The Pain of Neutral Sound

[RobbieGong]

Hi Paul,

In an ideal world I'd agree with you. Do you sense a "but" coming?

But...for amplifiers it's possible to design which is very faithful to the truth, ie very low distortion. Most such amplifiers sound quite similar. Loudspeakers are not similarly blessed with low distortion today so even the lowest distortion speakers are not as true to the original sound as amplifiers can achieve. Is there such a thing as an accurate speaker? Some are more accurate than others but do most notionally "accurate" speakers sound the same? Similar perhaps but isn't that as far as it goes with today's technology?

+1 There are indeed amps that have been built with intent towards genuine hi-fidelity - very low distortion as you say, uncoloured and so on.
Amps like these do play the music with a sense of 'accuracy' in my experience, they just seem to get out of the way.
Speakers might be harder to achieve that with in terms of that underlying character speakers all have to a greater extent than a well executed amp.
That said, 'good' speakers with said amp driving them and a good source will give you accuracy in the realistic sense not the definite sense (which no one can claim to achieve as an absolute anyway)

Therefore, It's then in my opinion good to have some idea of the speaker presentation that works for you in that context which is the trick.

Once you know, it's a good start ie: some people like a very dynamic forward speaker because of the type of music they play - hard, rocky etc
Some like me, prefer non fatiguing, musical and detailed (some call non-fatiguing polite maybe for above reason)

Either way, in the amp and source context I've mentioned, the speakers will disappear and faithful replay should be realised.
Whether it is with 'absolute' neutrality depends on the kit / ancillaries you've chosen, (as we know some kit / ancillaries are known to veer on the bright side)

Another point is that if your system has achieved a high level of hi-fidelity then 'accuracy' that comes with that will reveal that some recordings are indeed bright and that no two recordings are the same, without a doubt in my experience.

This I think is why some people go round and round and round in circles never getting 'satisfaction' because they somehow dismiss, disregard or have no notion of what happens when you achieve the above so as soon as they hear even the slightest hint of brightness they think something's wrong / isn't quite 'optimum' and therefore something needs addressing or changing

It's mad and that's why we need to understand what we are doing / trying to achieve, what's going on along the way and everything that goes with that otherwise you'll never 'get there' to that place of 'mission accomplished' and 'time to enjoy the music' - which is the real point of the whole damn thing in the first place, surely?!

[RothwellAudio]

I thought they were originally used for studio playback in order to hear what the mix might sound like through a typical, crappy, transistor radio ... which most 'pop-pickers' were using back in the day.

No, the NS10 was just another small speaker made to sell to the domestic consumer. A chap called Bob Clearmountain is usually credited with giving them credibility as a studio monitor but his reason for using them was that they were small enough to fit in his car and he could take them to whatever studio he was working in and have the consistency and familiarity of using the same speaker wherever he worked. The fact that NS10s looked so distinctive with their black boxes (not very common at the time) and white cones made them easy to recognise in studio photos and their popularity and legendary status grew from there.

Auratones were very popular in studios as a "typical crappy speaker" that would give people some idea what the music would sound like on the radio/TV and they too developed a cult following.

[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.

[Reffc]

Hi Paul,

In an ideal world I'd agree with you. Do you sense a "but" coming?

But...for amplifiers it's possible to design which is very faithful to the truth, ie very low distortion. Most such amplifiers sound quite similar. Loudspeakers are not similarly blessed with low distortion today so even the lowest distortion speakers are not as true to the original sound as amplifiers can achieve. Is there such a thing as an accurate speaker? Some are more accurate than others but do most notionally "accurate" speakers sound the same? Similar perhaps but isn't that as far as it goes with today's technology?

That's true Clive. Most power amps (at any rate) manage that today, but there's a lot that don't (especially valve amplifiers and many pre-amplifiers).

On the speaker front, you may be surprised to learn that there are systems and drive units that achieve well below 0.5% THD, even at moderately high listening levels. Acuton and Scanspeak both produce some remarkable drive units in this respect. The drive unit alone doesn't determine the total THD, as that also counts on cabinet design and filter design, but it is perfectly possible to design and implement a system with 1% or less THD for the loudspeakers. The average, run of the mill budget designs might be lucky to achieve perhaps 4 or 5% at close to maximum output by comparison with a high quality well designed system.

