3ox, I am reminded of the joke concerning an audiophile going to a concert (classical) and saying "there isn't enough bass slam!" Most audiophiles are pursuing a system that gives them the sound that they are looking for, hence equipment that tailors the recording to their version of "reality".
Bob P. |
Seems to me either goal is simply unreachable. And that most systems can even approach either goal in one or two areas. So we're down to "picking our poison", deciding for ourselves what is most important to the individual.
A small system can do a creditable job of reproducing reasonably accurate timbers, but will not play loud, have bass or dynamic power and will present a small soundstage. Bigger systems can create larger sound with extended height illusions, play loud and go deep but it seems the bigger they are the harder getting the actual "sounds of the instruments" right seems to be.
While I would not set up measurements as the be-all end-all, it is interesting to note in reviews where measurements are present how even a small relatively inexpensive speaker can measure pretty flat, but large systems almost always have very significant frequency response anomalies.
And in practice, I have heard many high$ high end systems that were very impressive but didn't seem to reproduce instumental timbers as well as my little pair of LS3/5A monitors. And I have a problem personally spending BIG bucks for a speaker that in some areas can be outdone by a much less expensive or involved system. I have focused mostly on speakers here, but the other components do add to the fun!
So where does that leave us? We go to concerts to listen live and try to get a system that gives the "gestalt" of music to each of us, all using his own criteria of what aspects of live sound most trigger our pleasure response. Hopefully. I have heard many audiophiles brag thet their system was so good and revealing that they could only listen to 10% of their recordings with pleasure! I am not sure what the fun is in that, but hey, whatever!
|
Sof762, you might have preferred the CD version of Bofill to the live performance also!
Bob P. |
Every one of the above posters has given descriptions that are right on the money. The interesting part of all these discussions is that it leads me to conclude what I have intuitively known all along. The room and the equipment become one and the real difference is between ones ears. People have preferences for everything from colors to human features. I've always wondered if the blue I see is the same color inside another persons head. I also wonder the same thing about sound. |
Thsalmon: Right on! Your descriptions, although generalized, match my impressions exactly in every case. Funny how that works!
Re the original post, I'm not sure what point is being made here. "Neutrality" and "Realism" ought to be one and the same, so maybe I'm not understanding the definitions. In my mind, both describe a desire to approach the original recorded sound as closely as possible, without "romantic" or "euphonic" colorations (which many people undoubtedly prefer to realism). Unless maybe you are referring to neutrality as a measurement quality rather than a sonic one, in which case you have a point. By the way, I have never felt Madrigal products to be anywhere near neutral, at least by my definition of the term. They have always sounded extremely polite and sanitized, and quite lacking in life. Many people would refer to this as "refined", and some might even call it "neutral", but I think that is a misnomer. "Neutral" to me means that you can't tell the component is there, and that is most certainly not the case with their products. Granted, their deviations from neutrality are on the "subtractive" side rather than the "additive" side (eg, Krell), but they are not neutral. |
What is realism and is it good? I just went to see Angela Bofill in a small theater. Between the "commercial" electronics and speakers it wasn't that pleasant...
The next day I put her lp on my Linn with Levinson gear and Martin Logan spkrs and WOW! I liked her better on vinyl
then "live". Now what??
And the discussion about the measurements is what us Linn folks have been saying about CD's from the beginning. A electronic measuring device are NOT my ears. CD's may replicate scientifically music notes but what does that mean musicality. No IMHO. |
I think this thread might better be called Neutrality vs. Musicality.
However, before I start, I must reiterate a tirade that I get into everytime folks start talking about realism. We must always remember that on every recording we play on our wonderful hi end systems we are listening not only to the chain of components in out hi end systems but also to:
1 - The artists playing the music/singing (of coarse) & the room they are being recorded in
2 - The microphones that are recording #1
3 - The cables that are attached to #2
4 - The mixing board/device that is attached to #3
5 - The recording device that is actually recording the music onto a master medium
6 - The master medium being copied onto another medium that can be played in your Hi End system
All of the above, we are at the mercy of the folks that recorded the music. To really achieve any sense of realism, a recoding engineer must know what he is doing, and must use the best recording devices he can (devices that are well matched like a fine hi end audio system).
