The Pain of Neutral Sound

Well that is the avenue I am pursuing at the moment. Just get stuff based on solid engineering principles, no bull. I mean there are no easy answers. My research so far indicates that: 'If it weighs a lot then it is probably really good' seems to be an approximate rule of thumb with pretty much any bit of kit. ;)

Cables and mains and all that is still a mystery of course. Hard to see patterns there.

Hopefully I'll be testing the weight theory again very soon, if it ends up sterile and soulless I'll let youse know :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

'If it weighs a lot then it is probably really good' seems to be an approximate rule of thumb with pretty much any bit of kit. ;)

---

In that case, you want a 401 in a big, foot thick slate block plinth. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

[B]They'd rather place their faith in some piece of test apparatus or science journal.

Marco.

---

Or dealer recommendation. Which can be OK. Just don't turn up on a day when a less scrupulous one want to shift some slow moving stock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

Well that is the avenue I am pursuing at the moment. Just get stuff based on solid engineering principles, no bull.

---

You shouldn't go too far wrong with that approach. In terms of electronics, anything filled with huge fuck-off linear PSU(s) has a fighting chance of sounding good, and in terms of speakers, anything big and ugly enough to be considered as 'anti-WAF', should hit the spot nicely.... ;)

Marry the two together, and say hello to audio nirvana! :D

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walpurgis

In that case, you want a 401 in a big, foot thick slate block plinth. :)

---

No, if we are talking turntables, the 401 would not be my choice. A sorted one is fantastic, don't get me wrong. I'd be more tempted by an SP10 from my schoolboy engineering point of view but what I know about turntables I could write on the back of a fag packet.

I've only ever heard serious vinyl replay in other people's systems. Anyway, that's a rabbit hole of its own and off topic... The quality of the phono stage really matters is the main thing learned from my experience there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

The quality of the phono stage really matters is the main thing learned from my experience there.

---

Well in my case big and heavy does not apply here really. I've found the smaller and lighter phono stages better as a rule. Like the Slees and years ago I had one of those tiny Bellari VP-29 valve units. That was a big surprise. I suppose the Moth Series 30 phono amp could almost be described as heavyish. Damn good sounding for the money. MC side is good too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walpurgis

Well in my case big and heavy does not apply here really. I've found the smaller and lighter phono stages better as a rule. Like the Slees and years ago I had one of those tiny Bellari VP-29 valve units. That was a big surprise. I suppose the Moth Series 30 phono amp could almost be described as heavyish. Damn good sounding for the money. MC side is good too.

---

mine is tiny :eyebrows::eyebrows:

Two points;

Firstly the recording already carries an acoustic from the recording venue, and the listening room adds another to that, and,

Have you seen the spec of the Benchmark power amps? I thought the ATC was good at 0.005% dist. but the Benchmark is 20dB+ better, and yes it does sound very, very, good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

And yet that is what some class as 'accurate', simply because measurements dictate so! :doh:

Marco.

---

Actually Marco, that's not the case at all.

If the right measurements are taken, and the size and design are right for the room, then an "accurate" 'speaker system should and will sound anything but lifeless and soul-less. If you believe half the hype from some manufacturers' marketing types who make bold claims about some designs which are pretty flawed, then you might end up with something that is lifeless and soul-less. It's strange just how often how people's views on "accuracy" are skewed and slanted towards just exactly what it's not. In your case, following solid engineering principles (by your own claims) should result in something accurate and far from soul-less.

Lets all try not to be divisive when entering such debates as it doesn't help the debate :)

Not sure why you'd consider my honest opinion, Paul, as "divisive"? I certainly wasn't referring to anything you've made! :)

The fact is, I've heard numerous examples, over the years, of equipment and speakers (in terms of the latter TAD and Wilson, for example) that despite claims of being 'accurate', as supposedly evidenced by measurements, to me sound sterile, soulless and musically bereft, which I wouldn't give house room to, especially considering the bonkers prices asked!

The 'voicing' for me of a lot of stuff being produced now (and here I'm referring mostly to that of 'large concern' commercial manufacturers) is alien to how real music sounds, so I think I'm entitled to tell it as I hear it and submit reasons why I think that is so.

The accent today is placed too much on producing a 'squeaky clean'/clear sound, at the expense of tonal warmth and musicality, which the best vintage equipment has in spades: that 'listenability', which is hard to define and can be so elusive, but is crucial to allowing one to 'relax into the music' and enjoy it, without sitting there critically analysing the sound.

And for me, this has gotten worse the more that manufacturers today use computers at crucial parts of the design stage (focussing too much on specs and measurements), instead of using their ears.

