neutrality vs. realism

The listening room has more to do with realism then most equipment.Measurements are good but those measurements are done in a whole different enviroment then ones listening room.
To get the most of ones equipment and ultimately the sound of realism you must adress the home listening room and set up.A reference system with great measurement set up improperly well sound high end and not at all realistic.
This hobby to me is about how realistic I can get my rig to sound.There are so many ways to achieve realistic sound it takes years of tweaking to truely acheive this goal.
Synergy between ones equipment like stated earlier is second to acheiving realistic sound in YOUR listening room.

I think this thread might better be called Neutrality vs. Musicality.

However, before I start, I must reiterate a tirade that I get into everytime folks start talking about realism. We must always remember that on every recording we play on our wonderful hi end systems we are listening not only to the chain of components in out hi end systems but also to:
1 - The artists playing the music/singing (of coarse) & the room they are being recorded in
2 - The microphones that are recording #1
3 - The cables that are attached to #2
4 - The mixing board/device that is attached to #3
5 - The recording device that is actually recording the music onto a master medium
6 - The master medium being copied onto another medium that can be played in your Hi End system

All of the above, we are at the mercy of the folks that recorded the music. To really achieve any sense of realism, a recoding engineer must know what he is doing, and must use the best recording devices he can (devices that are well matched like a fine hi end audio system).

Even taking the utmost care in recording, getting 'truly live sound' from most recordings is NOT EVEN THE ENDING GOAL (most of the time). Many music production companies just want their stuff to be ablel to sound good on the average jambox. A few specialty recording labels (e.g. Chesky), do use high quality audio reference systems to moniter their recordings.

Thus, the odds of ever getting truly live realistic sound out of any recording using any hi end system are... well... are very slim if not impossible.

What is possible, however, is to get a good sense of the music and the artists creating it. We can hear the subtlities of the performance that make artists great. We can even get an illusion of the artist in our rooms that grabs onto our imagination, but many times is oh so surreal because live music almost invaribly never sounds like this. Heck, I have had sound engineers who have been recording music for 30 years tell me that stereo recordings really are false (so is the whole concept of soundstage) and the best recordings are in MONO because at live music due to all the sound reflections, you really only hear stuff in MONO. These guys record only in MONO. These guys probably have a point, but I am adicted to the sound of stereo.

This all being said, let me get back to Neutrality vs. Realism. Realism should be the end goal of a recording... but almost invaribly it is not. Neutrality of a hi fi system should get us to the end goal of realistic sound if it can be attained.

The problem I have with the last paragraph I just wrote is defining NEUTRALITY. What exactly are we saying when we bandy about the term 'neutrality'? Is it flat frequency response from a system??? What I say to this is good luck getting flat frequency response out of any system. Even if one's speakers can deliver a flat frequency response from 20hz to 20khz, most rooms that people listen to music (in their espective houses) will NOT have a flat frequency response with this speaker. Just to support a 20hz frequency, any idea how long a room must be? Frankly I forget... but I want to say somewhere around 100'+. This does not even take into consideration other reflections and frequency absorbtions that occur in most rooms. Then you have to consider your listening position and having your ears precisely on axis. This can be more difficult than it sounds.

Even with the capability of getting a flat 20hz to 20khz from one's speakers and one's room does not insure it is going to happen. Contrary to the myth that was started during the THD (Total Harmonic Distortion) Wars of the 80's, stated statists tell us little about an amplifer's ability to produce sound through any given speaker. One's amplification and speaker interact with each other in such a way that that they MUST be mated well together. there are reasons why their are $300 amps and $3000 amps and even $30000 amps. I could go off on this tangent for many paragraphs but I will get back to my point.

In addition to amplification one's preamplification can (and does) make a HUGE difference in how a system sounds. Preamplification can influence frequency response quite a bit. I have heard too many preamps that are rolled off both the top and bottom ends with an emphasized midrange. Additionally, your preamp must match your amp and speakers and sources.

Sources to can affect frequency response.

