Unless you're a rich recording engineer who record and listen to your own stuff on high end equipment, I doubt anyone can claim their stuff is neutral. I get the feeling, if I were this guy, I'd be disappointed in the result. May be I'm wrong.
Geoff, note the reference to a point source in the quote Ralph (Atmasphere) provided just above. The reason the amplitude of electromagnetic waves goes down in free space as distance increases is that they "spread out" to some degree. If they are emitted by a point source, and therefore are radiated essentially equally in all directions, the energy received at any given point will decrease in proportion to the square of the distance, since (as stated in the reference Ralph provided) "the surface area of a sphere increases with the square of the radius."
That is the same reason, btw, that the SPL produced by a relatively small box-type speaker (which from the perspective of a listener seated some distance in front of the speaker can be considered as roughly approximating a point source) drops off at 6 db per doubling of distance (putting aside the effects of room reflections). Planar speakers and line sources of course behave differently, and SPL falls off more slowly in those cases, as distance increases.
What makes communications with satellites and inter-planetary probes possible is that the antennas are designed to focus the RF energy much more sharply than a point source, so that the energy "spreads out" as little as possible as distance increases.
Consider the example of a flashlight being shined against a wall, in comparison to a laser pointer being shined against the wall. As distance increases, the diameter of the spot that is illuminated by the flashlight will INCREASE much more than in the case of the laser pointer. While the brightness of any given point within the spot that is illuminated by the flashlight will DECREASE much more, as distance increases, than in the case of the laser pointer.
If what you are attempting to claim was actually true they would need repeaters every twenty feet as opposed to every 25 miles or whatever. When transmitting to a satellite at 23K miles there are no repeaters! Hel-loo!
Radio waves do not follow the inverse square law like magnetic fields. If they did we would be unable to talk to astronauts on the moon or to send transmissions out into the galaxy you know SETI and all that. Radio waves don’t attenuate in vacuum of space and the only reason they attenuate in free space of Earth’s atmosphere is because of losses due to absorption and scattering. The reason ELF works is actually because the transmit power is 1M watts and because the preamps on the receive side are extremely sensitive. But getting back to my real point for just a sec, shielding protects the conductor from external EMI/RFI but not from it’s own induced magnetic field. That’s why I said cables and power cords shoot themselves in the foot. End of argument.
Al, The idea of relative neutrality is as you say, self evident. As my system has improved over the years, very subtle incremental musical information is definitely more distinct, the very fine tooth comb analogy. Contrast becomes more stark and apparent with simple system changes. This would suggest less sonic character imposition from the system components . Absolute neutrality is different matter. Charles,
Mikirob, I also gravitate towards Dracule1's perspective of pursuing a natural sound character rather than "neutral" sound, and for the same reasons he expressed. It seems that generally SS tends to be described as neutral /accurate and tubes are more often described as natural /organic. Charles,
Hopefully this won’t rekindle a nine page debate as occurred several years ago in Bryoncunningham’s neutrality thread that I referenced a few posts back, but I thought it would be appropriate at this point to cite a few excerpts from his original post in that thread:
Your system is becoming more neutral whenever you change a system element (component, cable, room treatment, etc.) and you get the following results:
(1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique. (2) Your music collection sounds more diverse....
If, after changing a system element, (1) individual pieces of music sound more unique, and (2) your music collection sounds more diverse, then your system is contributing less of its own signature to the music. And less signature means more neutral....
This is only a way of judging the relative neutrality of a system. Judging the absolute neutrality of a system is a philosophical question for another day....
I don’t believe a system’s signature can be reduced to zero. But it doesn’t follow from that that differences in neutrality do not exist....
I’m not suggesting that neutrality is the most important goal in building an audio system, but in my experience, the changes that have resulted in greater neutrality (using the standard above) have also been the changes that resulted in more musical enjoyment.
IMO those are propositions that are essentially self-evident. As I said earlier, it surprised me that his post stimulated nine pages of debate.
