IMHO, a systems resolution, i.e. its ability to resolve and present all of the information in the recording in a balanced manner, linear if you will, combined with an overall tone that pleases you is all that counts.
There is no recorded performance that will ever sound like a live event involving acoustic instruments in an appropriate space. You can't record it the way it would be heard live, which BTW would be totally dependent on your physical location in the room/hall, etc. The music in the front rows, back of the hall, and in the balconies are all totally different in perspective as well as tonal balance. And, even if you could, there is no equipment available which could recreate it accurately. We are severly limited in our ability to recreate the speed and dynamics involved in live performances. That is a given and will be readily apparent to anyone familar with acoustic instruments played in live space.
So what are we left with? 'Resolution' so we can hear all that it in the pits and grooves' and tonality that pleases our ears and expectations. Personally I have a hard time understanding the meaning of 'neutrality' in the context of an audio systems recreation of music' as the term is foreign to the process. No audio system can ever be anymore neutral than we as listeners can ever be truly objective.
I put myself to sleep............:-) |
Byron, Isn't that sort of an oxymoron, an 'objective' audiophile. What would you like him to be objective about?
The is almost an artform exercise and is almost totally, from cradle to grave, based on someones opinions about the best manner to record the music, the miking/mixing, the putting on a recording medium, the design of the hardware, most especially the speakers, as well as the sensitivities of the audiophile in thier selection, matching, and room selection and set up.
What is there to be objective about - everything in the chain, including the end users, is based on someone's personal decisions in what they liked best and thought conveyed the music the best for their audience. Some times they succeeded, sometimes they failed. But they were never objective in any sense that I can understand. There was no science. It still all boiled down to how they valued what they heard. Pretty subjective I think............. |
Cbw (& Byron), I have never taken any exception to the point that as you remove distortion artifacts from your system the more easily you will hear all of the information in the pits and grooves. Byron has discovered this as he has improved the quality of the stuff in his room he has been appreciating the differences and his ability to discern them. Removing distortion enhances the sense of resolution.
Assuming that the collective manufacturers had the ability to make distortion free equipment and audiophiles exhausted all of the possibles in system/room set up, one could clearly state that he had a truly "Neutral" system. A perfect world. You would only need one set of speakers, one amp, one source, varing only by the nature of the acoustic. You could do this with a computer I think. Life would be so easy.
But in my view 'neutrality' really doesn't and cannot exist because it is a term like life or death, neutrality is an absolute thing. There is no room for equivication. It is either neutral or it isn't. Like being pregnant! No halfway measures.
But we can talk about distortion in its many forms in the various components, acoustic venues, and equipment set up, which influence our hearing experience. When I go to a symphony I want to sit in the center of the main floor about 6 to 10 rows back in most classic halls. I get loads of detail, imaging, and dynamic's. You've got to sit there an listen to Mahler! This is the sound, tonally speaking, I want in my home. Is it neutral? Compared to what. Sitting in the lower balcony? Sitting in the upper balconies or the back of the main floor. No it is not more neutral, it is different and it is live, i.e. real.
Apart from getting all of the resolution you can get from assembling components and setting up you system in your room there isn't much you can do to establish a system that is really neutral. The sound you hear is still the collective sound of all of the components, speakers, and room acoustics. What makes you assess the resulting sound as neutral is nothing more that the free use of your imagination. I would suggest that 'natural' would be a move achievable goal in the real world.
FWIW. |
Mapman, IMHO your last two posts are the soul of great wisdom. I can't believe that this thread is still alive, and, apparently, well. :-) |
Bryon, I don't know why your use of the word 'neutrality' bugs me so, but it does and I hope you will forgive my deviation from neutrality and sort of reiterate what I said in my last post.
I have a bit of a challenge for you. How will you know when what you are hearing from a component is true neutrality to the source, or if not, how much it deviates from true neutrality, if not by hearing it thru a collection of components previously assembled by you. Consider that perhaps none of the components previously assembled by you are in fact neutral but just complimentary and happen to meet your expectations of what you think neutrality sounds like, and the new component introduced is just synergistic with these other components.
