Nuetral Sounding Systems is this the Goal?

I hear people who ask for recommendtions for "warm" sounding equipment responded to with doubts that this is a good idea and then the responders proceed to say it is better to be purchasing "nuetral" sounding equipment. Is this really what the majority of people believe? I for one disagree with this "nuetral" approach. I've never gone to a concert and left saying that was the most nuetral sounding performance I have ever heard and meant that in a positive way. Systems need to produce music that is exciting to the listener and in my opinion that is not nuetral sounding. It seems from my experience that concert halls all add a flavor to the performances sound as does how specific instuments are made and set up. This could be tubes used in amplifiers, type of strings used, species of wood, minute differences in dimensions or even skins on drum heads and sticks used to hit them. So why wouldn't someone want to fine tune their system to have a flavor that their ears like also. Of course it still needs to be musically accurate, but I would say you really don't want a system that is too flat, and totally nuetral sounding, this can pull a lot of life from the magic of music. What you want to stay away from is non-musical distortion. How do you draw the line between fine tuning your system to produce music that sounds correct to your ears and one that has gone too far away from true music assuming true music has many shades and flavors that are all correct. Ever piano recorded should not all sound the same. Not being in the space that recorded these notes nor in the control both it then is very hard to say with full authority what the correct sound is. What one can say is that certain systems are designed to produce more or less detail that one can hear and say I am listening to a piano. Some people love overly detailed music as though they are sitting next to the performer while others like to be much further away where the minute detail is lost, so again does nuetral play a part in responding to someone who is trying to build a system and asks for recommendations on a piece of equipment that gives a warm sound?

 

I think you are confusing a neutral audio component (a component that does not interfere with the signal that it is passing or amplifying) with a neutral sounding component, in the sense of: a component that makes everything sound boring. The first would be great to have (but seems to be an unreachable ideal), the second would just make everything sound bleh. No one wants that.

In other words, a truly neutral component would be incredibly exciting! It would indeed make every piano recording incredibly different sounding from all others, etc.

 

Who likes a tonally neutral balanced system? me, for one. No, most people here or anywhere else will not agree as they don't have the experience to do so. Not trying to say that I have super-human abilities, just 30 years of experience with assembling hi-fi systems of all types. That has placed me in the unique position to be able to relate my experiences to many people with many different components who want to know what to do next.

You've got the logic all wrong here. it's a common mistake actually, as if the basis of the thought were correct, then the logic used would lead to your conclusion. The problem is the basis is not correct. You and many, many others, (nothing personal, it's really very common) have assumed that music from your hi-fi should sound like a live event, and another assumption is that that would be better, ie more accurate. I can't say whether or not someone might prefer one live event over another person, but I can say that they are all different. That's not how recordings or how playback of them was designed to work. In fact, we do not listen to live events via our Hi-Fi at home, nor would we want any specific venue to be the voice for playing back recordings made at other venues. That would just be a gross coloration imposed over the correct rendition.

So two things matter, one is that the recording is what we are reproducing, not any other event, only the one recorded. And any system that deviates from neutral will color that event and add those distortions to the output, so that the recordings can never be heard precisely as intended. Now other things come into play than just gear to make a system neutral, such as the room that it is in and its set-up, but you can't start with something way off and hope to get back to equilibrium by throwing equally colored things at it. Warm plus warm equals what? Very warm, warmer than it's supposed to be. Cold and clinical plus cold and clinical is as well. Sometimes if a customer has a very warm sounding product that they want to keep, then adding a cooler sounding piece may help. but it's best to start off with everything where it should have been to start with.

Also many live concerts simply sound bad. And many recordings are done in a studio to avoid bad sound of live situations. So they have already worked that out for you. Sticking with their work experience pays off.
-Bill

 

I guess my premise comes from listening to many high end systems, enjoying all, but realizing each has its own sound, so which one is nuetral? I think that is a mistaken concept to chase. Not sure what is but " nuetral" seems misleading.

 

I perceive little info from 'neutral' sounding. Clear & undistorted sounding is more descript to me.

