How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Al, I doubt you are dying to hear from me again, but what the hell.

It might be helpful if Bryon didn't include the word 'music' as being "more unique". He is actually talking about sound and the quality thereof, not music. Consider that some audio enthusiasts used to demo their systems with recording of jets taking off or the sounds made by trains on a track or their whistles.

It might be helpful if he didn't referring to one's 'music collection' becoming more diverse. The music itself, nor the number of extant recordings in one's collection, doesn't become more 'diverse', only the ability to discern the differences in the sound being delivered by the system can be enhanced by refining the quality of a systems components. The music collection doesn't become more diverse, only the ability to discern the amount of information in the pits and grooves becomes more acute. Perhaps that would increase his appreciation of some of the records in his collection - and that would be a good thing. Conversely one could discover that the more you could hear on some of your recordings the less you might appreciate listening to them ergo your usable collection might actually diminish.

I have always found it interesting, and inexplicable, why someone with the experience with audio, education, attention to detail, and command of the English language, would come up with such lame descriptions (IMHO of course - I realize others are willing to infer meanings that I will not) of what the effects of 'neutrality' are (as he uses the term) as if his observations related to 'music' when in fact they relate only to sound from an audio system, which IMHO, is better described when you relate how your system improves when you eliminate/reduce/alter 'colors' (a term far too inclusive for my tastes). He could talk about the effects of diminishing distortion's (kinda broad too), the effects of rise times and decays, the effect of tonal deviations from 'flat', the effect of different components synergy with any given speaker system, speaker system set up, room issues, ad infinitum, all of which add to or detract from some concept of neutrality/transparency/accuracy or sense of resolution.

I think the post/conversation might have been far more interesting to some of us if we were to discuss what an optimum system (on paper) might be and why, starting with the most important selection of your speakers system. Dynamic/cones. Electrostats. Horns. Planers. Line source, ribbon, cone, or electrostats. And working back to the amp and sources.

Obviously each speaker design and implementation produces different results. And that is where we will get into problems when we try to (assuming that we even do, although I think most experienced audiophiles do) recreate a home system which even begins to approach a sense of faithfulness to the recorded signal.

So, for me, I think it is not possible to change a few words in his post that would make it something I could agree with. If it were reduced to something like "As I improved the quality of my system's components, I found the sound became more clear, the sound was usually more enjoyable. In fact it sounds to me just as I would imagine it was recorded and I have found myself listening to more of my recordings, previously rejected for sonic reasons. I think my system is achieving a sense of reality that I can relate to."

Sorry I cannot be more accommodating. I'd like to be. :-)

Bryon wrote: "Is there a SINGLE way that a playback system is SUPPOSED TO sound?"

I was talking not about system sound but original performance sound. Did I miss this original performance? Neutral (or close) system exists - I don't question that (still no virtue to me). The problem I have is comparing its sound to, mentioned few times "original performance". How I can test for neutrality without knowing how it supposed to sound. To go to concert and wait for CD from this concert (assuming that recording engineer didn't touch it)? What Learsfool is trying to explain is that any instrument will sound differently in different halls on different days. My guitar sounds completely different in the summer (humid) and in the winter (dry). It sounds different with different picks and strings. It sounds completely different with new strings than with old strings. If I have Aural memory of guitar - is it my guitar or different guitar. There are hundreds of different guitars with different presence, projection, separation, sustain and tone. What Aural memory? What original performance?

So why does the fact that it is difficult, in general, to precisely know what anything is supposed to sound like have any relevance in this discussion?
Almarg (Answers)

If one's goal is less system coloration to increase the likelihood that the colorations that were present in the original performance will be reproduced accurately, then precisely knowing what a recording is supposed to sound like is of utmost relevance. Without the baseline of knowing what a recording is supposed to sound like, one cannot judge the degree of coloration in a system.

For those who strive for system neutrality, I recognize the importance of knowing what a recording is supposed to sound like as a baseline by which to judge a system's faithful (neutral) reproduction of the recording.

I happen to believe that the goal of neutrality is impossible to attain, which is why I have mostly remained on the sidelines of this discussion.

Cbw723, if you go back and reread the entire thread, you will see that not just myself but at least three others are indeed questioning the very concept and/or definition and/or operationalization of the term "neutrality", with reference not just to live music, but also within the context of an audio system. We have not all questioned the same aspects exactly, but all of this has indeed been under debate at some point in the thread. My position is/has been that this "neutrality" does not and cannot exist, and I have spoken of it at length.