IMHO, when it is all said and done, if we care at all, we all have systems consisting of complimentary components reproducing our software in a manner in which we believe it was originally set down, or, god forbid, a manner in which we found great pleasure. There is no evil in using colored components, especially if you conclude as I think you must, that there is no such thing as an uncolored component. Its just a matter of degrees and sensitivities. Recall that my 'god' is resolution, something far more achievable and observable.
You asked how I could question your views on neutrality in a post subsequent to my last post. I hope you have now, after reading this and rereading my previous post(s) come to an understanding of what I disagree with you about and why. |
Byron, IMHO we simply disagreed on the use of the term neutral as it applies to this hobby and it appears that we just continue to do so. My ignorance, or inflexibility, perhaps. So be it. I've said far more than I ever intended.
BTW i never thought you had a commercial interest in audio but if by using this thread to expose a tad of contempt for those that do, when what they do is based on false premises, I've go to plead guilty to availing myself of the opportunity without regards to your sensitivities.
Ciao |
Byron, It's hard to argue with your new, or restated, position. Not many nits, for me anyway, that are worth picking or restating. But you lost me with your conclusion that getting to your optimum combiniation of resolution, transparancy, and neutrality, allowed one to get lost in the music. It may allow YOU to get lost, but consider that this is a very personal experience and might well not be shared by many others.
You have stated, under the caption High Resolution, High Neutrality "Its easy to get lost in the music when listening to this system........".
IMHO listening to MUSIC is easily distinguished from listening to the sonic character of audio components by playing recordings of music. And I think this is worth restating, especially for those who might be inclined to adopt your conclusion about the value of a highly resolved, transparen/neutral system.
When you have an audio system that is highly resolved and highly neutral/transparent etc, as you describe, you will hear all of the warts in the recording process including mic placement, edits, mixing, instrument highlighting, etc. None of which is natural to a live performance in any sense but which is a construct for the purpose of reducing the music to a recording format in a manner that will reproduce a sense of space when played back at home.
Of course the more successful the recording process the more successful the illusion when played back at home. The perfect recording played back over a perfect system in a perfect room would be a wonderful experience (I must assume I'm afraid - I've never heard it). Not live, but one you could certainly get lost in listening to the music. Maybe that proves your point, but........
Very few recordings come even remotely close to recording a performance in a natural style that comes accross as such when played back at home. If your interest is in sound and audio recording practices your optomized system is fine. You will hear all that is in the pits and grooves. But that does not cause ME to become absorbed in the MUSIC unless and until I have to trained my ears/mind to listen thru all of the artifice that the recording process adds to the performance or my recordings are, or close to, perfect replications of the live event.
I must conclude that if one is inclined to prize neutrality to the source more than some of us music enthusiasts, who are comfortible in seeking systems that manage to combine both resolution and tonality which may not be up to the sound enthusiasts level of approval, but which allow us to get lost in the MUSIC without the constant reminders that we are just listening to a RECORDING of music, that it is a perfectly valid audio goal, but it is not exclusive of other goals.
Before you consider posting and reminding me of all of your qualifying statements, as you have previously done, consider that this post would not have occurred if you had not made the statement about what conditions allowed you to get lost in the music. That statement, to me nullifies most of your qualifying statements and reflects your real priorities, which many of us do not share, no matter how artfully you try to present them. But since you want to enlighten us, let me share the spirit. The word 'unique' as you have used in your original post, is absolute, it cannot be (should not be) modified further by using terms like less or more as is so commonly done. And, FWIW, my musical collection is very diverse - I fail to understand how changing the quality of my audio system will ever make my collection more diverse. But then, I listen to the MUSIC in the first place, so would never make these errors.
Almarg, I tried but I just can't emulate you. Damm......:-) |
Shadrone, You are right. I put 4 of those little blue pills adjacent to some EL84's. After the amp warmed up it sounded like an octet of KT90's. Wonder what a picture of Penelope Cruz would do................Sure would keep my hand out of the blue pill jar! |
Cbw723, You are right civility is very important and hostility is always out of place. I should have stopped at the end of my second sentence in the last paragraph by which time I had said all that was on my mind regarding the subject at hand. |
Gee, I was only gone for a week or so and I come back to find this thread still active. But it does seem to have morf'd into something completely different from the original post where in, as I interpreted it, Bryon was informing us that he had discovered by increasing the quality of his components he was hearing far better replications of the recordings he was playing and he could hear differences that had previously lost. No problem there! Most anyone willing to be called an audiophile would agree with that - we've all been there/done that.
