My own understanding of defining the right “neutrality” consists of the following attributes:
The overall energy balance must follow the shape of a triangle. Treble energy must not more than mid range. Mid range energy must not more the bass. The angle determining the slope of the triangle is a function of room acoustics, the recordings and preference subjectivity.
Any musical note consists of (1) leading edge (2) body (3) the decay. For example, by the law of physics, the decaying tails of the treble will always be shorter than the decaying tails of the mid-range. The decay tail of the bass is always the longest.
Say, if the decaying tails of the treble is longer, but only slightly shorter than the decaying tails of the mid-range and bass, it will produce a very sweet tone that is pleasing to the ears in particular on violin recordings. That is good relaxation for the ears but most of the time it will change the original intention of the music. If you spin any Milstein’s record on Tartini, a sweetening effect will alter the “melancholic” nature of the script. You got the sound that you like, period. But for experienced music listener, he will wonder why the musical passage is altered.
My own scared rule is just one word “proportional”. Energy must be proportional to the respective frequency area. The 3 parts that define a musical note must be always in proportion too. Some tube fanatics friend of mine prefer very long decaying tails on the treble. I said OK, if your mid-range decaying tails are longer than the very long tails on the treble, and of course, the bass decaying tails must be even longer than the mid-range. If we can get such proportion right provided his room can accommodate an exceptional long bass wave, I think that’s proportional but then he will have speed and articulation problem. That’s why completion of lower frequency is important because the decaying tails of the bass usually goes under 50hz. Without this section, the focus is always the mid-range and above because the three parts defining musical note is no longer in correct proportion. A small room will compensate this shortcoming by room gain but at the expense of articulation.
If one gets the “proportion” right, the tonal balance should not be too far away from the theoretical ideal. That means the sound will neither be too warm nor too bright. If your attention are easily be drawn by the treble, then that is probably caused by the shortening of decaying tails in the mid-range and/or bass that makes the treble stands out. You then have to search for the causes. It may be cables, speakers, room acoustics or anything. If you try to cut short the treble, what you will get is a pleasing sound by sacrificing dynamic at the upper frequency. Listen to the flute of any Peter and the Wolf recording should remind us dynamic also exist in upper high frequency, not just the bass. If your gears are born with the wrong proportion, then we can simply call it a day. But to my ears, Zanden, Wavac, Da Vinci, Vekian and Tidal are some of the very few companies that understand the correct proportion. Their energy balance triangles are different.
What is correct? Well, this old man has no idea to mathematically define a correct proportion. But that is why makes this hobby fun because experiences accumulated over the years will allow you to understand what should be a “good” proportion.
I think you guys had enough of this shit. I just want to share and to align whether we are talking on the same page.
Thanks for the very insightful piece and I believe the excellent explanation will benefit everyone from the layman to the most advanced listeners. Until recently did I come to appreciate the importance of proportion. Over the years as I came across different gears, the purchase decisions were mostly based on immediate sensation which I now understand as colorations. By itself, there is nothing wrong with this approach except for the fact it will be an evolving piecemeal solution.
In my current setup, the energy balance is roughly taking the shape of a triangle. The biggest improvement I noted is in the mid range which is seamless with the top. The sense of "properness" is obvious and natural. The goal in the near term is to ensure a better coupling of the bass with the room as I had suggested earlier this morning. Right now the triangle is still short of an equilateral triangle but I have a strong feeling / urge for further improvement. But it may take a bit of work given that the design of P.Diacera would by default relies on the room mode to help bridge the final dimension. Sunray's owner would not need to go thru this pain as the extra $$$ will be deployed to address this issue efficiently and more importantly accurately.
I believe PT's upcoming Sunray will be an amazing relevation to all on the seamless integration despite the space limitation. A revolution is coming.
Obviosuly, no one can know for sure what is the right proportion. To me, as long as I am not attracted / drawn to any particular frequency range and the flow of music is natural - that is the proper proportion. For sure, none of the brand you mentioned is showing any jagged edges.
This is a fascinating debate on neutrality. But surely one of the key criteria for neutrality is that whatever types of music you play, you get close to the original recording -- in other words, jazz feels like you are in a jazz bar, rock feels like you are in a rock concert, and classical feels like you are in a concert hall. With that criteria, while I love my zanden dac, I do not think it is the most neutral instrument in the world. But then again, does it matter given how great it sounds? (I know this is controversial)
Alex, you seemed quiet after installing the Preos. Are you shocked by the transparency of it? I enjoy reading your system evolvement. Please keep it going.
Regretably the system has been idle for the past few days as I were tied up workwise.
