2. amps-preamps
  3. 1036918639

neutrality vs. realism

What is actually the final goal of high-end audio: to reproduce recorded music as neutral as possible or to give the highest possible level of realism? For some manufacturers (like Spectral and Madrigal) it is the ultimate goal regarding their amplifiers, to sound like no amplifier at all. There is less coloration, less "house sound", more "truthfulness". I think this is a good basic consideration, but it must not derive the sound of it's musicality. Those amplifiers are generally sounding lifeless! Don't get me wrong, this is not about the tubes vs. solid state controverse at all, because I think that solid state amplifiers are able to give a high level of musicality without sacrificing neutrality (Boulder, FM Acoustics). What seems perfect on paper is not always the way to go: "neutrality" and "perfect measurements" are not the synonyms for musicality and realism.
dazzdax

Showing 1 response by bomarc

bomarc
501 posts
 
Whether you call it "realism" or "musicality" or (probably the most correct term) "euphony," it is definitely not the same thing as neutrality. An analog rig is not neutral--the kinds of distortion inherent in that medium are well-known. But it sounds more "real" or "musical" or "good" to many people. And there's evidence that it's those very distortions that make it sound so appealing. No one who sought neutrality would touch a vinyl disk. But many people (me included) love them.

My general advice would be to pursue what sounds good to you, and don't waste your time putting a label on it.

(On the other hand, Floyd Toole's crew at Harman has done some interesting work suggesting that most people actually prefer more neutral speakers. So consider the possibility that "neutral" really is what you like.)
More to discover