Then we argued at great length the meaning(s) of the words 'neutrality', 'transparency', 'resolution', and lastly (thanks to Al) a word, which for me is easier to grasp, 'accurate'. Despite noble attempts, perhaps even Herculean, by Bryon I doubt that any of us really agree on the subtle differences if any (I can tell by deeply gazing into my crystal ball).
Now we have moved on to discussing acceptable synergy, or attempts at synergy, which are consonant with recreating a feeling of being in the presence of live music or in the studio listening to the music over the studio monitors as heard by the recording engineers.
Sort of a fundamental objective of most audiophiles. One group wants to hear a replication of the sounds of live music, the other group wants to hear as closely as possible what is in the pits and grooves. And, I think, we agree that these are for the most part not mutually achievable and most audiophiles make a chose between these goals when setting up or, more likely, enhancing an extant system.
Some folks think you can only get there with tubes. The 'live' group I think.
Some folks think you can only get there thru SS stuff. The fidelity to the recording group I think.
Some folks think you can only get there thru Analog.
Some folks think you can only get there thru HiRes digital. The divergence seems endless. I'm a true heretic. I'm into playing with and fine tuning with tubes! I'm standing in line to be burned at the stake.
Which leads me to ask, assuming that we have discussed adequately all of the philosophical issues, how does the aspiring audiophile utilize anything in this post to help him achieve his goals?
Al, a degree perhaps, but in what. :-) |
FWIW, amoungst my failings, please include a total lack of editing skills. Total! :-) |
Al, I for one, have no reason why I couldn't agree with your proposal as suggested in the 1st sentence of your last paragraph.
Loosly interperted I see that proposal as agreeing that one can improve the quality of his audio system by the addition of components which have better audio characteristics that those that were replaced, without regard to whether it was because of any specific attribute or symply because of better synergy. Bryon attributes the improvements to 'neutrality' and I think that is where we start to go different paths.
Unfortunately I get lost in the symantics, i.e. the differences between transparency, resolution, neutrality and accuracy, as well as their utilization by folks who consider themselves to be either objectivists or subjectivists. I think we all use them differently even though our use may be considered inaccurate or inconsistent.
It appears that Bryon considers himself an 'objectivist' and his goal of 'neutrality' is the correct one, for him at least. And I say good for him! He has a defined a goal.
Unfortunately, there are often underlying issues inherrent in this type of thread which are often decried loudly and crudely. I do not know that this is the case here, but frankly I concluded long ago that this thread was an artful construct to further an unattractive goal. But, that is just me, my cynicism may be misplaced. The poster is relatively new to the forum. Time will tell. |
Al, I doubt you are dying to hear from me again, but what the hell.
It might be helpful if Bryon didn't include the word 'music' as being "more unique". He is actually talking about sound and the quality thereof, not music. Consider that some audio enthusiasts used to demo their systems with recording of jets taking off or the sounds made by trains on a track or their whistles.
It might be helpful if he didn't referring to one's 'music collection' becoming more diverse. The music itself, nor the number of extant recordings in one's collection, doesn't become more 'diverse', only the ability to discern the differences in the sound being delivered by the system can be enhanced by refining the quality of a systems components. The music collection doesn't become more diverse, only the ability to discern the amount of information in the pits and grooves becomes more acute. Perhaps that would increase his appreciation of some of the records in his collection - and that would be a good thing. Conversely one could discover that the more you could hear on some of your recordings the less you might appreciate listening to them ergo your usable collection might actually diminish.
I have always found it interesting, and inexplicable, why someone with the experience with audio, education, attention to detail, and command of the English language, would come up with such lame descriptions (IMHO of course - I realize others are willing to infer meanings that I will not) of what the effects of 'neutrality' are (as he uses the term) as if his observations related to 'music' when in fact they relate only to sound from an audio system, which IMHO, is better described when you relate how your system improves when you eliminate/reduce/alter 'colors' (a term far too inclusive for my tastes). He could talk about the effects of diminishing distortion's (kinda broad too), the effects of rise times and decays, the effect of tonal deviations from 'flat', the effect of different components synergy with any given speaker system, speaker system set up, room issues, ad infinitum, all of which add to or detract from some concept of neutrality/transparency/accuracy or sense of resolution.
