Well being at this game for over 30 years[ Did I say that] I've had neutral, Iv'e had colored, I've had semi neutral. You name it we had it. When the system was neutral the great recordings were breathtaking the run of the mill were horrible. When the system was colored all sounded good, again with some exceptional.
With the neutral system our music library was limited to only a few recordings such as RR, Chesky, Mapleshade, Telarc and a few others. With the quality of the Cds today I say colored is the way.
What say you?
rollo
PS This should be fun no fighting please. He He He!
Say rollo you aren't trying to be provocative are you. I guess I am in the neutral camp more or less. I have been consciously avoiding coloration when ever possible for the last twenty-five years.
In my mind coloration is a an unpredictable means to render a flawed recording or playback mechanism more listenable. If coloration is defined as adding a good dose of 2nd harmonic distortion to mask the aforementioned faults, this will work but at the expense of what could be heard from well executed modern recordings. Dumbing down the replay in this fashion puts a cap on further improvements in resolution
possible from progress in recording technology and replay mechanisms.
The resolution limits imposed by adding colorations to my system are an unacceptable price that I find no need to pay in order to enjoy the music I listen to.
Scotty
Cool topic!
Can I say "some of each"?
My main system, the Wave-Motion Engine, I'm building that with neutrality and resolution as key properties guiding my component selection.
I do notice that some of the music I remember from my youth sounds like there's "less of it" there than came out of the tubed console stereo I useta play Hide'n'Seek under, before dad went the way of modern solid-state sound and came home from Radio Shack with black brick components.
I wonder if it might not be fun to build a system around tube amplification and single-driver speakers. After all, sometimes I want a glass of Perrier, and sometimes a cup of hot soup would hit the spot (and leave a crater).
cheers ww
I'll walk the fence too. I want accurate but forgiving. I don't want sugar-coating but I don't want a nail in the side of my head on those old rock recordings that are just a bit hot :roll: in the mids.
Bryan
Quote from: bpape on October 23, 2007, 04:05:56 AM
I'll walk the fence too. I want accurate but forgiving. I don't want sugar-coating but I don't want a nail in the side of my head on those old rock recordings that are just a bit hot :roll: in the mids.
Bryan
Bryan:
I have been seeking a way of describing the sound I am seeking from my system and you nailed it. Bob Smith built some deadly accurate speakers when he made my Timepieces and I am trying to add a little mid-range warmth. I listened to an old Bob Segar recording this weekend and the sound was, well, yuk! I believe Brian describes the sound in his post. Some recordings produce sound that is die for as does the live album from Bruce Hornsby and the Magic from Bruce Springstein.
My speakers were made by a guy with a recording engineer background so he made them to have the flattest frequency response possible. When I listen to my system I want to get sucked into the music. I want to hear the instuments as I would if I were at a live performance. Live performances I have attended have a "warmth" to the sound, they aren't cold and clinical sounding. What from what I have read and been told if you do not want to listen to your system for hours on end then you are mentally turned-off by the sound it produces. Over the past couple of weekends I have listened to my system for 8 to 10 hours straight while watching football on the big screen with the sound turned-off on the tv. I find I like many of the sound qualities but I would just like a little more warmth in the mid-range without losing the upper detail.
I hope I did not get off topic. My limited experience tells me you walk a very tight line between deadly accurate, bright and forward or mushy sounding with loss of upper detail. It seems to be a real challenge to get it right!
Ken
I have more questions than answers...
How do I know what 'neutral' is? Is it what seems uncolored to me?
What if coloration makes something sound more true to life... Does that mean a colored sound is actually neutral?
