Ludspeakers: How do you judge "neutrality"?

This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?

There are many experienced audiophiles in this forum and I would
appreciate all comments, theoretical as well as how you approach
auditions personally.

Raghu

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:44:23 GMT, RPS wrote:

This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?

There are many experienced audiophiles in this forum and I would
appreciate all comments, theoretical as well as how you approach
auditions personally.

I cheat, and use my own master tapes............... :-)

I believe that most people would consider a 'neutral' speaker to be
one which produces a natural-sounding speaking voice, and also sounds
as much like an original concert hall p[erformance of unamplified
music as possible. Failing that, note that several companies such as
PMC, B&W and ATC produce a range of professional monitor speakers
which are widely used in the recording industry. Use a B&W N801 for
instance, and you'll be listening to your classical music on the same
speaker which was most likely to have been used by the mixdown
engineer.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:44:23 GMT, RPS wrote:

This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?

There are many experienced audiophiles in this forum and I would
appreciate all comments, theoretical as well as how you approach
auditions personally.

I cheat, and use my own master tapes............... :-)

I believe that most people would consider a 'neutral' speaker to be
one which produces a natural-sounding speaking voice, and also sounds
as much like an original concert hall p[erformance of unamplified
music as possible. Failing that, note that several companies such as
PMC, B&W and ATC produce a range of professional monitor speakers
which are widely used in the recording industry. Use a B&W N801 for
instance, and you'll be listening to your classical music on the same
speaker which was most likely to have been used by the mixdown
engineer.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:44:23 GMT, RPS wrote:

This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?

There are many experienced audiophiles in this forum and I would
appreciate all comments, theoretical as well as how you approach
auditions personally.

Raghu

The main thing when auditioning a new speaker is this - if on first
hearing, you say "wow, that sounds great" then walk on by. That is not
a neutral speaker.

I remember my first hearing of a Quad electrostatic. I had been
expecting great things and I was frankly disappointed, it didn't
really seem to be much of anything. No booming bass, no fizzing highs.
But on further listening I realised that all that stuff was there,
just not overstated. It was clean.

I think that is the best way to sort out what is neutral - it should
not grab you by the throat in any regard - just carry on sounding
better the longer you listen to it.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:44:23 GMT, RPS wrote:

This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?

There are many experienced audiophiles in this forum and I would
appreciate all comments, theoretical as well as how you approach
auditions personally.

Raghu

The main thing when auditioning a new speaker is this - if on first
hearing, you say "wow, that sounds great" then walk on by. That is not
a neutral speaker.

I remember my first hearing of a Quad electrostatic. I had been
expecting great things and I was frankly disappointed, it didn't
really seem to be much of anything. No booming bass, no fizzing highs.
But on further listening I realised that all that stuff was there,
just not overstated. It was clean.

I think that is the best way to sort out what is neutral - it should
not grab you by the throat in any regard - just carry on sounding
better the longer you listen to it.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

In article , RPS wrote:
If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?

A good question which I have often asked myself too. I don't have a
complete answer above the trite "I know it when I hear it" but I do have
some indicators which (I think) work for me. It's entirely possible
this is just my own personal definition with which no-one else will agree.

First of all transparency or neutrality to me means the absence of
obvious defects. For example:

- tonal imbalance: too much ("impressive?") bass; too much treble
smoothness or contrariwise too much "spit" in the treble

- boxiness: a sort of grey or tonally coloured resonance which
can also leave sound behind, blurring the boundaries between the
musical notes where there should be more silence.

It's a question of trying well-known recordings, especially if you have
heard them on more than one system - even if it's only having listened
on your own system, in the car, on headphones or (better) on someone
else's system. I have a few which I take with me to auditions.

As others have said voices are something everyone knows well from
long real-life listening experience. Voices sounding just right is
a good indication of accuracy. There are also defects to avoid here,
for example:

- excessive sibilance: can arise from a specific form of tonal
imbalance with a mid-upper frequency overemphasis

From attending concerts you will have an idea of the natural range of
sounds especially from acoustic instruments. I find small percussion
instruments if they sound natural to give a good indication of dynamic
accuracy.

Well, that's some of it. However it's your ears which matter and your
own likes and dislikes which are much more relevant than mine.

--
John Phillips

In article , RPS wrote:
If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?

A good question which I have often asked myself too. I don't have a
complete answer above the trite "I know it when I hear it" but I do have
some indicators which (I think) work for me. It's entirely possible
this is just my own personal definition with which no-one else will agree.

First of all transparency or neutrality to me means the absence of
obvious defects. For example:

- tonal imbalance: too much ("impressive?") bass; too much treble
smoothness or contrariwise too much "spit" in the treble

- boxiness: a sort of grey or tonally coloured resonance which
can also leave sound behind, blurring the boundaries between the
musical notes where there should be more silence.

It's a question of trying well-known recordings, especially if you have
heard them on more than one system - even if it's only having listened
on your own system, in the car, on headphones or (better) on someone
else's system. I have a few which I take with me to auditions.

As others have said voices are something everyone knows well from
long real-life listening experience. Voices sounding just right is
a good indication of accuracy. There are also defects to avoid here,
for example:

- excessive sibilance: can arise from a specific form of tonal
imbalance with a mid-upper frequency overemphasis

From attending concerts you will have an idea of the natural range of
sounds especially from acoustic instruments. I find small percussion
instruments if they sound natural to give a good indication of dynamic
accuracy.

Well, that's some of it. However it's your ears which matter and your
own likes and dislikes which are much more relevant than mine.

--
John Phillips

"RPS" wrote in message
...
This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?


You can't.


I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?


Yes, of course, how else will you know?

"RPS" wrote in message
...
This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?


You can't.


I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?


Yes, of course, how else will you know?

Keith G wrote:

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?
You can't.

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?
Yes, of course, how else will you know?

However, many critics and audiophiles audition speakers and pronounce
one to be accurate or not, colored or uncolored, including in this
forum.

I was wondering what such assessments are about? Is it in the end a
different, if somewhat misleading, was of saying you simply like or
don't like a particular speaker?