Muralman - Absolutely agree - less is more. 0.5m IC is much better than 1m IC and every addition takes away from clarity. I keep cables as short as possible and use DACs volume control to avoid using preamp. Some people claim that adding preamp improves sound. It can happen if you have impedance mismatch (driving problems) but extra component in the chain cannot improve anything. This component might add even harmonics that many people like or add a little THD to make sound less sterile but cannot improve clarity. In certain cases we trade one thing for another like getting upsampling DAC (and therefore filtering) to defeat jitter but in general less is more IMHO |
Cbw723 - Don't you have any financial limitations?
If not, I can recommend an amp (Stereophile class A few years ago) that costs $350k - perfect sound, no compromises there. For the rest of us it is always choice between many factors. Many audiophilles give up extension to get better transparency or imaging etc.
I assume of course that we're talking seriously and not about "imaginary gear" |
Audioengr - Most of recordings have some form of compression and some are really bad. Wouldn't they sound better with an amp that expands dynamics (instead of being neutral). What about soundstaging? Is deeper and wider better than more accurate positioning. Could it be too deep or too wide? How do we know what studio intended?
Warm tube amps sound wonderful on guitar or voice bot not so good on instruments with complex harmonic structure like percussion or piano? What if I don't listen to piano?
One can measure identical frequency response of two components with very different sound (tube vs. SS). What you compare it to. How do you measure it. In my opinion measurements can offer some clues but I would not use them to buy a system. If I cannot trust measurements then it comes to my or other people opinion - and that is highly subjective. It might depend on many factors including age. Would "neutral" system sound the same to young Hindu and old Latino?
I'm not even sure if being neutral is a virtue. What if system has its own wonderful personality. What's wrong with that? Are we trying to find best tasting or most neutral wine? |
Cbw723 - no I would not adjust sound for individual songs but rather pick affordable system that sounds best to me on average with the type of music I listen to.
Whole issue of neutrality is very fishy since there is nothing to compare to. Should my wife get neutral system if she doesn't like strong bass. Some people have ears more sensitive to certain frequencies than others. Older person with loss of hearing at high frequencies (we're all getting there) shouldn't be forced to listen at home to neutral system that plays what they hear at the concert with lack of highs. He should rather pick a little brighter system to compensate. Even gender matters - woman hear and see differently than man. Do all people have the same taste for the food. Do all people like spicy dishes?
Neutral food to hindu is too spicy for you. It is similar with hearing to lesser degree.
If neutral system could be really defined we could hire people with best hearing ability (conductors, musicians etc) to rate systems or pick them for us. It will never happen. |
Tvad - You forgot "analog vs. digital" and "tube vs. SS" |
Shadorne - I don't question existence of better recordings or better equipment. I just don't want to have gear that sound natural to experts and wrong or boring to me. Somebody mentioned going to studio and listening to what they listen to (to have reference point). Lets imagine that you are professional violin player and in studio playback violin doesn't sound right to you. Should you get system that faithfully will reproduce this (wrong) sound. To get again wine analogy - renown American wine expert Parker said once that anybody can taste good wine but what expert does is to predict based on 6 month old unfinish product how it will taste in the future (because restaurants place orders a year ahead). I don't know much about recording business but I suspect that recording engineer adjusts sound having in mind average system it will play on. He would not release record without compression even if it sound good to him.
Gawdbless - Do you still have her phone number? At my age I go for anything. |
"I am actually somewhat agnostic." - don't worry, there is a cream for that. |
I used them to keep cables straight. |
Bryon - I'm under impression that you discuss mostly frequency response of the system hence word EQ is repeated often. What about whole bunch of other things like macro and micro dynamics? how do you measure "sweet sound" or "relaxed sound". It is difficult to discuss something that cannot be measured and is very subjective. How do you know how it supposed to sound? Sitar from Northern India sounds completely different than Sitar from southern India. How do you know. From the tone of discussion I got even impression that neutrality is considered a virtue. I'm not so sure of that. |
Cbw723 - Aural memory of what? I've never been to recording studio much less particular session. Maybe concert that I just attended and they made CD recordings 2 days later when my memory is still fresh?