I like transparency to the degree that allows the instruments to sound as real as they can... or the performance to render itself in an entertaining way in my living room. That answer creates a sliding scale with exponential cost, though. So, do I limit that to a system pricepoint? Also, what's entertaining to me may be colored, sterile, or neutral to others... There's no standard to define these things.... Maybe Rollo can produce a definition? ;)
-C
OK, its a start. Some say neutral some say colored. Provocative you say,this time yes. IMO there is no such thing as neutrality. Its impossible. Everything is colored in one form or another. If we say neutral to the source, how do we know what that is? We were not present at the time of the recording session to know what the musicians intended us to hear. Were close about 80% on the finest systems in the world. Then the microphones and room acoustics color the sound as well as the recording equip. Listen to piano at Carnegie Hall and then at Lincoln center. Two different sounds. Carnegie being rich and Lincoln being bright.
When we play our music it gets colored again. The playback system does that. Some less than others but still colored. Neutrality does not exist IMO. Chew on that a bit.
rollo
PS Scotty just my opinion, whats yours? HeHe!
This is a deep topic that could go on for a long time. I have many thoughts but less time. For now, let's say I agree with Carl's preliminaries. I have this weird, unsubstantiated wild hair that the second order harmonics endemic to tubes simulate instrumental vibration. So, the nuance present at the live event IS NOT adequately captured through the recording process, IS NOT present on the silver disc, yet materializes in the room on playback with sufficiently "colored" gear.
Convenient, huh? :D
If this is true (it most assuredly is not), which is the "neutral" gear? That which is presenting the silver disc honestly, or that which sounds most like the instruments themselves?
Carl, I find your answer to be quite neutral, and Mike's is quite colored. hahahaha Looking forward to reading your full thesis someday, Mike.
I like chocolate milkshakes and I like water. I usually go for the clear sound with accurate classical recordings because I wanna hear the inner detail of instruments' harmonics and all the room ambience. Also on tube mik'ed classic rock, fast bebop jazz, etc. But I like Amperex buffer tube in my EE Minimax preamp playing R&B, Big bands, some vocalists. Swapping one tube is easy and it makes a ginormous difference. Detail is lost but luscious fat is added. Nice to have both available.
Let me say it another way - truly transparent, as in an absolute portal to the recording venue, would be ideal. However, that is not reality with any gear. The way I think most folks use "neutral" and "transparent" describes sound that I don't generally care for. To me, "colored" gear has better harmonic density and creates a better illusion of reality, i.e. more transparent.
I see your point, Mike. Like through a clear window you can see colors better. I find that the harmonic density (good term) is easier to hear when the detail and microdynamics are strong point of the system. I guess that's what I mean by clear, accurate, transparent. But I don't want the music to sound like tasteless colorless water. hehe I think a fat and rich sound doesn't necessarily come from fat sounding vintage tubes which darken the window and reduce the details, even though they ad their own enjoyment on top of the recording. Like salt on a tomato. Together better than either alone. Silenbt background is proving to be the ultimate sweetener for me. It isn't adding anything to the recording, and yet the harmonic density becomes much more pronounced.
Exactly. Let the details emerge naturally instead of having to 'hype' them to come from a noisier background. This IMO also yields the 'space around the instruments'. And no, it ain't all about signal to noise ratio :duh
Bryan
Exactly. However, the pursuit of detail isn't enough. I had a dedicated room to myself with a buddy with Wilson Alexandrias, Halcro amps, and some expensive CDP and was completely unimpressed. It was the classic "hi-fi" sound I just can't stand.
On the other end, I bought a pair of monoblock Dared 300B amps. They were mushy, undefined, and didn't last a week. Tone by itself doesn't create the illusion.
I can't see myself going to an all SS rig though if I end up being happy with that it would be OK. Tubes recreate spatial cues better than any SS I've heard, including the RWA 70.2 amps which are the best IME. With the Lamm preamp filling out the space and adding a touch of warmth, it sounds like real instruments whether that's accurate to the CD.
BTW - what is actually on the CD? It isn't what was heard at the event and to hear it requires a bunch of conversion steps. To me, the reference is the instrument where the string (neutral) and body (color) are represented in balance. Everyone has a different idea of where that balance lies and our physiology/descriptive abilities skew "results".