Measurements of course are vitally important when designing any piece of hi-fi equipment, speakers perhaps even more so than anything else, but at the end of the day when a 'measured to buggery' design becomes a finalised product, and is listened to by a human pair of ears, if the sound produced offends and isn't considered as enjoyable to listen to, then all the measuring in the world and striving for 'accuracy', has been for absolutely nothing.

Sometimes you can measure out all the fun! ;)

Marco.

You have to be wary of a falling into the trap of blaming a bad sound, or a 'souless' sound on some particular aspect without due investigation. Like the enormous TAD system they demonstrated at Cranage Hall - it was terrible but why was it terrible? I'd suggest that it was not the design of the equipment that was at fault. That seems to me to be the least likely cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

You have to be wary of a falling into the trap of blaming a bad sound, or a 'souless' sound on some particular aspect without due investigation.

---

Yup, absolutely right. But when you repeatedly hear the same thing again and again, from the 'usual suspects', at various different venues over the years, and in the company of different equipment, it sends out a message that simply can't be ignored.

Also, aside from anything I've heard at shows, I've had considerable experience of listening to some of the gear I'm referring to in home systems, some of which belong to friends, systems I know well, and so can accurately judge what's doing what - and more often than not it has the type of presentation I've described.

The reason why my system works the way it does, which you referred to earlier, is precisely because I've married the best bits of old and new technology, and it took me a long time to 'get' what that was about, what was wrong with a lot of stuff being made now, and why the sound produced by much of it was very disappointing.

The fact is, we've gone sideways or backwards much more in audio than forwards, and thus made little *real* progress, in the area that matters most (getting equipment to sound less like 'hi-fi' and more like music), since the days when all the best (genuinely innovative) stuff was born.

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

In terms of electronics, anything filled with huge fuck-off linear PSU(s) has a fighting chance of sounding good...

---

Sorry for being blunt but that's total beau lacks. A rubbish circuit is a rubbish circuit, no matter what size of transformer you use to connect it to the mains.

Lol - did you miss the smilies attached to that post? My comments there were tongue-in-cheek.

Yes the circuit is the most important thing, but all else being equal, I'd expect a quality, well-implemented, linear PSU to sonically outperform anything fitted with an SMPS. That's certainly been my experience so far.

Btw, one of the areas where I consider that HUGE advances have been made today is in phono stages. And yours are very good! :)

Marco.

:doh: chances are it will be decent tho if they go to trouble of putting in a big decent linear though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Lol - did you miss the smilies attached to that post? My comments there were tongue-in-cheek.

Yes the circuit is the most important thing, but all else being equal, I'd expect a quality, well-implemented, linear PSU to sonically outperform anything fitted with an SMPS. That's certainly been my experience to date.

Btw, one of the areas where I consider that HUGE advances have been made today is in phono stages. And yours are very good! :)

Marco.

---

Sorry, I misunderstood - I don't think I've fully woken-up yet this morning :doh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

I'm aiming for a balance between a window on the recording and something that is still fun to listen to. It's a fine line. Marco's system manages to do achieve this, so it is do-able.

---

Yeah, but look at the "War And Peace" signature that has to accompany it! :D

Lol - the main reason my sig exists in that format is so that if someone asks me, say, which cables and plugs I'm using, I can refer to the info on my signature, which saves me from the hassle of going to look for it! :)

Marco.

Mine is there to annoy folk :ner:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

You have to be wary of a falling into the trap of blaming a bad sound, or a 'souless' sound on some particular aspect without due investigation. Like the enormous TAD system they demonstrated at Cranage Hall - it was terrible but why was it terrible? I'd suggest that it was not the design of the equipment that was at fault. That seems to me to be the least likely cause.

---

Enormous TAD system? must have been at a different show, I feel you are getting mixed up up, maybe Windsor that year? I do not remember any Reference 1's or TAD 600 series equipment on display at that particular show Macca, perhaps you are confusing the evolution electronics with the CR-1's possibly.

Souless and terrible? in your opinion most probably, in a great many others a different opinion is held would be more accurate.

Let us look at what you are discussing a natural, open sound with no nasties at top and bottom of the frequency spectrum then.

I have two pairs of JR149's one brand new still sealed the other well used, they make pleasant sounds and would not offend anyone, do they offer a genuine reproduction of what has been recording not in a million years, does that make them a bad speaker of coarse not its a personal preference.

The Hello and welcome to the BBC type sound is antiquated its dates back from the late 40's where a plummy voiced Guardian reader would introduce the nights proceedings in a very limited band width fashion in a perfectly nice and polished voice, with very limited frequency extension at end of the spectrum due to the equipment (both recording and broadcast) being limited at the time.