 

My system sounds dark with the recording sounds dark.
It sounds crispy when the recording sounds crispy.
It sounds like real instruments when the recording sounds like real instruments.
It sounds like "they are in the room" when they were recorded in the room.
Every different brand of piano sounds different. A Steinway sounds like a Steinway.
Most music sounds inviting ("warm") because most intruments are chosen by most artists to sound good (warm?_).
I believe in neutrality.
No obvious bias or trend comes out of MY system.
Except that music instruments sound wonderful because well, the performers chose great sounding instruments.
Does that make sense?
NOW do you know what "neutral" means?
It has no "typical" sound (thumpy or ear splitting for instance).
My two cents.

 

Is most source material neutral, doubt it. Lot's of variables from the recording process to the listeners environment, and assuming the product you have, CD, LP, tape or whatever is as the musicians heard it or intended is not always the case. Tailoring the audio playback for the listeners personal preference and enjoyment is all the matters, call it whatever you want.

 

We don't know which one is neutral, it comes down to which sounds most believable to you. My understanding of neutral would be no distortion at any stage after the medium, also known as the rabbit hole.

 

Agreed. Neutral is a term used by those in the know to describe tonality. It simply means having no tonal balance irregularity, ie tone controls bypassed vs bass or treble adjusted. As long as that flat position is consistently accurate as measured or heard in-room from various recordings known also to be neutrally balanced.

What you are describing here though is also transparency, which is a lack of coloration as well as other distortions. In other words it is a clear window into the recording. That has as much to do with dynamics and distortion as with tonal balance, both are important to retaining fidelity to the original recording, with all the flaws or lack thereof of the original recording. That is essentially the definition of Hi-Fi, a large degree of fidelity to the original source.
-Bill

 

For me, the system NOT having it's own sound is the goal. I want to hear the sound of the recording. It might sound detailed, or it might sound "warm", or "clinical", but I don't want my system making that decision.

 

True, but it is demonstrable after some time with it. For instance, when you pick one title and play it, you can't really know if the recording is well balanced tonally based only on that information. You need to listen to many other recordings on that same system to get the full picture. Then, it can be discovered that some recordings are better than others and to identify them as such. If the system however consistently favors one side of the tonal spectrum, then the system itself is not neutrally balanced. So this can be demonstrated and corrected if necessary. Sometimes it isn't the system electronics but the room or speaker placement, and that can be corrected to recreate the most accurate, neutral presentation from the now known good recordings. There will always be the odd recordings that just don't sound as accurate because of the way they were created.
-Bill

 

I also believe you can't make a judgement about this unless you live with the system for at least 3 days, as you can listen to a great system and think it sounds cold and clinical but then when you return to your system it can sound veiled and too warm (coloured?).

 

There are as many correct answers to this as there are people who will respond to it. Ultimately, unless you are a reviewer or some other audio professional who has to test equipment or hear perfectly uncolored sound for a living and needs a true neutral reference, neutrality is nothing but a point on a continuum (and probably a moving target at that). For some people, happiness will be a dead neutral system, for others it will be a highly analytical system and for a growing number of others, it will be a highly musical, warm system. This is a hobby (for most of us) and intended to be fun - the only person you need to please is yourself.

 

Interesting discussion. One would think there are almost an infinite number of variations of music reproduction, considering not only amp/table/cart/speakers but also cables, interconnects and even cover plates for electrical outlets. Each variation produces a slightly different sound. What is the gold standard? How it sounded in the studio? I think only hearing a large number of systems and deciding what coloration pleases you without getting too far from the recording. And then compromise is necessary for those of us who can't afford a few hundred dollars for an exotic electrical outlet cover plate.