Also, don't forget the many dimensions of sound. One of my hot buttons is dynamic contrast which I find horribly inadequate a lot of the time. I live with some frequency response anomalies to achieve better dynamic shading. Transparency here is related nimble transitions and volume contrasts in the mix. To me, simulating the illusion cannot be complete without it yet I hear very few comments about it. There are comments about dynamics in general which I interpret as macrodynamics which are a different concept yet still important.
Imaging and soundstaging are held up as valuable concerns but these don't equate to reality for me, rather a concoction of special effects. For others, they are a primary ingredient to "transparency".
This question cannot be answered universally, though hearing others' opinions does help ponder and consider the many dimensions.
rollo, I approach neutrality from a linearity or distortion standpoint. Start with as much information as you can from your source. Then try to minimize the amount of non-linearity or distortion that is added by the rest of the chain. You have to also try to preserve the dynamic contrast or life in the music. This can easily be lost without some sort of measurable distortion being identified as the cause. I have relied on Stan Warren to minimize the non-linearities added by my source,preamp and power amp for the last eighteen years. By not purchasing off the shelf components and by building my own loudspeakers I have avoided the problem of figuring out what, of the hundreds of components for sale would add the least distortion and suit my tastes. Early on I figured out what I liked and wanted to hear from my system when it was playing my records and CDs and I have not deviated from this course.
I admit that the speakers are the most colored component in the chain and all you can do is buy or build the flattest measuring speakers possible and pick the type drivers and cone materials you like to listen to. I have also chosen drivers that sounded alive to me but finding these drivers is a crap shoot. Some of the flattest measuring drivers have been some of the deadest sounding ones. Dynaudio drivers
I used in the past are good example. Music goes in and doesn't come back out.
Morel drivers which are very similar in design and measurements have better dynamics and more information comes out of them. Go figure.
This is where personal choice and suiting you own taste comes in and needs no defense.
As far as enjoying classic rock recorded over thirty years ago goes I think the best approach to deriving enjoyment from these flawed recordings is to buy a graphic equalizer. This is the best tool for the job of partially fixing the problems these recordings have and rendering them more listenable.
Scotty
I agree with Scotty about distortion. I think of any change of sound from singer's lips to my ear as a form of distortion. It can be dynamic, harmonic, noise, whatever. Eliminate the distortion and it always seems to sound better to me. The ear/brain becomes valuable in identifying distortion past the point where measuring instruments leave off.
Then the entire recording chain (especially all the messing around that the engineers do) is inherently distorted unfortunately. :duh
Bryan
Unfortunately, one cannot control the recording. But I am surprised how good many sound on a good system. TT is also very good, but like all mediums, some recordings are not so good.
A suggestion, one can do is listen to live instruments as much as possible. I personally find neutral and accurate, live to sound nice and rich. I really don't care for sterile or syrupy that much, but some love it.
When something sounds real, I find that everything falls into place, it gels. The soundstaging, imaging, dynamics, timbre, it is all unified like one performance. One can really get into it.
But one can easily adjust the richness of any system to their desired level. So if one likes it a little richer than neutral/accurate, no problem.
Quote from: bpape on October 23, 2007, 03:18:13 PM
Then the entire recording chain (especially all the messing around that the engineers do) is inherently distorted unfortunately. :duh
Bryan
Yes, it most certainly is. There is a lot of ignorance on the recording and production side, and most pros think audiophiles are nuts for looking so much closer into the physics of sound reproduction than they do. We pursue perfection, they pursue good enough for the customer's needs. But some labels make the effort and think like an audiophile, so those are worth tweaking the system to hear in their full glory. :)
I don't put much faith in pro-audio endorsements of hifi products, they have a totally different motivation. They think audiophiles are crazy, maybe because they know that they have destroyed the details audiphiles pay thousands to hear. haha Audiophiles seem to worship pros' opinions, I don't know why.
