Absolute neutrality?

[TLS]

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

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)

 

[John_73]

I would argue a decent hifi system needs to be largely transparent to the source, exactly so you can hear the unique sounds of the Strat, Les Paul, Box etc.

I have no problems with people who like a little colouration added into the mix though, but let's not go calling it anything other than that. I'd include silly priced cables and audiophile 'treatments' in with that lot too

 

[TLS]

I would argue a decent hifi system needs to be largely transparent to the source, exactly so you can hear the unique sounds of the Strat, Les Paul, Box etc.

I have no problems with people who like a little colouration added into the mix though, but let's not go calling it anything other than that. I'd include silly priced cables and audiophile 'treatments' in with that lot too

That is a logic explanation but still, is it so important that I could hear the very unique sound of an instrument or is it possible? I would say this because I'm pretty confident the next time I will hear the same instrument the sound may not be exactly as I remember the first time I heard it.

Without any changes made, my sound system do not sound the same all the time!

 

[Tony L]

I'm of the view that it's all hopelessly inacurate to the extent the only sensible approach is to pick a sound you enjoy/can live with, or in my case, several different ones.

Mics are coloured, the rooms the engineers put the mics in are coloured, the monitors they make all decisions through are coloured, as are the desks, the FX etc etc etc. There simply is no "real" unless you are prepared to build a system specifically for each record/engineer/studio, e.g. want to hear 70s Floyd, Decca SXLs, Porky's vinyl cuts etc sound right then use period-correct Quad amps and 15" Tannoys, want to hear The Beatles right then use tube amps and Altec 604s. Want modern Abbey Rd then use Classe and B&W, for others choose Neumann, ATC, MEG, Genelec, Quested or whatever as appropriate, and yes they all sound different to one another. Often very different. All recordings are a reverse of the studio monitoring rig and will sound slightly wrong on anything else. One could easily argue a pair of NS10Ms is the most accurate system imaginable as just about every non-classical cut of the past 30 years or so has been through a pair at some point in the decision making process!

 

[King Size]

I'm of the view that it's all hopelessly inacurate to the extent the only sensible approach is to pick a sound you enjoy/can live with, or in my case, several different ones.

Tried to say +1 but was told the message was to short so have to explain and say it twice... +1

 

[Steven Toy]

+1.

 

[Steven Toy]

works.

 

[Steven Toy]

I'm of the view that it's all hopelessly inacurate to the extent the only sensible approach is to pick a sound you enjoy/can live with, or in my case, several different ones.

Mics are coloured, the rooms the engineers put the mics in are coloured, the monitors they make all decisions through are coloured, as are the desks, the FX etc etc etc. There simply is no "real" unless you are prepared to build a system specifically for each record/engineer/studio, e.g. want to hear 70s Floyd, Decca SXLs, Porky's vinyl cuts etc sound right then use period-correct Quad amps and 15" Tannoys, want to hear The Beatles right then use tube amps and Altec 604s. Want modern Abbey Rd then use Classe and B&W, for others choose Neumann, ATC, MEG, Genelec, Quested or whatever as appropriate, and yes they all sound different to one another. Often very different. All recordings are a reverse of the studio monitoring rig and will sound slightly wrong on anything else. One could easily argue a pair of NS10Ms is the most accurate system imaginable as just about every non-classical cut of the past 30 years or so has been through a pair at some point in the decision making process!

Surely, if the playback equipment is the same as that used to record you end up with double the original coloration. This would be the audio equivalent of incest.

Neutrality is great as long as it does not come at the expense of the integrity and purity of the signal path.

 

[cubastreet]

My view is that all our ears are different, and our brains process music differently.

If we assume that most people listen to music for pleasure, each listener should choose the equipment that sounds the best to them, regardless of neutrality.

You'd hope the recording studio would use neutral gear, but that doesn't mean the engineer hears the music the same as we do.

 

[King Size]

works.

maybe it was the "." that made the difference

 

[Whaleblue]

Simple answer is yes, but only because there is no specific reason why not.

However, it's not that important to have a flat FR. Your brain will happily accommodate a certain amount of no-flatness.

