How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Muralman - I agree that the success of room correction depends heavily on the particulars of the system. IME, it also depends heavily on the particulars of implementation. Without naming names, I have heard room correction hardware that ruins the entire signal, just by the addition of the circuit. In other words, even with all room correction values set to unity (i.e. zero), some room correction circuits dramatically degrade sound quality, the way that bad crossovers do. One of the things I like about the Meridian processor I am using is that I cannot hear any degradation in sound quality with the addition of the room correction circuit.

Having said that, in an ideal world, I would not use room correction. I would solve bass problems by treating the room. But my current room is not dedicated, so large bass traps are not feasible for me. Similarly, in an ideal world, I would not use a reclocker. But my transport, Sonos, which I chose primarily for the user interface, is high in jitter. Without the reclocker, it audibly degrades the sound quality of the system. The point is that much of the digital processing in my system is a compromise, brought about by the limitations of my room and the limitations of my transport. But I do dream of a day when I have a dedicated room and a more purist system. I certainly see the appeal in that.

Returning to the subject of neutrality, the point I was trying to make in my last post is that sometimes deviations from neutrality at the component level can result in greater neutrality at the system level, and that neutrality at the system level is more important, since that is what we hear at the listening position. I recognize, however, that this approach must be used judiciously, or the system's neutrality will be largely an illusion created by counterbalancing colorations, which diminishes resolution and makes the system a house of cards.

Albert: I'll never, ever forget those incredible analog photos of yours, featuring various Benz cartridges for Garth of Musical Surroundings. That was way back when I'd first met you. You had these cartridges blown up to somewhere around 20 or 24 inches, with perfect clarity. The resolution was/is just insane. And to have such perfection when the blown ups were room display sized. Does Garth still use these? He should.

How would the best modern day digital photography do by comparison? If you were to do a similar project today, would you go analog or digital?

My apologies if I've taken this thread on a slight tangent.

Bryoncunningham - I do know what you mean. I am rather embarrassed to admit my DAC has tubes. The reason for that is tubes are notorious for going off neutrality. I have done a lot of tube rolling through the years to know they all leave their signature. I have also found there are tubes that err less than others, and those are the ones that attract me. For miniature tubes, I loved the 5751 Sylvania Black Plate. It worked miracles with the Llano amp, and a Jolida 100 I was using way back then.

My DAC has tubes. That is a fact I have to live with for now. I am hoping for a non sampling DAC that has no tubes that I like. The 47 Labs Progression has no tubes, but it has a rather soft delivery.

So, the quest will continue for complete neutrality.

Albert: I'll never, ever forget those incredible analog photos of yours, featuring various Benz cartridges for Garth of Musical Surroundings. That was way back when I'd first met you. You had these cartridges blown up to somewhere around 20 or 24 inches, with perfect clarity. The resolution was/is just insane. And to have such perfection when the blown ups were room display sized. Does Garth still use these? He should.

How would the best modern day digital photography do by comparison? If you were to do a similar project today, would you go analog or digital?

Believe it or not those were from 4X5 film, the 8X10 camera produced even greater resolution.

I used 8X10 for Interstate Battery, Bank of America and other clients that wanted perfection. The cost was very high, from the camera and lens to the 8X10 Polaroid proofs, film and process.

What you saw at CES were real (Kodak paper) color prints.

Digital photography has pretty much taken over, for better or worse. Much like the music business. It's just too easy for clients to make copies, send in email, prep for four color printing and manipulating the image for alternate purposes.

If I were doing the job today and wanted equal resolution I would have to rent something. The ultra high resolution digital systems for photography are super expensive (about $80K). So unless you have clients with deep pockets there is no way to justify the expenditure.

Like digital in music, easy to get cheap copies (think MP3 and photo from iPhone :^). The big Nikon and Canon 24 million pixel cameras are unbelievably good but not yet up with the ultimate film could deliver.

When I do jobs today I never quote film. Film is difficult to impossible to get and all the labs in Dallas that processed pro film have pretty much shut down their lines.

Is 8x10 suitable for any task? Can you use it for late afternoon sports pictures? AFAIK depth of field is very low requiring high F stops. I remember that A. Adams was running "F/64 Club". Such apertures require long exposures making it more suitable for landscape or portrait photography. Cost of the lens with low aberration at such apertures has to be very high not to mention size of the gear and processing. Pictures also cannot be "Photoshopped"
without high resolution scanner for 8x10 negatives.

Price and practicality are important to me. There might be analog TVs that are way better than best HDTV but in what is available to me (Best Buy) is the other way around.