Absolute neutrality?

[radamel]

The live concerts I go to are either jazz or classical. I rarely buy rock and pop albums anymore, either. My comparison is therefore for the feelings I get when I listen to the CD, vs my recollection of how I felt at the gig. The closer I get with the degree of involvement with the music, the happier I am with the system. Don't really care whether it is accurate or transparent, to me that is just a promising route to an objective, not the objective itself.

Most of the live concerts I go to are classical and so is most of the music I listen to.

But I still buy and listen to many pop rock albums although I am much less demanding regarding SQ.
I listen to some stuff despite its SQ because I find that the music is brilliant.

Again, regarding emotional involvement with the music that is exactly what I look for in an audio system too.
And I really don't care too much if its frequency response is flat or not. To me it's much more about timing precision.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Should we all try to reach absolute neutrality as the ultimate goal with our sound systems or are we succumbing to marketing hype?

Yes, we should. The operative word is 'reach'. We still have some way to go.

Musicians choose their own instruments because that is the sound they prefer.

A Stratocaster, a Les Paul, a Vox, a Marshall, a Ludwick, etc... All instruments have their particular sound so why do audiophiles shouldn't choose the character (coloration) of their amplifiers. sources and loudspeakers just like musicians do?

(Sorry about my approximate English)

The point with having some way to go to reach that ultimate goal is there are different routes to get there. Some want to take the direct route, some are prepared to take the more meandering path with the nicer view, and some are quite prepared to make a few stops along the way. It's all good.

A few are following the instructions of their satellite navigation system and are now heading in completely the opposite direction, of course.

 

[radamel]

I don't think we will ever get there although there is room to get (a lot) closer of course.

And I'm not talking about the semi-esoteric view of Sergiu Celibidache, who believed the essence of music and its transcendental power cannot be captured by a recording.

Reproducing a symphonic orchestra represents a huge technical challenge IMHO.

 

[stuwils]

since absolute neutrality is impossible you need to tailor it to your own taste and budget
stuart

 

[Arkless Electronics]

The musicians ,recording ,mastering can be anything the artist chooses, that is the creative process, we are simply trying to reproduce that file, to reproduce it accurately the replay needs to be as transparent as possible .
Keith.

/\ + 1

 

[TLS]

Yes, we should. The operative word is 'reach'. We still have some way to go.



The point with having some way to go to reach that ultimate goal is there are different routes to get there. Some want to take the direct route, some are prepared to take the more meandering path with the nicer view, and some are quite prepared to make a few stops along the way. It's all good.

A few are following the instructions of their satellite navigation system and are now heading in completely the opposite direction, of course.

The reason I asked about the importance or not to reach absolute neutrality is because I had different systems over the years that I was perfectly happy with. I do change components once in a while just to experiment a different perspective but I have stopped trying to ask myself if this sound is the real thing.

Something I keep in mind is that I use to listen and appreciate new music (mostly Motown and British rock) on a cheap transistor radio when I was a kid. So why this temptation to dissect the music that can touch my soul even with my now relatively modest reproduction chain?

 

[Arkless Electronics]

The reason I asked about the importance or not to reach absolute neutrality is because I had different systems over the years that I was perfectly happy with. I do change components once in a while just to experiment a different perspective but I have stopped trying to ask myself if this sound is the real thing.

Something I keep in mind is that I use to listen and appreciate new music (mostly Motown and British rock) on a cheap transistor radio when I was a kid. So why this temptation to dissect the music that can touch my soul even with my now relatively modest reproduction chain?

I reckon that when music is heard on something like a transistor radio it is so obviously not realistic that we don't analyse it for realism and accuracy. We just let our minds fill in the blanks and enjoy it. When we listen on something that approaches accuracy the faults that remain stick out like a sore thumb and we notice them readily....

 

[adamdea]

I reckon that when music is heard on something like a transistor radio it is so obviously not realistic that we don't analyse it for realism and accuracy. We just let our minds fill in the blanks and enjoy it. When we listen on something that approaches accuracy the faults that remain stick out like a sore thumb and we notice them readily....

