Has there ever been the assumption that a photo or painting could be mistaken for the real thing? Does that make it any less beautiful? Why should audio be any different?...
...for many, the fundamental goal of stereo reproduction is the illusion of the real thing. Not so for photographers. Maybe they are saving themselves a whole bunch of grief not trying to chase down the impossible.
Let's start at the beginning. Are there any recordings that truly sound real? Maybe the best one can hope for is perfect reproduction of what is on the original recording. Because even those are an artistic interpretation by the recording studio, just like a photograph. Cdc - You raise interesting and provocative questions, but I'm not sure exactly what point of view you are expressing. It sounds like you are saying that, since recordings are themselves "interpretations" of musical events, accuracy in playback is not especially important, particularly for those who value beauty above other things. My own view is that accuracy and beauty are related in the following way: As system accuracy increases, the beauty you hear is the beauty of the RECORDING, rather than the beauty of the SYSTEM. It may seem inconsequential whether the beauty you hear comes from the recording or the system. But I believe it's important, for the following reason: The beauty of a system is largely CONSTANT, whereas the beauty of recordings is infinitely VARIABLE. To illustrate with your analogy... As you point out, a photograph is an "interpretation" of an event, in the sense that the characteristics of the photograph - color, contrast ratio, depth of field, etc. - are not identical to the characteristics of the event that the photograph represents. It may be tempting to conclude from this that the presentation of that photograph – i.e. its display for viewing – might as well be an "interpretation" that maximizes the beauty of the photographs. So you decide, for example, to display a group of photographs under a pleasing golden light. By doing do, you may increase the CONSISTENCY of the beauty in the photographs (to those who find golden light beautiful), but you decrease the VARIETY of beauty among the photographs (assuming the photos are color). By giving the photographs a uniform yellow tint, you have reduced their visual diversity, and therefore reduced the variety of beauty in their presentation. A more ACCURATE presentation – i.e. uniform white light, white walls, etc. – would provide greater visual diversity, and therefore greater opportunity for variety in the beauty of the photographs. This highlights the value of accuracy even for those who value beauty above all else: Increasing the accuracy of the presentation increases the VARIETY of the beauty presented. In my view, the situation with musical playback is precisely the same. As you point out, a recording is an “interpretation” of a musical event, in the sense that the characteristics of the recording – dynamic range, frequency response, transient response, etc. – are not identical to the characteristics of the event that the recording represents. It may be tempting to conclude from this that the presentation of the recording – i.e. its playback – might as well be an "interpretation" that maximizes the beauty of the recordings. So you decide, for example, to use an amp that provides pleasing harmonic distortion. By doing so, you may increase the CONSISTENCY of the beauty in the recordings played back in the system, but you decrease the VARIETY of beauty among the recordings. By giving the recordings a uniform harmonic signature, you have reduced their sonic diversity, and therefore reduced the variety of beauty in their presentation. A more ACCURATE presentation – i.e. lower in colorations – would provide greater sonic diversity, and therefore greater opportunity for variety in the beauty of the recordings. This highlights the value of accuracy, even for those who value beauty above all else: Increasing the accuracy of the presentation increases the VARIETY of the beauty presented. For this reason, I don’t believe that the fact that a recording is an “interpretation” of a musical event supports the conclusion that accuracy is irrelevant for those who value beauty above other things. Even for people who value beauty above all else, accuracy is an important consideration, because it provides the opportunity to experience a greater variety of beauty. |
I was not addressing you, Tbg.
bc |
So far, the majority of posters seem to be Subjectivists with regard to system neutrality. That is to say, they believe (1) that there is no real distinction between a more or less neutral system, or (2) if there is a distinction, it is not one that is particularly valuable to audiophiles.
Are there any Objectivists out there? |
Tvad - Thank you for welcoming me. This is, indeed, the first thread I have created, though I have been lurking on Audiogon for some time. I've read many of your posts, and always found them informative. |
Almarg wrote: ...if throughout this thread the word "accuracy" had been substituted for the word "neutrality," the amount of controversy and disagreement might have been significantly less. And I replied: ...the concept of ‘neutrality’ fails to reduce to the concept of ‘accuracy’ without an undesirable consequence, namely, the diminishment of conceptual precision for situations that audiophiles commonly face. Although I disagreed with Al’s substitution of ‘accuracy’ for ‘neutrality,’ his suggestion stuck with me, because something about it seemed to be essentially correct. This morning I got around to mulling it over, and I came up with a new proposal, one that I believe captures the spirit of Al’s suggestion while also preserving as much conceptual precision as possible. The proposal is: 'Accuracy' is a SECOND-ORDER CONCEPT that includes both 'resolution' and 'neutrality.' A second-order concept is a concept that subsumes other concepts. In biology, for example, ‘genus’ is a second-order concept relative to the first-order concept ‘species.’ The relation between second-order and first-order concepts in science is analogous to the relation between sets and subsets in mathematics and logic. That is to say, first-order concepts are members of second-order concepts the way that subsets are members of sets. To say that ‘accuracy’ is a second-order concept, then, is to say that ‘accuracy’ is a concept that includes, as its members, the concepts of ‘resolution’ and ‘neutrality.’ We can add this definition of 'accuracy' to our expanding lexicon on this thread: RESOLUTION: The amount of information presented by a component or system. NEUTRALITY: The degree to which a component or system is free from coloration. TRANSPARENCY: The degree to which a component or system is sonically “invisible.” And now… ACCURACY: The degree to which a component or system is both resolving and neutral. In my last post, I suggested that it is useful to think of a system’s accuracy in terms of information, specifically the information available on the recording vs. the information presented “at the ear.” Under that conceptualization, a system is accurate to the extent that it does not add, subtract, or alter information. My new proposal that ‘accuracy’ is a second-order concept that includes ‘resolution’ and ‘neutrality’ is implicit in the conceptualization of ‘accuracy’ in terms of information, since the diminishment of resolution or neutrality by the addition, subtraction, or alteration of information is NECESSARILY a diminishment of accuracy. In my last post, I offered an example that I believe illustrated (1) that ‘neutrality’ and ‘accuracy’ are not identical concepts; and (2) that the concept of ‘neutrality’ does not reduce to the concept of ‘accuracy’ without the unwanted diminishment of conceptual precision. Al’s suggestion that we should substitute the word ‘accuracy’ for the word ‘neutrality’ contained an important insight, however, which is that the concepts of ‘neutrality’ and ‘accuracy’ are INTRINSICALLY RELATED. The current proposal is about exactly how they are related. My view is that the concepts of 'resolution' and 'neutrality' are first-order concepts that can be subsumed under the second-order concept of 'accuracy.' In other words, the concepts of 'resolution' and 'neutrality' CONSTITUTE the concept of 'accuracy' in audio. Because of this, the concept of 'accuracy' can be REDUCED TO the concepts of ‘resolution’ and ‘neutrality.’ Or: ‘ACCURACY’ = ‘RESOLUTION’ + ‘NEUTRALITY’ A note on the “reduction” of concepts: A concept A is reducible to a concept B to the extent that B has the same explanatory and predictive power in A’s theoretic domains. Like everything else in life, reduction is imperfect. But like many imperfect things, it is also valuable. At the heart of Al’s suggestion that we substitute the term ‘accuracy’ for the term ‘neutrality’ is, I believe, the recognition that the use of the two concepts often amounts to the same thing. My new proposal is intended to be a refinement of that important insight. A few words, by way of footnote, on how this discussion dovetails with earlier ones. In a previous post, I offered the following equation: EQUATION #1 RESOLUTION + NEUTRALITY = TRANSPARENCY This was meant to suggest that systems that were both highly resolving and highly neutral would also be highly transparent, NOT that the concept of ‘transparency’ is reducible to the concepts of ‘resolution’ and ‘neutrality.’ In this post, I have proposed that the concept of ‘accuracy’ can be reduced to the concepts of ‘resolution’ and ‘neutrality,’ represented by the equation: EQUATION #2 ‘ACCURACY’ = ‘RESOLUTION’ + ‘NEUTRALITY’ Unlike Equation #1, Equation #2 is a first and foremost a statement about concepts, though it entails that systems that are highly accurate are precisely the same systems that are highly resolving and highly neutral. As you have probably noticed, resolution and neutrality are equated with TRANSPARENCY in Equation #1, whereas they are equated with ACCURACY in Equation #2. This raises the question: What is the relation between transparency and accuracy? My answer: EQUATION #3 TRANSPARENCY = ACCURACY Like Equation #1, Equation #3 is about characteristics of components and systems, NOT about the concepts that represent those characteristics. Equation #3 is meant to suggest that systems that are highly accurate are the same systems that are highly transparent. The concepts of ‘accuracy’ and ‘transparency,’ however, may not be reducible to one another, in light of the fact that they invoke different kinds of understanding and different metaphors. ‘Accuracy’ invokes our understanding of truthfulness (e.g., an accurate description) and perhaps measurement (e.g., an accurate scientific instrument). ‘Transparency’ invokes the metaphor of seeing through a medium (the audio system) to something behind it (the music). For this reason, the concept of ‘accuracy’ and the concept of ‘transparency’ may not be interchangeable, but I believe that those two concepts refer to the very same virtue in an audio system. |
Almarg wrote: Since the source material will essentially always deviate to some degree and in some manner from being precisely accurate relative to the original event, then it can be expected that some deviation from accuracy in the system may in many cases be complementary to the inaccuracies of the recording (at least subjectively), resulting in a greater transparency into the music than a more precisely accurate system would provide. Al - This is a fascinating idea. If I understand you correctly, you are saying two things: (i) The target of the concept of ‘accuracy’ is the RECORDING, whereas the target of the concept of ‘transparency’ is the MUSICAL EVENT that the recording represents. (ii) In some cases, sacrificing some accuracy (to the recording) may increase transparency (to the musical event). Regarding (i), I am in complete agreement. I think your observation about the differences between the respective targets of the concepts of ‘accuracy’ and ‘transparency’ captures both the usage of the terms among audiophiles as well as the underlying metaphors that those terms invoke. Regarding (ii), I am in agreement, but in a more tentative way. I have actually been giving this topic some thought over the last few days, in the context of mulling over Cbw’s Rube Goldberg machine, viz., an audio system that exaggerates contrasts. Cbw raised it as a possible challenge to my operationalization of ‘neutrality’ presented in the original post, but I’ve been thinking more about whether an audio system that exaggerates certain contrasts, while not being truthful to the recording, might be more truthful to the musical event that the recording represents. Or, to use your observation, the question is whether an audio system that exaggerates certain contrasts might sacrifice some accuracy for the sake of greater transparency. The sonic characteristic I’ve been thinking about in particular is dynamics. In light of the fact that so much compression is used in music recording, a playback system that exaggerated dynamics swings, while not being strictly truthful to the recording, might be more truthful to the musical event that was recorded (prior to the use of compression). That idea makes complete sense to me. Yet my agreement with (ii) above is tentative, for two reasons. The first is that there are other sonic characteristics, like timbre, that do not seem like they would benefit from exaggeration. The second is that my technical understanding of how exaggerations in contrast might be achieved is limited. For example, can dynamics really be exaggerated above those of the recording by the kind of equipment available to the consumer? If so, how does the exaggeration of dynamics affect, for example, transient information? If you have other ideas and/or experiences of how sacrificing accuracy can sometimes increase transparency, I would love to hear about them. Muralman wrote: How, with all the layers of components can one know if one component addition or change makes a difference on it's own or is it a lost in complex relationships with the other components. I said a few things about this subject in an earlier post on this thread. Here is what I wrote: It is, of course, impossible to hear a component individually. We can only hear it in the context of a system. Because of this inescapable fact, there is always a potential fallacy when we hear a characteristic of an audio system and then attribute that characteristic to an individual component. A system might sound bright. Is it the speakers? Is it the cd player? Is it an impedance matching issue? If we get this wrong, we’ve made the Fallacy of Division, i.e., the misattribution of a system characteristic to one of the system’s components. Muralman – I quite agree with you that audio systems are HOLISTIC, in the sense that the system-level characteristics are a result of the complex interaction of all of the system’s components. But it seems to me that our understanding of audio systems is almost always MECHANISTIC, in the sense that we try to reduce system-level characteristics to component-level characteristics. That is, I believe, more of an artifact of our minds than of the audio systems we are trying to understand. Hence I also wrote: … the attempt to reduce system characteristics to component characteristics is unavoidable. It is fallible. But it is what we have. Muralman - I believe you are saying that, the more complex a system gets, the more difficult it will be to attribute system-level characteristics to individual components. I agree with this. I do not completely agree, however, with your conclusion: It has been my experience less is more. My wires can't be more simple. The DAC lacks a filter chip. The preamp is spartan. Every little change proclaims itself loudly, training me to go simple. I don’t have a problem with this idea, in theory. In practice, it has not always been my experience. I can give two examples from assembling my system. Example #1: The use of Room EQ Wizard software in combination with Meridian Room Correction made a dramatic difference in the quality of bass I was able to achieve in my listening room. This is reflected in a much flatter in-room frequency response below 200Hz, as well as the subjective impression, confirmed by other listeners, that my EQ work significantly improved the timing and transparency of my system. Meridian Room Correction involves intensive real time computation. It is not simple. Example #2: The addition of a reclocker between my transport and my dac improved my system in at least four areas: (1) increased perceived resolution; (2) better imaging focus; (3) less shrillness in high frequencies; and (4) lower noise floor. The reclocker discards the timing data of a digital audio stream and reclocks the audio data using a high precision clock, thereby reducing jitter. Also, not simple. Muralman - You mentioned my system in your post, so I assume your comments about the drawbacks of system complexity were triggered by the relative complexity of my system. While I agree that complexity provides more opportunities to get things wrong, I think in some cases, it provides opportunities to correct things that are already going wrong. Having said that, it is probably significant that the two examples I mentioned are both in the digital domain. If you look at my system from the point at which it becomes analog, you will notice that it is quite simple: The preamp is in the same unit as the dac (the Meridian), followed by 1 meter of analog interconnects, followed by a Pass amp of very simple design, followed by 2 meters of speaker cable to the speakers. This reflects my partial agreement with you about the value of simplicity. |
Recently, I had a dilemma that nearly every audiophile faces, and that I believe demonstrates the importance of judging a component’s neutrality:
I was comparing two pairs of analog interconnects in my system. Both interconnects were from highly regarded manufacturers. Both had considerable sonic virtues, and very few flaws. But they didn’t have the same virtues and flaws. Interconnect A had spectacular detail, but was a touch thin harmonically. Interconnect B was harmonically perfect, but was less detailed than interconnect A. This situation left me with the following questions:
(1) Was cable A preserving detail while subtracting harmonics?
(2) Was cable B subtracting detail while preserving harmonics?
Or could it be more complicated…
(3) Was cable A adding “perceived” detail by, for example, acting as a high pass filter?
(4) Could cable B somehow be adding false harmonics?
And so on.
Similar questions could be asked, of course, about cd players, amps, speakers, etc., and about other sonic characteristics like dynamics, soundstaging, and so on.
I believe that audiophiles ask themselves these kinds of questions – about what a component adds, subtracts, modifies – all the time. When they do, they are implicitly asking themselves about the NEUTRALITY of the components under consideration. That is because many additions, subtractions, and modifications to a signal are DEVIATIONS FROM NEUTRALITY. Here neutrality need not be defined so elusively as “the absolute sound” or “what is on the source” or “what the recording engineer heard” but simply: The signal fed to the component’s input. Under this definition of ‘neutrality,’ many (perhaps most) of the alterations to the input signal are deviations from neutrality.
My point here is NOT that every alteration to the input signal is a deviation from neutrality. The addition of gain, for example, might not be considered a deviation from neutrality. My point is that MANY of the alterations to the input signal constitute deviations from neutrality. An uncontroversial example might be: Intermodulation distortion.
If we, as audiophiles, don’t ask questions about how neutral a component is (in the sense above), then we will very likely face a frustrating upgrade path. Without having some hypothesis, however fallible, about how each component adds to, subtracts from, or otherwise modifies the signal fed to it, then efforts to improve the sound of the system by replacing components will be stabs in the dark.
And if you’re lucky enough to assemble a system that sounds good to you without asking questions about how each component alters the signal (i.e. deviates from neutrality), then you have probably found a set of components with complementary colorations. There are at least two problems with this approach: (1) Those complementary colorations accumulate, diminishing the system’s transparency; and (2) The system runs the risk of being a house of cards. That is to say, when a component is replaced, it must be replaced with one that alters the signal IN THE SAME WAY, or the results will be unpredictable, and probably disappointing. And how would you know what new component to choose if you did not ask how the old component altered the signal (i.e. deviated from neutrality) in the first place? I think this illustrates that trying to judge a component's neutrality is not just important, but virtually unavoidable. |
Jult52 wrote:
"When you are asked whether you like a particular recording, do you ever say, with great approval, 'It was neutral!' Didn't think so."
I agree with this, as I said in an earlier post. Again, neutrality is not a virtue of music or of recording. It is a virtue of a playback system.
Newbee wrote:
"Consider that perhaps none of the components previously assembled by you are in fact neutral but just complimentary and happen to meet your expectations of what you think neutrality sounds like, and the new component introduced is just synergistic with these other components."
I have considered this. In fact, it is the motivation for the title of this thread, "How do you judge your system's neutrality?" In my original post, I proposed one possible way of judging a system's neutrality.
Newbee wrote:
"I have a bit of a challenge for you. How will you know when what you are hearing from a component is true neutrality to the source, or if not, how much it deviates from true neutrality, if not by hearing it thru a collection of components previously assembled by you."
It is, of course, impossible to hear a component individually. We can only hear it in the context of a system. Because of this inescapable fact, there is always a potential fallacy when we hear a characteristic of an audio system and then attribute that characteristic to an individual component. A system might sound bright. Is it the speakers? Is it the cd player? Is it an impedance matching issue? If we get this wrong, we’ve made the Fallacy of Division, i.e., the misattribution of a system characteristic to one of the system’s components. But the danger of making this mistake does not mean we shouldn’t try to understand a system in terms of the contribution of its components.
