Absolute neutrality?

[Michael J]

One of the requirements for a monitoring speaker is consistency. Any 801, to continue with that example, will sound like all other 801s were they to be used in the same room and with the same equipment. The monitoring room was likely far from ideal, but the use of a standard reference speaker does at least eliminate one variable from the equation.

 

[steve_1979]

The producers final cut isn't the final cut, from there it goes to ' mastering' which is is often done through more than one set of monitors. One of the goals of mastering is to optimise the recording for reproduction across a wide range of playback systems. So in effect it is being 'equalised' to sound good on a wide range of systems. That notwithstanding you will never hear what the mastering engineer hears unless you hear it on their system in their studio.

Which is why they don't have just one set of main monitors in a studio. During the recording/mixing/mastering process they often listen to the music through a few other speakers and some headphones to see how it will sound when heard on a wide range of different replay systems.

 

[steve_1979]

Actually as a huge long-time Mahler fan this is exactly what I mean by filling in the gaps in my mind!
I have several versions of each Mahler symphony and know some of them intimately. I absolutely know when I am listening in the car that I am missing a huge amount, but I really do hear it in my head.

+1

I have a cheap little £12 X-Mi Mini II mono speaker which I listen to at work. Strictly speaking in hifi terms it sounds rubbish and the background noise of the office that I work in is also very loud too. When a song that I don't recognise comes on I can barely even tell that there's any music playing at all over the loud background noise. But when a song that I know comes on my brain fills in the gaps (huge gaping voids would be a more appropriate description under these circumstances) and once my brain knows what my ears should be hearing that is pretty much what I do hear.

The dosens of voices and other background noises go unnoticed. The tinny sound of the speakers disappears and the bass is automatically filled in. Obviousy this is not what my ears actually hear when I pay attention and consciously focus on the speaker but when I only listen to the music and not the speaker at some level in my subconscious mind it automatically sounds just as good in this situation as it would on a proper hifi system in a silent room.

Our brains are truly magnificent things which in the right circumstances will filter out a huge amount of distortion and let us hear the underlying audio signal/message.

 

[rtrt]

A few of the comments over the last pages reminded me of something known as the 'uncanny valley'.

As i understand it, the 'uncanny valley' applies to representations of the human form and how comfortable/uncomfortable we feel on looking at them.

From what I remember, it seems that anything that's very simplistic - think stick figure/lego movie, or anything thats very close to the real thing - hi res photo, hi-def video etc are both very much acceptable to most of us.

Whereas things in the middle - middling computer graphics, slightly poor art etc have the effect of making many uncomfortable.

I wonder if there's anything similar goes on with audio.

 

[darrenyeats]

rtrt, interesting.

 

[Mullardman]

I spent the last 19 years listening to a pretty much all valve system which had many lovely qualities, not least a gorgeous, liquid, smooth midband and a way of delivering vocals and 'proper' (as opposed synthesised) instrumental sounds with realistic scale.

But I eventually got fed up and after listening to a few options I settled for an LFD integrated. This could not be more different. Whether it is more 'neutral' is I suppose a moot point, but it is certainly very much more revealing. So, for example a Joni Mitchell album which I'd previously thought of as having fairly 'even' production throughout, is now revealed as having some pretty stark differences from song to song. This shows up mostly in what I suppose is best described as the studio acoustic, though it could well all be artifice. Most of what I've heard so far has amazed me with just how much previously unsuspected 'crud' (distortion?) can be dispensed with, without removing an ounce of what makes an instrument or a voice recognisable. I'm also getting rtiny details in vocal and instrumental 'inflection' which I've never heard before.

For a little while I wondered if the amp was edging towards what I perceive as a broadly NAIM/Rega sound. That is, to these ears, an 'edgy' sound with over emphasised leading edges and little development of the 'envelope' of the note to follow. But it wasn't, it was just showing up some poor recording on early CD.

I think on balance that I now have something which is more neutral. But I'm not enjoying it for that reason. I'm enjoying it because it is more revealing, but no less musical.

rtrt's post above is interesting. It could well go some way to explaining why people can love the 'bare bones' approach of certain successful budget manufacturers and the 'fully fleshed' approach of the more expensive, whilst finding a lot of the middle ground (no names, no Pack Drill) a bit 'Meh'.

Mull

 

[radamel]

I don't know if the uncanny valley applies to music reproduction or not.

I do know that I would like to listen to recorded music as realistically as my budget and room constraints allow.

 

[sq225917]

I shoot for neutrality then add flavour to taste via speaker and room treatment choices. All the electronics and my deck though are straight shooting.

 

[bownose]

I don't know if the uncanny valley applies to music reproduction or not.

Actually something very interesting happens here which was brought up by the Electroacustic composer Trevor Wishart at a composers colloquium I attended: in this work part of it he undertook a metamorphosis between a real fly and his own vocalisations of a fly for a composition Red Bird. He found that people would not accept that a fly was not real when generated by a human unless it sounded more like a fly than a fly does, that people were happier with the parodical slightly excessive (but not too excessive) sound of human-as-fly, then and only then do people accept the human generated fly sound as real.

So in short, different valley and it has a hump

more on this work is here http://www.digital-music-archives.c...ServerClass=ProductDetail&ProductCode=CDE0012

I have no opinion on neutrality, chimera or other mythical beasts

 

[radamel]

Very interesting.

 

[F1eng]

I shoot for neutrality then add flavour to taste via speaker and room treatment choices. All the electronics and my deck though are straight shooting.

What deck do you use?
I have yet to hear of any deck without colouration, so far

 

[Nic P]

I go to quite a lot of live music concerts, some amplified, some not. Anybody who does the same will admit, if they are honest, that the hifi system produces, at best, a pale imitation of what we experience at a live concert.

So, rather than obsess over whether my system is transparent, I try to ask myself "does this make me feel the way I feel at a live gig?". My approach is therefore to choose a system which helps me recreate those feelings, as much as possible, as much of the time as possible. And to hell with transparency if the end result is achieved by different means.

I also go to many live performances, and my experiences are less good. I am often appalled at how poor they sound. Un-amplified classical performances are most often the ones that blow me away.

Nic P

 

[Tony L]

I also go to many live performances, and my experiences are less good. I am often appalled at how poor they sound. Un-amplified classical performances are most often the ones that blow me away.

I'm not prepared to attend most rock gigs without wearing ear-plugs, which does little for fidelity!

 

[LouisB]

Systems should definitely aim to be neutral and colour free. However there are so many coloration's in hi-fi, mostly emanating from the speakers to be fair but also sources if they're not up to spec.

I sometimes think it's all a bit of a slippery slope and a lot is in our imagination.

There's no denying a good hi-fi sounds great though. That's often down to design and matching.

For example in the recording processes there are certain gems of electronics sort out by producers and engineers to bring just the right 'sound' to the recordings.

I think with hi-fi we often strive to do the same. It's is it possible for something to be too clinical, sometimes I think our brains just crave that little bit of random, rather like all the nuances within say a live performance.

 

[King Size]

Which is why they don't have just one set of main monitors in a studio. During the recording/mixing/mastering process they often listen to the music through a few other speakers and some headphones to see how it will sound when heard on a wide range of different replay systems.

Correct, that was my point.