What If I had bad seat at the concert and system plays the way it sounded at the best seat. Should I assume that system is coloring or just be happy with good sound I got. |
Bryon wrote: "Is there a SINGLE way that a playback system is SUPPOSED TO sound?"
I was talking not about system sound but original performance sound. Did I miss this original performance? Neutral (or close) system exists - I don't question that (still no virtue to me). The problem I have is comparing its sound to, mentioned few times "original performance". How I can test for neutrality without knowing how it supposed to sound. To go to concert and wait for CD from this concert (assuming that recording engineer didn't touch it)? What Learsfool is trying to explain is that any instrument will sound differently in different halls on different days. My guitar sounds completely different in the summer (humid) and in the winter (dry). It sounds different with different picks and strings. It sounds completely different with new strings than with old strings. If I have Aural memory of guitar - is it my guitar or different guitar. There are hundreds of different guitars with different presence, projection, separation, sustain and tone. What Aural memory? What original performance? |
Vince, I'm sorry - I read it too quick. |
Tuned to warmth - that is your preference. I don't care for warmth (other than winter clothing here in Chicago). |
Mrtennis - Absolutely agree. It became academic discussion with a lot of words (193 posts, most few pages long) and no use to anybody. |
"Which part didn't you like, the Viagra or the sex?"
I don't remember having sex (very common at my age) but If I had I'm sure I liked it - I think. |
CB723 - My Vacuum Cleaner IS very low pressure cleaner. Hope it helps. |
Vince - I have many piano recordings and each of them is different (some very different). Even same modern Steinway can sound very different (not talking about other brands, non cast iron plate pianos or uprights).
At each concert they also sound very different even if it is the same brand and model (instrument, concert hall, seating).
1. Which concert sound I supposed to remember?
2. Which recording to use for testing my system?
3. Everybody else has to agree with me to make it objective
(in good society everybody has exactly same opinions anyway)
If the goal is to tell piano from the hammer, as CB723 suggested, I think it can be possibly done. |
Bryoncunningham - You're a nice guy and I like reading your posts very much. Merry Christmas to you and all Audiogonners. |
Bryoncunningham - we have two problems here:
First - you believe that more neutral sound will be a joy to most of the people - not true. People like particular sound of their system (coloring, attack, decay reverberation etc.) even it it is not exactly real.
Second: music on neutral system will sound more unique and diverse. Not true, IMHO, since certain aspects of music will still keep its proportion no matter how system plays it. Somehow you imply that system looses resolution and therefore ablility to present differences. It is not true since most of the tube amps do some coloring keeping high resolution and proportions at the same time.
As for your comment "What is [sic] suppose" I hope you realize it was a typo (but even if it wasn't it was not a pleasant thing to print - I'm perhaps one of those foreign guys, you mentioned, that cannot appreciate good discussion) |
Bryon - Analyzing or not is a personal preference but we disagree about something different - your believe that more neutral system will sound better and more diverse to most of the people.
Sounding better and sounding neutral are two completely different things. |
Dgarretson- you suggest in your question that neutral is a good thing. My Benchmark DAC1 was, in studio test, the most accurate DAC but it was also called sterile, analytic etc. and not picked as a best DAC at the end.
Neutral often means analytic, dry, uninvolving, sterile
Better often means warm, tubey, vinyl etc.
You will find on this forum people who like sound of class D amps including me, Muralman1, Guidocorona and many others but you will also find people who just hate it. Same with critics - many called it horrible but Jeff Rowland switched whole production to class D only.
All opinions expressed on this forum are relative to something. We say "warmer than..." "more resolving than..." etc. because sound is a very subjective matter and absolute terms like "neutral" don't even exist. |
Muralman1 wrote "Better is the listener's subjective notion of how he likes the music colored."
Vince, you assume listener thinks that his sound is colored. Just ask owner of very warm sounding system (vinyl, tubes, warm speakers) if his system sounds natural (natural sound being effect of neutral system and neutral recording) - I would be very surprised if they'll say that sound is colored.
What is natural sounding to me might be horrible sounding to someone else. Bryon was trying to bring "listening experience" here believing that one can "neutralize" sound he likes by getting more listening experience. I don't think so - just look at my example with critics and class D amps in previous post. |
Oops - did I say I want neutral sound? I guess we're all searching for natural/balanced sound but it's definition is very personal. |
Dgarretson - I also like system a little on the warm side because too warm CDs are not as unbearable as too bright ones.