The term "coloration," on the other hand, I don't have quite as much of a problem with, though Newbee is probably correct that I am using the term too broadly (as opposed to Bryon's too narrow usage). My position is that there is no such thing as an absence of "coloration" in music and/or music playback and/or an audio component; therefore Bryon's "neutrality" couldn't ever actually exist, even as he defines these terms. Hence, his operationalization of the term is of no real practical value (especially since no one has yet been able to describe what it would sound like, despite this one ultimate sound goal being "what it means to be an objectivist," according to Bryon).

I fully realize, Al, that the term "neutrality" (and the substitutes you mention) is in wide use more or less as Bryon uses it. That fact doesn't make the usage correct, though, and many of us obviously get along fine without it - in a different thread some time ago it was my nomination for the most useless term in audio, where it got the most early agreement, if I remember correctly, but I haven't looked back at that thread in a long time. I agree with Newbee that there is no way one could reword the proposal "to allow convergence," and I like what he had to say in closing. If Bryon or anyone else changes a piece of equipment in his system, and he likes the resulting change in sound better, that's great! That is a goal of all of us audiophiles. I submit that "neutrality" does not have anything to do with it. In my view, Bryon has yet to propose any condition that indicates the presence of a characteristic of "neutrality" at all, let alone "reliably." He has mentioned a few different types of distortion, all of which have a technical explanation not requiring the existence of "neutrality," and he has spoken of absence of "coloration," which I have already spoken of at length.

Bryon, those are good examples of definition in relation to absence, thanks! However, I am compelled to point out that all of those things you list have been proven to exist - your "neutrality" is much more elusive. 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. 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 (for a start, that would require knowing what "neutrality" sounded like). Let me refer again to my two high-end preamps within the same exact system example. How could you tell which of them was more "neutral?" I submit you couldn't, and therefore, your operationalization of the term does not have any real practical value for audiophiles, as Kijanki keeps pointing out.

What does have value in this example is to try to figure out why YOU like the sound of one better than the sound of the other - for example perhaps you conclude that preamp B has a very slightly warmer midrange, and your favorite female jazz vocalist recordings are more enjoyable in consequence. You may even discover a technical reason for this specific sonic color difference from preamp A. This could be a real help/guide to improving the sound of your system overall. But how could you tell if it was therefore more or less "neutral?" You couldn't. Nor would there necessarily be agreement among any given group of people that this difference was an improvement. But if you think it was, then you can use that information to improve the sound of your system to your ears, and that is a good thing - that has real value. But only you can really make that call, and therefore determine that value, for yourself, according to your own personal sonic tastes, or "reference point"; I submit that this is what your "neutrality" concept really amounts to, as someone else said near the very beginning of this thread, sorry I don't remember who. To sum up, even given your definition of the terms, a) you could never know what "neutrality" would sound like, because there is no one single "correct," "perfect," "absolute," "neutral" sound; and b) there will never be "convergence" on exactly what is a "coloration," either. I submit that both a) and b) are good things, not bad; that is why we have so much great variety in high end audio reproduction. Just continue your search for components that improve the sound of your system and your music collection to your ears - it really is that simple. The harder thing is to work on improving your ear - that takes constant and diligent work and practice, but I guarantee it would (hopefully will) lead to much greater enjoyment of your music and your system (including your ability to judge differences between pieces of equipment) then your search for "neutrality" ever has or will. Whatever path you choose, I wish you continued success in improving your enjoyment of the music! That is what really matters to all of us!

Tvad wrote:

If one's goal is less system coloration to increase the likelihood that the colorations that were present in the original performance will be reproduced accurately, then precisely knowing what a recording is supposed to sound like is of utmost relevance. Without the baseline of knowing what a recording is supposed to sound like, one cannot judge the degree of coloration in a system.

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.

I believe that this also sheds some light on the disagreement between Learsfool, Kijanki, and Tvad (L/K/T) on the one hand, and me, Al, and Cbw (B/A/C) on ther other, concerning the RELEVANCE of premise (ii), that you cannot know what the recording is supposed to sound like. For L/K/T, premise (ii) is essential to the discussion, because of their belief that knowing what a recording is "supposed to sound like" is the ONLY way to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system. For B/A/C, premise (ii) seems irrelevant to the discussion, because of their belief that there is another way to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system, namely, the way I proposed in the original post.