[woodsyi]

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 were some talks of pushpulls and balanced amps cancelling even order harmonics and passing only odd order harmonics, thus rendering "detailed" sound.  I don't know if this applies here.

[boead]

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.

How is the terms ‘detailed = bright’ or ‘transparent = clear’ disparaging?

Transparent is the quality? That’s too subjective. Quality can be measured by the sum total of transparency, detail and soundstage. Not transparency alone. I don’t think transparent can be muddled (or congested as I like to refer to it as), if it’s muddled then it’s NOT transparent. However, the bass and/or mid-bass can be muddled while the highend and/or vocal midrange can he highly detailed and bright.

I hear people say ‘I can hear detail I never heard before…’ Oh, yeah? Go back and listen again, closely to the system that you thought you didn’t hear it with and 99% of the time you WILL hear it. It’s just not noticeable or apparent to your ears. The detail wasn’t missing it was just not as accentuated. So what was perceived as more detail or being strongly revealing is really just an increased in edginess or brightness that allowed the instrument to become more noticeable. Edginess doesn’t equal bad, some people like more of an edge then others. The less edgy the smoother the sound is said to be, the stronger the edge the more detailed the sound is said to be.

Transparency gives way for fullness

Detailed gives way for smoothness

Soundstage (being large) gives way to focus

Producing details when the source doesn't have any would indicate some sort of harmonic coloration.

Harmonic colorization? EVERYTHING is harmonically colored. There is NO such thing as neutral. Neutral is a relative term based on… What? There is no neutral, it’s entirely fictitious.

Neutral is equal to dull.

Neutral gives way to liveliness and speed.


Its possible to use the English dictionary to define audio terms, BTW.

[Steve]

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.

[boead]

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?

The reason a live instrument can’t be used as neutral is because you can’t really define it. 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 music (pop, rock, folk, country, and so on) or larger concert orchestras, you just can’t define what neutral is. The variables are much too great.
Whenever I hear something that is commonly said (labels as) to be neutral sounding I mostly perceive it as dull. Dull is my description of something that isn’t accentuated in any particular direction – not bright or bass heavy – not overly detailed or lacking – not particularly fast or too slow. All in all, just sort of dull or bland. I’m not saying dull or bland is bad; many people like that and apparently associate that with neutral. I’m fine with that but it’s not my taste, I like some spice on my music and I think most people do. I do think that certain components can be very desirable if they can be very transparent and neutral at the same time. Preamps sound best this way; they get out of the way and let the source and amp do their best.

Soundstage – in my experience when a soundstage gets wider, focus of individual instruments within such soundstage becomes looser and less defined. Maybe that’s not what you think of as focus.
Soundstage is broken into two distinctive parts, width and depth – placement of vocal midrange (front row vs. back row -or- midrange being in front of or behind the speaker baffle plane) front to back. I’ve heard components that can achieve a wide and deep soundstage and still retain its focus but most of the time (within most peoples budgets) this is where the compromise is. That’s what I mean by soundstage giving way to focus.

None of what I said (my opinion, understand) is absolute. It’s just generalized and more so amongst less expensive components. As the overall sonic quality of a product increases, these generalizations become weaker.

[jules]

What a great thread!

I particularly liked boead's observations on the workings of recording studios in the 60's and 70's. It's also very heartening to hear those with a commercial interest who don't pretend to believe that total accuracy is possible.

If anyone believes their equipment is capable of faithfully, accurately or neutrally [it doesn't matter which] producing the sound of a live rock concert they clearly haven't attended one for some time. A wall of speakers backed by several thousand watts of amps is not only dangerous to your ears, it can be so powerful as to be physically felt almost like a light punch in some parts of the body.