There is also an issue of cost and compromise. My brother's modest system consisting of Marantz 6000KI, Nad and inexpensive Cabasse speakers is not highly resolving or very dynamic but it has very pleasant balanced sound. I'm sorry for the people who made wrong, in my opinion, compromise selecting very bright and very resolving gear. |
Vince, I hope you realize that what sounds neutral to you might sound too warm or too cold to somebody else. I don't question that one might perceive sound as neutral but it is just only personal subjective opinion.
Dgarretson wrote - "There are many instances in which internal mods to electronics improve resolution while also preserving and even enhancing warmth. A move in this direction is an uncompromising step toward neutrality."
This statement makes warmer equal neutral. In addition there are mentioned "undesirable colorations" or "negative colorations" (oppose to desired colorations or positive colorations)
If there is a proof that neutral is subjective this is it. |
Dgarretson - You're obviously in a "warm" camp while I'm searching for neutral sound. It just happened that my new Hyperion HPS-938 speakers combine resolution and speed of electrostats with a definition and dynamics of dynamic/cone type of speakers. In addition to incredible low level resolution it has relaxed presentation and makes poorly (bright) recorded CDs to sound OK. I've never heard speakers like that in stores here but my experience is limited. It is not warmth of the sound but rather relaxed presentation (still very snappy and dynamic). |
Is 8x10 suitable for any task? Can you use it for late afternoon sports pictures? AFAIK depth of field is very low requiring high F stops. I remember that A. Adams was running "F/64 Club". Such apertures require long exposures making it more suitable for landscape or portrait photography. Cost of the lens with low aberration at such apertures has to be very high not to mention size of the gear and processing. Pictures also cannot be "Photoshopped"
without high resolution scanner for 8x10 negatives.
Price and practicality are important to me. There might be analog TVs that are way better than best HDTV but in what is available to me (Best Buy) is the other way around. |
Albert - thank you. What about large size digital sensors - how do the compare to same size film quality? Price of sensors and electronic will perhaps go down, but lenses will always cost more than amateurs (like me) are willing to spend. |
I bought recently Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1 (a decent amateur camera) knowing that colors produced by the sensor are a little off (shifted toward green). To my surprise it is only in JPEG while RAW is pretty accurate. In-camera processing somehow makes colors unnatural. The same might be true for digital audio. I read Stereophile review of Meridian CDP that uses different filtering scheme (non-apodizing filter) that better reproduces transients. It is not as simple as just turning off oversampling and getting rid of digital filter calling it NOS - otherwise everybody would do that, including Meridian. Once we have to reproduce sinewave at 10kHz (harmonics) in 4 points (44.1kHz) it will be ugly no matter what scheme we prefer. |
"for a split-second I thought someone was knocking on my front door"
That's price you have to pay for having natural sounding gear. It happens to me all the time, answering door, answering phone. Once, by mistake, I even answered an iron (I hate when it happens) |
"But if the goal is to make a recording sound, as much as possible, like the source, neutrality seems important in achieving it."
No - Neutrality does not achieve that because the goal of recording is to sound good on average cheap system or boom-box hence introduced compression.
Grand piano has dynamics reaching 96dB but is never recorded like that because most of people wouldn't be able to hear it and would complain about buzzing speakers.
Guitar sound, that you mentioned, is defined by Presence, Projection, Separation, Sustain and Tone. All of it can be manipulated in (sonically dead) studio. It has nothing to do with absolute objective reality but more with the way recording guy sees it. This reality can vary so much from one recording engineer to another that some classical guitarists like Julian Bream come to studio, wherever they record, with their own recording engineer.
Well - I'm my own playback engineer and I choose the sound I like. |
How do you know how it supposed to sound? Sitar from Northern India sounds completely different than Sitar from southern India. How do you know?
Bryon wrote: "By having heard one."
That's the problem - by having heard one where? In small humid room or big concert hall. What brand of Sitar?