The concept of neutrality should be viewed in a manner similar to the concept of perfection, IMO. We can’t achieve perfection, at least in most kinds of endeavors, but it can serve as a useful goal. And in most kinds of endeavors, at least, there are ways in which we can judge whether we are approaching it more closely or not.
Well you got the first sentence right. The rest of it seems to point to the area of confusion.
You might want to think about the fact that radio waves can very much metals.... An example that most of us know about are microwaves.
I think maybe where you are having the disconnect is this:
Recall the experiment with iron filings and a magnet? The magnetic lines of flux are stationary.
What you are talking about is a simple magnet- much like what would happen if you put DC into a field coil. But that does not cause EMI- but if you use AC as a source now it can. IOW a simple magnet does not cause EMI only because it operates at DC. As best I can make out that must be where your confusion lies.
An example of an AC source powering what otherwise might be considered a magnet is a tape head degausser. It is an electromagnet; different from a power transformer in that the core is the load rather than a secondary winding. If you get it near the tape head you will see a prodigious signal through the playback electronics if they are on. But you might be surprised to find out that if you take a simple magnet and bring it near the head the same thing will happen- not because the magnet is creating a field so much as the act of moving it is putting the field in motion and inducing something in the head as a result (thus the use of the term V/meter instead of Gauss).
RF most definitely follows the inverse square rule BTW. The reason ELF works is that the ground wave can extend around the planet whereas at higher frequencies (FM for example) don't. Take a look at this Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_wave_propagation
I really recommend you read Wiki pages at the links I have posted!!
Thanks Dracule1 For pointing out there is no such thing as "neutral" in the recording/listening chain. Any musician like you, or myself, or any recording/sound engineer can tell you that...how do you measure neutral? What are the standards utilized to measure it? Every room is different, every combo of equipment is different, the electric signal varies from home to home, minute by minute and so on infinitely. Talk about a "moving target"...this is it. Best, Rob
Actually radio frequencies are electromagnetic waves. I realize it sounds repetitive but RF is not magnetic fields, which are stationary fields. It should be obvious that magnetic fields are not the same thing at all as electromagnetic waves. If they were the same then magnetic fields would be flying all around the room at light speed, which of course they are not. They’re stationary. Recall the experiment with iron filings and a magnet? The magnetic lines of flux are stationary. Everyone and his brother knows that the intensity of the magnetic field is inversely proportional to the distance from the conductor in the case of induced magnetism. This is not true for radio waves. And the fact radio waves don’t attenuate like magnetic fields allows extremely low frequency radio waves like ELF at 75Hz to be used for long distance communications. The last time I looked nobody is using magnetic fields for communications. Even the units are different, V/meter and Gauss. Thus, when setting out to eliminate or reduce magnetic field intensity one requires high permeability materials, not shielding.
Of course the real point is that EMI is not magnetic field. Which is
what my original post was addressing. I.e., that shielding is effective
for RFI/EMI but not for either external magnetic fields such as those
produced by transformers or induced magnetic fields such as produced by
current running through cables and wires. I used to work on the ELF
program which transmits at 75 Hz so yes, I’m quite familiar with low
frequency radio frequencies. Just because some people might not consider
it a radio frequency it actually IS a radio frequency.
Hi, atmosphere, sorry but no it’s not. EMI is radio frequency
interference just like RFI. It’s an electromagnetic wave. Unlike its
ugly cousin magnetic field which is a stationary field. Both EMI and RFI
are light speed. The other difference obviously is what I'm referring
to is the induced mag field whereas EMI is an external radio frequency
interference. I trust my post doesn’t sound too much like I’m all jacked
up on cafe lattes.
Its apparent to me that you did not look at the Wikipedia link I posted earlier for your convenience. EMI really is a magnetic field and one that can occur at almost any frequency. So is RF, as they originate from the same principle of electricity. We usually use 'RFI' to refer to higher frequency phenomena (an example might be an oscillation in a circuit) but its just a polite nomenclature. What is generally different about the two is that for audio purposes, RFI **usually** originates via an antenna (driven by an RF source), whereas EMI generally does not (likely instead radiates from a power transformer or power lines, or any source that is powerful enough to radiate directly without the need for an antenna, although power lines might well be argued to be antennae.