That is the point...accuracy, naturalness, whatever you want to call it, will never be 100% achievable, but it is possible to get mighty close, although generally speaking, at a cost. Adequate performance (say close to 2% at max output) is achievable by many competent designs. Tannoy list many of their speakers as having less than 1% THD at maximum output, mainly down to limited excursion and quality filters being employed along with decent cabs (I'm referring to the likes of the Kingdom Royal BUT many vintage drivers, including MG's and HPDs in the right cabinets with the right filters are also sub 1% capable).

What polarises opinion I think is the flavour.....without added flavourings! Other factors come into play here, most notably the room the speakers are in. It's all very well theoretically describing what makes a speaker accurate, but sometimes a room will skew the FR to an extent where accuracy is out the window due to lifted or dropped HF or bass response, due to reflections and power response uneveness. So what causes this?

Well, what influences it are things like a 'speaker's polar response (its' directivity measurements), room decay response, 'speaker positioning etc etc. There's many ways to add or reduce distortion by considering these things, but generally, what sounds balanced to the ear is most likely what your hearing perceives as "accurate" based on your interpretation or experience of live sounds and timbres.

It's a massive subject. All one has to remember though is that a well designed 'speaker should not sound forward or bright or analytical or any of these descriptions, in a room which is able to get the best from that 'speaker. Dynamic response (the ability to go from rest to 110dB in an instant!) and the feeling of "realism" generally comes from larger transducers able to move a lot of air yet convey that with detail, and tonal accuracy. You can't get a kick drum to ever sound realistic from a 6inch monitor...that takes something larger. There's so much to this, that ultimately, most end up choosing what fits in with their rooms, lifestyles and hearing to produce the best overall compromise.

[montesquieu]

Very true, near field you're listening mostly to the speaker, mid or far field you're listening to the room as much as the speaker.

I've never been keen on a neutral sound though recently I've tried some equipment which is very neutral but unlike some kit it's not antiseptic. There's a difference between unpleasantly neutral and pleasantly pure. Too much of what is called neutral is to my ears not that, it's often just a bit bright or lacking timbre.

Near field listening can be captivating and very enjoyable but having lived with near field and with large room-filling aproaches I prefer a large room approach any day. Hearing the room effect (for classical or acoustic music at least) is quite important, because musical performance happens in space (or space-time, to get a bit Star Trek). I prefer room for sound to breathe and develop and bounce around and envelop.

I don't necessarily agree that near field you are listening to the speaker, and mid and far field you are listening to the room. Mid and far field you are listening to the speaker energise the room (in a similar way to live performance) which isn't necessarily happening near-field - and consequently I think something is lost, or at least not always found, in near-field listening.

That lack of energising the room was what pulled me back to Tannoys after a few years on the dark side listening to Quad electrostatics - the beaming effect of Quads, the crumbling of the picture if you moved your head, the 2D/window on a beautiful soundscape effect, all of this got irritating after a bit. Going back to Tannoys that seems to shake the sound into every corner of the space, even at low-ish volume, was a coming home.

[Marco]

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.

Why thank you kind sir!

All I did was try and marry what I considered was some of the best of old technology with some of the best of new stuff, as that's what experience tells me is the best approach to building a revealing, but also musically enjoyable system.

If you tip the balance too much towards one or the other, you end up either with cuddly 'pipe & slippers' or 'squeaky-clean but soulless'. Once you fundamentally 'get' how kit (and speakers) are voiced these days, compared with how it once was, blending together the right recipe is easier to achieve

Marco.

[RobbieGong]

Why thank you kind sir!

All I did was try and marry what I considered was some of the best of old technology with some of the best of new stuff, as that's what experience tells me is the best approach to building a revealing, but also musically enjoyable system.

If you tip the balance too much towards one or the other, you end up either with cuddly 'pipe & slippers' or 'squeaky-clean but soulless'. Once you 'get' how kit (and speakers) are voiced these days, compared with how it once was, blending together the right recipe is easier to achieve

Marco.

Yep, a sterile soulless presentation is most certainly not music

[Marco]

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

Marco.

[walpurgis]

Ah. We're back to 'trust your ears' once more.

[Marco]

Ultimately [in the final analysis] it's what has to be done!

Unfortunately, some folk don't seem to have the confidence to do so.... They'd rather place their faith in some piece of test apparatus or science journal.

Marco.