Thanks Bryan
Rich
Yup. I had a conversation recently with someone who does recording. He was explaining to me how he had to chop off the bass drum so that he could then reexpand it to make is sound the way he wanted to. My question was "why not just mic it so it sounds like what it does live?" His answer was "If I did that, your system wouldn't handle it. My response was "I'm a big boy, let me try it - it's my system."
Bryan
Scotty,
Let me define colored to me. Its not syrupy or mushy its real. Colored sound to me captures the real live experience. Rich, dynamic and not overly detailed. I like to sit mid hall at a live event. So when the drummer strikes the cymbals I can here the shimmer but not the metallic hit. If I was on stage or in the first 7 rows I would here the metallic hit and then the shimmer. Accurate, no distortion but from a different perspective. If were talking first order distortion I'll agree 100%, if were talking second order I'll disagree. Second order distortion is not perceived a bad thing to our ears. Actually its blessing in disquise. Bringing the natural warmth and richness to the reproduction of the recording.
If it was just distortion we can all go out and buy some Sansui gear .000017 total harmonic distortion. Cheap shot, sorry but seriously all sound has to have the color of live music. Halcro went to great lengths to eliminate distortion. Innovative resonance control, cutting edge interior circuit board architecture and high quality parts. To me it sounds threadbare and bright. They eliminated all the distortion but left out the color of the sound. The part that gives you goosebumps and that hit in the heart. Neutral to the source at this point in time is not a reality, so IMO we need to add something somewhere to achieve that. A graphic EQ is a start, bring back tone controls as well.
Just color me purple. I hope the newbies to our Nervosa read all opinions presented here as this is a learning experience for all. Not which camp is right. Its all so subjective. But its fun.
rollo
So, colored for me neutral for you.
Quote from: miklorsmith on October 23, 2007, 08:27:21 AM
Let me say it another way - truly transparent, as in an absolute portal to the recording venue, would be ideal. However, that is not reality with any gear. The way I think most folks use "neutral" and "transparent" describes sound that I don't generally care for. To me, "colored" gear has better harmonic density and creates a better illusion of reality, i.e. more transparent.
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey. Your good, very good You got a talent. HE,He,He.
rollo
I did not care for my first Halcro audition in Denver, but I tend to doubt the problem was the low distortion - although it certainly could have been, and I stay open minded to that possibility, if only because it came from you, rollo. haha As soon as I can audition d88/dm10 at home where I am familiar with everything else, I'll let you know..... :lol:
I understand the pro mentality, they are constantly focused on fixing problems and making it work for radio, marketing, making it sound like pop (like all the other crap) which is what the customers think they want. They work to a budget because it is their job, investing in 3000 power cables means raising prices and losing future rap star kids as customers.
On the other hand, when we first started in this hobby, there was a lot of crazy shit to have to digest, like cables, tubes/ss amps, shakti stones, system matching, etc. After a lot of time and money we worked through it all to find a peaceful state of mind - knowing enough to be happy for our own needs. The pro has no desire, time or money to make that journey into amateur Wonderland. But being open minded to the possiblities is free. Admitting that a wacko audiophile hobbyist knows more about audio fidelity than the pro does is asking a lot. We know jack about their task processes or how to master a recording, but we know a lot about what happens to a signal after 100 opamps, slider resistors, DADADADADAC and miles of rubber and vinyl clad cables, stuff about which most engineers seem pretty clueless. Thank goodness there are exceptions! Guess what, those few are also audiophiles ... hhehehe
rollo, we may have a semantic problem here. I hear live music as not having any color at all. It just is. Whole and complete.
I hear it get altered in the recording /replay process and I would at least like to hear everything on the recording. On the best recordings much of the that which makes a live performance a real event is present waiting to be recovered. I have never heard Halcro equipment but I it wouldn't be the first time something went wrong and the life went out of the music. I agree with the threadbare assessment of most of the gear for sale, I would also add dynamically lifeless to the list of problems. I am once again reminded of Sturgeon's Revelation.