I recommend you take a look at the link I posted or ask your colleagues at the ELF station.
Glad to see a recording engineer's point of view. Just goes to show how many steps in the recording chain to home system can get f*#k'd up. My rant is more about these golden ear audiophiles including reviewers who claim a component is neutral. When you see their mega expensive, apartment/home living room audio system with no room treatment, you know they're speaking out of their asses. IME, how you acoustically treat your room has more impact on sound than any speaker, amplifier, DAC, cables, etc. I don't strive for neutral anymore because I have no "true" reference (ie, original recording event). Now I strive for what sounds natural and good to me based on my live concert experiences and my playing the classical guitar for many years.
I record, mix, master classical and rock music semi-professionally (you’ll never get to hear it but some has been on the radio). I review gear for a little magazine about 3 years now. I feel I’ve been listening critically since about 1974 and started pointing microphones at things well before that. I am completely baffled by the initial thread post and it has set me off but I see little value in my rant ...whatever. I’m entitled to my opinion (everyone’s got one and they all stink!) Recordings are indeed mastered for their medium and it is extremely rare to hear a recording straight off the master tape. On top of that microphones are not at all neutral in general, go listen: http://www.coutant.org/contents.html . Add placement and venue acoustics...blah blah. Pros hate my recordings because they sound exactly as I hear them in the particular venue like a 180 year old adobe church but they don’t have that "classical ambiance" DG and the others have established as the default. It is all an illusion albeit a highly crafted artful one. I go for the reality I experience but I bow to the master engineers like Dr. Keith O. Johnson or others who construct the presentation with multiple microphones as is the norm commercially. I prefer single point purist stereo recordings like those from Opus 3 or MALabs and strive to do the same. Yes I get to listen to my 1st generation DSD recordings at home whenever I like. I do believe this gives me an edge in reviewing gear in general but of course I mostly listen to commercial media. Progressive Rock and Jazz are my faves. Recording technology since Joe Meek & Les Paul is a fully plastic medium and the tools now are awesome. The Beatles remain the gold standard in that regard imho but you’ll find a lot more Zappa in my library; the Plastic Master. Neutrality is completely relative and with electronic music what comes out of your speakers is the 1st generation "original" sound. Does it sound like it did to the creators in the studio? Never and every studio will sound different anyways.Hell it will sound different at different times of day even. However that would be the definitive "sound" which can be exceeded in some cases with a very decent home system. "True to the master tape" is a valid judgement in my opinion but who gets to hear both? Is that master tape neutral to the source? The speakers of course the most deterministic component but I for one find cables to be extremely important as well as stands and power conditioning and only because I hear it. I care not if it can be measured or explained (although I have found measurable differences in cables that correlate to audible quality). You may dismiss me as you please but come to my home and I will demonstrate reliably and repeatably. BTW Common mode rejection is the advantage of balanced cables which aid in long runs. Interference is assume to be induced in both legs and when summed negated. In most audio gear however balanced is rarely true symmetrical circuits and most of the time requires additional stages which actually degrade the sound. Simpler is better in general but there are always exceptions. Now is electronic gear for production or reproduction potentially neutral? Definitely yes in my opinion but one problem is with measurement which is static and musical signals are highly dynamic and chaotic so of course a "reference" recording is your best place to start. Different gear with the same measurements can and often will sound entirely different and the factors are beyond my space here. Try to hear different amps all based on the Hypex Ncore for instance; wow. That is why the ear must be the final judge and reviews are valuable when you can trust the reviewer to some extent but just like a food review personal taste differs. I’ll put my $335 used Sumo Nine Class A amp up against any amp at any price for instance. Price does correlate to a degree but there is a sort of luck, art, and magic any component might posses. Everything matters even the damn fuses. I wish it were not true. Honestly I’ve been to CES many times and indeed there is some megabuck gear that literally made me weak in the knees. I love the hunt and am a tremendous cheapskate having been poor most of my life. Part of the fun is finding the inexpensive stuff that punches over it’s weight but I will still crave MBL speakers and 70’s Ferraris. Can electrically reproduced music accurately resemble the live acoustic sound of the live performance? Lightning in a bottle...if you have ever been privileged to sit in a control room and listen to a live microphone feed than you know no matter what, there is LOSS at every stage of the game. Does neutrality matter then? Yes, it is something to strive for, like immortality or perfection and just as difficult to achieve. The efforts can be most gratifying and sometimes the illusion is complete enough to fool our ears and brain. Neutral is an ideal and must be found incrementally through time, experience, and expense. It is a rush when you get close. Just my thoughts on my passion. I reserve the right to change my mind pending new information and experience. Music is the best!