Maybe a concert orchestra? How would an orchestra sound in your own home? What, it wouldn't fit [to say the very least]! So if it's in a concert hall where would you mike it? If you record in front of the trumpets you will hear little else. If you choose front row it will favour some parts of the orchestra over others. If you go further back you will simply lose some of the finer detail but possibly get a better feel for the whole. If you think your system is 100% accuarate then is it possible in the midst of a busy passage, to pick out the second violin and determine if it happens to be a Strad.? Now I'm not saying that is possible live but at the same time, live, the message from the second violin does reach your ears and contributes to the whole. In the recorded/reproduced form I very much doubt that the information is there at all [and of course nobody actually knows if it is].

So ok, you think that with a smaller group of instruments your system is accurate. I volunteer for an A/B test. In the comfort of your home maybe we could pit your system against a live performance by Norah Jones. Unfortunately you don't get the privilege of a screen to hide the source because that's not a normal feature of live performances. Even with the screen the difference would be inescapable. The complexity of sounds that comes from sources as different as a resonating string, a hundred+ kilos of piano frame and a voice box is enormous.

My guess would be that what comes out of even the best systems ranges from 5% to 50% of the original and that the sheer volume of information and range of nuances will always make 100% totally impossible. The significance of all of this is, of course, that the arrival of some new piece of technology such as digital amps will never give the perfect outcome. Sound reproduction will always be a compromise and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

jules

[Steve]

I think we agree and disagree Boead. I think I understand you better, but if I am exaggerating your definition, maybe you can explain further. Maybe it is just symantecs.

>>"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.

[boead]

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 that instrument sounds like? The original recordings caught as much of it as possible and the recording artist and engineers had to ultimately be satisfied with it. Produced music is the furthest thing from anything pure and recognizable. Ever listen to Jimi Hendrix on your $25,000 HiFi? How can you know what the neutral sound of his tube filled Marshall Stacks feeding back at absurd SPL? Distortions? That’s what your listening too, Jimi’s distorted feedback.

I’ve seen lots of Funk and Jazz bands and I have friends that are brass instrument musicians. That is certainly something you can use as a scale I guess. I know what a recorded trumpet sounds like compared to a live one played in a room.  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. 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. 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. 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.

I just recently attended a show at a local venue, an old well preserved Theater in New Brunswick. The artist sung and played an acoustic guitar and was accompanied by a stand up bass. I had front row seats, they couldn’t be any better. Although the artist was only 20 feet from me at all times, I listened to the entire show through the monitors mostly. I heard a little of her from stage but hardly any and I’m sure not many others had good enough seats to her at all. That was a best scenario for a live performance of its type. If it had been a rock band then it would only have been worse. The house system was very good and I enjoyed the show but I felt (as usual) that the recorded material was better sounding. Does anyone of us get the chance to hear a liked artist in the studio? Even shows at the Blue Note are amplified and not always as appealing as a recording on a good HiFi.
I listen to friends play acoustic guitar and sing in their music rooms in their homes and the sound is extraordinary! They also play with electric guitars and amps and your immediately subjected to the conditions of the amp. Sometimes its enjoyable and other times its not. An old Fender twin has wonderful tone while a Peavey sounds edgy or glaring. Hell, even the tone of a cheap Ibanez acoustic is less appealing then a Martin Guitar.

So I guess this thread has gone from a discussion on Transparency and Detail to  the definition of Neutrality. Sorry.

[Steve]

I am glad we mostly agree. I think symantecs is a problem in the language.

>>"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.

[orthobiz]

What's most interesting about this thread is the length of the posts.

biz

[John Ashman]

Hey, I'm sure Steve is just making sure than noone misses Boaed's great commentary if they're too lazy to scroll up one or two posts.  It's all good  

[Steve]

Hi Guys,

     I apologize for the long posts guys, but since the rear end crash some years ago, it is easier for me to answer posts point by point. So I copy what was previously posted when long. My apologies again.

     I see boead edited his last post last night by adding some acoustical instruments stories? I agree, live music sounds glorious, the ultimate transparency, resolution, and emotion. That is why I hope for better and better systems to be developed in the future.

