Uncoloured and Coloured

[Avonessence]

Question(s) to all:

If you use the term uncoloured in a post when you are describing the music from hifi gear and accessories, could you clarify what you mean?

If you use the term coloured in a post when describing the music from hifi gear and accessories, could clarify what you mean?

 

[Del monaco]

I don't use the term but I always presume it refers to the impact of the speaker box on the music.If it is not well put together the music can stray from a more neutral presentation and reverberation can colour the sound. This is also dependent on the quality of the speaker units. I think this is sometimes done deliberately to create a house sound.It can also apply to the other electronics like amplifiers or cd players. That's my best guess.
Del

 

[Tony L]

Question(s) to all:

If you use the term uncoloured in a post when you are describing the music from hifi gear and accessories, could you clarify what you mean?

If you use the term coloured in a post when describing the music from hifi gear and accessories, could clarify what you mean?

Coloured: deviation from a flat response: booms, honks, dips, peaks, resonance etc - a general lack of neutrality.

Uncoloured: neutral natural well-balanced sound, a lack of the above attributes.

That's certainly how I use it, and most often to describe transducers (speakers, mics, cartridges etc).

 

[YNWOAN]

For me:

Coloured means a pervasive specific aspect(s) that applies itself irrespective of the music or recording being played.

Uncoloured means a lack of the above - much as Tony describes the two terms.

However, uncoloured is sometimes used by reviewers as a euphemism for sterile and 'mechanical' presentation and people sometimes use coloured to mean 'entertaining and colourful' (wrongly IMO).

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Like Avonessence, I find myself confused by peoples' use of the terms.

If I understand Tony's definition, coloration relates only to distortion of the frequency response, not distortion to the waveform itself. But if certain frequencies are augmented, and others diminished, relative to the signal, is that not just another way of saying 'distorted'?

So why do we have two terms for what is essentially the same phenomenon, namely 'coloration', and 'distortion'?

 

[YNWOAN]

Because there are different levels of severity and distortion implies a narrow band effect.

 

[Martyn Miles]

Question(s) to all:

If you use the term uncoloured in a post when you are describing the music from hifi gear and accessories, could you clarify what you mean?

If you use the term coloured in a post when describing the music from hifi gear and accessories, could clarify what you mean?

I understood that ' colouration ' applied to optics, ' coloration ' to acoustics. I may be wrong. The English language is a funny thing...

 

[Julf]

So why do we have two terms for what is essentially the same phenomenon, namely 'coloration', and 'distortion'?

"Coloration" usually refers to an uneven frequency response, while "distortion" is usually referring to harmonic and intermodulation distortion.

 

[merlin]

Not sure that's correct.

Colouration can be the result of distortion - indeed it usually is IME.

 

[BlueEyes]

These are silly grammatically imprecise terms used by people who listen at the music rather than to it.

I have been to more live concerts than I have had hot dinners and I know what I like and that is all that matters.

I have also listened to a lot of people's gear on here at their homes and remain fascinated at the variation in sound that keeps people happy and which they no doubt believe is uncoloured.

If your talking about accuracy and by accuracy I mean the actual sound of the person's voice then IMO the active ATCs portray it but be careful what you wish for. No scooped midband etc which people "like".

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I see the term 'coloration' used to describe a variety of phenomena. A speaker which has a 'warmer' or 'softer' sound might be considered coloured, compared to one with a more neutral presentation. But also, one sees terms like 'cuppy' or 'honky' (particularly in relation to horn loaded loudspeakers).

I can understand what they mean - 'cuppy' is a distortion of the sound which sounds like speaking into a cup, or cupping one's hands around one's mouth when speaking. 'Honky' is similar, but possibly lower in frequency, and describes the distortions you hear when, for example, somebody speaks through a megaphone.

I'd also add descriptions of the sort caused by cabinets joining in - resonances and other sympathetic but unhelpful vibrations.