As audiophiles, we are constantly confronted with situations that require us to make educated guesses about how to attribute system characteristics to individual components. Sometimes we get it wrong. Sometimes the system characteristic cannot be reduced to a single component, but only to the interaction of two (or more) components. But we have no choice but to try understand the contribution of each system element. That is an implicit assumption every time we upgrade a component. In our efforts to improve a system’s performance, we try to identify which component is the weak link and replace it with a stronger one. Because of this, the attempt to reduce system characteristics to component characteristics is unavoidable. It is fallible. But it is what we have.
Newbee wrote:
"You asked how I could question your views on neutrality in a post subsequent to my last post."
Newbee - My questions in response to you last post were not designed to ask how you could question my views on neutrality. I am happy for you to question my views on neutrality. That is the fun of these threads! My questions were just a rhetorical device, in an attempt to make the point that neutrality is not an all or nothing thing. If I gave the impression that I am not open to you questioning my point of view, I apologize. I have been enjoying this thread a great deal, precisely because we don't all agree with each other. |
Learsfool wrote: I don't see how anyone could consider "correct pitch and timbre" part of "neutrality." I actually flinched when I read that - a musician's carefully crafted tone colors are NOT "neutral," and I personally would never want to listen for long to a system that removed subtle differences in this area... I am not saying that a musician's "tonal colors" are, or should be, neutral. We have already had that conversation on this thread. In your second post, you wrote: Music is not, and never should be "neutral." As a professional musician, the term has always been hilarious to me when applied in this context. No musician wants to sound "neutral," that's for sure! To which I responded: The term 'neutral' is not a description of the music. It is a description of the playback system and its components. In a subsequent post, I wrote: Again, neutrality is not a virtue of music or of recording. It is a virtue of a playback system. And in a recent post, I wrote: NEUTRALITY: The degree to which a component or system is free from coloration. Once again, this does NOT refer to coloration in the recording, but only to coloration introduced by the playback system. As I hope is clear from this, my view is that neutrality is NOT a desirable characteristic in music or in recording. It is a desirable characteristic in a playback system. As to your comment that "I personally would never want to listen for long to a system that removed subtle differences in this area," I am in complete agreement. But it is my view that the more neutral the playback system, the MORE it will reveal subtle differences in tone/timbre. That was my point in the original post, when I wrote: This theory occurred to me one day when I changed amps and noticed that the timbres of instruments were suddenly more distinct from one another. With the old amp, all instruments seemed to have a common harmonic element (the signature of the amp?!). With the new amp, individual instrument timbres sounded more unique and the range of instrument timbres sounded more diverse. Learsfool - I think our disagreement here can be reduced to two different answers to the following question: WOULD A NEUTRAL AUDIO SYSTEM MAKE THE MUSIC SOUND "NEUTRAL"? Judging from your posts, I believe you would answer this question "Yes." In other words, I think your view is that, the more neutral an audio system is, the more it makes things sound THE SAME. I have the exact opposite view, namely, that the more neutral an audio system is, the more it makes things sound DIFFERENT. The reasoning for my view is the following: The more neutral an audio system, the less it colors the music with ITS OWN SIGNATURE. The less an audio system colors the music with its own signature, the more you will hear THE SIGNATURE OF THE MUSIC. And the more you hear the signature of the music, the more DISTINCT individual pieces of music will sound, and the more DIVERSE your collection of music will sound. As to correct pitch and timbre, the rationale for including them under the concept of neutrality is the following: A system that is highly neutral contaminates pitch and timbre (with its own signature) less than one that is highly colored. And the less pitch and timbre are contaminated, the more "correct" they are. To summarize my view on this: Neutrality (i.e. freedom from coloration) in an audio system does not lead to neutrality (i.e. SAMENESS) in the music played back on it, but rather the opposite. Neutrality in an audio system leads to DIVERSITY in the music played back on it. |
Learsfool - I agree with your observation that it would difficult for a group of audiophiles to agree about which high resolution system was the most neutral. But I believe that (1) more agreement exists than has been generally acknowledged in this thread; and (2) more agreement is possible if the term neutral is operationalized (perhaps in the way I have suggested, perhaps not). Al essentially made point (1) when he wrote: I think that the validity of the underlying point can be most easily seen by considering a very extreme example. Consider a system purchased at Walmart for a total system price of $300, in comparison with say a $50K system such as some Audiogoner's have. I don't think anyone here will disagree as to which one will provide better and more enjoyable sound, and I don't think that anyone here will disagree as to which one is more neutral/accurate/etc. Al chose this extreme example to make the point, but I believe that agreement among audiophiles concerning neutrality would not be limited to such extremes, particularly if they were to evaluate a variety of high resolution systems in acoustically identical rooms. This is merely a thought experiment used to illustrate my belief that there is more overlap in audiophiles' perception, including the perception of neutrality, than has been generally acknowledged in this thread. Learsfool expressed skepticism about agreement among audiophiles in his last post: "Let's take Almarg's 50K system example. One could easily assemble several that would all sound really great yet completely and totally different. How could a group of people possibly agree on which one of them was the most "neutral?" Perhaps these systems would sound "completely and totally different" to some group of audiophiles, because audiophiles are attuned to very subtle differences in audio, and we have very well defined preferences about those differences. But I think it's informative to also consider the perception of non-audiophiles. To them, I doubt these systems would sound "completely and totally different." Which is more valid in evaluating how different these systems sound: the expert judgment of the audiophile or the naive judgment of the layman? I'm not sure there's an answer to this question. But it's useful to consider because it highlights the possibility that more convergence exists among high resolution systems than is commonly recognized among audiophiles. And if that's true, then perhaps the inability of audiophiles to come to an agreement says more about the audiophiles (myself included) than it does about the systems they listen to. |
Almarg wrote: ...if throughout this thread the word "accuracy" had been substituted for the word "neutrality," the amount of controversy and disagreement might have been significantly less. Al – I think you are probably correct that, if we were to substitute the term ‘accuracy’ for the term ‘neutrality,’ there would be less disagreement in these discussions. But the cost of that substitution, in my view, is the loss of a small but significant degree of conceptual precision. That is because there are circumstances that an audiophile commonly faces where the concept of ‘neutrality’ does not fully reduce to the concept of ‘accuracy.’ To see this, it is useful to conceptualize accuracy in terms of information, specifically, the information available at the source vs. the information presented at the ear. (I say “at the ear,” rather than “at the speaker,” since the room, and your listening position in it, are ultimately part of the system). If we think of accuracy in terms of information, there are three kinds of deviation from accuracy: (1) The ADDITION of information. (2) The SUBTRACTION of information. (3) The ALTERATION of information. Examples of each of these might be: (1) ADDITION: Intermodulation distortion. (2) SUBTRACTION: Loss of frequency extremes. (3) ALTERATION: Phase inversion. My view is that the ADDITION of information is often (perhaps always) a deviation from neutrality. I have used the example of intermodulation distortion throughout this thread, because it seems to me an uncontroversial example of a how the addition of information can be a deviation from neutrality, in the sense of adding COLORATION. However, the SUBTRACTION of information, while a deviation from ACCURACY, does not always seem to be a deviation from NEUTRALITY. Consider the example of loss of frequency extremes. I don’t think most audiophiles would be inclined to think of a system that failed to present the bottom 30Hz of information as not neutral, in the sense of COLORED, but they might be inclined to think of it as somewhat less accurate than an identical system that did present the bottom 30Hz of information. To my mind, this illustrates (a) that ‘neutrality’ and ‘accuracy’ are not identical concepts; and (b) that the concept of ‘neutrality’ fails to reduce to the concept of ‘accuracy’ without an undesirable consequence, namely, the diminishment of conceptual precision for situations that audiophiles commonly face. Cbw723 wrote: While neutrality, as operationalized here, resists the suppression of contrast, it doesn't appear to resist its exaggeration. Cbw – I think you are correct that my proposal for the operationalization of ‘neutrality’ is not exhaustive because it would fail to identify as colored (i.e. not neutral) systems that exaggerate contrast. I agree with Al that, if we were to substitute the term ‘accuracy’ for ‘neutrality,’ then maybe my operationalization could be rescued from that criticism. But since I disagree with Al’s substitution, I cannot avail myself of his solution. As you are of course aware, the hypothetical system you described, while conceptually possible, does not reflect how real audio components are actually designed and built. I understand that your hypothetical system is a thought experiment designed to highlight a theoretical shortcoming in my operationalization of ‘neutrality.’ While I acknowledge the THEORETICAL shortcoming, I wonder whether it is really a PRACTICAL shortcoming. It seems to me that the Rube Goldberg lengths your thought experiment had to go to meet the conditions of my operationalization reflects the fact that this is not likely to be a practical concern for the real world audiophile. |
Dgarretson - I have a better understanding of the approach you are proposing. It's a very interesting idea. I have another question about it. You wrote: The propagation of a desirable coloration is necessarily accompanied by the propagation of undesirable coloration. I think you are probably right, but how do we know this? |
Al – I agree with everything in your last post. Also, I was happy to read that you are valuing the discussions on this thread. I am as well. As far as your remark that “It would seem to be verging on forming a good basis for a master's thesis, if not a doctoral dissertation!” I should mention that I actually did write a doctoral dissertation relevant to many of these topics. It was for a Ph.D. in philosophy, and my dissertation concentrated on topics in the philosophy of science. Audio was never mentioned, as it focused on technical issues concerning intertheoretic relations, objective vs. subjective knowledge, taxonomic categorization, interlevel reductionism, and mechanistic vs. complex systems. Yet it has occurred to me many times during this thread that there is a remarkable amount of overlap between those topics and topics that audiophiles commonly discuss. Learsfool wrote: I have heard "room correction" in an enthusiastic dealer's showroom that resulted in a very dead, lifeless sound as well -it depends on how it is applied, which depends on who is applying it. I agree with this. I too have heard bad examples of room correction. The success of room correction relies on the technology involved and how it is implemented. But that is true of virtually everything in audio. Learsfool wrote: Unless I am very much mistaken, it is not possible to remove all of the effects of room nodes and other similar acoustic phenomena, no matter how good the room correction system is. This is most certainly true, but just because we can’t control ALL room effects does not mean we can’t control ANY room effects, or that our efforts to do so aren’t worthwhile. Your reasoning here reminds me of your earlier comments about neutrality, when you seemed to suggest that, since we can’t achieve absolute neutrality, there was no point in trying to make a system sound as neutral as possible. To my mind, both these arguments suffer from the same mistake: They make THE PERFECT the enemy of THE GOOD. Learsfool wrote: These phenomena [i.e. room effects] are a part of what gives all great concert halls their individual character, for instance. I understand that every concert hall, like every other room, has a unique sonic signature, and that it is important to be able to hear the sonic signature of the concert hall when listening to music that was recorded it. But the way to hear the sonic signature of the concert hall is not to RECREATE its sonic signature in your playback room. The way to hear the sonic signature of the concert hall is to MINIMIZE the sonic signature of your playback room. Al made the same point in his last post: Ideally the recording should capture the acoustic characteristics of the hall, as they exist at some presumably well chosen location within it. If that recording is then played back on a system that has flat frequency response (and that has good accuracy in other respects) then it will accurately reproduce those hall characteristics, including any deviations from frequency response flatness, as well as ambiance, reverberation, etc. And I made a corollary point earlier on this thread: The more neutral an audio system, the less it colors the music with ITS OWN SIGNATURE. The less an audio system colors the music with its own signature, the more you will hear THE SIGNATURE OF THE MUSIC. Learsfool – I believe that a recurring disagreement between us is whether the following two things are the same: (1) The characteristics of GOOD MUSICAL PLAYBACK. (2) The characteristics of A GOOD PLAYBACK SYSTEM. I think that you believe that (1) and (2) are the same. I believe that (1) and (2) are often different, and sometimes opposite. Take neutrality, for example. You have said that neutrality is not a characteristic of GOOD MUSICAL PLAYBACK. As you have pointed out, musicians and recording engineers do not want their music to sound “neutral.” I completely agree with this. But you seem to conclude from the fact that neutrality is not a characteristic of GOOD MUSICAL PLAYBACK that neutrality is not a characteristic of A GOOD PLAYBACK SYSTEM. I disagree with that conclusion. The assumption underlying your conclusion seems to be that, if a playback system is neutral, it will make the music played back on it sound neutral. I believe that assumption is false, as I said in an earlier post: Neutrality (i.e. freedom from coloration) in an audio system does not lead to neutrality (i.e. SAMENESS) in the music played back on it, but rather the opposite. Neutrality in an audio system leads to DIVERSITY in the music played back on it. Because of this, I believe that the characteristics of good musical playback and the characteristics of a good playback system are not the same, and sometimes opposite. Learsfool wrote: Many audiophiles do use EQ for many other purposes besides room correction…I would think that almost all of these other uses of EQ would be a violation of your "neutrality" principles, if I understand them correctly (for instance, wanting to make a violin's extreme high register sound less harsh), would they not? I don’t use EQ for any other purpose than room correction, and the EQ I’m using precedes any D/A conversion. Like many audiophiles, I would be very hesitant to run an analog signal through a multiband equalizer for playback, mostly because of concerns about the loss of resolution. But your question is whether the use of EQ is NECESSARILY a deviation from neutrality. The answer is: It depends on which level of organization you are talking about. By definition, the use of EQ is a deviation from neutrality AT THE LEVEL OF THE COMPONENT. But it is not necessarily a deviation from neutrality AT THE LEVEL OF THE SYSTEM, where "the system" includes the room and your listening position in it. That is because the judicious use of EQ could compensate for room effects that are themselves deviations from neutrality. For example, if the room contains a lot of hard surfaces and is bright, EQ’ing the treble could result in a SYSTEM that is more neutral, even though, at the component level, you have made the signal less neutral. My own view is that both component-level neutrality and system-level neutrality are important. A neutral room will make it easier to achieve a neutral system. In this respect, it is probably the most important component in the system. Newbee wrote: But [this thread] does seem to have morf'd into something completely different from the original post where in, as I interpreted it, Bryon was informing us that he had discovered by increasing the quality of his components he was hearing far better replications of the recordings he was playing and he could hear differences that had previously lost. No problem there! Most anyone willing to be called an audiophile would agree with that - we've all been there/done that. Newbee - Your interpretation of my original post, as described above, misses the central point of it: To propose an operationalization of the concept of ‘neutrality.’ I doubt that many audiophiles would say that they had “been there/done that” with respect to operationalizing the concept of ‘neutrality.’ Newbee wrote: Despite noble attempts, perhaps even Herculean, by Bryon I doubt that any of us really agree on the subtle differences if any (I can tell by deeply gazing into my crystal ball). There is no evidence in this thread to support that conclusion. So far, my proposals have received support from Shadorne, Almarg, Dgarretson, and Cbw723. Notable detractors have included you, Learsfool, Blindjim, Kijanski, and Hamburg. That is a fairly even split. I usually resist the temptation to keep score, since it lowers the tenor of the conversation, but your comment misrepresents the composition of views on this thread. Newbee wrote: …assuming that we have discussed adequately all of the philosophical issues, how does the aspiring audiophile utilize anything in this post to help him achieve his goals? Al, a degree perhaps, but in what. :-) Newbee - It seems you don’t believe this discussion is valuable to audiophiles. This is apparently a change of heart, because until recently, you were among the thread’s most active contributors. It is unfortunate, and perhaps revealing, that you question the value of this thread on the same day that another poster expressed how much he values it. As far as answering the question, “how does the aspiring audiophile utilize anything in this post [sic] to help him achieve his goals?” my answer is: Expertise in any domain is involves both the development of concepts and the development of perception. (Some forms of expertise also involve the development of motor skills, but that is not relevant here.) The acquisition and refinement of concepts, which much of this thread has been devoted to, facilitates the development of expert perception. That is to say, improving the way you think about things improves the way you see and hear things. The symphony conductor’s acquisition and refinement of musical concepts improves his expert perception of music. The psychologist’s acquisition and refinement of psychological concepts improves his expert perception of human behavior. And the audiophile’s acquisition and refinement of audio concepts improves his expert perception of the playback of recorded music. It seems to me that the value of an audiophile developing expert perception of the playback of recorded music is self-evident. |
Learsfool - I agree that this has been a thought-provoking discussion. I also agree that distortions are not necessarily bad. Reading papers by Nelson Pass, listening to his amplifiers, and owning two of them, I am convinced by his view that whether or not distortion is bad depends upon the KIND of distortion it is. While I'm on the subject of things we agree about, let me add: I too think that the term 'neutral' can be misused as a euphemism for systems that are analytical and lifeless. I, like you, am not moved by those systems. I try to listen with my heart, not my brain (though this is a struggle for any audiophile). As far as begging the question in my original post: A question-begging argument is one in which the conclusion (the proposition to be proved) is assumed, implicitly or explicitly, in one of the premises (the propositions allegedly doing the proving). It's also known as circular reasoning. The charge of question begging applies to 'arguments' in the strict sense of the word, namely: An argument is a set of propositions, containing a conclusion and one or premises, in which the premises ENTAIL the conclusion. Entailment is a logical relation between two propositions A and B, such that, if A is true, B must also be true. Arguments are judged by the standard of soundness, where soundness is both a matter of (a) validity, i.e. logic; and (b) truth. Hence, to criticize an argument is to say that either (a) the reasoning is invalid, or (b) one or more of the premises are untrue. If you criticize an argument as question begging, then you are saying that its reasoning is circular, and therefore invalid. In light of this, I can see why you might think my original post was question begging, if you interpret the following three claims as an argument, in the sense above: (1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique. (2) Your music collection sounds more diverse. (3) Your system is more neutral. But it was NOT my intention for those claims to be interpreted as an argument, in the sense above. Items (1) and (2) were NOT intended to be the premises of an argument, nor was item (3) intended to be the conclusion of an argument. In addition, I do NOT believe that items (1) and (2) entail item (3). A formal argument is only one possible relation among a set of propositions, and it was not my goal in the original post. So what was my goal? TO OPERATIONALIZE THE CONCEPT OF 'NEUTRALITY.' In an earlier post, I wrote: Operationalizing a term is a matter of identifying some observable conditions that reliably indicate the presence of a characteristic and determine its value (i.e. how much of it is there is)...I proposed a more actionable way to operationalize the term 'neutral,' in terms of (1) the sonic uniqueness of individual pieces of music; and (2) the sonic diversity your collection of music. From this, I hope it is clear what my intentions were in the original post - Not to create a formal argument in which items (1) and (2) entailed item (3), but rather to propose a way to operationalize the concept of 'neutrality.' Or to put it in the language of my last post, to identify two INDICES OF NEUTRALITY. That is how I view items (1) and (2) - they are indices of neutrality, i.e., characteristics that covary with neutrality. Identifying the indices of neutrality and operationalizing the concept of 'neutrality,' are therefore, two ways of saying the same thing. Of course, you are free to challenge my proposal that items (1) and (2) are indices of neutrality. One poster did so earlier in this thread when he wrote: If one were to wear yellow glasses while skiing during an overcast day, visual improvement in the snow's light and dark shadow detail would be apparent. Those same glasses on a bright day would not be beneficial...
