Neutrality: An Audiophile's Utopia

[Leonardo Drummond]

I thought twice about posting this here since it became a bit long, but it's something I just wrote in my blog with my thoughts about this issue. I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately, and this text just contains my reflections on the subject. I know you guys are not very much into long texts - as I've learned in my JH13 review -, but I hope I can be excused since this isn't a review and to me it's a rather complex issue, so drying it out would probably make it less successful in expressing what's complex to me.

I posted this here in the off-topic since that way, if no one becomes interested, it can simply become lost in oblivion or deleted. Still, if anyone bothers to read it, I hope it's interesting and/or helpful. If not, my bad, I'll apologize in advance

Again, it's just my opinions, so you might agree, disagree, think it's good or think it's crap. In any case, I'd love to know what you guys think. Here we go...

One of the best definitions of the term “audiophilia” I’ve even come across says that it’s the recognition that the quality of the reproduction affects the enjoyment of music. I completely agree, but it’s curious to notice how much this quality of the reproduction is actually subjective. Consequently, there are many different schools in audiophilia, and choosing between them is simply a matter of taste.

However, even those who prefer euphonic lushness over absolute fidelity, still worry a lot about neutrality. One of audiophilia’s greatest objectives is ensuring that the reproduction is as faithful as possible to the original performance. That’s where the much sought-after concept of neutrality comes from.

Basically, an equipmanet is neutral when it presents the signal it’s fed with in an absolutely passive way, so that the final result is as faithful as possible to the original performance. I myself use that term – “neutral” – all the time. But is that really possible?

Let’s first consider how a usual recording process happens. An acoustic instrument or a voice has its sounds captured through a microphone, which already imposes its “voice” to the signal, and this signal is transmitted to a pre amp and then to the mixer through cables. All of those may affect the signal in some way. In case the instrument is amplified, then you can record it using a microphone using a specific amplifier – chosen by the artist – and then the process begins again, or else it can be connected directly to a pre amp that goes to the mixer – in that case, there is an even greater need for adding effects, such as amp simulators, reverberations, and so on.

Speaking of reverb, there we have another great influence to the process: acoustics. Recordings of pop genres usually happen in acoustically dead spaces. The sounds don’t bounce off the walls and sort of “die within themselves”, so to speak. The objective is to generate the rawest recording possible, and the reverb is artificially added later on. Some of the more pretencious recordings – or live recordings of acoustic performances, such as of classical music – are done on rooms picked specifically because of their acoustic properties. In those cases, they are purer recordings in a way.

But there comes another issue: how is the soundstage on the recording? If more than one mike is used, which is the case in 99,9% of the recordings I know of, even those with audiophile pretentions, they have to be joined together by the sound engineer. In regular studio recordings, the problem is worse since the whole soundstage will be entirely artificial: the instruments are recorded separately and the reverb effects are also artificial, so the whole spacial information is totally fabricated.

We also have the fact that music is always mixed and mastered – process where effects, eqs, adjusts, overdubs, auto tune and so on are added. It’s a long process, and in the end, we even have give way to the evil compression. Loudness War anyone?

Do you realize how complex is the process? Even on recordings designed specifically to sound as close as possible to the original, we have numerous influences that make what’ recorded very distant from what actually happened during the day of the recording. If we are talking about pop genres, subject to different demands, we’d better give up.

The point is that up until the actual media there’s a long way, and from the media to the reproduction, we know very well what happens: DACs, pre amps, power amps, CD palayers, headphones, cables, room acoustics... how can we expect to hear exactly what happens on the day of the recording?

I know no one expects that, it’s just impossible. But even if we lower our demands, and deprive ourselves to ask only for something that’s faithful to what’s on the media, what’s there was produced by a human being, with his personal taste and according to what, according to his ears, on his reference monitors, with the recording equipment available, on the day of the mixing and mastering, sounded good and close to the original event to him. In another studio, with another sound engineer, the result would be different. And another piece of music, recorded in another studio, with another artist and other equipment, will have it’s mixing done in a very different way. It will be produced and judged in different circumstances and the result will achieve a certain “neutrality” at that moment that might not necessarily be replicated in the studio mentioned on the first scenario.