Even taking the utmost care in recording, getting 'truly live sound' from most recordings is NOT EVEN THE ENDING GOAL (most of the time). Many music production companies just want their stuff to be ablel to sound good on the average jambox. A few specialty recording labels (e.g. Chesky), do use high quality audio reference systems to moniter their recordings.
Thus, the odds of ever getting truly live realistic sound out of any recording using any hi end system are... well... are very slim if not impossible.
What is possible, however, is to get a good sense of the music and the artists creating it. We can hear the subtlities of the performance that make artists great. We can even get an illusion of the artist in our rooms that grabs onto our imagination, but many times is oh so surreal because live music almost invaribly never sounds like this. Heck, I have had sound engineers who have been recording music for 30 years tell me that stereo recordings really are false (so is the whole concept of soundstage) and the best recordings are in MONO because at live music due to all the sound reflections, you really only hear stuff in MONO. These guys record only in MONO. These guys probably have a point, but I am adicted to the sound of stereo.
This all being said, let me get back to Neutrality vs. Realism. Realism should be the end goal of a recording... but almost invaribly it is not. Neutrality of a hi fi system should get us to the end goal of realistic sound if it can be attained.
The problem I have with the last paragraph I just wrote is defining NEUTRALITY. What exactly are we saying when we bandy about the term 'neutrality'? Is it flat frequency response from a system??? What I say to this is good luck getting flat frequency response out of any system. Even if one's speakers can deliver a flat frequency response from 20hz to 20khz, most rooms that people listen to music (in their espective houses) will NOT have a flat frequency response with this speaker. Just to support a 20hz frequency, any idea how long a room must be? Frankly I forget... but I want to say somewhere around 100'+. This does not even take into consideration other reflections and frequency absorbtions that occur in most rooms. Then you have to consider your listening position and having your ears precisely on axis. This can be more difficult than it sounds.
Even with the capability of getting a flat 20hz to 20khz from one's speakers and one's room does not insure it is going to happen. Contrary to the myth that was started during the THD (Total Harmonic Distortion) Wars of the 80's, stated statists tell us little about an amplifer's ability to produce sound through any given speaker. One's amplification and speaker interact with each other in such a way that that they MUST be mated well together. there are reasons why their are $300 amps and $3000 amps and even $30000 amps. I could go off on this tangent for many paragraphs but I will get back to my point.
In addition to amplification one's preamplification can (and does) make a HUGE difference in how a system sounds. Preamplification can influence frequency response quite a bit. I have heard too many preamps that are rolled off both the top and bottom ends with an emphasized midrange. Additionally, your preamp must match your amp and speakers and sources.
Sources to can affect frequency response.
Anyway enough on frequency response. FR is not the end all thing in audio. One might be able to have flat frequency response from an amp / speaker / room combination; however, one's source and preamp can make HUGE impacts on the subtle details of sound that comes out of the speakers. The end detail of the sound of a system can only be as good as the sound that is coming out of the source being played.
The preamplification regulates the volume/gain of this sound, and has an amazing impact on the resolution/transparancy/detail of a system.
So what does Neutrality have to do with system resolution/transparancy/detail? This is a good question. Frequency response can be measured per se... but the actual resoultion of sound of what is being played is a mUCH more subtle thing. And measuring it... is problematic.
This is where I think the term MUSICAL enters the picture. Musical systems IMHO can convey the subtle detail that is offered by recordings. Musical systems work at getting a flat frequency response; however, due to the many problems listed above, this may not be altogether possible. HOWEVER, the trade offs a musical system has in frequency response, are made up by this presentation of detail. Musical systems are also balanced and well matched. Aiming to get the BEST SOUND POSSIBLE FROM THE SPEAKERS OF THE SYSTEM. Many speakers just cannot dynamically (or produce 20hz to 20khz flatly) come close to live music. Speakers such as Maggie 3.6's, I would say are very musical speakers. With the right electronics the 3.6's can show incredible musical detail.
