The Pain of Neutral Sound

[Marco]

Hi Paul,

Measurements are essential Marco to getting these things right.

Sure, and if you read my last post again, I didn't say that they weren't

However, we are in agreement here:

I use computers, and mics, and measurement of other sorts, and my ears, and maths....and I even have a pencil sharpener somewhere (unless the dog's eaten it). Such facilities are to be embraced and used properly. The ears are vital to judge the finished article and to "visualise" in audible terms things like whether one has got things like resonant control and decay of enclosures correct, whether things are phase correct, whether the polar response is nice and smooth, yet for all this, we have measurements which tell us enough about all of those things to get it right.

And here:

One thing we have to take care about is generalising simply on the standpoint of what is used for PART of the design. Technology allows for greater refinement and reduced R&D effort which is a good thing but ears are always the final arbiter.

Indeed. Measurements are necessary and fine up to a point, but *in the final analysis* we must trust our ears.

Essentially, after it leaves the test bench and passes technical scrutiny with flying colours, the final 'voicing' of any piece of equipment or speakers must be performed by using the ears of a human being, as whatever it is being produced will ultimately be bought and listened to by a human being, not a computer, so on that point we are in entire agreement

As for your other comments about certain speakers heard at shows, I have no problem with anything that you wrote. However at the end of the day, all you can do is tell it as you hear it - and have heard it on numerous occasions - and for me, regardless of anything else, the 'voicing'/presentation of a lot of modern speakers and equipment, regardless of how well it measures, leaves a lot to be desired.

Marco.

[Marco]

And yet were today's technologies available to Tannoy back in the day when the 15" Monitor Gold was designed I consider it a certainty that Tannoy would have fully availed themselves of the same tech and design procedure as are today's TAD, Kharma,Rockports etc.etc. transducers.

Perhaps, and if so, they may have ended up making musically inferior loudspeakers, and in that respect gone backwards more than forwards, just like, IMO, some of the products produced by the companies you've mentioned, regardless of their apparent technical prowess.

Ask yourself why forums are littered with threads where people who've never heard some of the best vintage equipment before (the likes of valve amps and turntables, from the golden era of the 1950s, and into the 60/70s, to the 1980/90s/early 2000s, for 'real' CD players), together with speakers from the early part of that era and before, and are taken aback and shocked at just how good some of that stuff sounds, which is purported as 'obsolete'?

We're preconditioned to believe that new technology always delivers genuine advances, and that in terms of equipment and speakers, newest is always best [and of course if manufacturers and dealers are to remain in business they *need* us to believe that], yet listening experience often exposes that notion for the fallacy that it is.

Marco.

[Joe]

Ask yourself why forums are littered with threads where people who've never heard some of the best vintage equipment before (the likes of CD players, valve amps and turntables, from the golden era of the 1950s,

CD players from the 1950s?! I've certainly never heard any of those. Seriously, almost all of the early CD players I heard in the late '80s (from the likes of Sony, Technics, Marantz and Pioneer) sounded dreadful. The only ones that didn't make my ears bleed were from Meridian, and they were well outside what I could afford. I put off buying one for several years, finally buying an Arcam Alpha in 1992 as the 'least bad' affordable option.

[Marco]

CD players from the 1950s?!

Did you miss this bit, daftee, from the same sentence:

...to the 1980/90s, for 'real' CD players...

I don't entirely disagree with you, in terms of the sound of some of the players you mention, but that's why I mentioned earlier about combining the BEST of old and new technology. I'm not saying for one second that in stock form all vintage CDPs were 'awesome' - far from it.

However, with the decent ones you were at least generally guaranteed a quality, dedicated CD-only transport mechanism, a nice 'chunky' linear PSU, a solidly built (often copper-clad) chassis, together with a DAC that, with some 'judicious tweakery', could make the most out of the CD format - all of which form the basis of good player, so that's the 'best of the old technology' ticked.

Enter now the 'best of the new technology', such as re-clocking circuits, which help remove jitter, optimising PSU arrangements, upgrading ancient electrolytic capacitors for the best polypropylene types, etc - and when implemented correctly and combined with the above, fundamentally transform the existing player into an entirely different, grossly superior animal - and one which in my experience allows it (and others of its ilk) to compete with, and often outperform, virtually anything that's produced now.

That's exactly what my vintage Sony CDP and DAC are about, which I've had now for nearly 15 years, and despite trying hard, haven't heard anything new better it!

The problem is (correct me if I'm wrong), you've never done anything like that, and are a strictly a 'plug it in and use it as the manufacturer intended' kind of guy, like indeed the vast majority of people, and there's nothing wrong with that.

However, that's not how you get to appreciate the benefits of applying a little lateral thinking

Marco.