Consequently, what’s recorded onto that media is not the original performance. It’s an interpretation, in many cases different from the event that originated it. Again, every sound is subject to this – in a smaller or larger proportion.

Therefore, how can we demand neutrality from a specific equipment? How can it be “neutral” and render with competence Metallica’s Death Magnetic while being able to show the humanity and sincerity of Chris Whitley’s Dirt Floor? This to me seems impossible. What’s on the media is already distant from the artist, which went through several modifications, interpretations and subjectivism until it got there. From there to our hearing the process pretty much repeats itself, and at the end, what we hear is still prone to our own subjective judgement of what sounds neutral to us.

We must be aware that this never ending search for neutrality at everything is not possible, and an equipment that does well with the visceral impact and energy of a rock piece will hardly be the most competent piece of equipment when dealing with the delicate performance of a piano sonata. The recording processes were very different, as well as the style of the recording gear used, the rooms, the sound engineers and even the artists’ intentions. The whole process, from the original event up to the actual recording, took diferent paths, so to make the media go back to the original event, probably we’ll need different reproduction systems.

This reminds me of the difference between the HD800 and the Orpheus. In absolute terms, the 800s are the most neutral. They’re more passive, while the HE90 follows a more euphonic path. The problem is that what I hear from acoustic pieces on the Orpheus sounds infinitely more neutral and lifelike to me than what I hear on the HD800s, which sound colder and more sterile. It’s more human, much more like what I hear from an actual spanish guitar being played in front of me. It has a warm and inviting feeling that the 800s hasn’t. It could well be closer to the media, but the one that’s closer to the original event isn’t it – it’s the Orpheus. With its small colorations and particularities, it ends up going back to the original performance, while the HD800s limit themselves to the media.

The problem is that many audiophiles don’t seem to understand this issue, and lose themselves building a thousand- or hundred-dollar system that sounds perfectly fine with Dynaudio’s test CD, which has music that they neither know nor like, and then then restrict themselves to listening and looking for genres that sound good on the systems that they built. What’s the point of this? Music and our preferences should dictate our systems, and not the other way around. What’s the point of spending time and effort in order to build something that will end up dictating what we hear? Music should be the focus.

The result is the much feared equipment-phile: one who spends time and – more importantly – money building an exorbitant system for listening to that really well recorded percussion piece of music or for looking for telephone rings, birds singing or leaves cracking at 3.2 miles from the microphone in the moment of the recording.

I’m not, at any point, saying that we shouldn’t look for neutrality. I myself look for it, but then I think it’s really important for us to be aware that this is no more than a utopia, and what we hear will never be absolutely faithful to what’s on the media and even less to the original performance. All the process is impregnated with imperfections and subjectivism. Obviously it’s in our interest to have a considerable level of passiveness from our equipment, but we can’t surrender to the obsession of extreme detail retrieval and absolute neutrality thinking that this is absolute neutrality at the expense of what’s more important: music’s humanity. The result can be a distortion of this hobby’s true objectives.

In my opinion, we must embrace the idea that we’ll never achieve this absolute passiveness in our equipment, therefore it makes sense to have more than one headphone for different occasions – each one will interpret a specific situation in a different way, and each one will “accidentaly” be “more right” in different moments. It is possible to find a headphone that does it all, but it will hardly be the closest to neutral in every occasion. You’re the one who’s going to decide when it’s good – and in that decision, obviously respecting acceptable limits of tolerance, there’s no right or wrong.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Leonardo Drummond

[boomana]

Okay.

Do you think we need educating?

[naamanf]

Okay.

Do you think we need educating?

I think it would have come across better in Portuguese.

[grawk]

Or sanscrit

[wink]

Good post Leonardo. Don't let the jaded Head-case ensconsed denizens mortify you with their blase comments. It could be they are mortified by your not-so-succinct erudition.

The other forum would be severely miffed, unless you posted it in the Sound Science forum.

In that case you would have to run the gauntlet of all the pseudo-intellects who believe that their brand of reality is the only valid one for human existence.

