?
What in the world is this site coming to...
How do you judge your system's neutrality?
Here’s an answer I’ve been kicking around: Your system is becoming more neutral whenever you change a system element (component, cable, room treatment, etc.) and you get the following results:
(1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique.
(2) Your music collection sounds more diverse.
This theory occurred to me one day when I changed amps and noticed that the timbres of instruments were suddenly more distinct from one another. With the old amp, all instruments seemed to have a common harmonic element (the signature of the amp?!). With the new amp, individual instrument timbres sounded more unique and the range of instrument timbres sounded more diverse. I went on to notice that whole songs (and even whole albums) sounded more unique, and that my music collection, taken as a whole, sounded more diverse.
That led me to the following idea: If, after changing a system element, (1) individual pieces of music sound more unique, and (2) your music collection sounds more diverse, then your system is contributing less of its own signature to the music. And less signature means more neutral.
Thoughts?
P.S. This is only a way of judging the relative neutrality of a system. Judging the absolute neutrality of a system is a philosophical question for another day.
P.P.S. I don’t believe a system’s signature can be reduced to zero. But it doesn’t follow from that that differences in neutrality do not exist.
P.P.P.S. I’m not suggesting that neutrality is the most important goal in building an audio system, but in my experience, the changes that have resulted in greater neutrality (using the standard above) have also been the changes that resulted in more musical enjoyment.
Showing 7 responses by albertporter
Albert: I'll never, ever forget those incredible analog photos of yours, featuring various Benz cartridges for Garth of Musical Surroundings. That was way back when I'd first met you. You had these cartridges blown up to somewhere around 20 or 24 inches, with perfect clarity. The resolution was/is just insane. And to have such perfection when the blown ups were room display sized. Does Garth still use these? He should. Believe it or not those were from 4X5 film, the 8X10 camera produced even greater resolution. I used 8X10 for Interstate Battery, Bank of America and other clients that wanted perfection. The cost was very high, from the camera and lens to the 8X10 Polaroid proofs, film and process. What you saw at CES were real (Kodak paper) color prints. Digital photography has pretty much taken over, for better or worse. Much like the music business. It's just too easy for clients to make copies, send in email, prep for four color printing and manipulating the image for alternate purposes. If I were doing the job today and wanted equal resolution I would have to rent something. The ultra high resolution digital systems for photography are super expensive (about $80K). So unless you have clients with deep pockets there is no way to justify the expenditure. Like digital in music, easy to get cheap copies (think MP3 and photo from iPhone :^). The big Nikon and Canon 24 million pixel cameras are unbelievably good but not yet up with the ultimate film could deliver. When I do jobs today I never quote film. Film is difficult to impossible to get and all the labs in Dallas that processed pro film have pretty much shut down their lines. |
Interesting comments by Learsfool and Bryoncunningham. For myself, I would say that digital photography is FAR ahead of digital audio.Agreed, and again because the music distribution companies limit what the public has access to whereas camera manufacturers MUST do their best for creators (photographers) who will move to better systems to please their clients and justify their fees. The serious point is that the audiophile has some role in controlling the representation of the musical event, but a far lesser role, it seems to me, than the photographer has in controlling the representation of a visual event. Well said by Bryon, and again the photographer has tools to create an ORIGINAL work, pretty much limited only by what he and the client are willing to spend. If the new Nikon and Canon 24 Million chip is not enough, there are large cameras with associated computer in tether that can create files so large that almost anything can be done with them (resolution wise). The digital image business is driven by advertising and commercial and somewhat by portrait and wedding. When Apple makes billions offering MP3, then Sony, Phillips and others that have the power to offer ultimate digital music to us feel it would be pearls before swine. That's a shame because I suspect the original high resolution digital file (in the studio) would stun us into silence in our complaints about the shortcoming of digital audio. Sadly it seems we will not be offered that quality level and for that reason I purchase as many analog master tapes as possible. That's as good as it gets for us music lovers until something better is offered. 15 IPS half track probably compares in the analog photo world to the beautiful 8X10 Kodak and Fuji chromes from my Swiss made Sinar view camera. Most people have no concept how much resolution a piece of film this size contains. Area is greater than an entire roll (36 exposures) of 35MM film, simply stunning. |
Kijanki, The question began as a query as to how I achieved the large images shown at CES some years ago. I answered the question truthfully. I'm a professional photographer and I justified my rates by overcoming very difficult technical obstacles. I'm sure you're not the only one who appreciates the speed and ease that digital provides but that was not the question. As for lenses that operate at F 64, my camera had all bench matched lenses from Sinar, Switzerland. They also manufacture electronic lighting which was employed for for nearly 100% of the images I produced. A single pop at 1/60 of a second could easily expose 8X10 film at F 90. As always there are tools for whatever level of quality is required. |
What about large size digital sensors - how do the compare to same size film quality? None of my customers so far are willing to pay enough for me to move above the 24 million pixel Nikon-Canon category. I suspect the Nikon (their best is slightly better than the Canon) would easily compare with Hasselblad 2.25" square and maybe approaching 4X5 depending on which film and lens were used on the 4X5. Phase One has a back that does 60 million pixel captures. Approx. 180 MB files with a 12 stop dynamic range at 8 bit. Basic kit starts about $45,000.00. That would defeat 4X5 (in my opinion) but have not tested it. Technology is available to displace even the best 8X10 and 11X14 inch film cameras, but at super high price. Here's a superb example that none of us could afford but I'm certain is current state of the art (smile). Ultimate digital camera |
Can Albert Porter explain the photography thing for us? I'm sure a lot of people spend big money on cameras too in the name of accuracy stuff like depth of field, sharp focus, correct colors. But why then is that okay, while an expensive stereo is crazy? Thanks for the email heads up on this thread, I've been totally slammed with both stereo buzz and photo work. I'm happy to have Boy Scouts of America job on Monday, which should be a blast. As for expensive cameras versus expensive stereo, they do different things (obviously). A photographer is the creator of the image and gets to own the original (highest quality) version of the image captured regardless if it's film or digital. With stereo we audiophiles are typically last in line, we take what the artists and recording companies offer and hope to recreate that as close to possible to what we hope is an accurate version of the event. It gets difficult with music since many artists alter the music with effects and then the recording chain alters it again, sometimes even deliberately limiting frequencies, compressing or otherwise making the music "more suitable" for the masses. With both photography and music there is a hope to capture beauty, emotion and accuracy as best we can. The big limitation with photography is the camera has only one "eye" where we see with two. At lest in modern recordings we have stereo (or multichannel) which at least attempts to recreate the space and multiple sounds that we experience in real life. With either it's a very difficult task. We should be grateful to have all the technology we have today. Stereo has never been better and regardless if you prefer Ansel Adams Black and White approach or ultra high resolution digital we at least have a choice. |