I think the post/conversation might have been far more interesting to some of us if we were to discuss what an optimum system (on paper) might be and why, starting with the most important selection of your speakers system. Dynamic/cones. Electrostats. Horns. Planers. Line source, ribbon, cone, or electrostats. And working back to the amp and sources.
Obviously each speaker design and implementation produces different results. And that is where we will get into problems when we try to (assuming that we even do, although I think most experienced audiophiles do) recreate a home system which even begins to approach a sense of faithfulness to the recorded signal.
So, for me, I think it is not possible to change a few words in his post that would make it something I could agree with. If it were reduced to something like "As I improved the quality of my system's components, I found the sound became more clear, the sound was usually more enjoyable. In fact it sounds to me just as I would imagine it was recorded and I have found myself listening to more of my recordings, previously rejected for sonic reasons. I think my system is achieving a sense of reality that I can relate to."
Sorry I cannot be more accommodating. I'd like to be. :-) |
Al, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who has difficulty with Bryon's 'operationalization of neutrality' used as a description of how to judge the sound of a system.
Perhaps I'm just exposing my ignorance, but I might be less resistive if Bryon, or anyone, could in a brief paragraph explain how one, in actual practice, utilizes this 'methodology', and if possible how this 'tool' or 'methodology' differs substantially from what audiophiles do every day when playing with their toys without placing a title on the process, i.e. as I described in the last paragraph of my last post. |
Dgarretson - Well stated, summed up, and I agree totally. I think. :-) |
Viagra and sex! I thought that Shadrone's comments were the highlights of this thread as it now stands.
Frankly I think I'd rather read 'Atlas Shrugged', 'The Fixer', or 'War and Peace'. Atlas Shrugged because I'm still looking for John Galt, The Fixer because it reminds me that not everything ends well despite all hope, and War and Peace because at least as difficult as it is to remember all those Russian names in the end it is at least an entertaining read.
All hope is lost for those just finding this thread. :-). |
Dgarretson, YOU are as sharp as a tack! Love your response and sense of humor as well. I have been hectoring a bit (too much) haven't I.
But troll, I don't think so.
I thought the term Troll was reserved for folks who posted threads on controversial subjects in which people are known to have strong diverse opinions and resolution is not possible. A thread that predictably sucks in readers to responding (in good faith) to no good end except for the opportunities it provided the OP.
The appearance of this thread certainly could be evidence of the activity of a troll. One thing is clear, and the OP admitted this somewhere in his posts, he loves to argue and considers himself quite skilled. One could think that his husbanding of the direction of the subject was a little over the top considering the issues involved and that it was more in furtherance of his love of arguing than for anything else. At least I did.
You guys can continue your discussions in peace now. I'll hector no more. |
Bryon, I would like to apologize to you for my acts of hostility, in what ever form they appeared. For the most part my hostile remarks were the result of a premature conclusion that you were a Troll, not just an audiophile wanting to revive and discuss an old controversy from a different prospective. Clearly you are NOT a Troll.
You are RIGHT, I think, when you observe that some subjectivists can be objectivists. I'm certainly an objectivist when it comes to pratical resolution of tangible issues. Finding and taking the shortest path to a goal is a fundamental goal for me. I can see that I should, and will, try to avoid participating in philosophical discussions and stick to those threads where a resolution of more practical issues are possible and are subject to a summing up easily understood by posters who are trying to understand this hobby in simple terms.
This thread has been a valuable learning experience for a lot of folks IMHO. |
"A camera has only one eye"
It hasn't always been so, but beyond the novelty of stereo cameras and viewers, it passed and mono prevailed. Interesting that the depth it provided was seen for what it was, yet in audio some folks still think more can be accomplished to enhance our experience of listening to music when it is in stereo.
Like photographers getting all caught up in equipment and its performance, audiophiles get all caught up in equipment and its sound, neither of which have much to do with the creativity of either art form. IMHO. |
FWIW, Mr T started out talking about 'neutrality' being an absolute (like the word 'unique' perhaps) and I happen to agree with him.