All of these must, in some way, have distorted the original waveform, so is it that the distortion occurs at the transducer stage, rather than in the electronic domain? ie, distortion comes from analogue stages in electronics, coloration comes from the loudspeaker (or possibly the cartridge)?

If this is right, would we make a distinction between distortion from the loudspeaker's crossover, and coloration due to the driver or cabinet non-linearities?

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

These are silly grammatically imprecise terms used by people who listen at the music rather than to it.

I have been to more live concerts than I have had hot dinners and I know what I like and that is all that matters.

I don't disagree. But if you're going to try to express the inexpressible (ie what something sounds like), you have to find terms which best fit what you are trying to say. That only works when there is broad agreement over what those terms are understood to mean. So I think some clarity on the distinction between coloration and distortion could be helpful.

 

[BlueEyes]

I don't disagree. But if you're going to try to express the inexpressible (ie what something sounds like), you have to find terms which best fit what you are trying to say. That only works when there is broad agreement over what those terms are understood to mean. So I think some clarity on the distinction between coloration and distortion could be helpful.

I agree with your logic but I read not so long ago that dealers in the past realised that the public want a certain kind of sound and if the speakers were to be sold they had to project that sound hence the reference to a scooped midband which the article mentioned became a prerequisite if they were to get a sale.

I have toyed with the idea of getting active ATCs but would want to loan them for a while as I am not sure I could handle such unrelenting accuracy.

At the end of the day don't we all want a sound we like whether it is "coloured" or whatever?

 

[Chris]

For me the words say it all as for most (non hi-fi nerds) people - Distorted is nasty (as in Hall of Mirrors - Coloured, most can put up with as in rose tinted glasses but some prefer what they perceive as the naked truth. Personally I take sugar in my tea but never more than half a teaspoonful. Another mate is quite happy with two spoonsful.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

For me the words say it all as for most (non hi-fi nerds) people - Distorted is nasty (as in Hall of Mirrors - Coloured, most can put up with as in rose tinted glasses but some prefer what they perceive as the naked truth.

I think that's fair enough. The problem comes, in my experience, when somebody uses the term inappropriately, because they aren't familiar with the convention behind its meaning, in the context.

 

[realmassy]

Coloured is something that has its own sound signature, despite the recording or the rest of the rig. If you have some coloured speakers the system will usually have some common traits, irrispectively of the amplification or the source. It's not (only) about frequency response, but more about general lack of transparency.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Coloured is something that has its own sound signature, despite the recording or the rest of the rig. If you have some coloured speakers the system will usually have some common traits, irrispectively of the amplification or the source. It's not (only) about frequency response, but more about general lack of transparency.

Fair enough. But I might argue that everything imparts its own influence on the sound and, by and large, its impact is consistent because it always 'does what it does'. So every component adds its own 'coloration' and it's not just confined to loudspeakers or transducers if we take it in your terms. So in what way is this different to 'distortion'?

This is what I'm getting at when I say that such terms only have value if there is agreement as to what they mean.

 

[realmassy]

^ absolutely. Mine was an example, although obviously speakers have major impact on sound, probably more than any other component. But it's true, every component has it's own signature (take Linn or Naim, for example)...it's more about 'how much colour' they add to the system

 

[merlin]

I have toyed with the idea of getting active ATCs but would want to loan them for a while as I am not sure I could handle such unrelenting accuracy.

At the end of the day don't we all want a sound we like whether it is "coloured" or whatever?

Absolutely. And the issue is that for many (myself included) supposedly uncoloured transducers and amplifiers very often sound nothing like live music to my ears - whereas supposedly less accurate alternatives sound far more like live music.

I may be listening to the varnished truth if you like, but that coat of varnish really does bring out the grain in the wood and make it far more interesting.

 

[Joe P]

Mike,

Tables and tubes are a kind of varnish I rather enjoy. The rabidly objective like to call them effects generators. So be it, as I like the effects.

Joe