The improvements in your system may have actually increased the level of contrast above and beyond the original instruments of the musician. Here, Hamburg is challenging the idea that items (1) and (2) are indices of neutrality. I thought this to be one of the more effective and relevant challenges to my original post, but no one seemed to run with it. In any case, I hope this helps with the ongoing effort to clarify my views on what has turned out to be a complex set of issues. |
Dog reaction is an amusing test of a system's realism. After a significant system improvement, my dog reacts the same way I do... "What was that?!" After a few days, it wears off, and she doesn't react again until the next major upgrade. I guess that makes her an audiophile.
Bryon |
Learsfool wrote: …it seems to me that if true "neutrality", "accuracy", and "transparency" could exist in a system, EQ would be completely unnecessary, and I was very surprised to see you mention it in this context. Learsfool – I did not mention EQ in the context of our ongoing discussion about neutrality, accuracy, or transparency. If you look again at my post, you will see that my mention of EQ was in the context of a reply to Muralman’s suggestion that it is difficult to identify the contribution of each component in an audio system, and that systems that are complex suffer from this more than ones that are simple. Nowhere in Muralman’s posts, or in my reply to him, is there mention of neutrality, accuracy, or transparency. Muralman’s question was not about neutrality, accuracy, or transparency. But I found his question valid and interesting in its own right, and so I took the time to answer it as best I could. It is worth mentioning that I never suggested that my own system is especially resolving, neutral, accurate, or transparent. I value each of those characteristics, and I would like to believe that I have achieved some measure of each of them. But I have left the specifics of my own system out of the discussion up until my last post, because I didn’t want the conversation to become a comparison of different equipment, which there is an abundance of on Audiogon. I broke my silence about the specifics of my own system only because Muralman brought up my system in his post as an illustration of his concern about complexity. It was in an attempt to answer his concern that I described some of the particulars of my system. But I do not regard my system as a model of any particular sonic characteristic. I mention this because you wrote the following: Surely if a system is very "neutral," "transparent," or "accurate," it would not need any EQ? This makes it sound as though I have characterized my system as “very ‘neutral,’ ‘transparent,’ or ‘accurate.’” I have not. This brings me to your comment about the incompatibility of (1) valuing system neutrality, accuracy, or transparency; and (2) the use of EQ in the context of room correction. You wrote: It seems to me that by applying EQ, you are not faithful or truthful either to the recording or the musical event that it represents. I disagree with this. The use of EQ for room correction is usually a matter of using notch filters to suppress room modes. As you no doubt know, room modes are frequencies that result in standing waves, the volume of which can easily be exaggerated by 10dB or more. If left uncorrected, standing waves make music sound bloated, uneven, and slow. Standing waves can be corrected either through room treatments or through EQ. For those who do not have a dedicated room (like me), the use of EQ for room correction can be a very effective option for controlling the destructive effects of room modes. The use of EQ, in the way just described, is not a move away from system neutrality, accuracy, or transparency. In fact, it is the opposite, as anyone who has heard the effects can testify to. The result of suppressing the room modes in my system made the system more neutral, more accurate, and more transparent. The measure of this is not merely the flatter frequency response achieved under 200Hz. The measure of this is the perception of the listener. Your comment that “Surely if a system is very ‘neutral,’ ‘transparent,’ or ‘accurate,’ it would not need any EQ?” seems to reveal an assumption that: THE SYSTEM = THE EQUIPMENT If we substitute “the equipment” for “system” in your question, then it would read: “Surely if the equipment is very ‘neutral,’ ‘transparent,’ or ‘accurate,’ it would not need any EQ?” I would agree with this rhetorical question IF I believed that the system = the equipment. But I believe that: THE SYSTEM = THE EQUIPMENT + THE ROOM That is why, in a previous post, I wrote: …it is useful to conceptualize accuracy in terms of information, specifically, the information available at the source vs. the information presented at the ear. (I say “at the ear,” rather than “at the speaker,” since the room, and your listening position in it, are ultimately part of the system). The alteration of the signal for the purposes of room correction seems like a deviation from system neutrality, transparency, and accuracy ONLY IF you believe that the system = the equipment. If the room is part of the audio system, then changes to the signal in the equipment do not necessarily result in less neutrality, transparency, or accuracy AT THE EAR. And that is where it counts. |
Bryon - I'm under impression that you discuss mostly frequency response of the system hence word EQ is repeated often. What about whole bunch of other things like macro and micro dynamics? Frequency response has been mentioned a few times on this thread, but not much by me. One or two posters have suggested that neutrality was reducible to frequency response. I do not agree with that idea, since, as Shadorne and Audioengr pointed out, FREQUENCY response does not include TRANSIENT response. And I quite agree with you that dynamics are an important consideration when evaluating an audio system. As far as the phrase "EQ," its first appearance on this thread was just a few posts ago in the context of discussing room correction. Then it reappeared in Cbw's EQ challenge. So far as I can tell, it has not been a particular focus of mine or anyone else. It is difficult to discuss something that cannot be measured and is very subjective. This may be true, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to try. Art "cannot be measured and is very subjective," but people have found endless ways to talk about it, and some of them are useful. How do you know how it supposed to sound? Sitar from Northern India sounds completely different than Sitar from southern India. How do you know? By having heard one. From the tone of discussion I got even impression that neutrality is considered a virtue. I'm not so sure of that. Some of the posters seem to believe neutrality is a virtue, others clearly not. My own view is that it is a virtue, but not the only one. |
Learsfool wrote: Basically, I do not believe that "neutrality" can possibly exist at all, whether we are talking about a single piece of equipment, the entire system as per your definition, or in live music... Learsfool - What do you think of Al's comment: Consider a system purchased at Walmart for a total system price of $300, in comparison with say a $50K system such as some Audiogoner's have. I don't think anyone here will disagree as to which one will provide better and more enjoyable sound, and I don't think that anyone here will disagree as to which one is more neutral/accurate/etc. Do you not believe that a $50K system is more neutral than a $300 Walmart system? And conversely, do you not believe that the $300 system has more coloration? It is important to note that the last two questions must be answered the same way. That is to say, if you do not believe in neutrality, then YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN COLORATION. That is because neutrality has been defined on this thread as the (degree of) ABSENCE OF COLORATION. Colorations are additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music. If you believe that coloration does not exist, then what is intermodulation distortion? What is the resonance of a speaker cabinet? What is crosstalk? In my view, they are additions to the playback chain that conceal and corrupt information about the music. That is to say, they are colorations. And if colorations exist, then neutrality, defined as the (degree of) absence of coloration, exists. Learsfool wrote: There is no such thing as a neutral room. If you believe this, then you believe that there is no such thing as ROOM COLORATION. Then what is a room mode? What is flutter echo? What is comb filtering? In my view, they are additions and subtractions to the playback chain that conceal and corrupt information about the music. That is to say, they are colorations. And if colorations exist, then neutrality exists. Learsfool wrote: Bryon wrote "The success of room correction relies on the technology involved and how it is implemented." This completely ignores the human ears setting up and/or listening to the result of the technology… I was not ignoring the human element. I meant that to be part of “implementation.” ‘Implementation’ can refer to the PHYSICAL DEVICES that perform some function or the ACT of performing some function, presumably by a person. I meant for both to be included. Learsfool wrote: Now, let us say you replace very high quality preamp A with very high quality preamp B, keeping everything else the same. How will you know which one is more "neutral"? I submit that you can't. But you can know which one makes the system sound better to you. And I would also guess that 100 audiophiles that listened to this comparison would probably split close to 50/50 on which one did sound better, and that there would be many different reasons why each made his choice. One of the advantages to my operationalization of ‘neutrality’ is that forming judgments about neutrality does not require us to be able to arrive at a consensus about which is the better component in an A/B test, which as you point out, is often difficult and sometimes impossible. It only requires us to arrive at a consensus about which component makes individual pieces of music sound more unique and a collection of music more diverse. Perhaps that would be a difficult consensus to achieve as well, but I suspect it is far more realizable than getting audiophiles to agree on which component is "better" in any given A/B test. And if a consensus were reached about which component was more neutral in an A/B test, it does not follow that the more neutral component is the "better" component, since there are other sonic virtues that are, and should be, considered when evaluating components. Learsfool wrote: I think your "neutrality" concept/operationalization falls apart, despite your VERY good arguments - it requires that there is ultimately one answer. Yes. That is what it means to be an Objectivist. Kijanki wrote: Do you think that person who likes more bass than neutral should force himself to listen at home the way he doesn't like (neutral). If I cannot hear treble as well as when I was young - am I allowed to get brighter system? You are allowed to do as you like. It is not for me to tell anyone how to listen to music. I think if you were to read my posts on this thread you would not find a single comment suggesting that someone else SHOULD listen in a certain way. I have, however, made arguments about the value of neutrality. This may seem like a contradiction, but it is not. That is because, while I am an Objectivist about neutrality, resolution, and accuracy, I am a Subjectivist about audiophile values. I do not believe that there is one "right" way to listen, but I do believe that there are more neutral, resolving, and accurate ways to listen. As far as your comment about compensating for your high frequency hearing loss with a brighter system, the issue there is exactly analogous to the use of EQ in a system to compensate for room effects. In a previous post, I wrote: [The] question is whether the use of EQ is NECESSARILY a deviation from neutrality. The answer is: It depends on which level of organization you are talking about. By definition, the use of EQ is a deviation from neutrality AT THE LEVEL OF THE COMPONENT. But it is not necessarily a deviation from neutrality AT THE LEVEL OF THE SYSTEM, where "the system" includes the room and your listening position in it. That is because the judicious use of EQ could compensate for room effects that are themselves deviations from neutrality. For example, if the room contains a lot of hard surfaces and is bright, EQ’ing the treble could result in a SYSTEM that is more neutral, even though, at the component level, you have made the signal less neutral. Analogously, in the case of compensating for your high frequency hearing loss with a brighter system, I would say: That "compensation" is itself an attempt to achieve a measure of neutrality in the system, by removing the midrange and bass "coloration" created by your loss of high frequencies. But in your case, "the system" no longer stops at your ears - it INCLUDES your ears, along with the details of your hearing loss. |
Kijanki wrote: Defining neutrality reminds me TV discussion on the subject of "good taste" where serious people tried to define it (it does not exist). Again, I would ask: Does coloration exist? Colorations are additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music. I have given at least six examples from both equipment and listening rooms: intermodulation distortion, speaker cabinet resonance, crosstalk, room modes, flutter echo, and comb filtering. There are undoubtedly many more. Do these phenomena exist? If they do, then neutrality exists, as it has been defined on this thread, namely, THE (DEGREE OF) ABSENCE OF COLORATION. Kijanki wrote: My Benchmark DAC1 was praised by studio engineers and often called by people sterile and uninvolving. Studio engineers made once experiment in the studio recording guitar live and playing thru different DACs (similar price range). Benchmark was the most accurate but people liked other DACs more. I have addressed this issue many times on this thread, including in my very last post, where I wrote: ...if a consensus were reached about which component was more neutral in an A/B test, it does not follow that the more neutral component is the "better" component, since there are other sonic virtues that are, and should be, considered when evaluating components. Cbw – Excellent post. And yes, “operationalization” is a word. Cbw wrote: In the original post, you mention instrument timbres specifically sounding more distinct from one another, and then go on to say whole songs and albums sounded more unique and your collection, more diverse. Is that all a consequence of the change in timbres, or were there other characteristics that contributed to the uniqueness/diversity?
The changes in uniqueness/diversity that I noticed were not limited to timbre. They included nearly every aspect of the recordings. Some of those changes are, no doubt, attributable to improved RESOLUTION, but I believe that others are the result of improved NEUTRALITY. Cbw wrote: Is criterion #2 a consequence of, in whole or in part, criterion #1? No, criterion #2 is not a “consequence” of criterion #1, because the relation between criterion #1 and criterion #2 is not CAUSAL. That is to say, criterion #1 is not the CAUSE of criterion #2. Criterion #1 and criterion #2 are really just two different ways of identifying the same thing: INCREASED DIFFERENTIATION. If there is a causal relationship relevant here, it is that increasing neutrality is the cause and criteria #1 and #2 are the effects. Cbw wrote: …wouldn't criteria #1 and #2 be consequences of increased neutrality rather than standards by which we identify it? This is a false contrast. That is to say, X can be BOTH a consequence of Y AND the standard by which we identify it. In science, this is the relation between observables and theoretical entities – observables are both a consequence of theoretical entities and the standard by which we identify them. If you have concerns about the circularity of that relationship, then you are not alone. Philosophers and scientists have worried about that for quite a while. One way to mitigate the circularity is to find corroboration of the existence and nature of theoretical entities through an interrelated set of other theoretical entities and observables. To apply this to our discussion: Neutrality is the theoretical entity and criteria #1 and #2 are its observables. But this does not throw doubt on the existence of neutrality, since it is corroborated by an interrelated set of other theoretical entities and observables. |
Learsfool wrote: Bryon has yet to propose ANY CONDITION that indicates the presence of a characteristic of "neutrality" at all, let alone "reliably."[Emphasis added] This strikes me as a strange thing to say, since I have proposed THE SAME TWO CONDITIONS many, many times in this thread: (1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique. (2) Your music collection sounds more diverse. These were the conditions I proposed in the original post. The have been discussed at great length, including by you. You may not AGREE with those conditions, but it is strange to suggest that I have not PROPOSED any. Learsfool wrote: Another part of my problem with your terms is that I cannot accept your use of the term "coloration" as a purely negative term, something always to be removed. My previous post spoke at length of the relationship of music and color. We have also discussed this at length, and we are in complete agreement about the existence and desirability of coloration in music. For the purposes of my operationalization of neutrality, my use of the word ‘coloration’ is strictly about colorations INTRODUCED BY THE PLAYBACK SYSTEM. If you like, we can designate them: (1) Music Colorations: The sonic signature of the musical event and/or the recording. (2) Playback Colorations: The sonic signature of the playback system. While music colorations are VARIABLES, playback colorations are CONSTANTS. We are in complete agreement about the existence and desirability of MUSIC COLORATIONS. Our disagreement lies in the existence and desirability of PLAYBACK COLORATIONS. This point has been made now many times. Therefore, your objection to my use of the word ‘coloration’ seems unmotivated, since I have already acknowledged that my use is limited to playback. Perhaps you have the view that I should not use the word 'coloration' so narrowly. I have no problem using the phrase ‘playback colorations’ if that will prevent us from having this particular disagreement again. Learsfool wrote: A designer of a piece of equipment has a specific sound color he is aiming at, that is different from all other designs/models out there, otherwise why design another piece of equipment? "Neutrality" simply is not a goal of design… I do not agree with this. Under the terms of the discussion, neutrality is degree of absence of coloration (now: “playback colorations”). Under the terms of this discussion, playback colorations are additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music. Designers are, without doubt, sensitive to additions or subtraction to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that they are not sensitive to noise, distortion, crosstalk, power isolation, and a host of other considerations, ALL OF WHICH, if left unattended, can result in the concealment or corruption of information about the music. To acknowledge that designers are sensitive to such considerations is to acknowledge that designers are sensitive to PLAYBACK COLORATIONS. And if they are sensitive to playback colorations, then they are sensitive to NEUTRALITY, defined as the degree of absence of playback colorations. It is important to point out that designers need not EXPLICITY conceptualize their design values in terms of coloration or neutrality, though I suspect some of them do. The vast majority of concepts, audio or otherwise, are IMPLICIT, which is to say, they are concepts about which we are unaware. It is enough for designers to have the concepts like intermodulation distortion, crosstalk, speaker cabinet resonance, etc., and to treat those phenomena as THINGS TO BE MINIMIZED TO IMPROVE THE SOUND OF THE MUSIC. By doing that, they reveal the presence of an IMPLICIT concept of coloration, and an IMPLICIT concept of neutrality, as defined here. It is also important to point out that I am not suggested that minimizing playback coloration/maximizing neutrality is the PRINCIPAL goal of most, or any, designers. But I believe that it is likely to be ONE GOAL AMONG MANY. The evidence for this belief is the existence of a large number of audiophile components that, in my view, have relatively low levels of playback coloration/high level of neutrality, especially when compared with the low-fi playback systems available on the mass market. It is hard to believe that this is an accident. |
