CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS

  • December 31, 2015, 09:35:14 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Neutrality Part Deux  (Read 2181 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Marvey

  • The Man For His Time And Place
  • Master
  • Pirate
  • *****
  • Brownie Points: +555/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6698
  • Captain Plankton and MOT: Eddie Current
Neutrality Part Deux
« on: February 04, 2013, 10:19:17 PM »


Been wanting to put these thoughts down for a while:

http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,606.msg18145/topicseen.html#new



Logged

Schopenhauer

  • Big Boobs Big Grin
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +20/-3
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
  • Schopenmeower
Re: Neutrality Part Deux
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2015, 04:14:51 PM »

It's too bad this thread is long dead. I found this reflection on neutrality extremely helpful. Perhaps the discussion has moved elsewhere or has been dispersed among various other threads. In any case, analyzing neutrality as the flexibility of a component or system for faithfully reproducing a range of input (e.g. genres of music, reference recordings &c.) without perceptibly (and/or, I suppose, "measurably") degrading the net effect is probably the most comprehensive account of neutrality I've yet heard. I'd paraphrase purrin's account as X is neutral if it can be marginally fucked with without destroying listenability.
Logged

Marvey

  • The Man For His Time And Place
  • Master
  • Pirate
  • *****
  • Brownie Points: +555/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6698
  • Captain Plankton and MOT: Eddie Current
Re: Neutrality Part Deux
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2015, 05:53:40 PM »

Haha, I can't believe I wrote that. There so much good stuff scattered around here. Lots of different angles to take on neutral, and I think this subjective angle is a good one.

An objective angle is another; but it needs to be supported by the subjective observations. Amps and DAC should always measure flat more or less. If the equipment is not for pro-use (where it would be slotted in long chains of other gear), a little roll-off at the extremes would be OK and probably imperceptible. Distortion and other non-linear characteristics are going to have a larger impact on sound, even in the tonal balance sense, than 1.5 db roll-off at 20kHz. This is what "Hydrogen Audio" guys fail to understand when they nitpick FR graphs from RightMark Audio Analyzer.

For transducers, depending upon the measurement method used, there should always be a target response to achieve neutrality, at least. A flat line isn't necessary that target. At the listening position, the target response I prefer is similar to the old B&K target (http://www.bksv.com/doc/17-197.pdf) see page 4. [I've seen HF'ers and a few people here incorrect refer to this as the Olive-Welti curve. The O-W curve is the target / compensation for their headphone measurement system. Sean Olive did not invent this target curve. The B&K target was formally presented to AES in 1974, and sound engineers were already aware and using similar type curve since the 1950s or earlier.] Flat will sound like shit at the listening position. This B&K target also somewhat works with the V2 measurements for headphones on this site.

Now we hear people say speakers should measure flat. Yes, speakers should measure flat if the measurement is taken at 1 meter away with the microphone leveled with the tweeter. That's how Stereophile does it. That's the standard that many speaker builders use. This method is useful because Stereophile or the speaker-builder does not know how your room is going to influence the sound. Hence a "standard". When I build speakers, I always take measurements at the listening position. That is because I can. Studios, when they precision EQ their speakers for "neutrality", also take measurements at the listening position (using B&K target or similar curve.)

Different methods, different techniques, different targets. All attempt to achieve neutrality.
(It's a little bit of a different spin from that found in Jude's sig on HF.)
Logged

JoelT

  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +8/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 115
Re: Neutrality Part Deux
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2015, 11:26:15 PM »

So there's always going to be variance. What I love about "neutrality" is that this variance will almost always sound acceptable on a neutral system.

Great post, thanks for linking to it. I've increasingly found that the line I quoted above holds true for my listening. Outlying recordings, that are skewed in one direction or another have proven invaluable for my modding/tweaking evaluation. With both the HE-6 and the HD800, I've been able to make them quite agreeable with both ends of the mastering spectrum, which indicates to me that I'm within the "neutral" zone.
Logged

LFF

  • Mastering Wizard & Restoration Guru
  • Mate
  • Pirate
  • ****
  • Brownie Points: +761/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1425
Re: Neutrality Part Deux
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2015, 04:42:10 PM »

Been wanting to put these thoughts down for a while:

http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,606.msg18145/topicseen.html#new


Very well written!

I don't think it's a mystery around here as to how I feel regarding sound - especially when it comes down to mastering and replicating sound.
Logged
These statements are false.
I rule with an iron fist and ears of gold!
The preceding statements were true.

The way to a man's heart is through her stomach.