Anyway enough on frequency response. FR is not the end all thing in audio. One might be able to have flat frequency response from an amp / speaker / room combination; however, one's source and preamp can make HUGE impacts on the subtle details of sound that comes out of the speakers. The end detail of the sound of a system can only be as good as the sound that is coming out of the source being played.

The preamplification regulates the volume/gain of this sound, and has an amazing impact on the resolution/transparancy/detail of a system.

So what does Neutrality have to do with system resolution/transparancy/detail? This is a good question. Frequency response can be measured per se... but the actual resoultion of sound of what is being played is a mUCH more subtle thing. And measuring it... is problematic.

This is where I think the term MUSICAL enters the picture. Musical systems IMHO can convey the subtle detail that is offered by recordings. Musical systems work at getting a flat frequency response; however, due to the many problems listed above, this may not be altogether possible. HOWEVER, the trade offs a musical system has in frequency response, are made up by this presentation of detail. Musical systems are also balanced and well matched. Aiming to get the BEST SOUND POSSIBLE FROM THE SPEAKERS OF THE SYSTEM. Many speakers just cannot dynamically (or produce 20hz to 20khz flatly) come close to live music. Speakers such as Maggie 3.6's, I would say are very musical speakers. With the right electronics the 3.6's can show incredible musical detail.

Effectively, every system is limited to the end sound of the speakers of that system. And the speakers end sound is limited to the room that they are in. Neutrality is a very difficult term to define as it relates to audio systems. Musicality of a system has something to do with how well one can get their speakers to sound in the given room. Component matching is very important in a given system. Realistic sound is well... a bit of an oxymoran (most of the time) because most recordings are not recorded to be monitored as 'realistc'.

So what is the goal we are striving for as audiophiles? I would put forward the following:

To work at getting our speakers and room to sound as realistic or live sounding as possible using recordings that were recorded to sound live (unamplified music is best). Very few recordings qualify here... Most of us have to trade off frequency response and dynamics; HOWEVER, inner detail is something that is on recordings that allows us to hear what the music did sound like in the studio as it was recorded. We can hear subtilty and inner detail in our systems.

I must leave now, I wish I had more time to elaborate because I have not even adressed many other issues. And I fear I have over simplified everything I have stated above.

KF

Thsalmon: Right on! Your descriptions, although generalized, match my impressions exactly in every case. Funny how that works!

Re the original post, I'm not sure what point is being made here. "Neutrality" and "Realism" ought to be one and the same, so maybe I'm not understanding the definitions. In my mind, both describe a desire to approach the original recorded sound as closely as possible, without "romantic" or "euphonic" colorations (which many people undoubtedly prefer to realism). Unless maybe you are referring to neutrality as a measurement quality rather than a sonic one, in which case you have a point. By the way, I have never felt Madrigal products to be anywhere near neutral, at least by my definition of the term. They have always sounded extremely polite and sanitized, and quite lacking in life. Many people would refer to this as "refined", and some might even call it "neutral", but I think that is a misnomer. "Neutral" to me means that you can't tell the component is there, and that is most certainly not the case with their products. Granted, their deviations from neutrality are on the "subtractive" side rather than the "additive" side (eg, Krell), but they are not neutral.

What is realism and is it good? I just went to see Angela Bofill in a small theater. Between the "commercial" electronics and speakers it wasn't that pleasant...
The next day I put her lp on my Linn with Levinson gear and Martin Logan spkrs and WOW! I liked her better on vinyl
then "live". Now what??
And the discussion about the measurements is what us Linn folks have been saying about CD's from the beginning. A electronic measuring device are NOT my ears. CD's may replicate scientifically music notes but what does that mean musicality. No IMHO.

Every one of the above posters has given descriptions that are right on the money. The interesting part of all these discussions is that it leads me to conclude what I have intuitively known all along. The room and the equipment become one and the real difference is between ones ears. People have preferences for everything from colors to human features. I've always wondered if the blue I see is the same color inside another persons head. I also wonder the same thing about sound.