 

No.
I am NOT describing transparency when I say "Neutral."
That describes a particular "quality" of the gear and setup and if your gear is "transparent" then you have "real GOOD quality gear."
I am NOT describing "real good gear" when I say it is neutral.
My office system has LS3/5 monitors which are very neutral.
However my LS3/5 speakers have a bit of a "rasp" because Spendor used a material (I forget what it is---"Bextrene?")
And Bextrene has a slight coloration.
So while my resulting sound is very neutral--- it is not PERFECT quality wise.
I do not have a "transparent" sound.
I have a very NEUTRAL sound.
I also have a little TV setup that is pretty darn neutral.
But it too is lacking in finesse and is less than "transparent."
Transparency as a rule is not an issue that I chase down as a "must have."
I can live with a cheaper (but NEUTRAL) system that has a few quirks and is not "transparent."
But I can't live with a system that is not "neutral."
Don't lie (not neutral).
But tell the truth with a lisp--OK.
I am being cute but I hope you understand the difference I am making here.
Some of the most "transparent" systems I have ever heard LIED to me.
They told a transparent LIE.
I wish they were MORE "neutral."
And I would take that even if they were LESS "transparent."
As a matter of fact I sold tons of super expensive "transparent" speakers when I was in high end audio.
But most were terrible and lied like a rug.
They were very "clear" but NOTHING sounded like what it was.
Drums sounded like buzz saws for instance.
That is why I live happily with Harbeths even though they are not the clearest in the land.
They tell me so much truth I accept their slight shortcomings in "transparency."
I apoligize for taking so long with this explanation.
But it is an important distinction at the levels I play at.
And it is NOT a simple concept.
However I adore good results and it helps a lot to know what you are going for when you decide to spend a lot of money on this hobby.
My two cents.

 

Everything you say about location I agree with but chose to ignore.

The rest comes down to the individual and how they perceive tonally balanced, whilst still thinking some recordings are better.

If two people disagree, we need a majority of voters, to cause chaos.

 

I recognize and concede that my system is not a neutral sound reproducer -- an almost impossible achievement for the reasons listed in posts above. But it definitely is an exciting sound reproducer! And that is what makes me look forward to each listening session -- a bigger, bolder presentation (than mere neutral, heh) with more of all the good things we seek in audio, and very realistic sounding too actually.

 

OK, I see the distinction that you are making. I saw the examples that you used to express it as describing transparency as well as neutrality, but you can certainly mean to say tonality and leave it at that. I like both, personally. And yes, clarity without proper tonality isn't very endearing. But then I'd also call that a distortion in itself, and so a less than transparent sound. I suppose what I am getting at is that I find it needs to be both transparently clear and tonally neutral to be truly transparent overall.
-Bill

 

"I couldn't possibly say" (Minister), no politics allowed here

 

OK- so neutral or transparent. I guess. Both/either may be a double edged sword.

Would you rather have a euphonic system that makes everything sound from pretty good to excellent and glosses over apparent defects from the source?- or a transparent system that shows you what is on the media warts and all?

I have a Fugoo bluetooth speaker that when streaming Pandora sounds pretty darn good. It makes music, mostly.

My current main system I think is set up fairly transparent. My sources are LP/CD/streaming/tuner

I set my system to play an sacd/LP that was well recorded/mastered and it sounds Perfect! No EQ, no sub. Direct line. Perfect. I am there-or they are here. whatever. Excellent. That's my baseline.

Now, I grab an old LP/cd and find it something I really don't want to listen to because the vinyl/mastering, source, vintage (or whatever) sound quality just doesn't cut it for whatever reason. Where is the value in that? How much neutral and transparent will solve this problem? None. Ick. I change the source and/or LP and move on. Man, I really wanted to hear that old Aretha LP tho. I know there is music hiding on that black vinyl.

I want to play the music and have music! You know- music that makes you relax and forget the system/source/bad day at the office. Does the neutral and transparent cause the problem? It is showing me what is being played back from that source. Warts and all. hmmm...

Believe it or not- I would strive for this level of transparency- at least as a baseline. If you don't start with a clean window- it's may all be downhill from there.

I also like to think I have found something of a middle ground. I have tone controls. Yes I admit it. Bass. Treble. Loudness. Even worse... My sub has tone controls! and separate volume from right near my listening position/amp. I can raise/lower and EQ a walking bass to match Aretha even on a nasty old LP that's been played a bazillion times. I can take the heat off the pops and crackles. I can play with the lower midbass and upper midrange to match-What in my own little world/room/ears I think it should sound like to make me happy and tap my toes and get the always lovely Linda to dance and shout "Damn! I love Aretha!"

