Neutral electronics are a farce...

"geoffkait may be one of those people who believe math and science are intuitive. Perhaps - for real math wizards - it is intuitive. But for most of us, it isn't. Even Einstein said he struggled with math.

It's probably futile to try and explain this to geoffkait, although atmasphere deserves kudos for trying."

i do not believe math and science are intuitive.  I am actually a big believer in experimentation.  An experiment is worth a thousand words. Am I an experimental physicist? Probably, although my education was theoretical physics. I'm with Einstein, I'll let others do the math.  But I know what numbers mean.

Last_lemming 02-02-2016 5:04pm
I tend to describe a neutral set up based on hearing many different "albums". If they all sound unique, meaning if some recordings sound bass heavy, some bright, some just fine then I figure the system isn’t tilting the frequency in any one direction. I would call that system neutral. However if everything sounds bright well it’s obviously not neutral.

Dracule1 02-02-2016 10:24pm
Last_lemming, to be more objective why don’t you just measure the frequency response of your system at your listening position? If you’re concerned about something bass heavy or tilted frequency, that is easily measured. It’s harder if not almost impossible to measure something more subjective as sound staging, imaging, or palpability.

Dracule1, brightness, bass heaviness, or other deviations from neutrality that may be perceived as frequency response anomalies are also not necessarily measurable in a manner that is practical or meaningful.

First, as Ralph (Atmasphere) has often pointed out, perceived brightness is often caused not by frequency response errors, but by trace amounts of certain forms of distortion. Second, a microphone and its associated instrumentation will not interpret arrival time differences between various frequencies, or multiple arrivals of the same frequencies, in the same way our hearing mechanisms do. Arrival time differences occurring as a result of both room reflections and the fact that most speakers are not time coherent.

So what may be perceived as a frequency response anomaly is not necessarily any more readily measurable than the other kinds of sonic issues you referred to.

Regarding Last_lemming’s underlying point, I of course agree, as it is consistent with what I and Wolf_Garcia said earlier in the thread, as well as with what I quoted from Bryoncunningham’s post of several years ago.

Regards,
-- Al

Al, my understanding is that perceived brightness has to do with the fact that our ears do not have flat frequency response and are more sensitive to some frequencies than others, and that some forms of harmonic distortion tend to attenuate those frequencies that we hear best and are more sensitive to. So the lack of "neutrality" of our ears are as much a factor as that which comes out of the transducer.

Here is a link to the chart I’ve referenced many times (and I have framed and hanging in my listening room, a nice audiophile work of art and science) that shows at what frequency music things occur and the corresponding sensitivity of the human ear:

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

So for example if the system is perfectly flat or "neutral" what we hear is not. We will hear more of the frequencies that our ears are more sensitive to than the others which might be considered a natural colorization that we all share to some extent. How each individual reacts to that in terms of musical enjoyment, fatigue, etc. may in fact vary widely, which would account for why there is little agreement on what sounds "best".

The studies Ralph cites on how humans hear may be consistent with the idea that the frequencies that our ears are most sensitive to are the most important ones in regards to listening pleasure and minimizing "fatigue" in general.  But it does not mean that what is most "neutral" or flat" coming out the speaker will necessarily sound the best to many.

The human ear is tuned to be the most sensitive at bird-song frequencies. It also uses higher ordered harmonics to calculate how loud a sound is- its not doing that from the fundamental frequencies as such are quite rare in a pure form in nature. So if the system generates these harmonics (5th and above) even in trace amounts our ears are so sensitive to them that they will be heard, even though the distortion of the amp might be 0.005% THD.

The converts distortion into tonality. So the presence of these distortions is heard as both brightness and harshness (the 7th in particular having been known since the 1930s as a source of a metallic coloration), even though on the bench or in the room the system might measure perfectly flat.

In fact the ear has tipping points wherein tonalities created by distortion can be favored over actual frequency response errors. So in some cases its better to have none of these distortions rather than perfectly flat frequency response. 

Hi Mapman,

Yes, consistent with Ralph’s response it’s certainly true that our hearing mechanisms do not respond equally to all frequencies. And as shown in the chart you referenced their deviation from flatness is different at different volume levels.

And so distortion components, noise components, and deviations from flat frequency response will be objectionable to a degree that varies widely depending on where in the spectrum they occur.

But an obvious point that nevertheless seems worth stating is that our hearing mechanisms have the same characteristics, including lack of flatness, when we listen to live music as when we listen to our audio systems, at least if volume levels are similar. So while an understanding of the hearing characteristics you (and Ralph) cited can be important in prioritizing the kinds of distortions and colorations that are most important to minimize, we also don’t want to have the system introduce colorations (i.e., deviations from neutrality) that "correct" our hearing. Assuming, of course, that our hearing is functioning normally.

As you said earlier in the thread, "if neutral = accurate then sign me up."

Best regards,
-- Al