As for neutrality being a virtue - Do you think that person who likes more bass than neutral should force himself to listen at home the way he doesn't like (neutral). If I cannot hear treble as well as when I was young - am I allowed to get brighter system. Overall result might be neutral but to who's standard (since I cannot hear treble in live performance). Whole issue is very foggy. I can only say what sounds good to me. As Learsfool mentioned sound of instrument in sound-dead studio is colored by recording engineer (therefore not neutral). Why do I have to adhere to this. Some instruments like cello have very complicated radiating pattern (only backwards at 300Hz I think). Can you imagine what mess recording engineer can make here. At the concert sound is far from perfect and different each time. Open air concert is way different than small auditorium etc. |
Bryon wrote: "I do not believe that there is one "right" way to listen, but I do believe that there are more neutral, resolving, and accurate ways to listen."
And I do believe that there is "perfect" woman out there but I'm not interested.
It is very subjective. I can always find somebody who will like sound of your Walmart system more (and call it more neutral/natural sounding). There is a few reasons for that. Some say clear=sterile and resolution=analytic. I read opinion that instruments should not sound separately but together. Some people don't like strong dynamics. There is no right or wrong here. Listener is a part of the system as room is and there is no escape from that. Who will be the judge? The proper question is not whether it sounds neutral (how to know that?) but rather if sound is pleasant, involving etc.
Can musical presentation that is "uninvolving" be more neutral? Presentation can often be converted to involving one by spicing frequency extremes or adding a little bit of distortion. My Benchmark DAC1 was praised by studio engineers and often called by people sterile and uninvolving. Studio engineers made once experiment in the studio recording guitar live and playing thru different DACs (similar price range). Benchmark was the most accurate but people liked other DACs more.
Defining neutrality reminds me TV discussion on the subject of "good taste" where serious people tried to define it (it does not exist). |
Cbw723 wrote: "But the choice between more or less cabinet resonance is simple, and I think most audiophiles would choose less."
I'm not so sure. Cabinet might resonate with the floor at the lowest bass notes that otherwise would not be audible. I know myself people who like it. Some people like "punch" in the midbass that again cabinet resonance might bring.
Many reviews of Benchmark DAC1 mentioned that sound might appear lifeless (too clean) without all the jitter introduced noise and that was exactly my first impression. Many people call Benchmark lifeless, analytical or sterile. When you add a little THD it becomes "lively" (like fuzz guitar compare to clean jazz guitar).
Personal preference is what it is - personal and very subjective and there is also no reference point/baseline. In addition all colorations affect each other. |
Dgarretson - absolutely agree. The problem is who is the judge? My system sounds very resolving and natural to me whilst I'm not sure it would sound the same to you.
You are already "contaminated" believing that warm resolving sound is a goal. Warm sound (enhanced even harmonics) sounds wonderful on voice or guitar but is pretty bad on instruments with harmonic structure more complex than common overtones - like piano or percussion instruments. Piano, according to Benchmark's technical director John Siau can sound on very warm system "out of tune". |
Vince - Yes, I can recognize piano when I hear one (I think), but we're talking about subtle differences and perfect aural memory (mine is far from it). When Learsfool, musician by trade, says that remembering exact sound is difficult (if "reference" sound even exists) for me it will be very difficult or impossible (there are reasons I'm not a musician!). I can tell if I like the sound but to tell if it's accurate is beyond me.
Let assume this: I go to concert and 2 days later they make CD from this particular concert (they are very very fast), while my poor aural memory is still fresh. I play it at home and discover that piano has different tone and its dynamics are much smaller than what I remember. What is suppose to think? Is it my system coloring or is it recording engineer plus recording equipment coloring? Well - there is remedy for that. Let listen to many recordings of the piano to take "average" sound and verify how good my recording is. It happens that all recordings have low dynamics and different tone. Hmm - is it my system or recording engineer? He wouldn't be so ruthless to kill dynamics - it has to be my system then or I remember wrong.
That was one possibility. Imagine now that my speakers resonate with the floor at low frequency extending speaker's response. Some love it while others hate bass with poor definition. What is closer to neutral sound? It depends whom you ask.
I like sound of my system and don't really care how true it is to reality especially if there isn't one that can be defined. I also realize that you might hate sound of my system and that's the beauty of audio experience. Lets leave categorizing and testing to academics - scientists, psychologists etc. |
