will
|
Interesting post Edsonic. I agree with your thoughts for the most part, though they did cause me to want to try to further flesh out our use of terminology. No doubt, our audio terms tend to be overlaid with various levels of subjectivity... but I also think/hope they can be used with relative accuracy. And complicating challenges in talking about perceptions of complex things, it seems semantics can be pretty subjective too!
I love to roll rectifiers, my most rolled tubes these days. But I am also intrigued by solid state rectifiers and their potential from less sag. Yet my amps were designed and voiced for tube rectifiers, and in my systems I prefer milder but still complete and resolving sounding lower power rectifiers...like a relatively transparent GZ32 over a relatively transparent GZ34, the latter too forceful for me across the spectrum.
So one concern I have with solid state rectifiers... As I uncover natural sounding resolution and space, more there, it is more important to me to keep my system from becoming unnaturally forceful. And since SS rectifiers are said to increase the voltage to the other tubes, I find increases in voltage or amperage tend to create a bigger, fuller and more forceful sound, none of which am I looking for. So I have some concerns that a "neutral" SS rectifier might off-balance my system making it less neutral.
Any thoughts on this from those of who have used SS rectifiers?
To me, the term "neutral" brings to mind "natural," having natural balances of real music in decent rooms, nothing missing and nothing overstated.
And though recordings are intended to be relatively accurate to the music, recording choices depend on the variances of ideas of "neutrality" used in tuning recording spaces and control rooms, as well as the choices of mixing and mastering folks. So played in a relatively "neutral" system/room, we end up with some recordings being pretty balanced and neutral, and others thick or lean, bass heavy or shy, bright or dull, etc. This recording variability to me makes a relatively neutral system/room, (without much exaggeration of any part of the very complex sonic balance) a necessity for getting what I consider a more alive sound across recordings.
Then, if we choose to try to enhance our sound with more musical presentation than studios, I think this can still be fairly neutrally done. Or system enhancement can be balanced away from neutral. But to me, having "neutral" as a reference is pretty handy to adjust from, making it easier to avoid going too far toward bass or treble, or detail or smoothness, or whatever, and still playing well across most recordings. So whatever the reasons, for me, more extreme unevenness across recordings in their ability to sound relatively balanced and lively can be a good sign of lack of system/room neutrality.
With really good front ends that do little damage, having complete detail/space complexity and good balance, I find good tube tuning can support not hiding or masking, but helping to musically resolve "the warts and all" into music. Within relative neutrality, my efforts for fast, resolving, lucid, and spectrally and harmonically complete sound, tend to make it feel realer. Whereas, even in subtly sweetening the sound by bringing out its natural complexity in smooth, resolving, and harmonically rich ways, if not fairly neutral, problems will show up with more recordings.
When I think of "neutral," my first sense is related to spectral balance. But this is knowing balanced complex detail and space across the spectrum are critical to a complete sense of spectral balance... So to me spectral balance requires enough "transparency" and "resolution" to create a sense of natural tones like real music, from the bottom to the top.
Relatively even across the spectrum...without masking or exaggerating of any part, with transparency a recording can convey natural and complete sounding resolution, facilitating more complete extension and complexity throughout, all big influences on the sense of spectral balance.
So with more discrete information making up the whole of the sound.... like a more resolving proportion of pixels on a photo, I think more complete resolution (in balance) allows more completeness and complexity across the spectrum, including liveliness, and more resolved smoothness.
So neutrality to me is mostly about realistic spectral balance with relatively complete transparency and resolution. And all three balanced, masking less, we can reveal more nuanced information, more fine detail in space, and associated, richer tonal balance with textures, and realer feeling ambience and decays. Also expanding hard edges with complexity, fine detail can help edges become more relaxed and textured, while being more graceful in sonic transitions into harmonics and spacial information. Associated, reducing smearing as a way of increasing fine resolution reveals how fine detail is as much about space as detail. And with more complete space between sounds, we tend to get better pace, better micro dynamics, so more exciting speed and liveliness.
My take anyway, and no doubt subjective. But to me it all goes back to a sense of real music in relatively well balanced rooms as reference. And some folks are better at discerning neutrality within the vast complex of our music than others. But that is a lot of the "audiophile" experience to me, growing better able to discern all that is needed to make music feel more complete and real at home....more engaging, more captivating.
So "neutral" is a handy tool for me... neutral being about "balanced,"and being a reference from which to hear "off-balance," as well as giving a baseline for expanding our perception and discernment of finer and subtler aspects of our musical experience. As I gradually learn more of the subtle qualities that make the music sound realer (and those that don't), I am pretty sure it gives me more information. And with effort, more information can help me learn to better describe what I hear. Ongoing exploration for sure, but hopefully, as our music gets more refined, so do our listening skills, and visa versa.
So I agree, all we can say is clearly based on varying personal perception and expression. But I think these terms can also provide a very good foundation for perception and description. And if we can learn to use them better, we can better help each other in our audio quests.
|