Learsfool wrote: It most certainly does NOT follow that just because I don't believe in neutrality, that therefore I don't believe in coloration! (The same goes for the "neutral room"/ "room coloration" thing). The only way this could possibly be true is within the context of your own personal definition, which is precisely what is under debate here. To which Cbw replied: If you believe that playback systems can add more or less coloration to a system, then you implicitly believe that a system can be more or less neutral, as defined here, whether you believe you believe that or not. You can't believe in speed (distance/time) and not believe in slowness (time/distance) and remain logically consistent. I agree with Cbw that it is logically inconsistent to believe in coloration and not believe in neutrality, AS COLORATION AND NEUTRALITY HAVE BEEN DEFINED IN THIS THREAD, namely: ‘Coloration’: Additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music. ‘Neutrality’: The degree of absence of coloration. Although this definition of ‘neutrality’ is defined by its RELATION TO coloration, that does not make my reasoning, which employs those concepts, circular. Learsfool - Our current disagreement seems to be that you object to my definition of 'neutrality.' But I agree with Cbw that my definition of neutrality is NOT “precisely what is under debate,” as you suggested. The focus of the debate, and my original post, is not the DEFINITION of 'neutrality,' but the OPERATIONALIZATION of 'neutrality', that is, the identification of a set of observable conditions that indicate the presence of neutrality. In your post dated 11/25, you seemed to agree with this characterization of the debate: Thanks for the clarification, Bryon. I guess where we really disagree, then, is on whether you have in fact proposed "conditions that reliably indicate the presence of a characteristic," emphasis on reliably. Here you seem to acknowledge that the central question of the thread, and the central focus of our disagreement, is the validity of my OPERATIONALIZATION of 'neutrality,' not the validity of my DEFINITION of 'neutrality.' Of course, you are perfectly entitled to question the validity of my definition of neutrality as well. But it is inaccurate to treat my arguments for the OPERATIONALIZATION of neutrality as though they were arguments for the DEFINITION of neutrality. Doing so does create the appearance of circularity, but it is not a fair characterization of my arguments or my views. Moving on to one of your concerns with my DEFINITION of neutrality: So far, the only way you have defined your "neutrality" characteristic is by saying that it is an absence of some other characteristic, which you are calling "coloration." Frankly, I am not certain that this would pass muster as a scientific definition in the first place - I don't think it is accepted to define one thing solely as an absence of some other thing? You are right I define neutrality in RELATION TO coloration. I don’t see the problem in this. To begin with, I never suggested that my definition was “scientific,” though I suppose my efforts to operationalize the concept could be considered an attempt to make it scientific. Acknowledging that, you are mistaken to suggest that a scientific concept cannot be defined by ABSENCE, as I have done with the definition of ‘neutrality.’ Here are some scientific concepts defined by absence: Entropy: The ABSENCE of order in a thermodynamic system. Vacuum: The ASBENCE of matter in a volume of space. Absolute Zero: The ABSENCE of molecular activity. Equilibrium: The ABSENCE of global system-level activity resulting from the balance of component-level forces. In light of this, I do not see why defining ‘neutrality’ in terms of the ABSENCE of coloration is a problem, even if the standard of conceptual validity is a “scientific” concept. Learsfool wrote: Kijanki and I keep asking, how do you know what anything is "supposed" to sound like? There is no one answer to that question, and your assertion that there is is dumbfounding. A great many audiophiles calling themselves "objectivists" would stop far short of such an assertion. I fail to see how anyone could think of music or it's reproduction in such black and white terms. This is a mischaracterization of my view. You are running two different things together: (1) Is there a FACT OF THE MATTER about whether a system contains colorations (i.e. deviations from neutrality)? (2) Is there a SINGLE way that a playback system is SUPPOSED TO sound? My answer to (1) is Yes. That is what makes me an Objectivist about neutrality. But being an Objectivist about neutrality does not make me an Objectivist about ALL CHARACTERISTICS of musical playback. As it turns out, I am NOT an Objectivist about all characteristics of musical playback. Because of that, my answer to (2) above is No – there is not a single way that a playback system is supposed to sound. I hope you will see that my thinking on these topics is not as black and white as you have stated. |
A little while back, Al suggested substituting another term, such as ‘accuracy,’ for the term ‘neutrality.’ More recently, Cbw mentioned that, when reading my posts, he tends to substitute the term ‘distortion’ for ‘coloration.’ And Learsfool has argued in many different ways that ‘coloration’ is a subjective category. I believe that these three points of view are related, in that they all identify the same shortcoming in my definition of coloration, namely: It makes ‘coloration’ too OBJECTIVE a category. Here is the definition of ‘coloration’ I have been working with: COLORATION: Additions, subtraction, and alterations to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music. I think Al was correct in his view that the above definition is close to a definition of ‘inaccuracy.’ I think Cbw was also correct in his view that the above definition is close to a definition of 'distortion.' And I think Learsfool was correct in his view that the above definition is not subjective enough. For these reasons, I would like to propose four things: (1) Following Al’s advice, we make my former definition of ‘coloration’ the new working definition of ‘inaccuracy.’ INNACCURACY: Alterations to the playback chain that eliminate, conceal, or corrupt information about the music.* *There are two other slight changes to this definition. I have changed “additions, subtractions, and alterations” to simply “alterations,” since all additions and subtractions are necessarily alterations. I have also included “eliminate” with “conceal and corrupt,” since the former seems to be just as much a possible type of inaccuracy as the latter. (2) In the spirit of Cbw’s substitution, we identify distortion as one of the determinants of inaccuracy: DETERMINANTS OF INACCURACY: Various kinds of distortion, loss, and noise, such as jitter, crosstalk, intermodulation distortion, speaker cabinet resonance, phase shifts, room modes, comb filtering, flutter echo, etc. (3) Acknowledging Learsfool’s objections, we make the definition of ‘coloration’ more subjective: COLORATION: Inaccuracies audible as a non-random** sonic signature. This new definition entails that COLORATION IS A TYPE OF INACCURACY, the type that results in an audible, non-random sonic signature. It is consistent with the existence of other types of inaccuracies that do not result in an audible, non-random sonic signature. This new definition also makes the term ‘coloration’ somewhat more SUBJECTIVE, since it includes FACTS ABOUT THE SUBJECT, by employing the concept of ‘audibility' (more on this below). **I almost said “constant” sonic signature, rather than “non-random,” until I read Cbw’s recent post where he reminded me that many colorations vary with frequency, and so are not, strictly speaking, "constant." So it is more precise to say that colorations are non-random, or what Cbw calls, “predictable, in that their affect on a signal may be known.” (4) The definition of 'neutrality' stays the same, namely, the degree of absence of coloration. There are two advantages to the proposals expressed in (1)-(4). The first is that these definitions more closely reflect audiophile usage. This is evidenced by Stereophile’s audiophile dictionary. It is by no means definitive, but it is a relevant data point concerning usage: Accuracy: The degree to which the output signal from a component or system is perceived as replicating the sonic qualities of its input signal. An accurate device reproduces what is on the recording, which may or may not be an accurate representation of the original sound.
Neutral: Free from coloration.
Coloration: An audible "signature" with which a reproducing system imbues all signals passing through it. You can see these definitions at the following link: http://www.stereophile.com//reference/50/index.htmlThe second advantage of these new proposals is that they bring the conflicting views of the Objectivist and the Subjectivist one step closer together. It is only a step, though, since the new definition of ‘coloration’ I am proposing is only subjective in the sense that it includes facts about the subject, facts that, I believe, are themselves largely OBJECTIVE. So this is not a retreat from Objectivism, so much as it is an acknowledgement that understanding coloration and neutrality is partly a matter of understanding HOW INACCURACIES ARE PERCEIVED. |
Dgarretson – Very interesting post. As I understand it: (1) You advocate a METHODOLOGICAL INTERNALISM for evaluating coloration/neutrality... Distinctions about coloration may be made relative to an external reference point of live music, or to an internal reference point of a previous or alternate iteration of one's system. Unfortunately fidelity to an external reference point will be debated ad nauseam, owing to endlessly varying opinions about live sound, as well as human frailty in reconstituting performance from memory. (2) You acknowledge that, because of your Methodological Internalism, ABSOLUTE judgments about coloration/neutrality are impossible. However, you believe that RELATIVE judgments about coloration/neutrality are possible... ...if one is to exclusively adopt internal reference points, any improvement is by definition relative to one’s current system rather than to an absolute. (3) You propose an ALTERNATIVE OPERATIONALIZATION of ‘neutrality,’ namely: DGARRETSON'S OPERATIONALIZATION: Neutrality can be judged to be increasing when, after a change to a system, all sonic characteristics are improved... An advance in engineering and neutrality has been indicated when all variables of the listening experience are carried in the direction of preference. I have mixed feelings about (1). I completely agree with (2). And I am still mulling over (3). I have a few questions to help me understand (3) better: (i) What about situations where you change a component and you get the result that SOME characteristics have improved and SOME have stayed constant. Is that an improvement in neutrality? (ii) Can you say more about the phrase “carried in the direction of preference”? That seems like a Subjectivist thing to say, but you are an avowed Objectivist with respect to neutrality. I am not “holding you to” your previous posts. It’s that I get the sense that you are STILL an Objectivist, and so I am confused by the distinctly Subjectivist wording of your operationalization. Maybe you can elaborate. Thanks! |
Learsfool wrote: Bryon has indeed stated, in his post of 12/5, that he believes that there is ultimately one way that music reproduction should sound, and went on to comment that that is what it means to be an Objectivist. So yes, he is therefore arguing that there is an absolute neutrality, though he of course is not arguing that he has actually achieved it. NO! You are, once again, running two things together: (1) Objectivism about neutrality. (2) Absolutism about neutrality. Being an OBJECTIVIST about neutrality means that you believe that there is a FACT OF THE MATTER about the existence and degree of coloration in a system. Being an ABSOLUTIST about neutrality means that you believe that ZERO COLORATION IS POSSIBLE. I am an Objectivist about neutrality. I am NOT an Absolutist. I have said that MANY times. In addition, you are running the following two things together: (1) Objectivism about neutrality. (3) Objectivism about ALL sonic characteristics. (1) is an accurate characterization of my arguments and my views. (2) is NOT. As I have said MANY times, including in the original post, I believe that there are many sonic characteristics other than neutrality that are important, and for at least some of the them, I am a Subjectivist. In other words: I HAVE COMMITED MYSELF TO BEING AN OBJECTIVIST ABOUT NEUTRALITY ONLY! As far my post on 12/5, which you cite as evidence that I am an Absolutist about neutrality and an Objectivist about all sonic characteristics, WE HAVE ALREADY RESOLVED THAT MISUNDERSTANDING: On 12/6, you wrote: Kijanki and I keep asking, how do you know what anything is "supposed" to sound like? There is no one answer to that question, and your assertion that there is is dumbfounding. A great many audiophiles calling themselves "objectivists" would stop far short of such an assertion. I fail to see how anyone could think of music or it's reproduction in such black and white terms. And on 12/6, I wrote: This is a mischaracterization of my view. You are running two different things together:
(1) Is there a FACT OF THE MATTER about whether a system contains colorations (i.e. deviations from neutrality)?
(2) Is there a SINGLE way that a playback system is SUPPOSED TO sound?
My answer to (1) is Yes. That is what makes me an Objectivist about neutrality. But being an Objectivist about neutrality does not make me an Objectivist about ALL CHARACTERISTICS of musical playback. As it turns out, I am NOT an Objectivist about all characteristics of musical playback. Because of that, my answer to (2) above is No – there is not a single way that a playback system is supposed to sound. I hope you will see that my thinking on these topics is not as black and white as you have stated. If you do not accept my characterization of my position on 12/5, then please accept this as my characterization of my position now: I AM NOT AN ABSOLUTIST ABOUT NEUTRALITY. I AM NOT AN OBJECTIVIST ABOUT ALL SONIC CHARACTERISTICS. THEREFORE, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A SINGLE WAY THAT A PLAYBACK SYSTEM IS "SUPPOSED TO" SOUND. I have said this many times in this thread. In your post from today, you wrote: I will repeat that Bryon's two premises do not prove the existence of "neutrality." (In fact, they assume it's existence, which is why I originally called it a question-begging argument.) WE HAVE ALREADY HAD, AND RESOLVED, THAT DISCUSSION... On 11/25, you wrote: I just carefully re-read your original post, and the subsequent one where you defined "neutrality" and I still don't think that just because 1) individual pieces sound more unique, and 2) your music collection sounds more diverse, that this necessarily leads to the conclusion that your system is more "neutral". IMO you are presenting a "begging the question" type argument. And on 11/25, I responded: I can see why you might think my original post was question begging, if you interpret the following three claims as an argument, in the sense above:
(1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique.
(2) Your music collection sounds more diverse.
(3) Your system is more neutral.
But it was NOT my intention for those claims to be interpreted as an argument, in the sense above. Items (1) and (2) were NOT intended to be the premises of an argument, nor was item (3) intended to be the conclusion of an argument. In addition, I do NOT believe that items (1) and (2) entail item (3). A formal argument is only one possible relation among a set of propositions, and it was not my goal in the original post. So what was my goal?
TO OPERATIONALIZE THE CONCEPT OF 'NEUTRALITY.' To which, on 11/25, you responded: Thanks for the clarification, Bryon. I guess where we really disagree, then, is on whether you have in fact proposed "conditions that reliably indicate the presence of a characteristic”… This reply led me to believe that this misunderstanding was behind us, but it appears again in your post from today. So do you mischaracterizations of me as an Absolutist about neutrality and an Objectivist about all sonic characteristics, mischaracterizations that I believed we had previously resolved. This is not an issue of clarity of expression. I do not know whether you are merely skimming my posts, or if you have difficulty remembering them, but the momentum of this thread is being impeded by these repetitions. You have been an excellent opponent, and I don't mean to discourage you from continuing to post on this thread. I do mean to encourage you to take our previous discussions into consideration when posting. |
Learsfool – I apologize for the frustration I expressed in my last post. This has been one of the most rewarding discussions I’ve had in a long time, and you are a big part of the reason for that. I completely agree with the sentiment you expressed in the final paragraph of your last post, that we learn more from people we disagree with than the people we agree with. This is particularly true when your opponents are thoughtful and intellectually honest. You have been both. Ironically, you said something in your last post that may have affected our deadlock, if only by a little: You have brought up some types of distortion that can be measured, and certainly I agree that a designer of a piece of equipment can guard against these types of what you call "colorations." However, you seem to be ignoring other ways in which pieces of equipment can sound different from each other that have been brought up, for instance my two preamps in the same exact system where one was warmer sounding than the other… I think this is accurate, insofar as I have been ignoring ways that systems can sound different that are NOT attributable to differences in playback colorations. I will call those differences COLORATION-INDEPENDENT CHARACTERISTICS. A coloration-independent characteristic is sonic characteristics of a component/system that is: (1) VARIABLE, in the sense that multiple values of the characteristic are possible, and (2) COLORATION-NEUTRAL, in the sense that, for at least a limited range of values, differences in the value of that variable have either (a) no effects or (b) identical effects on the concealment and corruption of information about the music. Here are two candidates for coloration-independent characteristics of systems that I can think of: (1) Maximum undistorted SPL. (2) Listening room reverberation time. There may be many more. I would be interested to hear from you, Learsfool, or others, about candidates for coloration-independent characteristics. It is worth pointing out that this topic relates to Dgarretson’s first of two operationalizations of 'neutrality': DGARRETSON’S OPERATIONALIZATION #1: Neutrality can be judged to be increasing when, after a change to a system, the sonic characteristics of two or more formats move toward CONVERGENCE. The SMALLER the number of coloration-independent characteristics that exist, the MORE convergence between formats will occur as playback colorations are removed. The LARGER the number of coloration-independent characteristics that exist, the LESS convergence between formats will occur as playback colorations are removed. Therefore, if a large number of coloration-independent characteristics exist, then even if we were to, hypothetically, achieve perfect system neutrality, THERE WOULD STILL BE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES in how formats sound. This issue can be extended, analogically, to whole systems: The SMALLER the number of coloration-independent characteristics that exist, the MORE systems will converge as playback colorations are removed. The LARGER the number of coloration-independent characteristics exist, the LESS systems will converge as playback colorations are removed. In light of this, it would be useful to know: Just how many coloration-independent characteristics are there? |
The distinction between "easy," "difficult," and "impossible" degrees of recoverability was really just a shorthand way of talking about how much the system would have to change in order to recover the missing information.
In the case of concealment, relatively SMALL changes to the system, such as repositioning the speakers, can recover the concealed information. Hence the word 'EASY.'
In the case of corruption, LARGER changes to the system, such as modifying or changing components, are necessary to recover the corrupted information. Hence the word 'DIFFICULT.'