Hopefully, this coming weekend I can spend some time on AB comparison with the Preos phono section against Zanden. Have high hope for the Preos but I suspect the impedence adjustment is gonna be critical for a balanced presentation.
Comments
My own understanding of defining the right “neutrality” consists of the following attributes:
The overall energy balance must follow the shape of a triangle. Treble energy must not more than mid range. Mid range energy must not more the bass. The angle determining the slope of the triangle is a function of room acoustics, the recordings and preference subjectivity.
Any musical note consists of (1) leading edge (2) body (3) the decay. For example, by the law of physics, the decaying tails of the treble will always be shorter than the decaying tails of the mid-range. The decay tail of the bass is always the longest.
Say, if the decaying tails of the treble is longer, but only slightly shorter than the decaying tails of the mid-range and bass, it will produce a very sweet tone that is pleasing to the ears in particular on violin recordings. That is good relaxation for the ears but most of the time it will change the original intention of the music. If you spin any Milstein’s record on Tartini, a sweetening effect will alter the “melancholic” nature of the script. You got the sound that you like, period. But for experienced music listener, he will wonder why the musical passage is altered.
My own scared rule is just one word “proportional”. Energy must be proportional to the respective frequency area. The 3 parts that define a musical note must be always in proportion too. Some tube fanatics friend of mine prefer very long decaying tails on the treble. I said OK, if your mid-range decaying tails are longer than the very long tails on the treble, and of course, the bass decaying tails must be even longer than the mid-range. If we can get such proportion right provided his room can accommodate an exceptional long bass wave, I think that’s proportional but then he will have speed and articulation problem. That’s why completion of lower frequency is important because the decaying tails of the bass usually goes under 50hz. Without this section, the focus is always the mid-range and above because the three parts defining musical note is no longer in correct proportion. A small room will compensate this shortcoming by room gain but at the expense of articulation.
If one gets the “proportion” right, the tonal balance should not be too far away from the theoretical ideal. That means the sound will neither be too warm nor too bright. If your attention are easily be drawn by the treble, then that is probably caused by the shortening of decaying tails in the mid-range and/or bass that makes the treble stands out. You then have to search for the causes. It may be cables, speakers, room acoustics or anything. If you try to cut short the treble, what you will get is a pleasing sound by sacrificing dynamic at the upper frequency. Listen to the flute of any Peter and the Wolf recording should remind us dynamic also exist in upper high frequency, not just the bass. If your gears are born with the wrong proportion, then we can simply call it a day. But to my ears, Zanden, Wavac, Da Vinci, Vekian and Tidal are some of the very few companies that understand the correct proportion. Their energy balance triangles are different.
What is correct? Well, this old man has no idea to mathematically define a correct proportion. But that is why makes this hobby fun because experiences accumulated over the years will allow you to understand what should be a “good” proportion.
I think you guys had enough of this shit. I just want to share and to align whether we are talking on the same page.
Thanks for the very insightful piece and I believe the excellent explanation will benefit everyone from the layman to the most advanced listeners. Until recently did I come to appreciate the importance of proportion. Over the years as I came across different gears, the purchase decisions were mostly based on immediate sensation which I now understand as colorations. By itself, there is nothing wrong with this approach except for the fact it will be an evolving piecemeal solution.
In my current setup, the energy balance is roughly taking the shape of a triangle. The biggest improvement I noted is in the mid range which is seamless with the top. The sense of "properness" is obvious and natural. The goal in the near term is to ensure a better coupling of the bass with the room as I had suggested earlier this morning. Right now the triangle is still short of an equilateral triangle but I have a strong feeling / urge for further improvement. But it may take a bit of work given that the design of P.Diacera would by default relies on the room mode to help bridge the final dimension. Sunray's owner would not need to go thru this pain as the extra $$$ will be deployed to address this issue efficiently and more importantly accurately.
I believe PT's upcoming Sunray will be an amazing relevation to all on the seamless integration despite the space limitation. A revolution is coming.
Alex, you seemed quiet after installing the Preos. Are you shocked by the transparency of it? I enjoy reading your system evolvement. Please keep it going.
Regretably the system has been idle for the past few days as I were tied up workwise.
Hopefully, this coming weekend I can spend some time on AB comparison with the Preos phono section against Zanden. Have high hope for the Preos but I suspect the impedence adjustment is gonna be critical for a balanced presentation.
你的快人快語實在令forum增加不少娛樂性.
長江後浪推前浪的道理在Argento的產品中得到充份的體現
從用家的角度我很高興見到FMR和Flow在融合性方面的突破
不過對往日的旗艦有一份情意結也是人之常情
最重要是樂在心中