In the absence of an alternative to equipment which strips the life and "color" out of your music I can hardly fault you for seeking to add a substitute for the missing information.
In the end you have to do what works for you.
Scotty
Guess I favor 'colored'...been to enough concerts at Avery Fisher and cringed at the sound...Carnegie Hall I just love.
I like my sound slightly warm.
Ancient Klingon proverb: "Resolution is a dish best served cold."
cheers ww
"rollo, we may have a semantic problem here. I hear live music as not having any color at all. It just is. Whole and complete.
I hear it get altered in the recording /replay process and I would at least like to hear everything on the recording. On the best recordings much of the that which makes a live performance a real event is present waiting to be recovered."
Nicely stated Scotty. I also think at least part of the problem is recovering what is on the recorded medium, whether LP or CD. Artificially adding harmonics does not recover true inner detail and nuisances as you mention. There is something(s) missing that degrades the realism.
"In the absence of an alternative to equipment which strips the life and "color" out of your music I can hardly fault you for seeking to add a substitute for the missing information.
In the end you have to do what works for you.
Scotty"
Well stated again Scotty.
Quote from: _Scotty_ on October 23, 2007, 07:04:51 PM
rollo, we may have a semantic problem here. I hear live music as not having any color at all. It just is. Whole and complete.
I hear it get altered in the recording /replay process and I would at least like to hear everything on the recording. On the best recordings much of the that which makes a live performance a real event is present waiting to be recovered. I have never heard Halcro equipment but I it wouldn't be the first time something went wrong and the life went out of the music. I agree with the threadbare assessment of most of the gear for sale, I would also add dynamically lifeless to the list of problems. I am once again reminded of Sturgeon's Revelation.
In the absence of an alternative to equipment which strips the life and "color" out of your music I can hardly fault you for seeking to add a substitute for the missing information.
In the end you have to do what works for you.
Scotty
That is the point. What works for you. The purpose of the post was to get everyones opinion of what floats their boat. There is no right and wrong here. However netral to the csource reprodution of the live event is impossible with todays equip. Close Say about 80% on the best systems. Since we cannot achieve netrality IMO a little added color does the trick. From the first note struck into the mike the reproduction process is being hampered.
So in the end for the user its subjective as to what we hear. Again if you sit at a live event in the first row,mid hall and back of hall you will hear a different presentation of the event. First row loud, dynamic and detailed. Mid hall a bit less volume and less detail. Back row a dull,laid back sound with no detail, exception being bells and that piccolo or flute.
It would be Nirvana to have a completely neutral reproduction of the live event. Close yes but still no cigar. I am NOT saying one presentaion is better than the other. Just different.
Another problem is that unless you playback something recorded in your listening room there is no way you can say its neutral to the event. We have no clue what the engineer did to the sound to make the recording sound the way he wants it to.
Know someone who plays an instrument say Guitar or piano? Record it on a Minidisc and on Analog tape. Then play it back on your system. See how close you get.
rollo
rollo, I like your last idea about listening to someone live in your room and then listening to a recording made of them playing in your room. The only problem is you get to hear your room acoustics twice. Once when they are playing live and twice when you record them in your room and play it back in your room. You have recorded the reverberation field they created while playing and then energized the field again when you listen to the recording. The way to avoid this is to record them in a studio as dryly as possible so that you are listening to the reverberation characteristics your room has added to playback only one time instead of twice.
Scotty
To really do it right, I think you have to combine both - have them play in your room but record them in the "dead space". Otherwise, there is no "zero point" of reference.
The character of your room is a major form of coloration.
A neutral room is an anechoic chamber. It's not dead, it's just not adding anything back to the sound being produced.
If you like room interaction, you like color, plain and simple. (Unless you are listening to recordings setup in an anechoic chamber, the same size space as your living room with similar speaker/microphone placement.) It should sound as if they are playing in your room when played back.
