neutrality vs. realism


What is actually the final goal of high-end audio: to reproduce recorded music as neutral as possible or to give the highest possible level of realism? For some manufacturers (like Spectral and Madrigal) it is the ultimate goal regarding their amplifiers, to sound like no amplifier at all. There is less coloration, less "house sound", more "truthfulness". I think this is a good basic consideration, but it must not derive the sound of it's musicality. Those amplifiers are generally sounding lifeless! Don't get me wrong, this is not about the tubes vs. solid state controverse at all, because I think that solid state amplifiers are able to give a high level of musicality without sacrificing neutrality (Boulder, FM Acoustics). What seems perfect on paper is not always the way to go: "neutrality" and "perfect measurements" are not the synonyms for musicality and realism.
dazzdax

Showing 2 responses by cdc

Agreed, Onhwy61. Also getting back to Rives' room acoustic post.
Once a stereo has reached "perfection" it's the recording which will make or break the reality. Until recordings are perfect, a perfect stereo will show off the recording's faults. Maybe a more musical stereo is better on bad recordings.
Also the perfect stereo needs the correct room to recreate the acoustics of the original event.
The most realistic playback is when a song is new to me and the ear is fooled - at first, for a little while.
Although once got the volume, reverb, and room acoustics just right and felt like Jimmy Hendrix was right in the room. Never could duplicate that again.
Since mics, etc. will always take away something from the original sound, it would seem components would have to add some of that back. Meaning the must put out more than they get in.
Not the best example but: say SET's are quicker than reality. Since some speed is lost in the recording process, SET's just put it back at the realistic amount of the original event.