Neutral or colored Whats your Gig?

[rollo]

   Well being at this game for over 30 years[ Did I say that] I've had neutral, Iv'e had colored, I've had semi neutral. You name it we had it. When the system was neutral the great recordings were breathtaking the run of the mill were horrible. When the system was colored all sounded good, again with some exceptional.
     With the neutral system our music library was limited to only a few recordings such as RR, Chesky, Mapleshade, Telarc and a few others. With the quality of the Cds today I say colored is the way.
     What say you?


rollo

PS This should be fun no fighting please. He He He!

[_Scotty_]

Say rollo you aren't trying to be provocative are you. I guess I am in the neutral camp more or less.  I have been consciously avoiding coloration when ever possible for the last twenty-five years.
 In my mind coloration is a an unpredictable means to render a flawed recording or playback mechanism more listenable. If coloration is defined as adding a good dose of 2nd harmonic distortion to mask the aforementioned faults, this will work but at the expense of what could be heard from well executed  modern recordings. Dumbing down the replay in this fashion puts a cap on further improvements in resolution
possible from progress in recording technology and replay mechanisms.
The resolution limits imposed by adding colorations to my system are an unacceptable price that I find no need to pay in order to enjoy the music I listen to.
Scotty

[wet weasel]

Cool topic!
Can I say "some of each"?
My main system, the Wave-Motion Engine, I'm building that with neutrality and resolution as key properties guiding my component selection.
I do notice that some of the music I remember from my youth sounds like there's "less of it" there than came out of the tubed console stereo I useta play Hide'n'Seek under, before dad went the way of modern solid-state sound and came home from Radio Shack with black brick components.
I wonder if it might not be fun to build a system around tube amplification and single-driver speakers. After all, sometimes I want a glass of Perrier, and sometimes a cup of hot soup would hit the spot (and leave a crater).
cheers ww

[bpape]

I'll walk the fence too.  I want accurate but forgiving.  I don't want sugar-coating but I don't want a nail in the side of my head on those old rock recordings that are just a bit hot  in the mids.

Bryan

[Bigfish8]

I'll walk the fence too.  I want accurate but forgiving.  I don't want sugar-coating but I don't want a nail in the side of my head on those old rock recordings that are just a bit hot  in the mids.

Bryan

Bryan:

I have been seeking a way of describing the sound I am seeking from my system and you nailed it.  Bob Smith built some deadly accurate speakers when he made my Timepieces and I am trying to add a little mid-range warmth.  I listened to an old Bob Segar recording this weekend and the sound was, well, yuk!  I believe Brian describes the sound in his post.  Some recordings produce sound that is die for as does the live album from Bruce Hornsby and the Magic from Bruce Springstein. 

My speakers were made by a guy with a recording engineer background so he made them to have the flattest frequency response possible.  When I listen to my system I want to get sucked into the music.  I want to hear the instuments as I would if I were at a live performance.  Live performances I have attended have a "warmth" to the sound, they aren't cold and clinical sounding.  What from what I have read and been told if you do not want to listen to your system for hours on end then you are mentally turned-off by the sound it produces.  Over the past couple of weekends I have listened to my system for 8 to 10 hours straight while watching football on the big screen with the sound turned-off on the tv.  I find I like many of the sound qualities but I would just like a little more warmth in the mid-range without losing the upper detail.

I hope I did not get off topic.  My limited experience tells me you walk a very tight line between deadly accurate, bright and forward or mushy sounding with loss of upper detail.  It seems to be a real challenge to get it right!

Ken

[Carlman]

I have more questions than answers...
How do I know what 'neutral' is?  Is it what seems uncolored to me? 
What if coloration makes something sound more true to life... Does that mean a colored sound is actually neutral?

I like transparency to the degree that allows the instruments to sound as real as they can... or the performance to render itself in an entertaining way in my living room.  That answer creates a sliding scale with exponential cost, though.  So, do I limit that to a system pricepoint?  Also, what's entertaining to me may be colored, sterile, or neutral to others... There's no standard to define these things.... Maybe Rollo can produce a definition?

-C

[rollo]

OK, its a start. Some say neutral some say colored. Provocative you say,this time yes. IMO there is no such thing as neutrality. Its impossible. Everything is colored in one form or another. If we say neutral to the source, how do we know what that is? We were not present at the time of the recording session to  know what the musicians intended us to hear. Were close about 80% on the finest systems in the world. Then the microphones and room acoustics color the sound as well as the recording equip. Listen to piano at Carnegie Hall and then at Lincoln center. Two different sounds. Carnegie being rich and Lincoln being bright.
     When we play our music it gets colored again. The playback system does that. Some less than others but still colored. Neutrality does not exist IMO. Chew on that a bit.

rollo

PS Scotty just my opinion, whats yours? HeHe!

[miklorsmith]

This is a deep topic that could go on for a long time.  I have many thoughts but less time.  For now, let's say I agree with Carl's preliminaries.  I have this weird, unsubstantiated wild hair that the second order harmonics endemic to tubes simulate instrumental vibration.  So, the nuance present at the live event IS NOT adequately captured through the recording process, IS NOT present on the silver disc, yet materializes in the room on playback with sufficiently "colored" gear.

Convenient, huh?   

If this is true (it most assuredly is not), which is the "neutral" gear?  That which is presenting the silver disc honestly, or that which sounds most like the instruments themselves?

