GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Audio Site

In the Forum: Playback Listening
In the Thread: The Sound and How We Hear It

Post Subject: Something for NothingPosted by Paul S on: 11/9/2008

Tuga, clarity is certainly an important prerequisite for true dynamics, where "dynamics" is the musically meaningful idea of differences as applied not only to SPL but also to "rate", such as the space/contrast/interval between a 1/8 note and a 1/16 note, for example, and also to "timing", such as the point where a note begins or ends, as well as how it begins or ends. As has been observed here, good "clarity" is not really all that common, and it is too often got at the expense of "stripping" away some temporal and/or dynamic aspects of the musical event, or "bleaching" away color/harmonics/ambience. This can give the chain "less to do" and so create a greater sense of organization/clarity, but the downside should be obvious. Attention to these considerations can also yield the wonderful benefits of quiet dynamics, including pauses and certain delicious ambience cues.

Tone and color are not the same. Tone involves shape in addition to pitch. The idea, I think, is that a system should be capable of producing all tone and all color heard in live music. If a component/system has its own signature "tone", then it is said to be "colored". And likewise if a system is limited with respect to its available range of colors, it is thought of as "colored" according to its limitations, by which we identify the sound of the system itself, or it is thought of as "washed out". One should not "add tone" to a system, but add to the system's ability to create tone.

Ironically, even a "dynamic" system can have trouble with dynamics, IMO. I am thinking here of cartridges and speakers that can really crank up the sound, and that do contrast very well, but that call attention to themselves in the process, like one of those fitness-type "dancers". Of course this phenomenon is observed in degrees, but it drives me nuts; the quintessential "high-end" "hi-fi". IMO, although results are important, for the best results the means should get out of the way, too.

One thing we don't talk about very much - considering its prevalence - is noise, per se. Noise can ruin music by confusing/overloading the system and our ears/nerves. But too often attempts to cut noise also result in a homoginized and/or constipated sound. The ways noise starts and propagates is for another thread, but it is a critical factor in getting a system to "work", that's for sure, and noise certainly affects color and dynamics, and, to a lesser extent, tone.

I see the ideal of "neutrality" as a system that allows and facilitates all the variety found in music without adding or subtracting anything, according to our experience of the music. The real chore is to keep the whole thing balanced with real world compromises. For me, any "tone" that characterizes, say, a transducer, is a compromise. I realize that this puts us at the mercy of our recordings. But I have been surprised as much as pleased to find great music all over the place, not just from "audiophile recordings; in fact, pretty much not from audiophile recordings. I am particularly gratified to find so much music in older records, despite their so-called "obvious limitations".

Where this leaves us is very much a question of how far along we are in our relationship with both music and reproduced sound/music, and our determinations about what works and does not work in terms of playback, all of this in abstract terms. Of course this is a process, and in that sense "end results" is an oxymoron. It looks like one's system will be a reflection of one's understanding on these levels, facilitated/exacerbated by whatever level of mania one experiences during the quest.

Best regards,
Paul S

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site