So who cares? I mean who is really after a more realistic sound at all?, very few hifi buffs in the UK are. Which on the whole identifies with a large big fairly warm sound they can turn up to number 11 fill the room aplenty and not overly stimulate the tympanic membrane hey we are all happy job done. And if costs thrupence ha penny off e-bay then a few more ultra low PPM drift a year resistors for the passive pre amps :D

All joking aside does any know and can quantify what real nature sound is? and can you realistic replicate it?

Paul mentioned studio monitors and home styled speakers, is there a difference (taking out Yammy NS speakers :D)

I would suggest that many a genuine studio monitor is purely designed to allow the mixing engineer FULL access to what is going on in the recording booth no more no less, this will allow him or her to constructively mix the sound to enable the finished product to be listen to by a great many people of a large number of different capability systems from -10dB compression no bass below 120Hz and the top end rolled off at 9Khz to fully blow hifi system that can genuinely reproduce all the nuances and spatial information a piece of vinyl or digital recording can muster.

The other should be able to grant the listener many long term listening experiences whilst keep them ENTERTAINED and not just pacified with humm Jazz cats. Which the BBC LS3 type speaker is great at doing.


The question does the individual prefer the former or the latter, or possibly a place in the middle.

A good question with some quite bizarre answers!

Carry on guys, the chaps in the studio this afternoon have been royally entertained with this thread :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RothwellAudio

Sorry for being blunt but that's total beau lacks. A rubbish circuit is a rubbish circuit, no matter what size of transformer you use to connect it to the mains.

---

A very astute observation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. C

Enormous TAD system? must have been at a different show, I feel you are getting mixed up up, maybe Windsor that year? I do not remember any Reference 1's or TAD 600 series equipment on display at that particular show Macca, perhaps you are confusing the evolution electronics with the CR-1's possibly.

Souless and terrible? in your opinion most probably, in a great many others a different opinion is held would be more accurate.

:)

---

No, I am recalling correctly but i am referring to the show in 2015, not last year.

it was terrible, and not just IMO but in the opinion of everyone who I have seen comment on it. Playing Steely Dan 'My gold teeth pt 2' it was hard and unpleasant to listen to. If that is accurate I don't want accurate, but of course it is not accurate, it is just badly flawed.

Possibly the biggest con ever is to flog people expensive systems that sound bad and tell them 'this is what the music actually sounds like'. No it isn't. And yes, I have spent time in studios.

I didn't draw the conclusion that TAD gear is rubbish from their piss-poor demo, I have too much experience for that. I did draw the conclusion that the people demonstrating it didn't have a clue what they were doing, or didn't care, or both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Not sure why you'd consider my honest opinion, Paul, as "divisive"? I certainly wasn't referring to anything you've made! :)

The fact is, I've heard numerous examples, over the years, of equipment and speakers (in terms of the latter TAD and Wilson, for example) that despite claims of being 'accurate', as supposedly evidenced by measurements, to me sound sterile, soulless and musically bereft, which I wouldn't give house room to, especially considering the bonkers prices asked!

The 'voicing' for me of a lot of stuff being produced now (and here I'm referring mostly to that of 'large concern' commercial manufacturers) is alien to how real music sounds, so I think I'm entitled to tell it as I hear it, and submit reasons why I think that is so.

The accent today is placed too much on producing a 'squeaky clean'/clear sound, at the expense of natural warmth and musicality, which the best vintage equipment has in spades: that 'listenability', which is hard to define and can be so elusive, but is crucial to allowing one to 'relax into the music' and enjoy it, without sitting there critically analysing the sound.

And for me, this has gotten worse the more that manufacturers today use computers at crucial parts of the design stage (focussing too much on specs and measurements), instead of using their ears.

Measurements of course are vitally important when designing any piece of hi-fi equipment, speakers perhaps even more so than anything else, but at the end of the day when a 'measured to buggery' design becomes a finalised product, and is listened to by a human pair of ears, if the sound produced offends and isn't considered as rewarding, then all the measuring in the world has been for absolutely nothing.

Sometimes you can measure out all the fun! ;)

Marco.

---

I have some empathy with your viewpoint Marco.

I have lost count of the number of times that certain companies have "designed" things using appropriate software...inappropriately. There is one company that still insists that all it requires is the driver details and it will come up with a filter solution for a sum of money. To be blunt, if I may, that's codswallop as it's impossible to do things properly that way. I have had work in to re-do some designed that way, but properly, having the whole loudspeaker here, using the proper measurements in the appropriate manner and then using computers to help simulate what will happen when trying out various filter topologies. It uses technology to great effect which vastly reduces trial and error and cost, and improves overall performance. Used correctly, it is a gift, not a millstone or anything to sneer at. Used incorrectly, it is next to useless. Rubbish in = rubbish out.

Also at shows,I have heard some pretty awful designs as well as some stunning ones.