Effectively, every system is limited to the end sound of the speakers of that system. And the speakers end sound is limited to the room that they are in. Neutrality is a very difficult term to define as it relates to audio systems. Musicality of a system has something to do with how well one can get their speakers to sound in the given room. Component matching is very important in a given system. Realistic sound is well... a bit of an oxymoran (most of the time) because most recordings are not recorded to be monitored as 'realistc'.
So what is the goal we are striving for as audiophiles? I would put forward the following:
To work at getting our speakers and room to sound as realistic or live sounding as possible using recordings that were recorded to sound live (unamplified music is best). Very few recordings qualify here... Most of us have to trade off frequency response and dynamics; HOWEVER, inner detail is something that is on recordings that allows us to hear what the music did sound like in the studio as it was recorded. We can hear subtilty and inner detail in our systems.
I must leave now, I wish I had more time to elaborate because I have not even adressed many other issues. And I fear I have over simplified everything I have stated above.
KF |
The listening room has more to do with realism then most equipment.Measurements are good but those measurements are done in a whole different enviroment then ones listening room.
To get the most of ones equipment and ultimately the sound of realism you must adress the home listening room and set up.A reference system with great measurement set up improperly well sound high end and not at all realistic.
This hobby to me is about how realistic I can get my rig to sound.There are so many ways to achieve realistic sound it takes years of tweaking to truely acheive this goal.
Synergy between ones equipment like stated earlier is second to acheiving realistic sound in YOUR listening room. |
i will try to add to this post as best i can. please disagree at will if you need to, i don't mind, i can always learn something as far as i am concerned
i have come to believe that if you want real music you should make a habit of attending live concerts.
however, how many of us can afford this habit, in terms of time and $$$, as often as we would like is another matter altogether. i cannot
thus we search for the means to reproduce the event in our homes, and can do so with surprising results given the tech and artistry in high-end equipment today.
i think many of us approach this hobby with something of a straight line postulate. we believe we know what 'musicality' is as a function of hi-fi equipment, though specs cannot necessarily prove it, we believe this musicality exists and we search for it under the assumption that with the right gear we can create a musical truth that satisfies our notion of what we expect in the absence of the actual musicians and venue.
personally i know when it comes to gear in my home that i do not want that truth of associated with say levinson amps. in a conversation i had recently someone described levinson gear to be extremely satisfying and well-engineered, but in the long run it is the world's best vanilla ice cream in a very expensive white bowl. some people will love this and such neutrality will be part of what they expect or believe their hi-fi experience should be.
i on the other hand have recently found that cary amps have moved me much closer to the musicality that i am searching for in music reproduction. the cary amps are anything but as neutral as say levinson or spectral, but long term whatever the coloration or warmth there is designed into dennis's amps is something that i believe i will very happily live with.
this hobby is not much different from an arbitrary, though purposeful and useful, axiomatic system.
not all of us will agree on what 'straight' is and our ideas of reproduced music will vary as do geometries.
this is what i love about this hobby
oh yeah, the search for musicality also allows us to indulge the obsessive compulsive aspects of our personalities without doing much harm except to our wallets
gotta love that
if what ive said has been said before, im not surprised, i imagine i have read similar posts in the past
i tried to contribute and keep this thread alive |
I believe that neutrality and realism are one in the same when it comes to the goals of audio components and the reproduction of music. However, many (maybe all) companies that use such adjectives to describe their equipment do so only for marketing purposes. Understandably, they're in business to make a profit. Some manufacturers, such as Levinson/Madrigal, produce equipment that is lifeless and unemotional, painting a "two dimensional" picture and robbing the music of microdynamics and pace. The audiophile press has praised the "neutrality" and "accuracy" of such gear. Others companies, like Krell, tout "authenticity" and "realism," but have a highly polished, chrome plated, "larger than life" sound that is great for a brief audition and a quick sale but eventually proves to be too bright, too brash and fatiguing. Many users and purveyors of tubed gear assert a claim of "musicality," which I gather is supposed to a higher plane of both neutrality and realism. Unfortunately, tubed gear often produces a warm, euphonic and overly romantic sound that exaggerates the midband and smears the timing of music. I'm sure others will disagree with or be insulted by my opinions and examples, but ultimately, it comes down to what flavor of coloration you prefer. |
Oh, boy! Here we go again.