You do not modify an absolute term. It is or it ain't, at least according to my old English teacher who reprimanded me for trying to make something more 'unique' than it already must have been when I chose that word to describe it. But then the word morphed into 'accuracy' and posters felt that was not an absolute term and could be appropriately modified. In common usage I agree. It makes sense to me. But them, if it is not already evident, I'm not an English major.
Will the real English major amongst us come forward and explain the proper use of these terms, i.e. neutral and accurate. I think that many of us might benefit and then we can get back to arguing about things audio. |
Bryon, Your last post raises an issue I was not expecting. I'm sure I must have missed it somewhere, but can you direct me to the post(s) in which the participants actually stipulated to the meanings and use of the terms you refer to. I must have missed it. FWIW, and it is not an issue I want to reopen, I made my objection to your use of the word neutral or neutrality, with some specificity, on page 1.
Your last post is excellent, at least in its creativity if not its totality, and I would agree with the conclusions you reach, provided that you can furnish evidence of the actual existence of an expressed 'stipulation', written or oral, and its acceptance by thread participants.
Not to put too fine a point on my post I was really trying to suggest to Mr Tennis that his posts were turning this thread more into a matter of semantics and introduced nothing new except a willingness to be pedantic. Upon reflection perhaps I'm no better.
BTW, FWIW, since the proper use of the English language has arisen, I would still like to hear from someone with the appropriate credentials regarding the proper use of these words in ordinary language, written or spoken, absent any 'stipulation'.
:-) |
Bryon, FWIW, I've never considered the mere collection of common opinions on any subject to be anything more than just that. What these opinions show, for the most part anyway, is that these particular individuals supported the use of 'neutral' as a descriptive term, and some of them were willing to modify the term in a gradient manner to illustrate the deviation from neutrality that they felt existed. So be it. They are very much entitled to this opinion both to hold and express. And to the extent that this facilitates the flow of a discussion as well as a resolution of the issues, that is a good thing too. However, to me, this does not constitute a stipulated agreement as I have come to know such.
But, assuming for the sake of argument that a 'stipulated agreement' does exist, even then it would only bind on the participants who have expressly agreed. So if I believe that 'neutral' is an absolute term, or if Mr T believes that 'accuracy' is a similar absolute term, we have the right to hold and express our opinions on the subject.
BTW, FWIW, I believe that 'English majors', especially those who have gone on to teach in our schools, are perfectly qualified to offer advise of the proper use of words. Certainly at least such common ones as we are discussing. Contrary to your statement I think their expertise is hardly restricted to 'diction' nor that they would need to be semanticists, as you imply, to assist us in such a simple tasks.
But all of this is really of little consequence. Time to move on..................
|
Bryon, you say that 'neutrality is not an all or nothing thing'. We disagree!
At the risk of being redundant, neutrality is the end result of combining many components of sound, including absolute resolution and perfect frequency response. Rather than refer to 'neutrality' I think it is more productive to refer to its components, if for no other reason than it helps folks achieve their goals. Using the term neutrality as a goal is, for me, no different that using the phrase absolute sound, i.e. live music (thanks to Harry Pearson). It is unachievable and serves no really worthwhile purpose other than to put consumers on an endless (and expensive) pursuit (goal) of the achieving the impossible.
It works well for folks with commercial interests though. Nothing better in fact. How would you ever be able to sell stuff without having pretention to moving one closer to the goal of live sounds or neutrality. And, somehow, I sense from a lot of posts in these pages that folks who don't buy into these goals as having great value to them are gently (or not so by some self absorbed, self proclaimed sound experts) treated as audio's leapers.
Someone mentioned in this or another post that in his pursuit of some form of audio perfection he had lost his ability to just get involved with and enjoy the music as he had experienced in the past with lesser equipment and different interests. His experience is not unique. In fact there is a long lived thread "How do I get off this carousel" or something like that. Many folks, myself included, have at some point, become so absorbed with counting the trees we can no longer see the forest. When we sit down in the listening chair we are more focused on the 'sounds' and get sucked into questioned ourselves about how we could improve the sound, i.e. how can I get better depth of image, how can I get a higher image, how can I get better bass, ad infinitum. At one point I realized I was so sbsorbed when I found I was actually enjoying the MUSIC more when I was listening to it from a nearby room (my office) and couldn't hear all of those highly prised 'audiophile' attributes such as imaging etc.
Anyway, that's what I really think, I think. |