Of course the real point is that EMI is not magnetic field. Which is what my original post was addressing. I.e., that shielding is effective for RFI/EMI but not for either external magnetic fields such as those produced by transformers or induced magnetic fields such as produced by current running through cables and wires. I used to work on the ELF program which transmits at 75 Hz so yes, I’m quite familiar with low frequency radio frequencies. Just because some people might not consider it a radio frequency it actually IS a radio frequency.
Mapman’s last post is correct. EMI can occur, for example, at 60 Hz, which is not generally considered to be a radio frequency. EMI can also occur at pretty much any other non-radio frequency, as well as at RF (radio frequencies).
Regarding neutrality, those who are sufficiently interested may want to read through the 9 pages of the following thread. BTW, the post above by Wolfie, dated 1-26-16, and also the first of his posts dated 1-28-16, make essentially the same point as the OP in the other thread.
My opinions on neutrality were expressed in that thread, and were in essential agreement with its OP (Bryoncunningham). Frankly, I was surprised that his points, which I considered to be almost self-evident, aroused so much controversy in that thread.
Mopman, RFI and EMI are the same thing, I.e., radio frequency interference. Reading comprehension required on this thread. Fasten your seatbelt, ladies, laddies, lattes, whatever.
The height of ’neutral’ nonsense is when a reviewer says an amp is so neutral that it ’adds no signature or coloration of its own" ...compared to what?....the same setup minus the amp? Those really are some golden ears.
In the very unlikely case two different amps yield the same sound...does that mean they are both neutral...or both colored in the same way? Then we add the room....
Neutral is simply one of the many ridiculous terms we ’bandy about’ in this hobby.
Hi, atmosphere, sorry but no it’s not. EMI is radio frequency interference just like RFI. It’s an electromagnetic wave. Unlike its ugly cousin magnetic field which is a stationary field. Both EMI and RFI are light speed. The other difference obviously is what I'm referring to is the induced mag field whereas EMI is an external radio frequency interference. I trust my post doesn’t sound too much like I’m all jacked up on cafe lattes.
Cleeds, that’s actually what I thought, what with the third wire. But read what I said, I’m not talking about RFI/EMI. I’m taking about magnetic fields.
I use balanced cable runs from my DAC to the preamp, and balanced out to the amp. Perhaps unnecessary but I like XLR plugs from many years in pro audio and recording…snappy!
Balanced connections can reduce interference - including RFI & EMI - because the signal comprises two hot legs - one out of phase with the other - and a separate ground. Interference is typically induced equally into the two hot legs. The balanced circuit then reverses the phase on one of the hot legs (I'm oversimplifying, because getting into things like differential amplifiers here won't be helpful) and combines it with the other hot leg. The interference is now in phase on one leg, 180 degrees out of phase on the other, so the net result is that they cancel each other out, leaving the original signal intact.
with the induced magnetic field produced by current flowing through all
cables and wiring including those big honking transformers AND the
RFI/EMI generate by the house AC as well as all those cute little
microprocessing chips.
