Serge Auckland wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...
snip leaving rigid definition part

Neutrality: Where a sound is reproduced as accurately as possible
without emphasis of any frequency.
In other words as life like as possible.
The two statements are not synonymous. Lack of emphasis of any frequency
means a flat frequency response, with no sharp peaks or troughs,
especially peaks. "As life like as possible" implies not only a flat
response, but also low distortion and accurate dispersion characteristics
which, when the room acoustics are included, result in an accurate
representation of the recorded event. The closest approach to the
original sound anyone?

If the OP had added that accurate meant 'original', and that emphasis
meant change, would that have cheered you up?

And 'an accurate rendition' of an 'original' need not represent
'lifelike'. If someone thinks an oboe sounds more like an oboe with
certain things added or taken away from the original recorded sound (as
opposed to the performance), is that not more lifelike, and hence neutral?


Bass weight: A stronger representation of the lows as if it were a
larger speaker.
How does this differ from extention?

Perhaps it does mean extension, although not necessarily linearly.

Imaging: placing voices & instruments at a point in space.

Soundstaging: How a performance fills the room, does the sound feel it
is in the room (if so does it fill the whole room or sound as if it is
confined to within the speaker listening positions), confined towards
the speakers or eminating from the speakers!
This is primarily a function of the room, together with the dispersion
characteristics of the loudspeakers.

Room a big factor no doubt, but often not practical to remedy. I do find
that valve amplification and a vinyl source create (recreate?!) a sense of
space, making sound more like music. Just thought I'd mention it ;-)

Rob

Now that electronics have reached the present level of perfection, the room
is the single biggest factor affecting accurate sound reproduction.

I find myself amazed that we're collectively prepared to spend thousands on
new amplifiers, CD players etc, let alone silly money on cables or mains
conditioners, when we're not willing to put in some basic acoustic
treatment. Maybe it's the low WAF, or maybe we're not artistic enough to
make the stuff look acceptable, or maybe it's a bit more difficult to brag
down at the pub that I've just bought a new bass trap.

Whatever the reason, we throw money at equipment without tackling first what
the equipment is going to work into, i.e. the room. I have visited several
friends with what would otherwise be very good systems, to find that the
sound is dire due to poor loudspeaker positioning (e.g. QUAD ELS63s in
corners) poor acoustics (bare tiled floor, minimalist decor), large
'speakers in tiny rooms for hi-fi when the TV is in the large room, stereo
'speakers at different heights on top of furniture, and don't get me started
on people's surround-sound efforts. Get the room right *first* using a
modest system, then upgrade.


Well, I'm not amazed. The little I've read on the subject seems to
indicate a need to make and understand measurement, extensive listening
with a range of music (and films etc), and converting living space into
some sort of sound box. The act/art of compromise is also tricky. Do you
have a favoured book/web resource you could point me to?

I've just plonked some Castle Harlech* speakers in my front room - they
shouldn't work, but on a lot of music they sound splendid.

Rant over! Merry Christmas
S.

Pick it up in the new year! Merry xmas to you and all.

Rob

* at my local dealer, £300, leaving me nowhere to go :-)