In the case of elimination, NO changes to the system, other than changing formats, will recover the eliminated information. Hence the word 'IMPOSSIBLE.' |
In my last post, I suggested a definition for ‘coloration-independent characteristics’: A coloration-independent characteristic is sonic characteristics of a component/system that is:
(1) VARIABLE, in the sense that multiple values of the characteristic are possible, and
(2) COLORATION-NEUTRAL, in the sense that, for at least a limited range of values, differences in the value of that variable have either (a) no effects or (b) identical effects on the concealment and corruption of information about the music. Cbw wrote: I'm not sure I agree with #2. We've already identified resolution as existing outside of neutrality/coloration, but it would not pass part b of this test, because low resolution would conceal information. Cbw’s objection to my definition of ‘coloration-independent characteristics’ is implicitly an objection to my definition of ‘coloration’: COLORATION: Additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music. The apparent problem identified by Cbw with my definition ‘coloration’ can be expressed in the following argument: (1) Resolution loss is not a type of coloration. (2) Resolution loss satisfies my definition of ‘coloration,’ since it is a subtraction in the playback chain that conceals information about the music. (3) Therefore, my definition of ‘coloration’ is flawed, and by entailment, so is my definition of ‘coloration-independent characteristics.’ My reply to this is that premise (1) is partly true, partly false. That is to say, some resolution loss is a consequence coloration and some is not. What I would like to propose is that resolution loss can be thought of as falling into three types... THREE TYPES OF RESOLUTION LOSS: (1) CONCEALMENT of information about the music. (2) CORRUPTION of information about the music. (3) ELIMINATION of information about the music. The loss of information through concealment or corruption is resolution loss BY COLORATION. The loss of information through elimination is RESOLUTION LOSS PROPER. CONCEALMENT is the kind of loss that results, for example, from comb filtering, where some frequencies are exaggerated, others attenuated, by constructive and destructive interference. CORRUPTION is the kind of loss that results, for example, from intermodulation distortion, where spurious frequencies are added to an amplified signal. And ELIMINATION is the kind of loss that results, for example, from the informational compression of an MP3. I chose the words “conceal or corrupt,” rather than “eliminate” for my definition of ‘coloration’ precisely because I was hoping to define ‘coloration’ in a way that does not entirely subsume the concept of ‘resolution’ under the concept of ‘neutrality,’ which would not reflect the usage of those concepts by audiophiles, or their usage on this thread. My definition of ‘coloration’ forces me to acknowledge that some resolution loss is a consequence of colorations, but it allows me to preserve a concept of ‘resolution’ that is INDEPENDENT OF the concepts of ‘coloration' and 'neutrality,' thereby addressing Cbw’s concern with the definitions of ‘coloration’ and ‘coloration-independent characteristic.’ Another motivation for differentiating CONCEALMENT from CORRUPTION from ELIMINATION is the idea that these three types of information loss have different (1) TYPICAL LOCALIZATIONS; and (2) TYPICAL DEGREES OF RECOVERABILITY: TYPE OF LOSS.......LOCALIZATION..........RECOVERABILITY (1) Concealment........Listening room................Easy (2) Corruption...........Equipment.......................Difficult (3) Elimination..........Format............................Impossible Information loss through CONCEALMENT, as typically happens in the listening room, includes phenomena such as room modes, flutter echo, and comb filtering. The information concealed by each of these phenomena is contained upstream in the system. The information is being CONCEALED by the listening room (Or more accurately, by the physical relations among the listening room, the speakers, and the listener). Because of this, the lost information is relatively EASY TO RECOVER. It can often be achieved with modest room treatments (as in the case of flutter echo) or change of speaker position (as in the case of comb filtering). Information loss through CORRUPTION, as typically happens in equipment, includes phenomena such as intermodulation distortion, crosstalk, and speaker cabinet resonance. Once again, the information concealed by these phenomena is contained upstream in the system. The information is being CORRUPTED by the equipment. Because of this, the lost information is MORE DIFFICULT TO RECOVER. It can sometimes be accomplished by modifying components. Information loss through ELIMINATION, as typically happens in the format, includes phenomena such as the informational compression of an MP3. The lost information does not exist upstream in the system. Hence, it is UNRECOVERABLE. The only way to get this information into your system is to change components, and possibly formats. It is important to point out that I am proposing these three types of information loss as IDEALIZED CATEGORIES, in the sense that the loss of information in any real-world system will merely RESEMBLE these idealizations. Having said that, I believe these categories are valuable to the audiophile, insofar as they help him conceptualize what is wrong, where it went wrong, and how hard it will be to fix it. |
Dgarretson – Hilarious post. And informative. Learsfool wrote: It is apparent that there is already disagreement even between the three of you on exactly what is a "coloration" and what is not. Though these differences may be minimized some by further discussion, I don't think they can be eliminated. So going back to your definition of "neutrality" as the absence of coloration, if there can be no consensus on "coloration," there cannot be on "neutrality," either. This is the issue of CATEGORY MEMBERSHIP, in that it raises the question: Just what things fall into the category of ‘coloration’ and what do not? It is a valid question, and any effort to refine our understanding of neutrality must address it. I have proposed a definition of 'coloration' that gives some minimal guidance as to its category members: (1) They are additions or subtractions to the playback chain. I should probably have included ‘alterations,’ so I will include it now: (1b) They are additions, subtractions, or alterations to the playback chain. And: (2) They conceal or corrupt (as opposed to eliminate) information about the music. Admittedly, this is a very broad category. I do not think that its broadness diminishes its validity, however, so long as we find STRUCTURE within the category, in the form of SUBSETS, i.e., TYPES of coloration (or, using the language of a previous post, LOWER-ORDER categories). The more structure we find within the category of ‘coloration,’ the more useful it becomes, and the more guidance we will have to make judgments about CATEGORY MEMBERSHIP. I tried to begin the process of finding structure within the category in my first post on 12/9. It is worth pointing out that many, many categories have ambiguity and/or disagreement about category membership, including some scientific categories like ‘life’ (Is a virus alive?) and ‘planet’ (Is Pluto a planet?). It is also worth pointing out that concepts, in the sense of mental representations of categories, are never identical from person to person. There is abundant evidence from cognitive psychology that shows that significant differences exist across individuals’ conceptualizations of all categories. For example, my conceptualization of the category ‘dog’ is similar but not identical to yours, because each of our conceptualizations is shaped by our experience with specific breeds (exposure effects), what dogs we’ve seen recently (recency effects), and a host of other variables. What this means is that there is NO SINGLE CONCEPT of ‘dog.’ There are many overlapping conceptualizations of ‘dog.’ Two things follow from this. The first is that the disagreement among me, Cbw, and Dgarretson about the conceptualization of ‘coloration’ is to be expected, because IT IS TRUE OF ALL CONCEPTS. But that does not make the category 'coloration' useless any more than diverse conceptualizations of ‘dog’ make that category useless. Whether or not the differences among our various conceptualizations of 'coloration' can be minimized through discussion and debate is yet to be seen. In the meantime, I think Cbw's approach is the right one: When Bryon talks about playback system coloration, I just substitute "playback system distortion" because I know that is the way he is using the term. If I come to believe that my understanding of the term is non-standard, I'll adjust my thinking accordingly. If I become convinced that I'm right, I'll suggest to Bryon that he adjust his terminology. Second, the existence of diverse conceptualizations of ‘coloration’ highlights the need to STIPULATE a definition for the purposes of conversation. The stipulated definition is subject to error, ambiguity, vagueness, debate, and revision, but it is a necessary step in the discussion and development of ideas. The value of a stipulated definition should be judged by its ability to further investigation. In that sense, it is a HEURISTIC. Heuristics are sometimes messy, confusing, and frustrating, but they are the mainstay of the exploration of ideas. |
Mrtennis wrote: ...many of the preceding comments seem rather academic and superfluous. one of the purposes of listening to music is to enjoy it. thus it may not be necessary to analyze it (a stereo system to the extent indicated)in any way…i am not and never will consider myself an audiophile, as my pursuit is the enjoyment of music, rather than an analysis of stereo systems. These comments puzzle me. You yourself have initiated 88 threads on Audiogon. Here are some of your titles: -What is good sound? -Hardware or software: Which is more important? -Minimize ambiguity when describing audio components -What is the difference between good and bad sound? -Neutrality and transparency: What’s the difference? From your thread, "Neutrality or transparency: What's the difference?", your original post read: neutral and transparency are often considered the same by some hobbyists.
in fact they are not.
neutrality implies no alteration of the signal, whatsoever.
i have used the term "virtually" neutral to imply no audible coloration. of course this is a subjective term.
transparency is a subset of neutrality. it implies a perfectly clear window on the recording.
let me illustrate. suppose an amplifier has a slight deficiency in bass reproduction, e.g., it cannot reproduce any frequencies below 40 hz. that amplifier would not be considered a neutral component.
if said amp reproduced all "information" on a recroding within its range, i.e., above 40 to whatever, without covering up any detail, it would be a transparent device.
thus transparent includes the pssibility of an error, but also implies the passing of all information within the range or capability of the component.
transparency is a subjective term. often when used it means "virtual" transparency because it is possible a component may be hiding information that one is not aware of, but yet one perceives that no information is missing.
any thoughts ? Does this passage not bear a striking resemblance to the topics discussed on this thread? Is it not "an analysis of stereo systems"? |
Newbee, Dgarretson, Al, and Cbw – Thank you all for your comments regarding this thread. As is no doubt obvious, it has been a valuable experience for me. It has helped clarify and develop my views on a wide range of ideas that have occupied space in my mind since I renewed my interest in high end audio about two years ago, after a long absence. By expressing my ideas, I also evict them from their residence in my mind, where they would otherwise become unruly. Removing those “squatters” has been a cathartic experience. Unfortunately, there are still a few squatters left, and so without further ado… Learsfool wrote: One's taste is going to have a huge influence on how one perceives the quality of a component, for instance. Also on whether something is a coloration or not, the degree of coloration, etc. You said yourself in your second post of today "what is 'valuable' is in the eye of the beholder." One could also easily say that what is a "coloration" is in the ear of the listener. I completely agree that a person’s taste will influence his judgment about the quality of a component. In fact, it may be the principal determinant of that judgment. Another way of making this point is: No man is an Objectivist with his wallet. I agree with that as an observation about the behavior of audiophiles, and maybe about the behavior of consumers generally. Audiophiles choose the components they want to listen to. That often means choosing components with the kinds of colorations that suit them. There is nothing “wrong” with this, as was asked of me in an earlier post. People should do what makes them happy when it comes to enjoying themselves. As far as your conclusion that “what is a coloration is in the ear of the listener,” I agree and I disagree. I agree to the extent that it is certainly true that one person may perceive a coloration where another does not. But I disagree that there is no FACT OF THE MATTER about whether a coloration exists. I have recently defined coloration as “an inaccuracy audible as a non-random sonic signature,” or more simply: Colorations are audible inaccuracies. I take it there is little controversy about whether or not inaccuracies are objective. Either information has been eliminated/concealed/corrupted, or it has not been. That information is a characteristic of the software, the hardware, and the room. Its existence, and the existence of inaccuracies, are therefore objective, in the sense that they are INDEPENDENT OF THE OBSERVER. The challenge for an Objectivist like me is the use of the word 'audible' in my definition of ‘coloration.’ A Subjectivist might argue: If colorations are defined as ‘audible inaccuracies,’ then if they are not audible, they are not colorations. This reasoning is plausible, but it overlooks an important consideration: AUDIBLE TO WHOM? My view here is that colorations should be considered to exist when they are audible to A SIGNIFICANT FRACTION OF EXPERT OBSERVERS. Otherwise they can be designated “mere” inaccuracies. To put it another way, if a significant fraction of experts do not perceive an inaccuracy, then it is a difference that does not make a difference. Hence it should not be designated a ‘coloration.’ To put it in philosophical terms, I am a Realist about coloration, though the “reality” in question must include both the world and the ears/brains of experts. This will no doubt stir up some controversy, as it begs the question: Who is to say who is an expert? I can say more about my views on that in my next post. For now, I will point out that it may be easier to identify who is NOT an expert. My mother, for example. I would like to end this post with a few words on the topic of taste and quality, which you raised in your last two posts. As you have pointed out, taste is among the biggest factors in audiophile judgments. Since taste is so variable, you conclude that differences in taste hopelessly confound any effort to arrive at agreement with respect to quality. To this, I respond: Taste is not a static phenomenon. It changes with age, exposure, and training. The last of these - training - is particularly relevant. That is to say, I believe that, as a person develops expert perception, their tastes tend to change. As a classically trained musician, I would imagine that you have had lifelong experiences that confirm that musical tastes change with the development of expert perception. In fact, the stagnation of taste may be a sign that the development of perception has ceased. Analogously, as a person develops expert perception with respect to the playback of recorded music, I believe that COLORATIONS BECOME MORE AUDIBLE. In fact, I would view this a one of the standards for judging the expertise of the listener. |
Learsfool wrote: This has been discussed in a different thread before, the idea that many audiophiles assume that some "colorations" they are hearing are caused by their system, when in fact they are on the recording itself. I have seen more than one situation where two people could not agree on which was the case ("Well in MY system, it doesn't sound like that!" etc). This is yet another reason why I don't think there could ever be much agreement on any two people's sense of "neutrality." Like many people, I have had this experience both with audio and video. While in video, a proper calibration usually clears up the ambiguity between software colorations and hardware colorations, I agree that, in audio, it's not so simple. But again, I'm more optimistic about the possibility of some agreement some of the time. It's also worth pointing out that my proposed operationalization of neutrality does not require us to be able to differentiate software from hardware colorations as such. It only requires us to make judgments about how much differentiation a system is capable of. In the case you mention, where variations in the sound of the same software on two different systems leads to ambiguity about software vs. hardware colorations, my method of determining neutrality offers a potential solution to the deadlock. By determining which system has greater differentiation, particularly in the domain where the ambiguous coloration occurs (e.g., instrument timbre), you can conclude which system is the more neutral of the two. If the coloration in question does not occur, or occurs less, on the more neutral system, then it is likely to be a playback coloration added or aggravated by the less neutral system. This method is, of course, fallible. But I believe it is useful for providing clues to distinguishing software colorations from hardware colorations. And if you were willing to move equipment around, the same method could be employed for distinguishing equipment colorations from room colorations. Cbw - Your suggestion about revising the definition of 'inaccuracy' is a good one. Will work on it. Dgarretson - I have a question for you about Cbw's entropy theory and your first operationalization of neutrality, namely, the idea that increasing neutrality results in increasing source convergence. Would Cbw's explanation of coloration in terms of decreasing entropy explain the convergence you predicted? And since his explanation extends to the entire playback chain, should we predict that, as whole systems become more neutral, they will sound more and more similar to one another? |
Learsfool – Although it is hazardous to argue by proxy, I will do my best to respond to your brother’s comments.
To begin with, your brother suggested that I was guilty of the REIFICATION, which you define as “treating an abstract concept as if it had real material existence.” In the absence of more information, I can think of only two possible interpretations of this comment.
The first interpretation is that I have treated concepts IN GENERAL as though they had “real material existence.” In a way, this is true, because I have sometimes treated concepts as MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS of abstract categories. But mental representations have “real material existence,” insofar as they are characteristics of real physical things, namely persons. This use of the word ‘concept’ is not arbitrary or idiosyncratic. It is the prevailing use of the term in the cognitive sciences. However, the ordinary usage of the word ‘concept’ is ambiguous, in that it does not differentiate between concepts as ABSTRACT CATEGORIES and concepts as the MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS of those categories. Because of that, many of the posts in this thread contain that ambiguity, though it doesn’t seem to have affected the discussion much. I myself have used the term ‘concept’ sometimes to refer to abstract categories, and sometimes to refer to the mental representations of those categories, depending on the context. While acknowledging that ambiguity, I suspect you will be hard pressed to find examples of equivocation (i.e. arguments that exploit that ambiguity).
My views on these matters are quite conventional: Categories are abstractions. As such they do not have “real material existence.” Concepts are mental representations of abstract categories. As such, they do have “real material existence” IN HUMAN BRAINS. I would only qualify the last statement with the observation that, for any given category, there are many diverse conceptualizations, as I discussed in my post on 12/10.
The second interpretation of the charge of reification is that I have treated the concept of ‘neutrality’ IN PARTICULAR as though it had “real material existence.” If this is what your brother means, then I assume your brother’s reasoning is similar to your reasoning from an earlier post, when you objected to my definition of neutrality because it was defined in terms of the ABSENCE of coloration. I would ask your brother: Is entropy real? Is a vacuum real? Is biological equilibrium real? All of these scientific concepts are defined BY ABSENCE, as I mentioned in my post on 12/6. I would say that neutrality is as real as entropy, a vaccum, and biological equilibrium. And, in my view, that is real enough to make them valuable concepts, even if they create some metaphysical uneasiness about the existence of things defined by absence. For the scrupulous metaphysician, all of my observations about playback neutrality (which is defined by absence) can be easily converted into observations about playback coloration (which is defined by presence). But I believe that this level of metaphysical parsimony is unnecessary. And if your brother is advocating it, I would add that it is a surprising attitude in a social scientist.
Your brother also raises doubt about the validity and reliability of my operationalization of neutrality. To question its validity is to say that the observable conditions I mentioned to do not correlate with neutrality, but with some other variable, or with nothing. To question its reliability is to say that different observers would come to different conclusions about the observable conditions in my operationalization.
RE: RELIABILITY. You have questioned my operationalization’s reliability throughout this thread, arguing that audiophiles will never be able to agree on whether a particular component or system is more or less neutral. I have been more optimistic. Unfortunately, the answer to the question of reliability is a matter of speculation for both of us. This is where the scientific metaphors break down, because there is not likely to be a scientifically valid experiment testing the reliability of my operationalization any time before, say, the heat death of the universe. So we are limited to our conjectures, hunches, and intuitions.
RE: VALIDITY. There has been somewhat less debate on this thread about the validity of my operationalization. The empirical evidence offered is both anecdotal and controversial. Personally I have had a number of experiences that are consistent with the operationalization. But for those who have not, the only evidence possible is theoretical. One kind of theoretical evidence presented on this thread was the concept of ‘neutrality’ that emerges from looking at the playback system from the point of view of information. That is to say, by comparing the information available at the source vs. the information available at the ear, it is inevitable that some information will be eliminated, concealed, or corrupted. When that is audible and non-random, components and systems have sonic signatures, which I have called colorations, in keeping with widespread audiophile usage. And as I have argued, if differences in coloration exist, then differences in neutrality “exist” (with the necessary qualifications to avoid reification). Having said that, I believe that the controversy over the “existence” of neutrality is a distraction from the more essential issue: The existence of colorations. If colorations exist, they constitute some theoretical evidence for the validity of my operationalization. The whole issue of the "existence" of neutrality can be avoided with one simple change to the operationalization: Instead of it being a method for identifying GREATER NEUTRALITY, it is a method for identifying LESS COLORATION. And that is really the heart of the matter.
As far as your brother’s observation that "taste confounds quality, and people mess those up,” I guess I’m a little unclear what that means. Specifically, what does ‘quality’ mean here? Is he talking about the qualitative characteristics of music, or the virtues of a playback system? |
I would like to say a few words, not the detractors of neutrality, but to the detractors of this thread. A number of posters have questioned the value of these discussions. Some have expressed their doubts with arguments, others with jokes, and a few with hostility. In many of my posts, I have made a point of trying to explain the value of these discussions, as I see them. A few other posters have done likewise. But this has not silenced the steady stream of skeptics. In response, I would like say a few things. I generally cringe at the conversation becoming about itself. Others who feel the same can skip this post.
Some posters have expressed doubts about the value of conceptual analysis.
This thread began with a question about neutrality, but quickly became about the concepts closely linked with it – coloration, accuracy, resolution, transparency. It seems to me that these concepts are employed daily by posters on Audiogon. Most of the time they remain undefined elements in the discussion. When they become a point of contention, it is often obvious that a great deal of the original disagreement is attributable to disparities in how people understand the terms of the discussion. That fact highlights the need for conceptual analysis.
However, some posters seem to believe that conceptual analysis is mere “semantics.” I think that that is a retreat from the challenge of being clear about the basic units of thought and communication, and a premature resignation to deadlocking. In other words, I have the (admittedly) optimistic view that, through the analysis of the terms of the discussion, a great deal of disagreement can be avoided or resolved. I am not so naïve as to believe that this will make audiophiles regularly agree. But I believe that, without this kind of effort, they will NEVER agree.