I think there's a lot in that. I think the whole business collapses if you try too hard.
I'm leaning in the direction that nearly all of what matters to me in music can be reproduced on my new sonos and ceiling speakers in my kitchen. Of course there's something more to be had to reproduce something like the experience of live music. Sitting in front of speakers helps that. But the experience of live music is not a purely in the sound anyway. If you've only got sound to go on then a bit of exaggeration might help.

I also suspect that novelty of what one is listening to might come into it. When most of us loved listening to the transistor radio I imagine the music was fairly new to us. I don't think we were trying to compare the sound with anything else.

Are we trying to reproduce the music or reproduce the excitement of hearing that music first time?
Ultimately I think there's something important that changes when one goes from listening to consciously trying to reproduce something.

 

[Hipper]

I reckon that when music is heard on something like a transistor radio it is so obviously not realistic that we don't analyse it for realism and accuracy. We just let our minds fill in the blanks and enjoy it. When we listen on something that approaches accuracy the faults that remain stick out like a sore thumb and we notice them readily....

Well, I disagree! I don't think our minds fill in the blanks. We hear something and it has qualities we like - melodies and so on - so we enjoy it but the experience is nothing like listening to a decent system, or the real thing.

When you hear for example a cello, an acoustic guitar, or a gentle symbol hit, and you hear it properly, it can be a real joy. Put that in your the music you like and it's a marvellous experience. That's what I get out of a better system.

 

[S-Man]

I reckon that when music is heard on something like a transistor radio it is so obviously not realistic that we don't analyse it for realism and accuracy..

Thing is that transistor radios vary hugely - our Tivoli One does a remarkable job of retaining the vital clues in music that make it entertaining (and even sounds vaguely realistic on simple instruments). OTOH the radio in my old BMW318 was equally remarkable for removing pretty much all of the melody from music.

In hifi terms I would expect the measurements of these two radios to be quite poor, but I would love to know why one is pleasing to listen to and the other one irritating and boring.

 

[Steven Toy]

Thing is that transistor radios vary hugely - our Tivoli One does a remarkable job of retaining the vital clues in music that make it entertaining (and even sounds vaguely realistic on simple instruments). OTOH the radio in my old BMW318 was equally remarkable for removing pretty much all of the melody from music.

In hifi terms I would expect the measurements of these two radios to be quite poor, but I would love to know why one is pleasing to listen to and the other one irritating and boring.

The one with a single driver unit probably sounded more tuneful. The one with tweeters located in different places from the woofers otoh. . .

 

[radamel]

Well, I disagree! I don't think our minds fill in the blanks. We hear something and it has qualities we like - melodies and so on - so we enjoy it but the experience is nothing like listening to a decent system, or the real thing.

When you hear for example a cello, an acoustic guitar, or a gentle symbol hit, and you hear it properly, it can be a real joy. Put that in your the music you like and it's a marvellous experience. That's what I get out of a better system.

+1.

I just finished listening to Mahler's 9th Abbado/ LFO. I don't think many will be able to listen to it in a transistor radio, fill in the blanks and enjoy it properly.

If someone gets more pleasure from a transistor radio than a stereo setup I would say there is something not quite right with the latter.

PS I also agree there are huge differences between transistor radios. I think my Revo SuperConnect is brilliant.

 

[F1eng]

Well, I disagree! I don't think our minds fill in the blanks. We hear something and it has qualities we like - melodies and so on - so we enjoy it but the experience is nothing like listening to a decent system, or the real thing.

When you hear for example a cello, an acoustic guitar, or a gentle symbol hit, and you hear it properly, it can be a real joy. Put that in your the music you like and it's a marvellous experience. That's what I get out of a better system.

My experience is more like Arkless.
I think when I know the music my mind fills in all the missing bits when listened to on a tranny radio or in the car.
Obviously if I have never heard the music before this is not the case.
For my music lessons at school we had a Dansette all in one portable mono record player. I had never heard of hifi then. The sound from this was perfectly adequate to be able to tell the difference in timbre between a cor anglais and an oboe for example.