My take on this is that our ears are the ultimate judge, and I will grant that impressions may vary from person to person. If this makes me a "subjectivist" so be it.
Now, alot of the controversy and confusion come from the idea that psychological phenomena play a part in product auditioning, and that may very well be so. I do not discount that totally.
The other part of the controversy comes from the idea that bench measurements will tell us whether our listening impressions could be correct or not. Some people say that if an amp sounds right, then who cares what the bench measurements say. I am one of them. Other people say if the bench measurements are not "good" then the amp is no good no matter what it sounds like. The description given to them is "euphonic distortion"(pleasing distortion- whatever that might be). IMO the major fallacy with this latter method, is that it relies on electronic tests that have no direct bearing on the amplifier in "real world" use. It depends on largely test-tones, and and meters, in steady state conditions to make its tests. 20 years ago, this method was proved to be flawed, and thrown out the window, by anyone serious about audio, but it has kept "hanging around" ever since then. The classic foil for this is,"How come my Technics receiver has .0000000001% distortion, but that $10k amp has 1% distortion and sounds way better. My Technics has lower distortion, doesn't it? So the Technics should sound better." Now, granted, this is a simplified case, but the fact is that the measuring methods and equipment are simply not measuring the right things. They are measuring the things that they were designed to measure. Electrical characteristics. They were not designed to measure the listening quality of music. That is what ears are designed to do. And that is why ears should be the measuring instrument, and not meters. To think that meters can measure the complex interaction between the reproduced music, and the emotional reactions of the brain, by testing the function of a negative feedback circuit is quite humorous indeed. In fact, it appears that amp designers and measurement technicians do not even have a good grasp of how their products will interact with other components, like speakers, which is what they are supposed to drive. But they know all about how it will perform on an oscilloscope. Too bad we don't listen to oscilloscopes.
Ultimately the only measurement we need to know, is whether the product sounds good to us. All else is merely an attempt to quantify "why" it might sound good. I have read on these pages, that any experience in listening, which may contradict the measured numbers, is simply "explained away" by the red herrings of "self-delusion for the purpose of justifying expenditures", or "unverifiable subjective responses that could not withstand double-blind testing". Both cases calling into question, the abilities of the listener. I call into question the abilities and methods of the testers and equipment, and state categorically that they cannot withstand scrutiny, because they do not always conform with the actual real-world performance. The "psycological" argument is nothing more than a smoke-screen to mask the mis-application of the test methodologies that cause incorrect conclusions to be drawn about the actual listening performance of a product. These mis-applications, and the conclusions drawn, cause design changes to be done, that may actually detract from the listening performance of a product, as is the case with some high-negative-feedback designs.
I liken this to deep philosophical discussions, where there is great amount of study given to "why" or "what" is existence. But, ultimately, you have to live your existence, regardless of whether you can explain it or not. This is where the "rubber hits the road" and, so it is the case with listening impressions of audio gear. The measurements don't matter, if the gear sounds like crap, or if it sounds like heaven, for that matter.
I don't totally disregard measurements, but I don't let them tell me what I hear and what I don't hear. I would use measurements for what they are designed to do, and use my ears to do what they are designed to do. |
my view of this issue is the concept of your system "getting out of the way of the music". when you are able to concentrate on the performance and not on the influence your system has on the musical message.....you have gone beyond 'HiFi' into 'just the music'......when it is the musical whole instead of particular pieces. i have pursued this concept for awhile.
my efforts have brought me to the realization that sometimes the absense of items in the signal path allows the music to come thru unrestricted. so neutrality or accuracy or realism or sounding 'live' or whatever you want to call it is attainable to some degree.
it is not neutrality verses realism.......but that neutral components or cables have the least influence on the musical message and ALLOW realism.
the biggest barrier to success in this challenge is that if you have a component in the signal path that is not neutral (i.e. it has it's own sound) then you need other components to balance that distortion with their own.....pretty soon it is a hopeless case. so you must build your system around neutral components initially if realism is your goal.
one real barrier to this approach is that components that are neutral are many times 'not exciting' when initially encountered.....it is not until many of these 'neutral' components are put carefully together that the synergy can happen and bring you closer to the musical event. |
This should be a good discussion. First, consider the older amplifiers with 0.001% distortion. Lots of feedback to give great specs, and terrible sound. I think we have come to realize that specifications do not equal great sound, but your question I think really goes to the heart of the listener, more so than the equipment. Even though you stated this is not tube vs solid stat I think it is a great example: quality tube amp, vs a solid state amp in the same league (price, quality etc). The solid state will "measure" better in almost every circustance, but some people will prefer the sound of the tubes. Analog and digital playback have the same phenomenon. In almost every aspect of measuring the CD will win, but many, including myself, prefer vinyl.