Would I/She really rather hear what's actually on that old LP I found at a garage sale for a buck years ago, Warts and all? for the sake of 'transparency'?

Not just no- but Hell No. I'd rather watch Linda shake her bootay

Just goes to show- There's a butt for every cushion. Whatever gets you where you want to be- go for it.

Cheers,
RW

 

The most important thing is to have a sound system that gives you enjoyment when you play music through it. If other people - even 99% of other people - hear your system and don't like it because they consider the sound "not neutral/too colored," it doesn't matter, if it's what you like. So let's get that agreed to and out of the way.

That said, however, I have to agree strongly with @G B Kuipers and @KT88 : When we're talking about the goals of a sound system in an audiophile community (which, broadly speaking, is what this is), we're talking about hi-fi, which of course means high fidelity. Fidelity means fidelity to the original recording.

While speakers and listening rooms of course vary tremendously, the entire principle behind high fidelity playback is that the music should not manifest qualities markedly different from what the artist and engineer intended when they mixed and mastered it in the studio. So a wide soundstage mix shouldn't have a narrow soundstage when played back on your system; a clean, well-balanced bass shouldn't sound tubby or boomy; a recording with clear, crisp acoustic guitar transients shouldn't sound rounded off and "syrupy"; male vocals recorded and mastered with a lot of bass undertones shouldn't sound thin and reedy; a dry recording shouldn't sound like it's had reverb added to it; and so on.

That's what I understand by a "neutral" system - and I am happy to substitute another term like "accurate," "faithful," "high fidelity" or whatever, as I agree that "neutral" is an ambiguous term.

So I agree with the OP that no one should tell him that his own system should be neutral. But I do have a problem with the argument - and the OP is far from the only one to wade into these particular waters - that euphonic (aka less accurate) equipment not only sounds nicer, but also magically is more accurate because its nonlinearities happen to be exactly right for recovering or adding back some extra layer of accuracy that was lost in the recording, mixing, mastering, and pressing chain. That, IMHO, is a too-convenient, self-serving argument.

 

Just based on the title, that's not my goal, nor is ruler-flat frequency response. Emotional enjoyment and connectedness to the music is my goal. If that means a smiley EQ, ok. If it means a lean DAC and a warm preamp, ok. My room is both my primary limitation (small) but also my greatest asset (midfield listening, small, dynamic and explosive sound but with clarity and definition and a good feel for stage width and depth). These days I kind of know it when I hear it.

 

No equipment is really "neutral", but I appreciate equipment that does not add too much character. Not a fan of "warm" sounding gear. I can throw a blanket over my speakers and get that...

 

There is a train of thought that ones gear should be able to transform music from the source component through the speakers into a euphoric listening experience. It's been my experience that a lot of this transformation occurs with midband coloration of some sport. I can understand while folks want this, but it is a tricky slope. Some systems can be built to lean to a particular type of music which can be good and bad. Systems that gravitate towards neutral tend to be more enjoyable all around, for me, but they may lack some of the high points a colored system can bring out on some recordings.

 

I once heard an extremely colored tube/horn system - Altec bass bin, multi-plex Altec horn, some homebrew push-pull 300B amp (which I suspect was the real culprit here) - and it added a big golden hue to the music. I mean every record sounded great! And then an hour later, you realized the coloration was on every recording. This "warmth" was excessive - at least to my ears - even though it was enjoyable.

Of course I've heard really "cold" analytical systems (excessive bump in the treble?) that hewed the other way, driving one out of the room after a few songs. Listen to all that in your face DETAIL!

A good stereo should be honest, but, given the varying quality of recordings, that could way could lead to madness. A friend of mine once owned Quad ESL-63 loudspeakers. He ended up selling them because they were too ruthlessly revealing for the type of 60s rock music he enjoyed. He said he could only enjoy 20% of his records listening to them, so off they went.