One last comment on the value of conceptual analysis. As I mentioned in a previous post, the refinement of concepts is crucial for the refinement of percepts. There is a great deal of scientific evidence for the view that perception is “cognitively penetrable.” That is to say, by improving the way you think about things, you improve the way you perceive things. This is an essential element in most “expert perception.” A symphony composer’s expert perception is developed not only through the refinement of his senses but also through the refinement of his mind.
Moving on, some posters have expressed doubts about the relevance of this thread to audiophiles. To begin with, it is certainly more germane to the interests of audiophiles than such threads as “Cars: What does the typical audiophile drive?” which is now up to 779 posts, without a chorus of detractors questioning its value. This begs the question: Why has this thread come under recurring criticism for its relevance when threads like the one above have not? One possibility is that, according to some posters, this thread is "philosophical" and "academic."
To criticize something as “philosophical” is usually to say that it is “excessively abstract.” My reaction to this is that “excessively abstract” is in the eye of the beholder. I think some people are more comfortable with abstractions than others. There are those who enjoy abstractions, which I think is difficult for some people to identify with. And there is often an assumption that those who enjoy abstraction could not possibly enjoy music, an assumption which is patently false to those, like myself, who enjoy both. And for those for whom this thread has been excessively abstract, I would ask: As of last count, there are 78,328 threads on Audiogon – What is the risk in having one that is “philosophical”?
To criticize something is “academic” is usually to say that it is “of no practical value.” In my view, what is “practical” is also largely in the eye of the beholder. What is perceived as practical depends upon the interests and ingenuity of the perceiver, and those vary widely. And finally, what is “valuable” is in the eye of the beholder. I find it ironic that the detractors of this thread, who are almost uniformly Subjectivist with respect to neutrality, appear uniformly OBJECTIVIST WITH RESPECT TO WHAT IS VALUABLE. That is to say, they seem to believe that, if something is not valuable to them, then it is not valuable to anyone. And they seem to believe this in spite of evidence to the contrary, namely, the continued participation of several posters on this thread, including an outspoken opponent of neutrality. In my view, that participation is unambiguous evidence that at least some people do not share their beliefs about what is valuable. |
Cbw – Those are excellent observations. Taking them one at a time… (1) RE: Component Accuracy, expressed as CA = 1/L+N=D,* Cbw wrote: ...your intent to have all component accuracy be inversely proportional to all three of loss, noise, and distortion would be better written as CA = 1/(L+N+D). *Where… CA = Component Accuracy L = Loss N = Noise D = Distortion You are absolutely correct that the equation should be CA = 1/(L+N+D). It was an oversight on my part. (2) RE: Component Resolution, expressed as CR = CA + FR,* Cbw wrote: I don't think of a component's resolution as limited by the resolution of the source -- that is, the output at any given moment may be limited by the source, but that is not be the component's inherent resolution limit. *Where… CR = Component Resolution CA = Component Accuracy FR = Format Resolution I should have distinguished two different types of Component Resolution, namely, LATENT Resolution and OCCURRENT Resolution. LATENT RESOLUTION: The amount of information about the music that a component can POTENTIALLY produce. OCCURRENT RESOLUTION: The amount of information about the music that a component ACTUALLY does produce. My equation for Component Resolution, CR = CA + FR, was intended to express the OCCURRENT resolution of a component. Occurrent Component Resolution is limited by Format Resolution, because a component cannot produce more actual resolution than it receives at its input. You are quite correct, however, that LATENT resolution is not limited by Format Resolution, as is illustrated in cases where a low resolution source is fed into high resolution downstream components. I think you are also correct in that, when audiophiles talk about the resolution of an individual component, they are usually referring to its LATENT resolution, that is, how much resolution the component IS CAPABLE OF. The exception to this is when audiophiles talk about the resolution of the SOURCE component. In that case, resolution seems to refer to OCCURRENT resolution. Also, when audiophiles talk about the resolution of a whole system, I believe that they are usually talking about its OCCURRENT resolution, that is, how much resolution the system ACTUALLY PRODUCES. Hence the inclusion of Format Resolution in my equation for System Resolution, expressed as: SR = SA + FR. The value of distinguishing Latent Resolution from Occurrent Resolution is that it highlights the difference between System Accuracy and System Resolution, which I believe are two distinct virtues in an audio system. A highly accurate system passes the signal from software to ear with very little alteration to the musical information. But it need not be highly resolving, if the format resolution is low. Think: A $100K system playing MP3’s, and you have the idea of a highly accurate but not highly resolving system. A highly resolving system, on the other hand, presents a large amount of information about the music to the listener. To do this, it must start with a large amount of information about the music (high format resolution) and preserve that information through the playback chain (high system accuracy). Think: The same system playing a well recorded SACD. (3) RE: System Accuracy, expressed as SA = SoCA,* Cbw wrote: Some types of errors may not be simply propagated through downstream components, but may actually be reinforced by them. This kind of error may result in an exponential relationship, rather than a simple additive one. *Where… SA = System Accuracy So = “sum of” CA = Component Accuracy I agree that the “sum of” relationship expressed here is, in many cases, unlikely to be a simple sum. It may be multiplicative or exponential, depending on the type of inaccuracy in question. That is what I meant when I said that these were merely mathematical “analogies.” Having said that, it would nice to improve this equation so that it reflected the various types of inaccuracies that collectively determine System Accuracy. Do you have any ideas? |
Learsfool wrote: I believe that colorations are ALWAYS present, and that an absence of them is not possible in music reproduction. Learsfool - I understand that you believe that colorations are always present in music reproduction. About this point we are in agreement. I have a four questions for you: (1) Do you believe that colorations can be either increased or decreased? (2) Do you believe that colorations can be evaluated as to their euphony or “dysphony” by individual listeners? (3) Do you believe that judgments about euphony/dysphony have ANY consistency across multiple listeners? Learsfool wrote: When I made the analogy about coloration being in the ear of the listener, I meant that each listener will perceive these colorations differently, and that this is ultimately subjective… In introductory philosophy classes, a thought experiment is often discussed called “spectral inversion.” It asks students to consider the logical possibility that what I see as red, for example, you see as blue. Many people wonder about this possibility outside the context of philosophy classes. But unlike most of them, philosophers take the problem quite seriously. The possibility of spectral inversion is just one example of a whole class of thought experiments designed to highlight the PRIVACY OF SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES and the INACCESSIBILITY OF OTHER MINDS. Your suggestion that “each listener will perceive colorations differently” strikes me as a version of this attitude, except that, rather than being agnostic about the percepts of other minds, you believe that the percepts of other minds are sufficiently different from person to person to make agreement about colorations impossible. In a way, you are saying: What I hear as “red,” you hear as “blue.” So, my last question for you is: (4) Is this your view? |
Learsfool - Sorry for the late reply. I've been traveling for the holiday.
To share with you the reasons for the questions I asked you in my previous post:
RE: (1) Do you believe that colorations can be either increased or decreased?
This was a way of asking whether you believe in (a) variability in the degree of coloration for components and systems, and (b) variability in their degree of neutrality, defined as the degree of absence of coloration. As I understand your view, you believe in (a) but not (b).
RE: (2) Do you believe that colorations can be evaluated as to their euphony or "dysphony" by individual listeners?
This was a way of asking whether you believe in individual preferences regarding colorations. I agree with you that no one is likely to answer this question in the negative. It was really a preface to my third question...
RE: (3) Do you believe that judgments about euphony/dysphony have any consistency across multiple listeners?
This was a way of asking your view on the existence and extent of agreement about PREFERENCE. As I understand your view, you believe that agreement about preference exists but its extent is limited to small groups of audiophiles with similar tastes.
RE: (4) Do you believe that what I hear as "red," you hear as "blue"?
This was a way of asking your view on the existence and extent of agreement about PERCEPTION. As I understand your view, you believe that perception across individual listeners is similar but not identical.
Learsfool - These four questions are linked by their mutual relevance to a recurring issue on this thread: How much can audiophiles agree in their judgments about coloration/neutrality? I have expressed the optimistic view that audiophiles often can, and do, agree about these judgments. Other posters, including you, have been more skeptical about the extent of actual or possible agreement.
My current point is that a valid estimation of the amount of agreement requires differentiating agreement about PERCEPTION from agreement about PREFERENCE. That is because, in my view, the amount of agreement about perception is GREATER than the amount of agreement about preference. In addition, I think that perception and preference have sometimes been conflated on this thread, with the result that THE AMOUNT OF DISAGREEMENT AMONG AUDIOPHILES HAS BEEN OVERESTIMATED. To elaborate...
I believe the following about LISTENER PERCEPTION:
1. As expertise increases, variability in listener perception decreases.
2. As variability in listener perception decreases, agreement about perception increases.
.....Therefore.....
3. As expertise increases, agreement about perception increases.
In my view, there are many expert listeners* among audiophiles. Because of this, I believe that THE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL AGREEMENT ABOUT PERCEPTION IS FAIRLY HIGH AMONG AUDIOPHILES.
As I stated in a previous post, in my view, listener expertise can be developed. Because of this, I believe that THE AMOUNT OF POSSIBLE AGREEMENT ABOUT PERCEPTION IS EVEN HIGHER.
*An "expert listener" could be contrasted with a "naive listener." This is not really a binary state. Like all expertise, listening expertise is a matter of degree. But, for certain purposes, it is useful to designate some arbitrary level of expertise as a threshold for being an "expert listener."
Regarding LISTENER PREFERENCE, I believe that:
1. As expertise increases, variability in listener preference decreases, but at a much slower and less linear rate than listener perception.
2. As variability in listener preference decreases, agreement about preferences increases.
.....Therefore.....
3. As expertise increases, agreement about preferences increases, but at a much slower and less linear rate than agreement about perception.
In my view, the loose relation between listener expertise and listener preference results in ONLY A MODERATE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL AND POSSIBLE AGREEMENT ABOUT PREFERENCE. I also believe that variability in listener preference can never be reduced to zero, and therefore agreement about preference can never be complete.
As I hope this shows, differentiating listener perception from listener preference is essential for a valid estimation of how much agreement, actual or possible, exists among audiophiles. I believe that, while preferences are often diverse and sometimes incommensurable, perception is usually comparable and sometimes identical, particularly with the development of expertise. |
Mrtennis wrote: regarding neutrality, without a reference it is impossible to judge neutrality, accuracy or transparency.
when a recording is considered a reference for assessing the neutrality of a stereo system, the reference, either a live sound or recording is not knowable. hence it is best to use other terms than the aforementioned when trying to describe the sound of a stereo system. And Kijanki wrote: Let assume this: I go to concert and 2 days later they make CD from this particular concert (they are very very fast), while my poor aural memory is still fresh. I play it at home and discover that piano has different tone and its dynamics are much smaller than what I remember. What is [sic] suppose to think? Is it my system coloring or is it recording engineer plus recording equipment coloring? These comments have an underlying assumption in common, namely, that any valid method for judging coloration/neutrality requires and EXTERNAL STANDARD against which the coloration/neutrality of a system is compared. That external standard could be (a) the "absolute sound" of the recording, if it exists; (b) the musical event that the recording captured, if it exists; or (c) an aural memory of a similar or identical musical event, if it exists. All of these standards involve states or events that are EXTERNAL to the playback system. Hence any method that employed one or more of them would be a kind of METHODOLOGICAL EXTERNALISM. I agree with Mrtennis and Kijanki that Methodological Externalism has problems, perhaps even insuperable ones. But I disagree with their conclusion that it is therefore impossible to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system. That is because there is another approach to judging the coloration/neutrality of a system, namely, METHODOLOGICAL INTERNALISM. That is to say, the coloration/neutrality of a system can be judged by COMPARING IT TO ITSELF. Or more precisely, to a slightly different version of itself. I made this point in my first post on 12/7, where I wrote: Tvad is taking up the contention, made by Learsfool and Kijanki, that in order to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system, you must know what the recording is “supposed to sound like." Learsfool and Kijanki have used that contention as the first premise of the following argument:
(i) If you are to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system, you must know what the recording is supposed to sound like.
(ii) You cannot know what the recording is supposed to sound like.
(iii) Therefore, you cannot judge the coloration/neutrality of a system.
The reasoning of this argument is valid. But, in my view, the argument is unsound, because it contains a FALSE PREMISE, namely, premise (i), that the ONLY way to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system is to know what the recording is "supposed to sound like." That premise is false, I believe, because there is ANOTHER way to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system, namely:
(1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique.
(2) Your music collection sounds more diverse.
In other words, my operationalization of neutralty is a method for judging the coloration/neutrality of a system that DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO KNOW WHAT THE RECORDING IS SUPPOSED TO SOUND LIKE. It only requires you to make judgments about changes in CONTRAST or DIFFERENTIATION.
Admittedly, my operationalization is only a way to judge the RELATIVE level of coloration/neutrality of a system, not its ABSOLUTE level of coloration/neutrality. But this is still valuable to the average audiophile, since he must make relative judgments all the time, such as, when changing components. And the fact that my operationalization of neutrality enables the audiophile to make (relative) judgments about coloration/neutrality without knowing what the recording is "supposed to sound like" is what makes the operationalization so actionable. The method for judging coloration/neutrality that I proposed in the OP was an example of Methodological Internalism, in the sense that it does not require a standard external to the playback system to make judgments about coloration/neutrality. As a result, it does not suffer the drawbacks of Methodological Externalism, such as those described by Mrtennis and Kijanki. It is worth pointing out that Dgarretson proposed an alternative method of judging the coloration/neutrality of a system and that his method is also Methodologically Internalist. Moving on... Mrtennis wrote: ...neutrality is such an abstract concept that it may be irrelevant as far as configuring a stereo system. And Kijanki wrote: Lets leave categorizing and testing to academics - scientists, psychologists etc. Here we have more resistance to abstraction, categorization, and testing. My second post on 12/15 expressed my thoughts about this kind of resistance, and repeating myself on this issue would be tedious. Suffice to say that, in my view, resisting abstraction, categorization, and testing is tantamount to resisting thinking, reasoning, and observing. |
Mrtennis and Kijanki - I have said many, many times on this thread that I believe that neutrality is only one virtue AMONG MANY. Perhaps I should begin several new threads, "How do you judge your system's resolution? ...musicality? ...beauty?" Each of those would be interesting topics, and it might help convince you that my statements about the finite value of neutrality are sincere.
Kijanki - I did not intend to offend you by my use of "sic." It is an old habit from years of writing. I apologize.
Mrtennis - You asked: "why is there such an interest in trying to determine a stereo systems neutrality"? I would ask in return: Why is there such an interest in diminishing the value of these discussions? |
if you enjoy a stereo system while listening to music, you won't enjoy it any more by analyzing it...any attempt to judge the attributes of a stereo system usually does not enhance the pleasure one gets from listening to music in general. while reviewers assess the merits of stereo sysytems, i question the utility of such an endeavor for serious listeners. Mrtennis - I disagree that the "analysis" of music playback cannot enhance a person's enjoyment of it. But even if that were true, or we agree for the sake of argument that it is true, I would ask: Why can't analysis be valuable even if it is irrelevant to listening enjoyment? For many people, "analysis" as you call it, or what I think of as the exploration of ideas, is an end in itself, not requiring further "utility" to be valuable. For many people, it brings its own kind of enjoyment. And those who don't enjoy the exploration of ideas are not compelled to participate. There are many threads on Audiogon that are irrelevant to my interests, so I simply ignore them. You find the exploration of ideas irrelevant to your interest of listening enjoyment. What I find odd is that you regard it as irrelevant, but do not treat it as irrelevant. Having said that, I disagree that the exploration of ideas cannot enhance listening enjoyment. The most obvious way in which analysis can enhance listening enjoyment is when analyzing your system results in decisions to change components in a way that is more consistent with your preferences, thereby enhancing your enjoyment. It seems to me that this is by far the most common form of "analysis" on Audiogon. You seem to agree with this to some extent, as is reflected in your comment that "obviously if you don't like the sound of your stereo system, it may be useful to determine the reason." But you mention this almost in passing, as though it were a small consideration for audiophiles, rather than one of their central concerns. What makes your dismissive attitude toward analysis all the more puzzling is the number of threads you yourself have initiated on Audiogon, with titles like: -What is good sound? -Hardware or software: Which is more important? -Minimize ambiguity when describing audio components -What is the difference between good and bad sound? -Neutrality and transparency: What’s the difference? All of these seem to fall clearly within the category of "analysis." But to return to the point... There are other ways in which analysis, or the exploration of ideas, can enhance listening enjoyment. In an earlier post, I mentioned that there is an abundance of evidence from the cognitive sciences that the development of concepts enhances the development of expert perception. I would now add that the development of expert perception enhances listening enjoyment. And if that is true, then the development of concepts enhances, if only indirectly, listening enjoyment. In addition, I would like to point out: What enhances enjoyment varies from person to person. For some, the pleasure of listening to Mozart is enhanced by knowing something about Mozart's life. For others, those facts are irrelevant to their enjoyment of his music. To make the point a different way: It enhances my enjoyment to listen to music in complete darkness. For another person this may be irrelevant. The point is that what enhances enjoyment varies from person to person, and to assume otherwise leads to false generalizations. I hope this makes apparent the value of "analysis," namely, that it is the process by which ideas are discovered. And in my view, the discovery of ideas is both an end in itself and a means for further enrichments. |
To pick up on something Albert mentions in his post...
The analogy between photography and audio playback, although useful and interesting, has an significant limitation: The analogue to the photographer is NOT the audiophile, but rather the recording engineer. The recording engineer controls how the musical event is represented in the recording, just as the photographer controls how the visual event is represented in the photograph. The audiophile only controls how the RECORDING is represented by his system. That makes the audiophile the analogue of the gallery owner. Yikes!
The serious point is that the audiophile has some role in controlling the representation of the musical event, but a far lesser role, it seems to me, than the photographer has in controlling the representation of a visual event. |
Dgarretson wrote: …my view is that analytic & sterile err at the opposite extreme of unresolving warmth. Both kinds of extremes are colorations and as such, represent deviations from neutrality. I completely agree with this. And: My personal preference (and also my perception of neutrality) is to have as much warmth & embodiment as can be obtained without compromising transparency, high resolution, and realistic pitch & timbre. I suppose this reveals a romantic bias. However merely reversing the same adjectives in order of importance would tend to indicate an analytic bias. Regardless of one's starting point on a scale of preference, neutrality tends to occur toward the middle. For me "better" is about finding that middle while doing a bit more of everything right at both extremes of the scale. If I were to state my personal preferences for the playback of recorded music, this would be it. |
Learsfool – I believe that you and I are talking about two different kinds of electronic music recordings. In my last post, I was talking about:
(1) A recording in which electronic sounds are produced by a device, performed in a real acoustical space, and recorded with a microphone to a recording medium.