Beyond that, it gets more complicated, but regards a musician's choice of instrument, it must be considered that this is within the mix of other instruments or voices, or for a particular track or perhaps artists whole "sound". Your hifi has to render the whole spectrum of music that you might ever wish to play; Skewing it deliberatly is unlikely to work for everything.

With that said, the distortion that TTs can add seems to please many, including myself. But now we're into a whole other discussion.

Perhaps I should have started by asking "neutral in what respect?".

 

[Purité Audio]

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.

 

[Sibbers]

Even if recording equipment adds something that wasn't there in a live performance, I still want a neutral system because I want to hear what the producers final cut sounds like. It is what s/he was most happy with which seems like decent reasoning to me and to that extend I'd rather avoid tone controls and EQs but it's a personal choice. I tend to find added colour takes a little adjusting to before the system fades I to the music (for me) because I guess I'm used to my own system.

Edit. Yeah what Keith said

 

[Pac1]

Since proving accuracy is beyond almost all of us without the live feed info of the original recording, the mastering details, and even using things like response in room of pink noise for looking at speaker/room response on and off axis, it is a fools errand and a rather pointless exercise, even if you do have the kit and know how anyway.

Back in the "good ol' days" you could more accurately assess the kit being bought and plenty did buy on specification since if honestly and coprehensively done by the manufacturer, you had a flying start in at least assembling a system that would be properly matched.

These days, marketing hyperbole seems to be how stuff is sold instead, so all you can do is audition and pick the sound you personally like.

Most systems I've listened to irrespective of cost have rarely been what I'd describe as accurate. All have had some form of colouration or other, so it's down to what you want in a system and not what anyone else thinks.

 

[Werner]

Indeed. There is no final cut or a one and only correct rendering of any recording.

In the end all is subjective. Oh, there are gradations of goodness and even of fidelityness, but ultimately the ideal remains undefined.

 

[YNWOAN]

...or are we succumbing to marketing hype?

In what way would we be "succumbing to marketing hype"?

 

[Lee T]

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

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)

I think we should all aim to find a sound we are at peace with, if that means a shift from neutrality then so be it, I have always found neutral sounding equipment quite boring to listen to but that's just me.

If you go to a live concert neutrality doesn't come in to it but then again neither do most so called hifi traits, like imaging, image depth, sound staging, unless you are dead centre stage at a concert you will never experience this, it's meaningless to me when buying hifi, I prefer the real world energy & communication over any of this.

 

[S-Man]

Surely, if the playback equipment is the same as that used to record you end up with double the original coloration. This would be the audio equivalent of incest.
.

No. Think about it.

Neutrality is great as long as it does not come at the expense of the integrity and purity of the signal path.

Some more strange logic here - surely it must be neutral if the signal path has integrity and purity?

 

[S-Man]

There simply is no "real" unless you are prepared to build a system specifically for each record/engineer/studio, e.g. want to hear 70s Floyd, Decca SXLs, Porky's vinyl cuts etc sound right then use period-correct Quad amps and 15" Tannoys, want to hear The Beatles right then use tube amps and Altec 604s. Want modern Abbey Rd then use Classe and B&W, for others choose Neumann, ATC, MEG, Genelec, Quested or whatever as appropriate, and yes they all sound different to one another. Often very different. All recordings are a reverse of the studio monitoring rig and will sound slightly wrong on anything else.

Absolutely spot on, with one small caveat...

It seems quite reasonable to assume that a better playback system than the original can produce a better sound that the sound engineers heard. e.g JVS' Acapella horns playing Louis Armstrong at Scalford was probably a lot better than the sound engineers originally heard - they did not know what an amazing job they did!!
Listening to that, it was not difficult to close your eyes and imagine the real event in the room. We all know what real music sounds like - and that was pretty damn convincing.

 

[radamel]

Absolutely spot on, with one small caveat...

It seems quite reasonable to assume that a better playback system than the original can produce a better sound that the sound engineers heard. e.g JVS' Acapella horns playing Louis Armstrong at Scalford was probably a lot better than the sound engineers originally heard - they did not know what an amazing job they did!!
Listening to that, it was not difficult to close your eyes and imagine the real event in the room. We all know what real music sounds like - and that was pretty damn convincing.

Quite right.

I assume the same happened when I heard Trinity Sessions by Cowboy Junkies with a very good playback system.