    Anyway, better transparency and true resolution sure seem to make music more realistic wihtout sounding bright and unnatural.

[boead]

Well, I’m not sure that equated to your expectations. What if everything recorded/produced from one particular company (studio) has bumps in frequency responses here and there. They do that you know, so the recording sounds good on car audio and small radios (boom boxes). And what is another studio also has bumps but in different places. In other words, different studios and even different producers have distinctive sounds that are unpredictable. What your saying is that if you ‘tune’ your system to reproduce the sound of a trumpet correctly that now all recordings (natural or synthetic) will be correct? NO WAY! Its just not possible, there are WAY too many variables.

There have been times (tube rollers can relate to this) where I find a particular tube to be ‘the one’ that is perfect until I throw in something I haven’t been listening too and think, Oh, that’s not good (or better) then the other tube brand I was just listening too. For whatever reason different recordings from different studios react differently to different tubes. I wish I could categorize them with colored dots so I could say; oh and blue dot recording, time to switch to a Mullard. Oh and now where listing to a red dot recording, lets swap out to a Amperex. I sort of do that now but without the colored dots. But it’s mostly about compromise, the willingness to accept the good with the bad – what works best with more of the recordings then not. Point is that the neutral point of reference is inconsistent.

If you are listing to a small select catalog of music then you can find that neutral point, I guess. However, for me and for lots of people I know that listen to a very large range of music, its just impossible.

Steve, I guess as an audio component manufacturer you need to draw a solid line (your neutral point) and design (voice) from there and to your taste and hope others like your taste. For me, it’s about finding components, discovering synergy and tweaking them to my taste with wire, cables, cords and tubes.
But the definition of ‘Neutral’ needs to be normalized. If your definition is different then someone else’s then it’s impossible to use that words to describe. Have you listened to Telefunken tubes? Forget about the difference in component or design. I’ve heard Telefunken 12Ax7’s in a wide variety of gear and they always carry the same signature. Same holds true for just about all tubes and wires. Each type has its own distinctive sound and yes, it’s altered by the circuit design but generally a particular tube will imprint its signature on the component. This is widely accepted and the descriptions are used by many to choose and/or describe a tube or a wire for that matter. It widely accepted that a Telefunken is ‘neutral’ and that the sound characteristics of the commonly accepted definition of ‘neutral’ is NOT what you are describing as being neutral. It wasn’t my decision and I think I like your definition better but its not useful for comparison sakes, is it?

[_scotty_]

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

[Steve]

The question I have is what about the more accurate recordings? Should we continue on to develop better and more accurate recordings?

"There have been times (tube rollers can relate to this) where I find a particular tube to be ‘the one’ that is perfect until I throw in something I haven’t been listening too and think, Oh, that’s not good (or better) then the other tube brand I was just listening too.. But it’s mostly about compromise, the willingness to accept the good with the bad – what works best with more of the recordings then not. Point is that the neutral point of reference is inconsistent.">

I have dozens of recordings and only a few don't sound excellent. Maybe we are talking about the same thing, just semantecs?

>>"Steve, I guess as an audio component manufacturer you need to draw a solid line (your neutral point) and design (voice) from there and to your taste and hope others like your taste. ">

I can only design what I perceive is best sounding/real to me. I think I did pretty good, as 4 of 6, so far, have sold their preamps and the 5th would if he didn't have an integrated system not needing an active preamp. I bet if we met, out systems would sound fairly close.

>>"Have you listened to Telefunken tubes?
Forget about the difference in component or design. I’ve heard Telefunken 12Ax7’s in a wide variety of gear and they always carry the same signature. Same holds true for just about all tubes and wires. Each type has its own distinctive sound and yes, it’s altered by the circuit design but generally a particular tube will imprint its signature on the component.">

It's not my favorite tube either. Too bland.

It is important to use transparent sounding parts and an excellent design. Then I choose the best tube for the application.

