Jump to content

Neutrality - why does it never come off well???


maxg

Recommended Posts

I dont know what it is - every time I hear a system where the owner proclaims the neutrality of his sound I end up listening to music that belongs in an elevator.

Well that is a bit harsh, but I would say that all that wonderful life and sole you get with other speakers just seems to evaporate in a neutral haze of accuracy without tonality.

I have formed a working theory of sorts which I bounced off Tony and as he didnt reject it out of hand who knows maybe I am on to something.

Anyway here it is for all to reject / ignore / abort as appropriate:

When we listen to a recorded piece of music it is not the music itself we are hearing but rather the sound engineer's interpretation of the sound that he has chosen to lay down on the vinyl / CD W.H.Y.

As such the sound engineer I envisage sitting in front of a giant board of switches, dials, sliders and who knows what else adjusting the sound he is hearing THROUGH A PAIR OF STUDIO MONITORS.

If these are his primary guide in creating what presumably is aimed at sounding good on the vast majority of systems out there then the further away from that design you move the further away from the intentions of the recording you go.

Therefore it is no good being able to exactly reproduce every nuance of what he put into the recording on something that is neutral if his intention, and measure, was something that was far from neutral. He has boosted, tuned, flattened, shaped and so on the sound to come out of a box we call a speaker and making assumptions on the nature of the changes that box will make on the sound. change his assumptions and you get this flat neutrality, ear bleeding exaggeration or whatever.

To summarize - in a recording engineerless world where music was transposed directly to the medium with no additional input maybe a neutral speaker is what you want. In our world I dont think it works.

Well that's the theory - needs work but then again that is what it is here for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Max,

See my post regarding the next Socal Horn Group meeting. The guest speaker, John Eargle, may be the perfect person to pose your questions/ideas to. I'll let you know what his comments are. I saw where he has written papers on the subject of studio monitor speakers.

Ya'Sou!,

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely you are correct on one account. HAving run a small studio and visited many, many more both as a musician and a technician, I can say that most of the studio monitoring is really subpar in all ways. This doesnt even bring in the engineer's intepretation of the proper sound, which has been going on since day one. It is what makes some engineers/studios better than others though.

My gripes come with what Tony and others deem "neutral." This is just the same can of worms as the whole rest of the sonic maze, and just as subjective as Tony's perceptions can be, as he cranes neck to see off into the objective mist, all the while never escaping TONY, no matter how much the eyes are squinting...

kh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always thought that neutrality is rather subjective not to mention hard to track down at best.

As was mentioned we don't live in a world where music goes straight from moving soundwaves to recorded media.

How then can we know whether or not a given system is neutral or provides it's own coloration.

It seems to me that the only way to tell if a system was accurate or neutral in a 100% complete manner would be to do an A/B comparison of live music and a recorded copy of that which you just heard, this is of course for the most part impossible.

I decided for my own system that I would only ugrade or change things out if my ears noticed something that seemed out of place.

For now I am happy with the sound of my system but I'm sure there are numerous upgrades for me along the way.

I guess maybe I'm rambling so I'll quit before I make a fool out of myself(too late for that I'm sure).

Peace, Josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Assume what's on the tape, is an accurate image of what transpired in the music hall." THAT would be an unreal assumption on it's surface. "

depends on your definition of "image" doesn't it?

also depends on your definition of "assumption"

{an assumption is real if I really assume it.}

no one really confuses a photographic or cinematographic image for what actually transpired....except for a handful of natives in that village long ago or the audience that ducked the bullets when they first saw "The Great Train Robbery".

c7s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, yes, friend mdeneen, you lay a great predicate for why "audiophile" speakers tend to drift from "live" goals to defined "surreal" performance. Yes, Virginia, there is a real reel beyond our audiophile assumptions. =HornEd

PS: Neutral is as neutral does... and that's like takin' side-ways, by Gum(p)!

PPS: c7s, is the 7 a cryptic ampersand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every now and then a question forms in my mind and I attempt to write it down on here for discussion. Sometimes the idea is transcribed correctly - sometimes not. I am assuming that this is a not but who knows how safe that assumption is??

Once arriving on these shores of the forum just ocasionally everyone goes all Daliesque and this is definitely one of those lobsters!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't listen to music to pretend it is the equivalent of the actual experience, i listen for the "information" it conveys and in that sense it is often an even better experience than "live" because i am in an even more receptive state and if i like i can repeat the experience. this information, by the way, ranges from the sensory to the soulful. the obsessive pursuit of "reproduction", and i agree wi mdeneen about this, is just not the point for me anyway. this in no way lessens the excitement and enthusiasm for the audio hobby.

c7s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fini,

i dun't know, but i think i will just start using ' instead of ", man that was so exhausting just now when i had to press the damn shift key..... maybe i could use ' instead of ".....hey there is a revelation just now discovered again. two of ' together is identical to one " with the shift key, so there is your answer.

double ' =shift key ", try it you'll like it.

'=", '!='" that is to say ' followed directly by a shift key " seems to make '" rather than ', note the extra heaviness of the first ', that seems to be the result. and what is that? why would you use '" instead of "?

'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'""'""'""'""'""'""'"""'"""'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'""'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'""'"'"'"'"

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

on my keboard != this looks like a "not equal sign" eg. an equal sign with a slash through it, but this does not translate correctly to the forum.

also on my keyboard '" appears as a regular " with the first ' extra dark, this also does not translate here.

on my keyboard '" just looks like " but with the first ' more black.

on my keyboard typing ' is absolutely identical to "

this is very interesting, this forum will not display to apostrophe marks in a row. because on my keyboard i can type two of these in a row and get something absolutely equivalent to the shift key " quotation mark.

now i will type 16 single apostrophe's in a row and see what happens, here goes:

'

as you can see it cut them in half to 8.

wow, it did it again, after first submitting my 16 apostrophes it first cut them down to 8, then after re-submitting 4, and now when I resubmit this is expect there to be only 2, and then I will try it again after that just to see how far THEY will go

ok, here goes one more time, let's see if it cuts my 2 down to one.

YES! IT EVEN CUT MY TWO APOSTROPHE MARKS DOWN TO ONE, NOW LET US SEE IF IT WILL EVEN WIPE OUT THE LAST ONE. TALK ABOUT PROBLEMS OF REPRODUCTION!

yes apparently it will allow one '

let's see how it cuts down an odd number to begin with, i will now type 13 of them in a row followed by 13 with a space between them.

'

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

ok, it cut the 13 in a row down to 7, and when i re-submit this it will probably be less. it is ironic that this is happening in a thread about reprodution.

c7s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following statement contains 12 apostrophe marks:

'

i assume this will be reproduced in accordance with the actual event.

let me add, the original performance contained 12 apostrophe marks in a row, how many do you see now?

let me add again, it must be something with the cables. how many of the 12 do you see this time?

and one more time, let me ask, do you count 12 now up there?

this brings up the interesting question, what other marks on the keyboard will receive this same distortion?

c7s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...