colouration as a substitute for colour?

Over the past few months I believe my system has become a lot less coloured; particularly wrt the speakers but also amps, I feel I am hearing a lot less of the components and more of the recordings.
But - in tandem with the system becoming more transparent I have also become conscious of how little (comparatively) of the real colour of instruments and voices survives the process. I much prefer what I am getting now but it does make me wonder: in the absence of authentic (real life) tonal colour to what extent does system colouration fill in the gaps?

 

Not very much, if at all, would be my reply.

The term 'colouration', to me, describes an anomalous addition to a range, or band, of the frequency range - an applied 'character' over the correct sound analogous to a filter or dirty lens. This 'colouration' may make the sound 'warm', 'sharp, 'muddy', 'shouty' etc. However, even very coloured systems are not consistently so across the entire audio spectrum. In addition, colouration cannot add tonal variation; it may highlight a particular area of the frequency range but it will not actually add information. It is true though that many systems with very good, micro and macro, dynamic are rather prone to colouration (horns for example). Also, many rather flat and opaque systems are often described as neutral. In particular, the reduction of dynamic contrast often gives a cooler more distant perspective which is often interpreted as neutrality. To be honest, if relatively;

I would describe this as a significant colouration and I am at a bit of a loss as to how you can prefer this.

 

Stop thinking too much. Enjoy your music.

 

I have to agree with YMMOAN. It sounds like you still have colouration, but it's obviously a different type than you had before.

 

I actually agree with all that you say but perhaps I need to clarify what I meant by the real colour of instruments and voices: in a live situation with acoustic instruments in the same space. When I say comparatively little survives what I mean is that the result is perfectly good in hi-fi at home terms, but it's still a long way from the real thing. When I got to here live performance on a regular basis this did not seem to matter as much; but now that it is a rarity I find the contrast rather more pronounced.
When I say that my present system is less coloured I do indeed mean that there is less of an 'anomalous addition to a range, or band, of the frequency range - an applied 'character' over the correct sound analogous to a filter or dirty lens'.
But, to continue to follow the lens analogy: any number of effects - soft focus or a 'rose tint' can be used to give everything a character that, though it may be mundane and artificial, can give a 'pleasing' aspect. Ultimately (in my view) it is boring; far better to have a decent image honestly printed than a dull one jazzed up.
To get back to the point though, to enjoying the music, what I want is more of the real colour (tonal variation, dynamics etc.) and less of the colouration, but if the colouration is removed and the level of reality is not increased then, to me there is a deficiency. (Obviously there is a flaw in this argument: a reduction in colouration should, by definition, result in an increase in (perceived) reality - what I'm really looking at is the overall enjoyment/involvement/musical communication factor which, as above, is unlikely to be neutrality).

 

Quite possibly. Previously it was easier to spot though: boxiness from the speakers, hardness from the amp and CDP.
That has all but gone now.

 

A list of your kit (including cables) may help to identify any possible problems.

 

You seem confused about what neutrality means. Look it up in a dictionary. When you hear a neutral system, every record sounds different, which is how things should be. Good, bad or indifferent, the recording quality won't influence your "enjoyment", which depends only on your taste, mood and general disposition, IMO.

 

If system neutrality exists in the way you describe, than that (to me) is a desirable thing. However, the neutrality of the listening environment must also be considered a variable must it not?

In this context though, I was making reference to the position put forward by YNMOAN:

Which (to me) is not a desirable thing.

If neutral = impartial then good
If neutral = indifferent then bad

@fatmarley - kit list:

Cyrus CD6
Monica DAC

Spacedeck/Gram Amp1

Promitheus TVC
Quad 909

SD Acoustics SD1

Cables: Van Damme blue throughout

 

Indeed Coda II, I did not mean to say that your system is dynamically flat - though this was rather the impression your initial post gave. Just as some people (quite often in fact) describe tonally grey systems as 'neutral’, so others describe systems with an upward tilted frequency response, and a strong mid bass (often with a rapidly falling low bass), as dynamic. The frequency aberrations giving the effect of apparent speed and bold dynamic - in reality the actual quality of micro dynamic differentiation can be quite poor (though not always).

 

Someone's confused, maybe it's YNMOAN's anonymous "some people". I've always taken "neutral" literally. Of course the room is very important, and it definitely shouldn't boom with the low frequencies, as so many rooms tend to do.

Aside from the room, loudspeakers & turntables are the biggest contributors to non-neutrality in modern hi-fi systems.

 

The only part of your system i'm familiar with are the cables. The Van Damme blue stuff is fine.

Sorry i wasn't much help.

 

I guess my point was simply that even the idea of what actually constitutes neutrality is itself a subjective thing, though wrapped rather nicely in an objective term.

The 'some people' I referred to are not (as far as I am aware) any of the people posting on this thread. Indeed, I am not thinking of any specific individual.

 

Got that sorted then: two slightly different interpretations of neutrality, but I for one am happy that I understand what you both mean.

I am also fairly confident that the room itself is neutral in the sense that it has little acoustic signature of it's own; being 4.5 x 8m and with a large doorway and an open staircase it does not seem to boom and to my ears reverberates/reinforces very little, at the same time it is not 'cold' sounding, and does not ring to clapped hands.

 

I wouldn't describe the current set-up as either tonally grey nor dynamically flat but I think I would still look to improve in both these areas - though having had a system (Cyrus/PMC) that pretty accurately conforms to the 'dynamic' system you describe I am wary of going back that way.
One of the more obvious manifestations of the (perceived) current issues is a lack of 'generosity' to the sound. Of course this quality is not always appropriate; many recordings are intended to sound rather more sparse. But were generous is appropriate I could do with more. What I think is possible though is that I will acquire this generosity through a coloured component simply because it sounds 'nice'.

I think what is lacking is colour (tonal and dynamic), I think what I might be tempted to buy is colouration.

The possible point of the original question was to investigate what the differences might be and how to go about assessing them.

 

You know Coda II I think it is the very quality you describe that has kept me away from CD all these years. I have been lucky to have a good LP front end and have really strugled to come to terms with less natural warmth, tonal range and transparency.

 

And I'm due to pick up a new phono stage this week - we'll see.