neutrality vs. realism

Paul, only 2 dimensions? i experience 3 dimensions with most recordings and regularly have that "this is really happening here and now" sensation. there is resolution in the software to recreate the 3 dimensional illusion if you can reach it and then present it unrestricted.

as my system has developed these "happening here and now" occasions are more and more frequent.....in fact, normal with my vinyl set-up now.

is it real life? of course not.....but it does get close enough to take me to another place that i like and is truth. the tiny little things that my system does now are the major reason for the increase in the moments of suspended reality. these tiny things are what happens when you approach the technical limits of your equipment or room and the musical message might normally break down....as you refine your system you control the musical message at these critical moments and the picture becomes complete and real.

Oh Mike, I dont disagree with you at all. I get a lot of enjoyment out of my stereo system too. And I even think I get a sense of that palpable 3 dimensional presence stuff. But really, all you have is left and right, and from that you can derive depth. But, the sense that the sound is coming from 3 dimensional performers spread around a soundstage is an illusion or an artifice. Of course, if you close your eyes in a real live performance, can you tell how fat the soloist is?

A friend said this: "when you listen to a stereo you are listening to two channels creating a virtual image at a listening position in the room. It is radiating quite differently from a live stage of instruments and it is attempting to achieve a very limited result: a facsimile at your head. The representation of a stage of instruments at the virtual stage in front of you is very inaccurate. In stereo there are two speakers emitting one instrument as opposed to a live event where each instrument has one source region. Having it sound live will only happen rarely by coincidental alignment of factors and even then it won't be fidelity to the original event, it will only have a sense of generic aliveness."

That illusion of generic aliveness is what I think you and I are enjoying from our stereo systems. Especially when we are listening to a favorite vocalist.

Regards,

Paul

The only direction towards reality that could yield appreciable results is multi-channel sound. With HT having set the table for audio multi-channel, the results insofar as multi-channel audio go, are seriously compromised. All those who believe in some inherent rightness of two channel reproduction will, invariably, point out to failed attempts in the past. A very progressive way of thinking. The record producers will use the capability with varying degrees of "realism" and will, no doubt, be unable to refrain from exaggeration. On that last point, do you know of anyone or anything in audio that is not the embodiment of "exaggeration"? Good day.

I've only been a real 2-channel "nut" for about three years now, and up until a few months ago I thought I had a good handle on these audio terms we use for reference.

Now I'm not sure.

I always hear these arguments between neutral and musical. Doesn't neutral imply that it's somewhere in the middle? If so, what's on the other side? UNmusical? Therefore, wouldn't we always want musical?

How does one determine neutral? Is there a standard?

Why is neutral referred to as being "real"? I've been to some live performances that are very musical.

Are "live and "real" the same? When you attend a "live" concert or performance where multiple mikes, amps, electriconic instruments and mixing equipment is employed, is that really..."real"?

Therefore, is it only performances utilizing acoustic instruments considered real? can the venue or hall impose such characteristics as warm or neutral?

I really started to rethink these terms recently when I was trying different tubes and cables in my system.

Overly detailed voices seemed to fool me more into thinking the person was in the same room with me breathing into a mike. But that's just it. A mike. When you talk to a person, even close up they never sound like these high-rez recordings. So is that real? Voices that are fuller and a little less detailed on top sound to me more "organic" [oh no, that term], but sometimes do less of a job of sounding like they're in the same room.

Terms like warm, cold, bright, dark, detailed, dull or veiled, airy, holographic make some sense to me.

But NEUTRAL, LIVE and REAL are much harder to pin down.

So, I've come to this REALization. There is no standard or paradigm, just what sounds good to the listener. And we shouldn't argue about these terms because they are all so vague and relative to each person's tastes and perceptions.

I'm not saying they're completely useless, because they do offer a good reference. But too much is placed on their importance. They're not, they're just descriptions.

Sorry for sounding like Andy Rooney.

I read the original post as a restatement of the old question: "Do you want your system to make your music sound good (musical), or do you want your system to accurately portray what's in the grooves (neutrality). Tok2000 makes an excellent point about the quality of our music software being a major determinate of musicality/neutrality. Is a system really a high end system if it makes a shrill recording sound warm and pleasant? The accurate reproduction of an input signal should be the goal of all high end equipment (EQ devices excepted). Any sonic deviation from this definition of neutrality should be considered distortion. The problem with this line of reasoning is that we don't have a comprehensive set of tests and measurements that can accurately describe the human music listening experience. Some interpret this predicament to mean that we should ignore measurements and rely entirely upon our own individual hearing. Instead I think it merely means we, as both listeners and equipment designers, still have much to research and learn about music reproduction.