[richidoo]

Carl, I find your answer to be quite neutral, and Mike's is quite colored. hahahaha Looking forward to reading your full thesis someday, Mike.

I like chocolate milkshakes and I like water. I usually go for the clear sound with accurate classical recordings because I wanna hear the inner detail of instruments' harmonics and all the room ambience. Also on tube mik'ed classic rock, fast bebop jazz, etc. But I like Amperex buffer tube in my EE Minimax preamp playing R&B, Big bands, some vocalists. Swapping one tube is easy and it makes a ginormous difference. Detail is lost but luscious fat is added. Nice to have both available.

[miklorsmith]

Let me say it another way - truly transparent, as in an absolute portal to the recording venue, would be ideal.  However, that is not reality with any gear.  The way I think most folks use "neutral" and "transparent" describes sound that I don't generally care for.  To me, "colored" gear has better harmonic density and creates a better illusion of reality, i.e. more transparent.

[richidoo]

I see your point, Mike. Like through a clear window you can see colors better. I find that the harmonic density (good term) is easier to hear when the detail and microdynamics are strong point of the system. I guess that's what I mean by clear, accurate, transparent. But I don't want the music to sound like tasteless colorless water. hehe I think a fat and rich sound doesn't necessarily come from fat sounding vintage tubes which darken the window and reduce the details, even though they ad their own enjoyment on top of the recording. Like salt on a tomato. Together better than either alone.  Silenbt background is proving to be the ultimate sweetener for me. It isn't adding anything to the recording, and yet the harmonic density becomes much more pronounced.

[bpape]

Exactly.  Let the details emerge naturally instead of having to 'hype' them to come from a noisier background.  This IMO also yields the 'space around the instruments'.  And no, it ain't all about signal to noise ratio 

Bryan

[miklorsmith]

Exactly.  However, the pursuit of detail isn't enough.  I had a dedicated room to myself with a buddy with Wilson Alexandrias, Halcro amps, and some expensive CDP and was completely unimpressed.  It was the classic "hi-fi" sound I just can't stand.

On the other end, I bought a pair of monoblock Dared 300B amps.  They were mushy, undefined, and didn't last a week.  Tone by itself doesn't create the illusion.

I can't see myself going to an all SS rig though if I end up being happy with that it would be OK.  Tubes recreate spatial cues better than any SS I've heard, including the RWA 70.2 amps which are the best IME.  With the Lamm preamp filling out the space and adding a touch of warmth, it sounds like real instruments whether that's accurate to the CD.

BTW - what is actually on the CD?  It isn't what was heard at the event and to hear it requires a bunch of conversion steps.  To me, the reference is the instrument where the string (neutral) and body (color) are represented in balance.  Everyone has a different idea of where that balance lies and our physiology/descriptive abilities skew "results".

Also, don't forget the many dimensions of sound.  One of my hot buttons is dynamic contrast which I find horribly inadequate a lot of the time.  I live with some frequency response anomalies to achieve better dynamic shading.  Transparency here is related nimble transitions and volume contrasts in the mix.  To me, simulating the illusion cannot be complete without it yet I hear very few comments about it.  There are comments about dynamics in general which I interpret as macrodynamics which are a different concept yet still important.

Imaging and soundstaging are held up as valuable concerns but these don't equate to reality for me, rather a concoction of special effects.  For others, they are a primary ingredient to "transparency".

This question cannot be answered universally, though hearing others' opinions does help ponder and consider the many dimensions.

[_Scotty_]

rollo, I approach neutrality from a linearity or distortion standpoint. Start with as much information as you can from your source. Then try to minimize the amount of non-linearity or distortion that is added by the rest of the chain. You have to also try to preserve the dynamic contrast or life in the music. This can easily be lost without some sort of measurable distortion being identified as the cause. I have relied on Stan Warren to minimize the non-linearities added by my source,preamp and power amp for the last eighteen years. By not purchasing off the shelf components and by building my own loudspeakers I have avoided the problem of figuring out what, of the hundreds of components for sale would add the least distortion and suit my tastes. Early on I figured out what I liked and wanted to hear from my system when it was playing my records and CDs and I have not deviated from this course.
  I admit that the speakers are the most colored component in the chain and all you can do is buy or build the flattest measuring speakers possible and pick the type drivers and cone materials you like to listen to. I have also chosen drivers that sounded alive to me but finding these drivers is a crap shoot. Some of the flattest measuring drivers have been some of the deadest sounding ones. Dynaudio drivers
I used in the past are good example. Music goes in and doesn't come back out.
Morel drivers which are very similar in design and measurements have  better dynamics and more information comes out of them. Go figure.
This is where personal choice and suiting you own taste comes in and needs no defense.
  As far as enjoying classic rock recorded over thirty years ago goes I think the best approach to deriving enjoyment from these flawed recordings is to buy a graphic equalizer. This is the best tool for the job of partially fixing the problems these recordings have and rendering them more listenable.
Scotty

[richidoo]

I agree with Scotty about distortion. I think of any change of sound from singer's lips to my ear as a form of distortion. It can be dynamic, harmonic, noise, whatever. Eliminate the distortion and it always seems to sound better to me.  The ear/brain becomes valuable in identifying distortion past the point where measuring instruments leave off.