It has been all too easy to blame the speakers and their design for mediocrity when in truth, they are only presenting the sum effect of recording, source, amplification and room response and quite often, those displaying their wares do get it wrong and do their 'speakers no favours, so it can be difficult to judge as I think many of us would agree.

In particular, I have heard TAD stand mounts and KEF blades, and Tannoy Kingdoms and some large Ushers (forget the model) all sound mediocre, even downright awful, yet on different days and circumstances, the very same speakers have enthralled me and surprised me with how good that they actually are. There's nothing inherently wrong with their design and in fact all mentioned are amongst the best I have heard. So in honesty, they are all very accomplished and decent loudspeakers, but where they were let down was that they were demonstrated with inappropriate upstream kit or recordings or the room just was wrong for them. Whilst there's little in reality some manufacturers can do about resonant stud-partitioned rooms with low ceilings, there's little excuse for not getting the rest right.

Last time (this is for Mr C!) I heard the TADs, the one's I listened to were pretty stunning, I have to say.

Measurements are essential Marco to getting these things right. 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.

Why things are often got wrong is because things start with a flawed concept (nice domestic friendly slim 2-way floorstanders trying to emulate full range performance) which is the response of the controlling marketeers within some companies to what they think people want, not necessarily to what sounds best. they have to play the market game to volume sell and make profit. To a large extent, the engineers work for the marketeers using flawed concepts and trying the make the best of them....it's all a compromise. Thankfully there are those visionary companies that still do things properly and buck the trend of stack em high, sell 'em cheap/expensive! (delete as appropriate). Things haven;t really changes since Briggs' time. A good big 'un still beats a good small 'un and for good reason, but the challenges then become technical, structural, manufacture, and domestic/marketing.

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.

Should anyone be interested in my system, they need only look at my profile and click on 'About me'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by struth

Mine is there to annoy folk :ner:

---

I put mine in my sig., then took it out as it was dull reading even for me, let alone anyone else.

the velleman 8020 mentioned in the original thread is my back up pre and it sounded pretty marvellous in this set up

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...rch-d70-mark-2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

And for me, this has gotten worse the more that manufacturers today use computers at crucial parts of the design stage (focussing too much on specs and measurements), instead of using their ears.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hifinutt

the velleman 8020 mentioned in the original thread is my back up pre and it sounded pretty marvellous in this set up

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...rch-d70-mark-2

---

Love your definition of slumming it! lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reffc

IAlso at shows,I have heard some pretty awful designs as well as some stunning ones.

It has been all too easy to blame the speakers and their design for mediocrity when in truth, they are only presenting the sum effect of recording, source, amplification and room response and quite often, those displaying their wares do get it wrong and do their 'speakers no favours, so it can be difficult to judge as I think many of us would agree.

In particular, I have heard TAD stand mounts and KEF blades, and Tannoy Kingdoms and some large Ushers (forget the model) all sound mediocre, even downright awful, yet on different days and circumstances, the very same speakers have enthralled me and surprised me with how good that they actually are. There's nothing inherently wrong with their design and in fact all mentioned are amongst the best I have heard. So in honesty, they are all very accomplished and decent loudspeakers, but where they were let down was that they were demonstrated with inappropriate upstream kit or recordings or the room just was wrong for them. Whilst there's little in reality some manufacturers can do about resonant stud-partitioned rooms with low ceilings, there's little excuse for not getting the rest right.

Last time (this is for Mr C!) I heard the TADs, the one's I listened to were pretty stunning, I have to say.

.

---

Yes exactly. No response from Mr C to my last post I notice...I think he was assuming I was saying that TAD is crap, well, assumptions again. If I could explain why it was so poor and why my system at 2% of the cost outperforms it by a country mile I would win the internet. But I can't.

Mr. C, I disagree with your assertion about the antiquated sound of the BBC, although it has now been superseded, but they were the pioneers of the high quality speaker system in Britain in the 60s and later. Things have now moved on considerably, and done so based on their freely available research which was pioneering at that time.

I remember well just how pure listening to 4038 mics. in the cubicle was in the early 70s; it was stunningly real to hear a small Indian ensemble playing three instruments live in the studio whilst in the cubicle, and was much better than anything I had heard.

The same is also true of the LS5/5 speaker, on which I remember Abraxas was far better than I had ever heard anywhere else.

Is it possible to quantify "Real nature" sound? I think not because it is as presented, and is by definition an un-adulterated original.

I also disagree with you about your assertion that few care about realistic sound; I really am aiming for that, and it is a long way off.

Studio monitors are surely designed to be revealing, but isn't that to reveal reality?
Isn't that what this pursuit is for; aren't we trying to remove errors?.

I do not know which BBC LS 3 you are referring to, but the 3/4 was very good, and the 3/6 also.

Hi Paul,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reffc

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheMooN

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe

CD players from the 1950s?!

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

...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.