How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Tonywinse wrote:

If you really are looking for neutrality then get a Frequency Spectrum Analyzer and a pink noise generator. Set up the calibrated microphone, or even better get a binaural head and set it up in your listening position. Then you can adjust your system and the room with dampeners to achieve a flat frequency response. See if you like those results. I did that back in the early 90's (I was doing a lot of NVH research in Automotive at that time) and the system sounded dead-lifeless. Seeking neutrality is a dead end road.

This test of the value of neutrality is not testing 'neutrality' in the sense it has been used in this thread. In your example, neutrality is: FLAT FREQUENCY RESPONSE AT THE LISTENING POSITION. When you achieved this in your test and you heard disappointing results, you concluded that neutrality is not a thing to be valued. But the term 'neutrality' has not been used in this thread to mean flat frequency response at the listening position. It has been used to mean: FREEDOM FROM COLORATION.

One of the previous posters in this thread suggested that neutrality, in the sense of freedom from coloration, is REDUCIBLE to flat frequency response. I don't share this view, since it ignores the transient and harmonic characteristics of components/systems.

In the context of your example, a more valid test of neutrality would be: Am I hearing at my listening position what the rerecording engineer heard at his listening position IN THE FINAL MIX? To the extent that I am, my system is neutral. I very seriously doubt that that would turn out to be the same as flat frequency response.

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. I must have missed Hamburg's post - he is challenging on basically the same grounds, as you say. Dgarretson is probably correct that we should stick to describable aural phenomena, but that is indeed what makes discussion difficult. One person may not be able to hear what the other does, or one person may be fooling themselves into hearing something that isn't there, or they may disagree on what they do both hear, or be unable to describe it. That is why many objectivists decide to go only by the numbers - though I agree with Tony that that route will certainly lead to a dead end, whether in searching for neutrality or anything else. All one can do is trust one's own ears in the end, and try to develop a better sense of hearing, which can be done.

Music is coloration- ie. a blend of sounds and overtones and the nuances of tonal responses. Every instrument, violin, piano, ect. has its own unique coloration as it were. If your system can resolve the differences of one violin to another, for example, then I would think that is a very good stereo.

Trying to reproduce exactly what the recording engineer heard is an exercise in futility. Even if the recording engineer came to your house, he will not remember every nuance of tone and detail from the original recording session.

In the end your system will have the imprint of your sonic signature on it just as someone else's system will have their sonic signature. When I lived close to some hifi buddies in South Bend, In and Niles, Mi, we would come around and listen to our respective stereos and we all eventually agreed that we had some nice systems, each one being unique with their own +'s and -'s. We concluded that all systems will have their own unique sound and could enjoy any one of them. Additionally, the set-ups varied depending on our listening tastes as well. One friend was big into classical and did not like brightness one bit.

My system has changed over the years- I hope for the better, as my tastes have changed and as influenced by hearing other systems.

I was at a recital at my son's University a few weekends ago. An intmate, acoustic setting with a Grand Piano, flute and vocalist. (The vocalist did not use a microphone.) I was fortunate to sit 2nd row center seat. During the performance I closed my eyes and I could have been sitting in front of my stereo. The music was very satisfying and I was pleased to hear strong similarity to my stereo system in terms of tone, imaging and resolution. Would someone else that sat in that room and then in my living room come to the same conclusion? Perhaps but maybe not.

Flat frequency response in your listening room achieves nothing- that was my point.

Hey what happened? I hope I didn't say something to spoil the party. When I got into this hobby I had a modest system that I thought sounded pretty good until I befriended some audiophiles. That lead me to purchase an ARC SP-6b pre-amp in the late 80's. That pre-amp sounded wonderful but had coloration. It had a nice sound but was a bit too warm and veiled until my buddy upgraded the capacitors, resistors, rca jacks and wiring for me. I enjoyed that pre-amp for many years. And that lead me to upgrading components inside my speakers, amplifiers and turntable.

Breaking out the soldering iron is a satisfying side of this hobby but I finally began to step up into the higher cost, high end pieces. And I must say that while a lot of snake oil is out there, in general, you do get what you pay for in audio. I enjoyed maximizing my sound per dollar in the past and I still do tweaks here and there, but most of the expensive equipment out there sounds really good.

Someone said in an earlier post that we must remain objective in this hobby. I agree. It is good and healthy to hear other systems and realize someone may have something better than what we have. That helps give us direction to making improvements. Only once have I come home from a listening session and was ready to throw out my whole system. A friend at work had the most amazing stereo at the time that I had ever heard. I didn't know where to even start. But many years and $$$ later I think I am close. It wasn't jealousy, I just wanted to enjoy music like I did with his system.

I also wanted to say it is good to hear live music of various types to calibrate ourselves. Even listening to musicians on a street corner can provide insight into areas for improvement.

Lastly, recordings are all over the place. I have a few special recordings that are definitely key to hear on other systems for reference.

Tonywinsc - No, you didn't say anything to spoil the party. You have made several valuable observations, though some of your objections to neutrality have been discussed at length earlier in this thread. For example, you wrote:

Music is coloration- ie. a blend of sounds and overtones and the nuances of tonal responses. Every instrument, violin, piano, ect. has its own unique coloration as it were.

There has been much discussion on this thread about the distinction between coloration in music and recording, on the one hand, and coloration in playback systems, on the other. The consensus among Objectivists and Subjectivists alike is that coloration is an essential part of music and recording. The disagreement lies in whether coloration can be reduced in a playback system, whether it is desirable to do so, and if so, how. You may find reading the rest of the thread of use, and hopefully fun as well.

I, for one, welcome your contributions.

Bryon