I believe that you are talking about:
(2) A recording in which electronic sounds are produced by a device and recorded DIRECTLY TO THE RECORDING MEDIUM.
In (1), the recording is just like a recording of an acoustical musical event, except that the sounds are produced from electronic “instruments,” rather than acoustical ones.
In (2), there is no performance, no real acoustical space, and no microphone. There is just the device that creates the sound and the recording medium.
I agree with you that recordings as described in (2) are more likely to be ACCURATE representations of the original electronic sounds. You may be right that this is partly attributable to the fact that electronic sounds are less complex than vocal or acoustical ones. But it is also attributable to the fact that MORE THAN HALF THE RECORDING PROCESS HAS BEEN ELIMINATED. The performance has been eliminated. The acoustical space has been eliminated. The microphone has been eliminated. And in some cases, the need for a “field” recording format (distinct from the subsequent “storage” recording format) has been eliminated. It is no wonder, then, that the resulting recording is MORE INHERENTLY ACCURATE, as you suggested.
However, the kind of accuracy just described is not the same as the concept of “truthfulness” I used in my post on 1/18, which was rather: TRANSPARENCY TO THE MUSICAL PERFORMANCE. In the case of music recordings as described in (2), there quite literally IS NO PERFORMANCE. Therefore, the question of the recording’s truthfulness, in the sense in which I’ve been using the term, does not apply.
But all of this seems like a peripheral matter, since the real goal of my post on 1/18 was not to highlight the difference between acoustical and electronic recordings, but rather to highlight the difference between recordings of REAL events and recordings of VIRTUAL events. I only brought up electronically produced sounds as one example of what, in my view, contributes to making a recording “virtual.” Among the other things that make a recording virtual: Multiple microphones with different perspectives, music editing, and the liberal use of creative mixing techniques.
Perhaps the simplest illustration of what makes a musical event virtual is music editing, that is, editing together segments from multiple takes to create the illusion of a single, continuous “performance.” This is done all the time in popular music, and when it is, the performance that is on the recording is, at least partially, VIRTUAL, in the sense that IT NEVER EXISTED IN REALITY. To use an analogy…
Consider a painting of a landscape that never existed, but is a composite of various landscapes drawn from the memory of the painter. In other words, it is a virtual landscape, in the sense that it never existed in reality. As such, the painting cannot be evaluated in terms of its truthfulness, i.e. its correspondence to reality, simply because there is no real landscape for the painting to correspond to. So the question of the truthfulness of the painting does not apply. Hence the attitude of Objectivism about the painting is unwarranted.
As I see it, the case is almost exactly the same with music recordings. Consider a “performance” edited together from many segments of multiple takes recorded over different days. In other words, it is a virtual performance, in the sense that it never existed in reality. As such, it is difficult or perhaps impossible to evaluate the recording in terms of its truthfulness, i.e. its correspondence to reality, because there is no real performance for the recording to correspond to. So the question of the truthfulness of the recording does not apply. Or more precisely, it applies less and less as recordings are more and more edited (since I understand the distinction between real and virtual events as being on a continuum). Hence the more virtual the event a recording represents, the less the attitude of Objectivism is warranted. |
…perception cannot be totally separated from preference, even if one is trying to be as objective as possible. Learsfool – I agree with this. My view is that, although perception and preference are always commingled to some extent, they can nevertheless be distinguished by expert listeners. There may be no such thing as "preference-less" perception, but I believe that it is possible, and often useful, to form judgments about perception that are MINIMALLY INFLUENCED by preference. I know that you are a professional musician. I would imagine that, if you play in an orchestra, you must have had experiences that require you form judgments about perception while ignoring your own preferences, as for example, when you disagree with the preferences of the conductor. The main thing I would disagree with in your argument would be where you state that the more listener expertise increases, the more [variability in] preference will decrease. I would go so far as to state the opposite. The more one's listening skills improve, the more this will help determine and reinforce what one's preferences are. I agree with this, if “preferences” is interpreted as “priorities.” In other words, I believe that, although audiophiles have largely similar PREFERENCES, they have largely different PRIORITIES. This is not merely a semantic difference, as I hope the following will show... Here is a list of playback system characteristics, in no particular order: -Resolution -Realistic dynamics (macro- and micro-) -Tonal balance -Low Noise -Realistic transients (attack, sustain, decay) -Neutrality -Transparency (to the music) -Accuracy (to the software) -Scale -Coherence -Warmth -Realistic instrument timbres -Extension at the frequency extremes (high and low) It seems to me that the vast majority of audiophiles would PREFER to have as many of the characteristics on this list as possible, with one or two possible exceptions, like neutrality. But budgets are limited, and no system at any budget can do everything, so audiophiles are forced to PRIORITZE the value of these characteristics for themselves. And differences in audiophile priorities results in different approaches to system building. It is important to point out that very few of the characteristics on the list above are mutually exclusive, in theory. Perhaps neutrality and warmth are mutually exclusive in theory, but even this is arguable, particularly if we think of warmth the way Dgarretson suggested, namely, as embodiment. The characteristics above are mutually exclusive only in practice, because of limitations of design and budget. But the fact that so few (or possibly none) of the characteristics that audiophiles value are mutually exclusive, in theory, highlights the fact that different approaches to system building among audiophiles is more attributable to different PRIORITIES than to different PREFERENCES. This brings me to the question of “taste.” I think that, if “taste” is interpreted as A SET OF IDEAL PLAYBACK CHARACTERISTICS like the list above, then audiophiles can, and do, often agree. But if “taste” is interpreted as A SET OF JUDGMENTS ABOUT WHAT IS MOST VALUABLE when having to choose among those characteristics, you are quite right that audiophiles will never agree. |
I guess my feeling is that too many audiophiles lose the forest for the trees by getting bogged down in trying to eliminate various types of colorations, etc. What is the evidence for this belief? Why is the effort to reduce colorations any more likely to “bog down” the audiophile or make him “lose the forest for the trees” than any other audiophile pursuit? …the search for "neutrality" usually ends up with a very lifeless, unmusical presentation. My experience is exactly the opposite. That is to say, as I have reduced the colorations in my system, its presentation has become more musical. There is nothing musical about intermodulation distortion. There is nothing musical about speaker cabinet resonance. There is nothing musical about room modes. And these are just a few examples of colorations. A better approach, for me, is to keep the concentration on the forest by choosing components that come the closest to how you want the music to sound overall. Analysis of different types of colorations can help this, but too much focus on it is detrimental in the end. The same goes for a performer that gets too bogged down in certain aspects of technique, losing the focus on the phrasing, for example. One of the most famous horn players and teachers in the country likes to say "analysis is paralysis." Some is very necessary, but too much is fatal. The value of analysis for successful music playback cannot be validly inferred from the value of analysis for a successful musical performance. Creating a system is not like creating a performance, except that both result in music. Analysis interferes with a musical performance because the centers of the brain that mediate sensorimotor functioning are distinct from those that mediate conceptual functioning, and simultaneously activating both centers disrupts the functioning of both. It is the problem of split attention, and the impaired functioning that inevitably results from it. This fact has no analogue in creating a playback system. The only context that resembles the mutually antagonistic relationship between analysis and performance is analysis and listening to a playback system. That is to say, successful listening can be frustrated by too much real-time analysis. But listening is not the only source of valuable information when assembling a playback system. There is also learning and reflection. And analysis does not frustrate successful learning and reflection. On the contrary, it promotes them. Which brings me to… …one's system choices IMO should be much more artistic than scientific, the science being used in the service of the music, not indulged in for it's own sake. I think the implied contrast here between art and science, and hence between things subjective and things objective, is a misconception both of art and science. Having spent the better part of a decade devoted to the study of one, and an equal number of years devoted to the study and practice of the other, I can say from personal experience that both art and science require their practitioners to be both subjective and objective. Put another way, the analysis of science would be impossible without a large amount of creativity, and the creativity of art would be impossible without a large amount of analysis. |
… evidence for too many audiophiles losing the forest for the trees is all over any audio site. I would estimate that at least one person a week posts in each one about how he drove himself crazy and is not enjoying the hobby or the music anymore, or some such story. Learsfool - I agree with you that audiophiles commonly lose the forest for the trees. What I was challenging was the idea, stated in your post on 12/31, that… too many audiophiles lose the forest for the trees by getting bogged down in trying to eliminate various types of colorations, etc. This makes it sound as though audiophiles are more likely to succumb to this loss of perspective if their efforts focus on the reduction of colorations. It is that belief that I was challenging. As I see it, audiophiles can lose perspective focusing on a vast array of concerns. To me, the loss of perspective says more about the psychology of the audiophile than it does the specifics of their preoccupations. …too many listeners to an audio system have their attention split between the music and the equipment, resulting in impaired functionality. They will completely ignore many recordings, even entire recording labels, because "they don't sound good on my system." This, to me, is a crying shame; the definition of misplaced priorities, the system becoming more important than the music. I completely agree with this. Having said that, the quality of recordings is outside the audiophile’s control. The quality of his playback system is not. Therefore, efforts to improve the playback system are rational, provided that they increase his enjoyment while not resulting in the loss of perspective you mentioned. In contrast, audiophiles who regularly avoid inferior recordings are showing symptoms of audio nervosa, and should seek medical attention. My contention earlier in the thread was that if more audiophiles spent some time learning a little music theory and taking an aural skills class, that this will be much more beneficial to their enjoyment of their music in the short term, and for their ability to hear how better to tweak their systems in the long run as they develop these abilities. Agreed. In my view, learning music theory is a way of increasing listening expertise, which brings me to… …the real issue I have is with the "expert listener" concept. The fact that everyone hears differently has been much discussed already in this thread, I will only point out that this certainly includes "expert listeners." This is the issue of how much variability in perception exists among expert listeners. My view, expressed in a previous post, is that once PREFERENCE is differentiated from PERCEPTION, the amount of variability among expert listeners’ PERCEPTION is lower than has been estimated by the Subjectivists on this thread. But this is a matter of speculation for us both. You go on to raise other objections to the concept of an 'expert listener': Too many audiophiles are ONLY concerned about learning to listen for flaws in their systems, and this is as far as their ear training ever goes. I would never call an audiophile of this variety an "expert listener," no matter how many years experience in the hobby they have. Being an expert or a naïve listener is not a binary state. There are DEGREES of listening expertise, and most likely KINDS of listening expertise. The phrase “expert listener” is really just a shorthand way of saying “a person with some degree/kind of listening expertise.” In light of that, the hypothetical audiophile you mention in the passage above does have a certain KIND of expertise. Your reluctance to refer to him as an “expert listener,” in light of his failure to develop other kinds of listening expertise, seems reasonable to me. It does NOT, however, cast doubt of the validity of the concept of 'listening expertise' more generally. Moving on to your next objection: I have talked with people who cannot identify a major from a minor chord, yet claim to hear very specific "colorations" in a speaker when in fact they are merely biased against it's design based on things they have read/been told. These are pseudo-experts. In any field where there are experts, there are pseudo-experts. In some fields it is easier for pseudo-experts to avoid detection, but genuine experts can often tell the difference. More importantly, the existence of pseudo-expert listeners does not cast doubt on the reality of genuinely expert listeners, any more than the existence of pseudo-expert doctors (we all know them) casts doubt on the reality of genuinely expert doctors. …just because one is an audiophile does not mean that one has better ears than someone who is not. On this forum there is usually a new thread every couple of weeks, it seems, where some guy is posting about how his wife heard something better than he did, even though she knows nothing about the hobby… This phenomenon is real. I have experienced a version of it myself. But it does not impugn the concept of ‘listening expertise,’ because, while your wife knows THAT she heard something new or different, better or worse, she usually cannot tell you WHAT she heard, WHY she heard it, or what you should DO about it. That is to say, your wife, as a naïve listener, may have very acute hearing (particularly because she has not abused it as much), but her acute hearing does not make her an expert listener, since she lacks the knowledge and understanding that listening expertise entails. If you need a demonstration of this, the next time your wife mentions that things sound shrill in your system, ask her whether she thinks it is jitter in the source, resonance in the tweeter, or flutter echo in the room. She will remind you, in no uncertain terms, that she is not an expert listener. Orson Welles' final film, F for Fake, is a hilarious send-up of the idea of "expertise," by the way. I think you would greatly enjoy it, though as an objectivist you may find it very disturbing. I think questioning the whole idea of ‘expertise’ has it place, since there are certainly cases where expertise is unfounded, unquestioned, exaggerated, or fabricated. But this does not motivate the abandonment of the concept. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Expertise is real, though it is also variable, fallible, and counterfeitable. I suspect that nearly everyone believes in expertise, whether they claim to or not. The Onion had an amusing article recently, satirizing the skeptics of expertise: NEW YORK—Inside the Montessori School of Dentistry, you won't find any old-fashioned cotton swabs, or so-called periodontal charts, or even any amalgam fillings. That's because at this alternative-learning institution, students are being encouraged to break away from medical tradition and discover their very own root canal procedures.
"At Montessori, we believe dentistry is more than just the medical practice of treating tooth and gum disorders," school director Dr. Howard Bundt told reporters Tuesday. "It's about fostering creativity. It's about promoting self-expression and individuality. It's about looking at a decayed and rotten nerve pulp and drawing your own unique conclusions."