Seems like a lot of trouble to me. I don't mind the colorations even if they aren't true to the source... If I find them 'true enough' and can take myself to audio-fantasy-land while listening, I'm pleased. ;)
-C
100% agree ;)
Quote from: _Scotty_ on October 25, 2007, 09:23:19 AM
rollo, I like your last idea about listening to someone live in your room and then listening to a recording made of them playing in your room. The only problem is you get to hear your room acoustics twice. Once when they are playing live and twice when you record them in your room and play it back in your room. You have recorded the reverberation field they created while playing and then energized the field again when you listen to the recording. The way to avoid this is to record them in a studio as dryly as possible so that you are listening to the reverberation characteristics your room has added to playback only one time instead of twice.
Scotty
Makes sense to me. Never considered that. Great point. However my room measures almost flat through the frequency range. Lucky me I guess. Its an odd shaped [ like me ] room basically with only the front and rear walls being parallal. A dead front end and live rear. Live clg. dead floor. All first and second reflection points treated. If I was a bit more computer literate I could post some pictures.
rollo
Carlman,as far as room colorations are concerned we are into recording studio and mastering room design at this point. I think if the reverberant field from the highs down into the lower midrange has a flat spectrum and is supressed far enough relative to the direct sound then you could consider the room neutral without it having to be an anechoic chamber. Rooms used for mastering are frequently built to achieve this goal.
Start of rant.
I think diffusion in the listening room is under utilized by most audiophiles. The first thing an audiophile seems to do when they get a dedicated room for their system is to remove all of the furnishings. The room must be empty
except for the stereo system and the altar and then they wonder why their system sounds like crap.
They never realize that the furniture in the room is their friend. It provides absorption and diffusion both of which help reduce standing waves and even out the frequency spectrum of the reverberant field in the room.
End of rant.
Scotty
Agreed to a point. However, having a 'clean slate' to deal with is a beautiful thing - as long as you're willing to do what needs to be done for your particular application and room. I'll agree that diffusion is underused. A BALANCE of diffusion and properly placed absorbtion is the best approach.
Bryan
I consider the recorded ambience part of the performance. Good luck finding recordings without it, whether Avery Fischer or Lexicon's finest. It's gotta be there.
I also agree that one reverberant field is company and two's a crowd. Since you can't get rid of the recorded ambience then controlling the listening room is the only option to reduce that mode of distortion. I continue to experiment with quasi-anechoic listening space with excellent results. It is natural to dismiss anechoic space for hifi listening, until you try it!
If you listen to studio recorded music, then the ambience is distortion free. There are no reflections in a reverb algorithm, unless added by the engineer. If you listen to recorded space, the room can vary from awesome to shit. Nothing you can do about it. But if you eliminate additional ambience in the listening room, your brain will adjust to the shit room and perceive the music recorded there as if you were there too. :) Especially with stereo pair mics. Diffusion in the anechoic room would help you feel more comfortable when music is not playing, but would distort the music with (diffuse) reflections and reduce the illusion by holding your mind in the present time/space.
BTW, I recorded a string quartet in my listening room last year. I will try to make a short clip with a raw take versus the mastered version. It would be cool if I could play it back in the room and record what it sounds like compared to the original. Hmm, maybe I can do that, gotta find a quiet time after kids are in bed.
Hi Rich,
"I will try to make a short clip with a raw take versus the mastered version."
Any chance I could get CD copies of the raw and mastered versions?
Take care.
Shouldn't be a problem :) Please PM your address Steve.
I will try to post those today
Quote from: richidoo on October 29, 2007, 10:10:20 AM
Shouldn't be a problem :) Please PM your address Steve.
I will try to post those today
PMd you Rich. Should be cool.
By the way, one can get a cd quality of the Nagyvary violin vs Strad violin, for shipping costs only, at this website. Very good quality cd.
http://www.nagyvaryviolins.com/
Thanks.
Steve
ps. My cd only has 4 tracks, but I have no reason the added tracks won't be of the same quality.