My enjoyment of the music comes from the music alone.
My pleasure at having a good quality hifi is substantial but not in terms of musical enjoyment. Yes, it enhances the ability to hear the music more accurately but, in my case, the musical enjoyment is not in any way influenced by the equipment, only by the music.

In the case of most music the question is moot anyway.
Most people listen to popular music which has probably been multi tracked and manipulated to sound nice to somebody, so there is no frame of reference to what absolute neutrality might sound like.

If one listens to acoustic music, live recordings do sound best (IME) and older ones have generally the least manipulation.
If one doesn't, or not much, one may as well go for any system one likes the sound of, whether it is transparent or massively coloured, since judging transparency will be impossible anyway.

 

[F1eng]

I just finished listening to Mahler's 9th Abbado/ LFO. I don't think many will be able to listen to it in a transistor radio, fill in the blanks and enjoy it properly.

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.

OTOH I am sure if the first few times I listened to a Mahler symphony was on a tranny or in the car (or a modest hifi for that matter) I may never have become such a fan because you do indeed miss a lot without a wide band powerful system..

BTW I certainly do not get more pleasure listening to a tranny or in the car, but I can get musical enjoyment from it. I do not need hifi for musical enjoyment, and I would be astonished if any genuine music lover did. My wife and many of their friends are musicians and they look on my hifi with a slightly condescending view as an unnecessary extravagance.

 

[radamel]

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.

OTOH I am sure if the first few times I listened to a Mahler symphony was on a tranny or in the car (or a modest hifi for that matter) I may never have become such a fan because you do indeed miss a lot without a wide band powerful system..

I am a huge Mahler fan and I have several versions too. Whenever I can I go to a live concert.

I think I know and will always know the 9th as well as I will be able to know any other symphonic work (bear in mind that I am not a musician).
But still listening to it in a transitor radio simply does not work for me at an emotional level. With a good stereo setup I even get goosebumps at times.

EDIT: Just saw your last paragraph. I know exactly what you mean.
Many musicians I know frown at anything more expensive than entry level stuff. I think they figure it is much better to spend the money listening to live music. And perhaps they do have a point.

 

[beammeup]

If valves colour the sound in order to give that wonderful 3-D dimentionality and musical engagement then NO, I absolutely do not want transparency!

Simple as that for me!

 

[darrenyeats]

My wife and many of their friends are musicians and they look on my hifi with a slightly condescending view as an unnecessary extravagance.

Most of us, including you I guess, would agree it is!

Anyone on this forum gets a kick out of good sound, as we perceive it, of course. But I hope we realise it's really a hobby and not a necessity when it comes to enjoying music.

 

[glancaster]

We simply buy music and playback equipment that sounds good to us. Any other approach would be most odd.

The idea behind 'hi-fi' is that neutrality helps us achieve this. Even if true, it's still just a means to an end.

 

[F1eng]

EDIT: Just saw your last paragraph. I know exactly what you mean.
Many musicians I know frown at anything more expensive than entry level stuff. I think they figure it is much better to spend the money listening to live music. And perhaps they do have a point.

My wife is more likely to be earning money providing live music for other people to spend their money on!
No, she just feels the difference between a modest system and a great one (I have spent the last 45 years evolving one I consider pretty good) are too small to be of any concern at all.
She is actually, musically, quite happy studying other people's performances on the internet, and despite my having bought her some headphones she usually still only listens on the lappy speakers.
I did put a reasonable system, Linn Classic with Wharfedale 708 speakers, in her music room, but she very rarely uses it since she has been comfortable about using a computer.

 

[pure sound]

I recall going to the recording of a Malcom Arnold piece at Watford Town Hall some 25 years ago. IIRC it was Conifer/Technics who were doing it. They were monitoring the sound on some B&W 801's in the room next door.

In the hall, the sound was lovely. Via the B&W's it was awful.
Fortunately, the CD, when it finally appeared, sounded far more like it did in the hall (on my speakers anyway). Don't necessarily believe the myth that the monitoring or mastering speakers are the final arbiter of quality or indeed that the sound heard at either stage is as good as it can get.