"When performing a root canal, there's no such thing as right or wrong," said Montessori educator Vanessa Perrin, who added that she doesn't so much teach her students how to treat an inflamed nerve, as lead them to an open mouth and then stand back. "Sure, we could say to our students, 'The enamel here has completely eroded and needs to be addressed immediately.' But what's more satisfying, what's more dynamic, is to just let them slowly develop an 'impression' of why a patient might be screaming." I would encourage skeptics of the concept of 'expertise' to visit the Montessori School of Dentistry for their next root canal. |
After ten weeks or so, this thread has slowed to a halt. In light of that, I would like to thank all those who participated. I, for one, learned a lot from our discussions, and I had a lot of fun too. I have one final set of ideas that I would like to contribute. They are largely ecumenical in spirit, in that they are an attempt to reconcile the major ideological division on this thread, namely Subjectivism and Objectivism. In one way or another, that difference in attitude has affected nearly every argument we have had, whether it was about coloration, neutrality, accuracy, transparency, or whatever. What I would like to suggest is that both Subjectivism and Objectivism are valid points of view, but that sometimes one is more warranted than the other. Which is more warranted depends on (1) the kinds of recordings an audiophile tends to listen to, and (2) the audiophile’s priorities. To make this point, I have to say some preliminary things about representations and truth. To begin with… A FEW WORDS ABOUT REPRESENTATIONS: (1) A representation contains information about some state or event. To elaborate… A “synchronic” representation contains information about a STATE, that is, a MOMENT in time. A “diachronic” representation contains information about an EVENT, that is, a PERIOD of time. Some, but not all, representations are IMAGES of the states/events they represent. That is to say, the relation they bear to the states/events they represent is that of RESEMBLANCE. Most, but not all, representations are INCOMPLETE. That is to say, they do not contain ALL possible information about the state/event they represent. Putting these things together… (2) Music recordings are diachronic, imagistic, incomplete representations that contain information about musical events. Here is where things get important… Some representations contain information about REAL events, that is, events that ACTUALLY OCCURRED. Think: A photograph of a landscape that exists. Some representations contain information about VIRTUAL events, that is, events that DID NOT ACTUALLY OCCUR. Think: A painting of a landscape that is a composite of various landscapes drawn from the painter’s memory. This bears on music recordings, in that… (3) Some music recordings contain information about REAL events, while other recordings contain information about VIRTUAL events. To elaborate… Music recordings can be thought of on a continuum according to how REAL or VIRTUAL the event is that the recording represents. At one end of the continuum is a music recording that represents a musical event that is MAXIMALLY REAL: It was a live performance of acoustic instruments recorded in a real acoustical space (i.e. not a studio) with a single stereo or dual mono microphones, it was not edited, and it was minimally altered during mixing. Some audiophile music recordings approach this standard. At the other end of the continuum is a music recording that represents a musical event that is MAXIMALLY VIRTUAL: It contains no real instruments, it is highly edited, and altered liberally during mixing. Some electronic music approaches this standard. In the middle of the continuum is where the vast majority of music lies: It was recorded with multiple microphones, sometimes in different spaces or different times, often edited together from multiple performances, and mixed with the use of level adjustment, channel placement, equalization, filtering, reverb, and other “effects.” In the case of popular music, many of the sounds were not sourced from real instruments at all. The more these techniques are used, the more we describe an album as “produced." The difference between recordings that represent real events and those that represent virtual events is crucial to whether a recording can be evaluated as to its TRUTHFULNESS. Which brings me to… A FEW WORDS ABOUT TRUTH: (4) The truth of a representation is its objective correspondence to reality. The meaning behind the word “objective” here is that the truth or falsity of a representation depends only upon its correspondence to how things actually are. It does not depend upon OUR BELIEFS about how things actually are. A representation is TRUE when the information it contains about an event CORRESPONDS to how that event actually is (or was). A representation is FALSE when the information it contains about an event FAILS TO CORRESPOND to how the event actually is (or was). But what if a representation contains information about a VIRTUAL event, rather than a REAL event? Then the question of its truthfulness, in the sense above, DOES NOT APPLY. That is to say, while representations about REAL events can be judged as to their truthfulness, representations about VIRTUAL events CANNOT. This brings up back to music recordings… (5a) The more a music recording represents a REAL musical event, the MORE it can be judged as to its truthfulness. (5b) The more a music recording represents a VIRTUAL musical event, the LESS it can be judged as to its truthfulness. “Truthfulness” here refers to TRANSPARENCY TO THE MUSICAL EVENT, that is, how much the information presented at the ear during playback resembles the information that was presented at the microphone during the actual performance. But “truthfulness” could also be thought of as ACCURACY TO THE SOFTWARE, that is, how much the information about the music is preserved as it passes from software to ear. (I am indebted to Almarg for this important distinction.) However, it is transparency to the musical event, not accuracy to the software, that “truthfulness” refers to in (5) above. These observations were a preliminary to my proposal for… RECONCILING OBJECTIVISM AND SUBJECTIVISM: OBJECTIVISM regarding representations is the idea that representations can be evaluated as to their truthfulness. It is a justifiable point of view when representations contain information about REAL events. SUBJECTIVISM regarding representations is the idea that representations cannot be evaluated as to their truthfulness. It is a justifiable point of view when representations contain information about VIRTUAL events. In terms of music recordings… (6a) Music recordings of REAL events can be evaluated as to their truthfulness. And to evaluate a recording’s truthfulness is to adopt the point of view of Objectivism. (6b) Music recordings of VIRTUAL events cannot be evaluated as to their truthfulness, though they can be evaluated in terms of preference. And to evaluate a recording in terms of preference is to adopt the point of view of Subjectivism. In other words, I believe that Objectivism and Subjectivism are both valid, but in different situations. The more REAL the musical event that a recording represents, the more OBJECTIVISM is warranted. The more VIRTUAL the musical event that a recording represents, the more SUBJECTIVISM is warranted. Hence, the appropriateness of one point of view or the other is largely a consequence of what kinds of recordings an audiophile tends to listen to. It is worth pointing out that an audiophile who tends to listen to recordings of real events is still entitled to be a Subjectivist, and hence evaluate recordings solely in terms of preference. My point is not to tell anyone how they should evaluate the playback of recorded music. My point that Objectivism makes less sense as recordings become more virtual, and more sense as they become more real. Whether or not an audiophile who tends to listen to recordings of real events choses to be an Objectivist or a Subjectivist is largely a matter of his priorities, which brings me to a recent TAS web post by Jonathan Valin: There are, IMO, three types of listeners in the high end, although these types tend to overlap. First, those who, first and foremost, want recorded music to sound as much like the real thing as possible--I call them the "absolute sound" type. Second, those who, first and foremost, want their recordings to sound exactly as good or as bad as the engineering and mastering allow them to sound (and want to hear the engineering and mastering, to boot)--I call them the "faithful to mastertapes/mike feed" type. And third those who are, primarily, less concerned with the absolute sound or the sound of mastertapes and more interested in hearing their recordings sound as beautiful and moving as possible--I call them the "as you like it" type. The first kind of audiophile prioritizes TRANSPARENCY to the musical event. The second prioritizes ACCURACY to the software. And the third prioritizes MUSICALITY as he defines it. For those who prioritize transparency or accuracy, Objectivism may seem to be the more valid point of view, but only to the extent that recordings represent real events. For those who prioritize musicality, Subjectivism may seem to be the more valid point of view, regardless of whether recordings represent real or virtual events. The above is my swan song - my final effort to reconcile the validity of Subjectivism with that of Objectivism. No doubt some will feel I have failed. Others may think that I have given Subjectivism a less important role than Objectivism in music playback. That may be true. Since I have been an outspoken advocate of Objectivism, it has no doubt contaminated my effort at reconciliation. But my attempt has been in earnest. In any case, other than reserving the right to clarify or defend, this is me signing off… Bryon |
Learsfool – Interesting thoughts. As I understand you, you are saying: (1) An acoustical musical performance is not repeatable, i.e., identical over multiple iterations. (2) An electronic musical performance is repeatable, i.e., identical over multiple iterations. I agree with this. From (1) and (2), you conclude that: (3) An electronic musical performance is more likely to be "truthful" to (i.e. qualitatively resemble) an "original" musical event than an acoustical musical performance is to its "original" event. I agree with this too, but it does not bear on the claims I made in my last post, because I was not talking about the qualitative resemblance of musical PERFORMANCES, but rather the qualitative resemblance of musical RECORDINGS. You acknowledge this when you say: Now I realize you are speaking of recordings, not live events, but if the standard for recording is to reproduce the live event as closely as possible, it is clearly much easier to come close to the "truth" of [electronic musical events]. In other words, you are concluding, from (3) above, that: (4) A RECORDING of an electronic musical event is more likely to be “truthful” to (i.e. qualitatively resemble) an original musical event than a RECORDING of an acoustical musical event is to its original event. I disagree with this. A recording of an electronic musical event is not inherently more truthful than a recording of an acoustical musical event. However, it may be more difficult to judge the truthfulness of a recording of an electronic musical event, for the reason that we do not have a lifetime of experiences with electronic sounds to compare recordings against, the way we do with voices and acoustical instruments. Hence, recordings of electronic musical events may appear more inherently truthful, because our standards for judging the truthfulness of these recordings are much less exact. In other words, (4) does not follow from (3), and I believe that (4) is false. I think your reasoning incorrectly collapses the distinction between a REPEATED PERFORMANCE and a RECORDING. Although both can be judged as to their qualitative resemblance to an “original” event, they are of course created differently. A repeated performance is created by instruments (in the case of acoustical music) or devices (in the case of electronic music). A recording is created by a playback system. This obvious fact results in another, somewhat less obvious, fact: The inherent TRUTHFULNESS of types of music RECORDINGS (acoustical vs. electronic) cannot be validly inferred from the inherent REPEATABILITY of types of music PERFORMANCES. This is the essence of my reply to the your question. As to your question, first raised by Cbw, about how an audiophile might judge how his system “alters the source material”: First, I believe Cbw was teasing me in good fun by asking that question, because I tried to “sign off” during my last post after contributing at great length, and his question essentially starts the whole conversation over from the beginning, which is funny in a Myth-of-Sisyphus kind of way. Second, I proposed a way for the audiophile to judge how his system “alters the source material” in my original post. That’s what we’ve been talking about this whole time! Perhaps you are asking: How is the audiophile to judge how his system differs from the real events it represents? That is a good question. Perhaps someday, when I recover from this thread, I will create a thread entitled, “How do you judge your system’s transparency?” Because that is essentially the question you are asking. My current answer is: I don’t know. |
Musicians consider all recordings to be performances. The difference between a live and a recorded performance is that the recorded performance is permanent, and a live performance is not. The idea that all recordings should be considered performances is strange to me. It is not merely the fact that some electronic music involves no real instruments. It is the fact that much electronic music is never PLAYED IN REAL TIME. It is ASSEMBLED OVER MANY HOURS OR DAYS in a computer software program. I have personally worked with electronic composers who create recordings this way. To call their work a “performance” seems to stretch the limits of any ordinary use of the term. However, since you are a professional musician and I am not, I will defer to you that musicians consider all recordings to be performances. Having said that, this disagreement is quite tangential to the main issue of my post on 1/18, which is the source of our current disagreement. So, to return to that… This brings me to "truthfulness" vs. "transparency." Bryon, you seem to equate these two things, and this is where the confusion lies. This is almost correct. In my post on 1/18, I did not EQUATE transparency and truthfulness, but I did propose that we think of transparency as a KIND of truthfulness. Specifically, I proposed that we think of transparency as... …how much the information presented at the ear during playback resembles the information that was presented at the microphone during the actual performance. It does not matter whether we disagree about this conceptualization of transparency. “Transparency” is simply the term I chose, following Almarg’s suggestion, to refer to the CORRESPONDENCE between… (1) The information presented at the ear during playback, and (2) The information presented at the microphone during the performance. I have called the correspondence between (1) and (2) "transparency." But you can call it anything you like. The important thing is not the term, but what I have used the term to mean, namely, the correspondence between (1) and (2). That correspondence is a KIND OF TRUTHFULNESS, which I will now try to show again... Since (1) refers to a REPRESENTATION of an event and (2) refers to the REAL EVENT that it represents, then “transparency,” as I am using the term, refers to the CORRESPONDENCE of a REPRESENTATION to a REAL EVENT. And the correspondence between a representation and a real event is the MEANING of truthfulness. Hence transparency, in the sense of the correspondence between (1) and (2) above, is a KIND OF truthfulness (but not the only kind, since music recordings are not the only kind of representations). I think your continuum IS correct IF you are speaking of transparency, not truthfulness. In my view, a recording can be very transparent yet not truthful… You are either using a different meaning of “transparent” or a different meaning of “truthful” than the meanings I used in my post on 1/18, and in all my posts since, including this one. I suspect that you are using the term “transparent” differently. I do not want to squabble over the use of the term. If you object to my usage, you can substitute whatever word you like whenever I use the term, so long as you understand your substitute as referring to the correspondence between (1) and (2) above. Only if one has familiarity with the performers and the venue can one accurately judge the truthfulness of a recording…I am able to apply this objectivist perspective in this way because I am VERY familiar with the hall and my colleagues. If one is not familiar with these things, then all one can do is guess at the truthfulness of the recording - you can only know approximately… I completely agree with this. What you are describing here, however, is not WHAT MAKES a representation/recording truthful, but rather HOW YOU JUDGE whether a representation/recording is truthful. In my post on 1/18, I was proposing ideas about WHAT MAKES a representation/recording truthful, namely, its correspondence to the real event. I was not proposing ideas about HOW YOU JUDGE whether a representation/recording is truthful. If one is not familiar with these things, then all one can do is guess at the truthfulness of the recording - you can only know approximately…Therefore you would really be applying a subjectivist, not an objectivist perspective, because you don't really know what the live event sounded like. You would have to use your own personal reference point for how you think it is supposed to sound. I agree with this as well. If you do not know what real performance sounded like, then you are far less well equipped to evaluate a recording of it in terms of its objective correspondence to the real event, simply because you don’t know what the real event sounded like. In that case, you would be left to evaluate the recording in terms of preference, which is most certainly subjective. But none of this seems to me to be inconsistent with my proposals on 1/18 or my defense of them since. Here are the proposals you objected to: (5a) The more a music recording represents a REAL musical event, the MORE it can be judged as to its truthfulness.
(5b) The more a music recording represents a VIRTUAL musical event, the LESS it can be judged as to its truthfulness.
(6a) Music recordings of REAL events can be evaluated as to their truthfulness. And to evaluate a recording’s truthfulness is to adopt the point of view of Objectivism.
(6b) Music recordings of VIRTUAL events cannot be evaluated as to their truthfulness, though they can be evaluated in terms of preference. And to evaluate a recording in terms of preference is to adopt the point of view of Subjectivism. (5a) is intended to describe a NECESSARY condition for judging the truthfulness of a recording, namely the recording must represent a “real-ish” event. (5a) is NOT intended to describe SUFFICIENT conditions for judging the truthfulness of a recording. As you point out, (5a) is not a sufficient condition for judging the truthfulness of a recording, since there is at least one other necessary condition: familiarity with the real event the recording represents. (5b) is simply the converse of (5a) (6a) is partly a restatement of (5a), and partly intended to point out that Objectivism – the view that a representation can be evaluated as to its truthfulness – is more warranted when recordings represent real events, simply because the truthfulness of a representation REQUIRES that there be a real event for the representation to correspond to. That is the MEANING of truth. And this is not an idiosyncratic definition of truth. If I defer to you, as a professional musician, about the meaning of “performance” as used by musicians, please believe me, as a professionally trained philosopher, that truth is used by philosophers and scientists alike to mean “correspondence to reality.” And if you will grant me that, then it is a short step to the conclusion that a necessary condition for judging the truthfulness of a representation (whether it is a recording, or any representation) is that there is or was a real event that the representation represents. In light of this, judging the truthfulness of a recording is an act of Objectivism BY DEFINITION, since Objectivism is the view that representations can be evaluated as to their truthfulness. (6b) is simply the converse of (6a). I can assure you that the more mikes used, and the more mixing done (in other words the more virtual the recording), the easier it is to hear where the recording falls short of the live event as far as truthfulness is concerned. I am able to apply this objectivist perspective in this way because I am VERY familiar with the hall and my colleagues. Once again, you are providing ideas (good ones, I think) about HOW TO JUDGE the truthfulness of a recording. I agree with these ideas, but they do not mean I’ve gotten things backwards in (5a) and (5b), or in (6a) and (6b). It only means that the perception of the “virtuality” of a recording make it possible to JUDGE the truthfulness of the recording. In other words, one way to judge the truthfulness of a recording is when it DEVIATES FROM truthfulness. The perception of virtuality in a recording is, in effect, the perception of CONTRAST between the recording and the real event. But for some recordings, there is no real event. When recordings are altered liberally during editing and mixing, they can become so virtual that there is no longer any real event for the recording to correspond to. And if there is no real event for the recording to correspond to, then the recording cannot be judged in terms of its truthfulness, since truthfulness MEANS correspondence to a real event. And if a recording cannot be judged in terms of its truthfulness, then we are left with evaluating it subjectively. Hence the more virtual a recording, the more the attitude of Subjectivism is warranted. |
Learsfool - Thanks for those kind words. I'm glad we understand each other's point of view better, and perhaps we are even a step or two closer to agreement. But even if we still disagree, it has been an interesting and rewarding discussion. You have been an excellent adversary. I very much doubt that I would have had the impulse to explore these ideas so thoroughly had it not been for your thoughtful opposition.
BTW, if you are interested in a very concise and accessible introduction to philosophy, try Thomas Nagel's WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?, available on Amazon. |
Learsfool – Regarding the issue of what counts as a performance, my thoughts are similar to Cbw’s. But I must reiterate that this issue is tangential, at best, to the issue of Objectivism vs. Subjectivism. Because of that, this is one of the few times I will say that I have no dog in this fight. So, moving on... My remaining confusion still lies in exactly what you mean by truthfulness, as you say that your transparency definition is only a part of it… Almost. I didn’t say that transparency is a PART of truthfulness, but I did say that transparency is a KIND of truthfulness. I know that probably sounds like I am splitting hairs, but there is a genuine difference. To say that transparency is a PART of truthfulness would be to say that there is ANOTHER PART to truthfulness, in which case I would need to say what that other part is. To say that transparency is a KIND of truthfulness is to say that there are OTHER KINDS of truthfulness, which there most certainly are. Other kinds of truthfulness exist because other kinds of representations exist, things like: verbal statements, photographs, and scientific theories, to name just a few. These are different kinds of representations. For example, a photograph is an IMAGISTIC representation, in that it RESEMBLES the thing it represents. But a verbal statement is not an imagistic representation, since it does not RESEMBLE the thing it represents. Because there are different kinds of representations, there are different kinds of truthfulness, but what they all have in common is “correspondence to reality.” In addition to other kinds of truthfulness relating to other kinds of representations, there is also, I think, another kind of truthfulness that relates to music recordings, namely, ACCURACY, i.e. how much information about the music is preserved as it passes from the software to the ear. I mentioned this in my post on 1/18 only in passing, because my focus was truthfulness understood as transparency, not as accuracy. My confusion lies in what you mean by truthfulness overall, then, especially with regard to 6a. Are you saying that a Subjectivist cannot evaluate the truthfulness of a recording? I think Cbw’s answer to this is correct. That is, a Subjectivist can evaluate the truthfulness of a recording, but when he does, he is ACTING AS an Objectivist. Indeed, judging the truthfulness of a representation is WHAT IT MEANS TO BE an Objectivist. I would disagree strongly, however, that a Subjectivist would be unable to judge how close a recording comes to the live, real event it is a representation of. In fact, this would also ultimately be a subjective judgement, I believe, despite some objectivist measures being needed. Again, a Subjectivist who sets out to judge the truthfulness of a recording is ACTING AS AN OBJECTIVIST WHEN HE DOES SO. It was this observation that motivated the ecumenical ideas in my post on 1/18, where I tried to show that there are times when the attitude of Subjectivism is more warranted, and times when the attitude of Objectivism is more warranted. As far as your comment that judging the truthfulness of a music recording is “ultimately a subjective judgment,” this is most certainly true, but does not have the consequence you seem to think. Judgments about the truthfulness of a music recording are subjective simply because ALL JUDGMENTS ARE BY DEFINITION SUBJECTIVE, since they are made by persons. Even scientific judgments are subjective, since they are made by persons. But it does not follow from the inherently subjective nature of judgments that TRUTH is subjective. Truth is not objective, which is why, in my post on 1/18, I wrote: (4) The truth of a representation is its objective correspondence to reality.
The meaning behind the word “objective” here is that the truth or falsity of a representation depends only upon its correspondence to how things actually are. It does not depend upon OUR BELIEFS about how things actually are. Another way of understanding these comments is to say: (i) Truth is objective. (ii) Judgments about truth are subjective. This is the case whether we are talking about music recordings, scientific theories, or any representations whatsoever. Truth is always objective, and judgments about truth are always subjective. If you find that strange, you are not alone. The inherent objectivity of truth and the inherent subjectivity of human judgments is an irony of the universe. But the inherent subjectivity of human judgments does not mean we must abandon the idea of objective truth. It only means we must abandon the idea of CERTAINTY. Certainty is what is lost, and fallibility is what is acknowledged, when you understand (i) and (ii). If we had the mind of God, things would be different. Bringing this back to music recordings: When we set out to judge the truthfulness of a recording, we are de facto Objectivists, because the belief in truthfulness of a recording is the belief in the OBJECTIVE correspondence of the recording to a real musical event. But since we are relying our own human minds in this activity, our judgments are invariably subjective. A consequence of these realities is that we must give up any ambition to be CERTAIN about our judgments about the truthfulness of music recordings. But that’s not all that bad. Having said that, it is NOT a consequence of these realities that we are left with nothing to differentiate good judgments from bad ones. The acknowledgement that all judgments are subjective does not mean that all judgments are created equal. Some judgments are much more reliable than others. In other words, I do not advocate a Radical Subjectivism about human judgments, i.e., the idea that all judgments are equally valid. In my view, that is the height of postmodern absurdity. What rescues us from Radical Subjectivism is the concept of 'expertise.' In your recent posts, you cited several times your own expertise as a musician as relevant to your judgments about the truthfulness of a recording, and I quite agree with you. It is precisely your expertise that makes your judgments more reliable than those of a naive listener, which is a point I made at length in a previous post. So, in judging the truthfulness of music recordings, we are left with judgments that are always uncertain, always fallible, and always subjective, but sometimes expert. This isn't so bad. The situation is precisely the same for scientists, and look how much they have accomplished. |