At least here you only have to put up with veiled jibes, polite raspberries and off-beat attempts at humour.

[recstar24]

Okay.

Do you think we need educating?

Of course he thinks we do, hence the post.

[boomana]

Good post Leonardo. Don't let the jaded Head-case ensconsed denizens mortify you with their blase comments. It could be they are mortified by your not-so-succinct erudition.

The other forum would be severely miffed, unless you posted it in the Sound Science forum.

In that case you would have to run the gauntlet of all the pseudo-intellects who believe that their brand of reality is the only valid one for human existence.

At least here you only have to put up with veiled jibes, polite raspberries and off-beat attempts at humour.

We have one person educating us and another evaluating us. Where's Postjack when you need him?

[grawk]

It just goes to show, no matter how long people are around here, not everyone appreciates the "it's a bar where people who like headphones hang out" thing.

That said, sometimes people ramble on about something they really care about and no one else does in bars, too.

[morphsci]

Good post Leonardo. Don't let the jaded Head-case ensconsed denizens mortify you with their blase comments. It could be they are mortified by your not-so-succinct erudition.

The other forum would be severely miffed, unless you posted it in the Sound Science forum.

In that case you would have to run the gauntlet of all the pseudo-intellects who believe that their brand of reality is the only valid one for human existence.

At least here you only have to put up with veiled jibes, polite raspberries and off-beat attempts at humour.

We have one person educating us and another evaluating us. Where's Postjack when you need him?

This would have never happened in Postjack's forum.

[Wmcmanus]

What I don't get is how the hell would you know if the HD800 or the Orpheus is more "neutral" for any given piece of music?

I mean, if, as you argued up to that point (and subsequently as well) it's impossible to know what "neutral" really means to begin with (because all of the variables that cannot be controlled), then you don't even know what you're trying to "listen for"... so how would you know if you've heard it... or not?

So, yes... different headphones for different occasions. Some make us happy sometimes. Others makes us happy other times. Who would have ever thought of that?

Edited May 5, 2012 by Wmcmanus

[recstar24]

So, yes... different headphones for different occasions. Some make us happy sometimes. Others makes us happy other times. Who would have ever thought of that?

Such clear words of wisdom. You are my hero.

[mikeymad]

too many words ... didn't read it... going back to the bar.

[Absorbine_Sr]

too many words ... didn't read it... going back to the bar.

^^^ This.

[morphsci]

... That said, sometimes people ramble on about something they really care about and no one else does in bars, too.

[roadtonowhere08]

To all: Yeah, I definitely think, based on Leonardo's previous posts that I have seen, this is a case of him being interested and passionate about this subject and not a case of annoying pontificating.

To Leonardo: Unfortunately for you, this is nothing new to most of us, and it falls on deaf ears. Most people here do not want to read about it, and at the other site, too many people are too stupid to discuss anything with altogether. You seem like a nice guy, so I pretty much got that you meant no harm, but topics like this here don't end well

[Leonardo Drummond]

Oh dear... hahahaha well, sorry everyone then! I did say it could be lost in obliviom though...

Of course he thinks we do, hence the post.

Okay.

Do you think we need educating?

It really isn't about educating anyone, I'm very sorry if it came across that way with my tone. As I said, it's just me expressing my thoughts about the issue, which could lead to some interesting conversation or something... or maybe not.

The fact that I take my time on simple and basic issues is not for educating, it's just a way of organizing what's in my head, so that it's possible to follow my train of thought.

Good post Leonardo. Don't let the jaded Head-case ensconsed denizens mortify you with their blase comments. It could be they are mortified by your not-so-succinct erudition.

The other forum would be severely miffed, unless you posted it in the Sound Science forum.

In that case you would have to run the gauntlet of all the pseudo-intellects who believe that their brand of reality is the only valid one for human existence.

At least here you only have to put up with veiled jibes, polite raspberries and off-beat attempts at humour.

Hahahaha thanks, Wink!

It just goes to show, no matter how long people are around here, not everyone appreciates the "it's a bar where people who like headphones hang out" thing.

That said, sometimes people ramble on about something they really care about and no one else does in bars, too.