Geodffdude...I meant to say that the interconnects are shielded and the speaker wire I use is spiraled, but I shall now start worrying about large magnetic fields just to keep you happy. I'm a giver. My "dual mono" preamp has isolated transformers so I assume that's a good thing. Also, the philosophy I apply to my hifi rig is the same as what I apply in live sound mixing, less stuff in the way of the signal sounds better...to me anyway…for live it's about unstressed plentiful amp and mixer headroom with proper signal input trimming (you'd be surprised at how many inexperienced or simply lame live sound techs don't understand trim pots), and tone manipulation kept to a minimum…no compression. It could be argued that pro mixing boards aren't neutral at all, but I don't want to think about that…too frightening. My hifi rig doesn't even have balance controls let alone any tone stuff to manipulate them pesky electrons…but neutrality is relative to the listener's taste as the listener likely prefers some overall tone characteristic due to personal preference, not unlike my preference for tube amps for hifi and guitar, and in my car (hit a bump and the tubes fall out sometimes, not to mention the car's turntable skipping).
wolf, when the majority fall into a median average with some significantly better and some worse, that is when the system is at the mercy of the recording. When there is no median, that is when some are enhanced by the components, and some are degraded. Experience with multiple systems reveals this.
Wolfman, solid core interconnects are not spiraled. And shielding assuming they have such doesn’t protect against induced magnetic fields, only external RFI/EMI. Hum bucking is not generally employed for transformers although as you suggest it should be. Not to mention that all exposed internal wiring, even the wiring that’s spiraled, capacitors, chips, etc. are subject to the rather large magnetic fields produced by large transformers.
I think the lesser of similarity among recordings would indicate neutrality as a more neutral system would function as a window into detail…and all recordings differ.
System neutrality is gauged by the percentage sq/signature of your music collection. The higher the quality similarity, the more neutral the system. The more polar, the more skewed the performance characteristics of the components are. How that relates to real life is another topic.
Do you think the engineers actually designing and building this stuff might be able to do it as well? Some, like the really good ones maybe even better?
How about the successful end users setting this stuff up? Are they imagining that things are actually going quite well?
Most cables are designed to resist interference by being spiraled (many speaker cables, including the ones I use) or shielded…careful grounding, good wall plugs, transformer hum busting and better power supplies instead of wall warts, an effective power conditioner, and my own nuclear power plant I got from a scuttled sub…great conversation piece by the way.
You might have no control over the issues I brought up but I do, Mopman. Why on Earth would I bring up issues I have no control over? I wouldn't. Probably just wishful thinking on your part.
Geoff how about worrying about everything you have no control over. Like the Sun for example. It keeps us warm but is going to explode and kill us all some day.
Or maybe apply your genius and offer up some solutions to the problem. That should be really entertaining!
Are you trying to make us all neurotic? It may be working. I already have to resist the urge to buy useless crap from time to time. If I get the urge to buy Machina Dynamica, well then good job, mission accomplished!
I just knew Mopman would ignore that post. Mopman is mopping the floor with me again. He’s fast on the trigger and the mop. Mopman is the Catcher in the Rye for young naive gullible folks just starting out.
Lacking in sincerity? I'm as serious as a colonoscopy without anesthesia.
You can’t persuade someone who’s made up his mind a long time ago. ~ Old audiophile axiom
"One thing you can’t hide is when you’re broken inside."
"...bull frog’s croakin’...everything is broken."
As fate would have it the system shoots itself in the foot, what with the induced magnetic field produced by current flowing through all cables and wiring including those big honking transformers AND the RFI/EMI generate by the house AC as well as all those cute little microprocessing chips. Chips Ahoy! If you haven’t addressed those issues it’s not neutral, trust me. I don’t blame anyone for putting the issues on ignore.
If you can eliminate glare, etch, boom, bloat, and minimize sibilance and room interactions, then you can get consensus on something that approaches "neutral".
It's all a recreation done to your liking which makes it possible for enjoying the music instead of listening for the music. I think that "neutral" has a pretty big soft spot to hit so all you have to do it be careful to rid yourself of the annoying artifacts and leave it at that.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
