0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 9300 times.
I don't know about pejorative audio nuances on these terms but in everyday usage, I would think transparent is the quality you want in music playback. Being transparent can either be detailed or muddled depending on the source.
Producing details when the source doesn't have any would indicate some sort of harmonic coloration.
There is NO such thing as neutral. Neutral is a relative term based on… What? There is no neutral, it’s entirely fictitious. ">I don't know if I understand your comment, but if you mean a component can't be neutral, I disagree. I have compared my preamps to a straight wire and come extremely close. If you mean something else, my apologies boead.<<"Neutral is equal to dull.">Are you saying a live instrument is dull? Anyway, that is what I use as a reference and define "neutral". Now, it is true a recording can be harsh/strident/thin sounding, but the recording isn't neutral. Neither is a component or audio system that performs the same, in my opinion.>>"Soundstage (being large) gives way to focus">Do I understand you correctly, that if the soundstage is too large, one loses focus? Or do you mean that if the soundstage at the studio is large, the focus isn't as good? Need to understand you better.I do know I have heard preamps that artificially baloon the soundstage vs a straight wire connection, and the focus is diminished because of the preamp's distortion. I have seen it the otherway in a preamp too, which is also a distortion.
>>"Define neutral? I can’t tell you what it is but I can tell you what its not. It’s not a live performance and if it was, describe what makes it neutral? Its not any particular design or fet or valve, is it?">That is the exact definition I use, a live performance to hear how live instruments sound, their character. The sound is neutral just because it is the source, and I want to be at the event itself. That is what transparency, neutrality, and resolution reveals, and what I personally want. I think a "live" instrument sounds wonderful, whether in a gymnasium or outside.I find live music and "neutral" systems to be very emotional. I am not sure how some come to view and preach "neutral" as being dry, sterile, or bland. I think mainly marketing hype. Granted, the venue may alter the sound, but the character of the instruments should be there, and the feeling of being at the said event is thrilling to me. I have yet to be at a live, unamplified event where the sax, trombone was sterile or bland. Only the "lower" instruments have I heard too bloated because of room resonances, but I am not sure too bland.When an audio system reproduces a great recording just right, there is no mistaking it. It is something that jells, everything sounds just right. The veiling is stripped away. Transparency, resolution, attack/decay times are just right. Harmonic structure makes me say, now that is the way the instrument sounds.Depth/width can be tricky. One test I do is to use soundstage recordings and check the depth and width with what is being stated. When testing a preamp, I check with and without the pre and see if the pre is reducing or exaggerating the soundstage, instrument size etc. I certainly agree, Boead, that a component can produce soundstage distortions. A preamp can be checked, whereas other components are difficult at best.If "off" in some area, then it seems like the sounds, the realism, just isn't right. In an orchestra, there always seems to be some instrument(s) not harmonically right, sticks out like a sore thumb. An orchestra requires excellent "response" across the audio range due to all the harmonics of all the instruments. I like to push for better recordings as I think that is one, if not the chief problem, in the entire audio chain, these days.>>"The reason a live instrument can’t be used as neutral is because you can’t really define it.">Just listen to it. That is the source, the reference, what you hear. To me, the reason I listen to music is to hear the instruments as close to natural as possible in its venue, to be "there. Again, transparency, resolution, attack/decay times, dynamics, not overly smooth or etched, etc are key. >>"Ok, maybe if you’re referring to chamber music or any small number of natural instruments in a small room you can loosely define neutral. However, since I believe most of us are talking about produced musi ...">To me, neutral is hearing the music as it was recorded (hopefully better and better) at the venue it was recorded at. If they chose a poor venue, that is their fault. If the recording is poor, that is the recording crews fault. Natural instrument are what I use as a reference. If I am exaggerating our differences let me know Boead? Maybe it is more symantecs than differences.
>>"We mostly agree. My point of reference is produced music. The instruments used are far from natural and follow no real rules to govern its sound characteristics. An electric guitar is a small system starting with the pure instrument (the wooden body and finger board), an electrical pickup, wire, switches and attenuators out to another system of an electronic instrument amp (preamp/amp and speaker) – oh and you can throw in a variety of other variables like effects pedals.How can YOU or anyone know what th ...">By using natural instruments and getting the sound as good as possible (within the quality of one's system). Once the natural instruments sound as accurate as possible, then the synthetic instruments will also be as accurate as possible within a given audio system, except as Jules mentions, in volume. Also remember, the recording is of the signal, not from the crappy speakers at the event. So this is a situation Jules is right. But does that kind of event meant to last for hours?And does that justify being 5% accurate instead of 25%? Both questions are up to the listener.One note about Bands, since Jules brought up the topic. Since at amplified events, like Soldier Field, one records off the signal, obviously the sound is not the same as the live audience. But this is a scenario that is a minority of the recordings (But those who love this music, more power to you). I would also rather use the best in recordings as the better they become, and the better one's system becomes, the better the sound quality. It is also an incentive to produce even better recordings. Staying stagnant means continued status quo with no advancement.>>" The recorded one is no where near that of a live one. If you were to place a neutrality point on the tone of these types of instruments I would say that a live trumpet has a piercing and shrieking quality that I may not want to listen too most of the time. I think it could be fatiguing.">I am not saying you may not like something different, or degrading you Boead. I am just discussing the topic of transparency and resolution too. These two qualities will bring out the recorded sounds more accurately.But the question remains, do we go for 5% accuracy or 50% accuracy, and continue on towards perfection?>>"That’s kind of funny because if I would to compare a small four piece rock band or even a seven piece Funk band playing live in a studio (not for a venue) to a very well recorded source program through a $25,000 HiFi, I think I would say the live performance was bright and edgy! Good for the short term but long term fatiguing.">Maybe that is why concerts don't last that long? I can't stand a band playing 110db for very long either. >>"Ever go to an all day jazz fest? Try spending all day in front of speakers and live bands. You are mentally and physically exhausted after a few hours. Why? I don’t want my HiFI to sound that way and that is certainly not what people refer to as neutral in audiophile.">I agree, some in music land, whether music lovers, audiophiles, or reviewers certainly wouldn't call live music "neutral". But I think the definition may have been changed over the years.>>"Ever listen to a Telefunken tube? They’re said to be dead neutral and I agree. Its dull and bland. Sometimes its beautifully transparent and detailed but most of the time its dull and lifeless. I prefer the exaggerated quality of an Amprex Bugleboy which is not considered neutral.">Problem is how did "they" come to that conclusion Boead? They guessed. That's right, they guessed. One question one might ask is, what design and parts did they use? Some parts are so distorted/sonic signature, that the parts influence the sound way more than the tube does. Of course, budget accounts alot to the purchasing of components. And of course, just like any other field of appliance, car, or whatever, there has to be advancements to the quality of music reproduction.
I will throw out the term "neutral" any day of the week and substitute the absolute sound of live music in its place as a referent. Probably the best we can hope for is to loose as little of the recorded information as possible to distortion of all types when we try to reproduce music in our homes.Scotty
I use to think this way too. Then I listened to some speakers that had more distrortion than my current ones. The new ones did not do any of the things I held important better than the old speakers, in fact they didn't do most things as well. They did do one thing better however, they connected me EMOTIONALLY to the music in a way the old ones never did.I'm sure I could have added distortion anywhere before the speakers and gotten the same result.
Timbley, the new speakers have less distortion than most cone speakers made today, so it's not like that nastalgic kind of sound.
What do you think it is that these new speakers are doing right? .