>>"It widely accepted that a Telefunken is ‘neutral’ and that the sound characteristics of the commonly accepted definition of ‘neutral’ is NOT what you are describing as being neutral. It wasn’t my decision and I think I like your definition better but its not useful for comparison sakes, is it?>"

Probably not. In general, I also have problems undestanding their definitions. I think their definition is more hype for pushing sales of certain parts (check for big markups) than anything else.

Unfortunately, like you said, that is how most catagorize tubes. And that is how some tubes get catagorized as bad, even if they are great.
Got to be careful who you listen to.

As an example, one gent mentions SED TT88s sound the worst of all KT88s, even though in a great circuit, I believe they are clearly superior to the other brands. He is probably using older circuits, or instrument amps as the criteria. I can understand that.

Another example is a gent who answers a newbies question by mentioning brand X has more Transconductance than brand Y.
He links to a manufacturer who doesn't simply list the general Transconductance, but does show the plate curves. Now if the gent used just about any other site, the Transconductance would simply be listed (the question answered quickly), or at least accurately use the curves. The newbie believes what he is told.

The truth turns out to be just the opposite, brand Y has nearly twice the Transconductance of brand X, whether printed or calculated from the plate curves.
The gent either made a mistake or deceived the newbie, and the public. Of couse, the gent, at another site, admitted to purchasing brand X tube at "substantial" savings.
Anyway.

Nice to see your system boead. Of course you already know mine. By the way, Decware is only about 8 miles from me. If you get out this way, drop on by.

ps. Nice post Scotty.

_________________
Zen SE84cs (SET), Van Alstine Transcendence 7, Parker 95 Sigs, KRK V12S, Senn HD-600, Arcam FMJ CD-23T CDP, Sony TTS-3000A/Grado Red, ICs: MIT S3, Litz | Pwr: VD P3, Kimber 10-gold, HT AC-10,11

[Marbles]

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]

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.

Maybe if it was the right kind of distortion. I've had emotional connections when listening to old equipment that had a similar sonic signature to stuff my parents used while I was growing up. I go listen to their old stuff and get the same old feeling. I think nostalgia has a lot to do with it. Or maybe it goes back to primordial instincts. Maybe a certain distortion reminds our brains of the particular cavernous echo of a good mossy cave with water nearby. I nostalgically relate to some bubble gum pop music I had always despised. But now it has a place in my heart because it reminds me of a time. That's sad when you think about it.

[Marbles]

Timbley, the new speakers have less distortion than most cone speakers made today, so it's not like that nastalgic kind of sound.  It's just that they have less then the planar midrange ribbons I currently use.

Now if you guys ever come across a large mono corner speaker (single 10" driver) with a Heathkit receiver, let me know...that would give me a nastalgic sound of stealing the old mans booze and playing pool in our basement

I do get to listen to my college setup of an Onkyo TX4500 MKII and my Sansui XP6900 speakers in my Oldests room, but I don't listen to it often, or ever feel the need to listen to it at all.

[timbley]

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? I've never been moved by planar or ribbon speakers myself, even though I can hear how clean and pure they sound. I've always liked traditional speakers with round drivers better, even when I can hear a little boxy coloration. More recently, I'm even more moved by horns.

[Marbles]

What do you think it is that these new speakers are doing right? .

I wish I knew... then I'd bottle it.  

Maybe it's that I built a system that was too analytical and now I'm backing off a bit...and heading back toward musical a bit.

The point is that lack of distortion may not be all it's cracked up to be.
Another example is most digital amps (the ones I've heard) all leave me feeling emotionless.  They do many things right, but just don't involve me.

Oh well, to each their own....

[Steve]

Me too, Marbles. I haven't heard alot of them but Earlmarcs, tweeked by Empiracal Audio did sound very good, I had to admit. And I am a tube man.   But the others have left me feeling they were dry and very bland.