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 4 responses by inpepinnovations1e75

Sof762, you might have preferred the CD version of Bofill to the live performance also!

Bob P.
3ox, I am reminded of the joke concerning an audiophile going to a concert (classical) and saying "there isn't enough bass slam!" Most audiophiles are pursuing a system that gives them the sound that they are looking for, hence equipment that tailors the recording to their version of "reality".

Bob P.
Sherod, I didn't miss the point of your story, but what is most of audiophilia if it isn't picking nits. BTW, I did spell Royal correctly the second time!
You and your friend were not really discussing which system was more realistic (both of your systems are quite good), but discussing taste. Goes with the bourbon, er, whiskey.

Salut, Bob P.
Crown Royale Bourbon!? I thought that Crown Royal was whiskey. No wonder you can't agree on "realism", you don't even know the "real" whiskey!

Salut, Bob P.