Now, because I am an acoustical engineer and design listening rooms for living, I would like to take a small twist on your topic to an area I know a bit better--the room. The room has, I think more variation, and in many cases more impact on the listening experience than any individual component. A room can actually be tuned to an individual's taste and there are always give and take. Let's start with the extreme, a studio control room. This is very neutral, and usually sounds a bit on the dead sound. While not over damped, it is damped more heavily than most rooms to keep reverberation times to a minimum. It is usually engineered the Helmhotz resonators and has an absolute (or close) frequency response. In most cases (with smaller studios), the heaviest damping is behind the speakers, and if there is a live end, it is behind the engineer. This is because (as an example), the live end is usually where the performers are and the dead end is behind the microphones. The goal in the studio is to give back the sound to the engineer as though he were standing in the performers position and the mics were speakers. This works great for the studio engineer, it would not be so great for most listeners. We have designed rooms with longer reverberation times for some people than others. Some want an overdamped room and a very dry sound. Some people play at high volumes and need sound isolation as well as slightly more high frequency attenuation.
Now to take it one last step further. I think you've really gotten to what building a system is about. It has to be musically engaging. There has to be the magic--not just the notes. Someone may be able to play the notes of a song, but they can't play the music. They just don't seem to have the sense, pacing, and naturalness to really play the music. I've heard many concerts that I felt like that was the case--and then I've heard others that I was just in awe of. In building a system, I think it's the same. While every component may not have that etherial magic to it, when combined with other parts of the system it does create a real naturalness, and a large part of that is the speakers coupling to the room. The most distortion, phase and otherwise, occurs due to this interaction. This interaction is need to give you a sense of space and dimensionality, which to me is what creates that naturalness in the presentation. Have you ever listened to a pair of speakers out in a pasture--no walls no interaction. Probably wouldn't sound too good--but you would have gotten rid of the one thing that causes the most distortion--the room.
I think I've said enough. I'm looking forward to others thoughts on this one as well. |
Phew...I thought they were the same thing!
OK, inasmuch as "perfect measurements" don't sufficiently exist to guarantee full "neutrality" (or realism, by my acceptance), then good science doesn't necessarily provide sufficient realism. Granted. But since when does neutrality not equal realism? By striking a difference between the words we continue to muddy up these psychoacoustic waters.
Amps do things that aren't yet measurable that make them more "musical", which is assumed to be approaching purer neutrality to the upstream source. Otherwise a preferred "musicality" that's NOT neutral is simply a euphonic distortion (tube's 2nd order, for example), or coloration (HF droop, e.g.). Let's not confuse photography with painting.
Those who say that spectral neutrality is a prerequisite for a "musical" presentation also miss the boat, in that one can have the latter without flat frequency response, for example. Can we not just say that what we like may not be the objective "truth" electronically all the time, and be done with it?
Sure it seems that the very best systems are as neutral as possible, by definition, but there are as-yet unmeasurable criteria that are ALSO optimized that then lead such systems to be described as musical, as well, to out ear/brains. I need more coffee....Ern |
Your mind is pretty well made up that "ultra high-end" amplifiers sound so much better, why bother ask for opinions? Again your post here seems to be pretty much a closed loop. Contrast your post with that of the fellow who bought an Onkyo receiver at a yard sale and is pleasantly surprised at how good it sounds. Listen to what you like and don't fret too much over these questions. If you feel that some distortion, some noise, some non-linearities add to the listening experience, consider yourself part of the new breed of audiophiles who have helped sound reproduction complete the circle. Good day. |
