How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Audioengr - Most of recordings have some form of compression and some are really bad. Wouldn't they sound better with an amp that expands dynamics (instead of being neutral). What about soundstaging? Is deeper and wider better than more accurate positioning. Could it be too deep or too wide? How do we know what studio intended?

Warm tube amps sound wonderful on guitar or voice bot not so good on instruments with complex harmonic structure like percussion or piano? What if I don't listen to piano?

One can measure identical frequency response of two components with very different sound (tube vs. SS). What you compare it to. How do you measure it. In my opinion measurements can offer some clues but I would not use them to buy a system. If I cannot trust measurements then it comes to my or other people opinion - and that is highly subjective. It might depend on many factors including age. Would "neutral" system sound the same to young Hindu and old Latino?

I'm not even sure if being neutral is a virtue. What if system has its own wonderful personality. What's wrong with that? Are we trying to find best tasting or most neutral wine?

Kijanki writes:
"Would "neutral" system sound the same to young Hindu and old Latino?"

No, it would sound different to every person that listened to it, but that's not the point. The point is whether or not it recreates their version of reality, and only a neutral system could do that for everyone. If each person listens to a guitar, each person hears something different. But if the goal is to make a recording sound, as much as possible, like the source, neutrality seems important in achieving it.

"Are we trying to find best tasting or most neutral wine?"

In our case, "wine" is the music, and our systems are the glass you drink it from. Do you want a glass that flavors all of your wine?

In our case, "wine" is the music, and our systems are the glass you drink it from. Do you want a glass that flavors all of your wine?
Cbw723 (Answers)

That's a very descriptive analogy.

"But if the goal is to make a recording sound, as much as possible, like the source, neutrality seems important in achieving it."

No - Neutrality does not achieve that because the goal of recording is to sound good on average cheap system or boom-box hence introduced compression.

Grand piano has dynamics reaching 96dB but is never recorded like that because most of people wouldn't be able to hear it and would complain about buzzing speakers.

Guitar sound, that you mentioned, is defined by Presence, Projection, Separation, Sustain and Tone. All of it can be manipulated in (sonically dead) studio. It has nothing to do with absolute objective reality but more with the way recording guy sees it. This reality can vary so much from one recording engineer to another that some classical guitarists like Julian Bream come to studio, wherever they record, with their own recording engineer.

Well - I'm my own playback engineer and I choose the sound I like.

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.