There you go! It's rather frustrating to see this hobby going where it goes on many places, and seeing that this particular place doesn't really follow the norm, I reckoned expressing those ideas could possibly lead to something interesting... in a way it did though, it's actually rather funny to see you making fun of people, even though this time it's me.

But isn't that a sort of conversation you'd have in a bar? Sometimes I have really philosophical discussions with my friends at bars... the results can be quite intriguing.

What I don't get is how the hell would you know if the HD800 or the Orpheus is more "neutral" for any given piece of music?

I mean, if, as you argued up to that point (and subsequently as well) it's impossible to know what "neutral" really means to begin with (because all of the variables that cannot be controlled), then you don't even know what you're trying to "listen for"... so how would you know if you've heard it... or not?

That's a very good point. To me, that "neutral" is our own subjective judgement, for instance, I've played bass for nearly 10 years now and had a band for a long time, so I know how some instruments are supposed to sound like in real life. I have my own idea of the sound they make. Then it's up to you to decide what is more lifelike to you. It's what my argument ended up with, in a way, but then again, this is pure reflection rather than something actually conclusive.

To all: Yeah, I definitely think, based on Leonardo's previous posts that I have seen, this is a case of him being interested and passionate about this subject and not a case of annoying pontificating.

To Leonardo: Unfortunately for you, this is nothing new to most of us, and it falls on deaf ears. Most people here do not want to read about it, and at the other site, too many people are too stupid to discuss anything with altogether. You seem like a nice guy, so I pretty much got that you meant no harm, but topics like this here don't end well

Thanks

As I said to Grawk, I'm indeed quite passionate about this, it's really sad to see what goes on at HF and on the Brazilian forums... that's why I wrote that, but given what went on here, maybe it should've been kept in Portuguese

Edited May 5, 2012 by Leonardo Drummond

[livewire]

Bang your head, wake the dead, metal health will drive you mad!

That being said, listen more - worry less. Enjoy the ride Clyde. Quit obsessing.

[ujamerstand]

Bang your head, wake the dead, metal health will drive you mad!

That being said, listen more - worry less. Enjoy the ride Clyde. Quit obsessing.

Edit: I thought about it more deeply. Just realized that I am obsessed in neutrality in a way, so I am not qualified to post this image. Ideally I should be just listening away, but then I wouldn't be building amplifiers and modifying headphones. I'd like to think I'm close to the end of my journey though.

Edited May 5, 2012 by ujamerstand

[Voltron]

I miss Postjack.

[RudeWolf]

Seems like Tyll and Steve has kicked the hornets nest on this subject.

In any case Wmcmanus nailed it- whatever makes us happy is good. I'm not a recording engineer- I'm here for the music. Sure, music is sound and the average level of sound reproduction has gone down, however I'd rather blame it on us being primarily a visual society.

And the fact that listening has gone out of style doesn't help much either.

[Tyll Hertsens]

Seems like Tyll and Steve has kicked the hornets nest on this subject.

Ha! Fucking rabble rousers.

Neutral is a short term goal for n00bs. Good to try for at first, mainly because there's so much shit out there.

Once you get a basic read on neutral, then you've got to play the music for yourself and find what makes you happy.

I write about it 'cuz I write for n00bs mostly.

Old hands know neutral is just the starting point.

[Torpedo]

IMHO it's all about knowledge. Once you know how a "flatish" measurement sounds like, and also you learn how your own taste works, you just need to find what suits you. With some luck in the way you meet people who "feels" sound in a similar way, so you can take their judgments as though they were your own, which is good before spending dough on new equipment. This is one of the many reasons why I love HC this much

[Wmcmanus]

...however I'd rather blame it on us being primarily a visual society.

And the fact that listening has gone out of style doesn't help much either.

I don't know about that. When I see tits, I become all involved visually. But otherwise, I'd rather be listening.

[grawk]

Yah, this probably isn't the place to whine that people don't listen. Except when it comes to welcome messages.

[Wmcmanus]

Yah, this probably isn't the place to whine that people don't listen. Except when it comes to welcome messages.

Being "visual" doesn't necessarily mean that they read or can really picture it even if they do.