1. Home
  2. misc-audio
  3. 1257469878

How do you judge your system's neutrality?


Here’s an answer I’ve been kicking around: Your system is becoming more neutral whenever you change a system element (component, cable, room treatment, etc.) and you get the following results:

(1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique.
(2) Your music collection sounds more diverse.

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. I went on to notice that whole songs (and even whole albums) sounded more unique, and that my music collection, taken as a whole, sounded more diverse.

That led me to the following idea: If, after changing a system element, (1) individual pieces of music sound more unique, and (2) your music collection sounds more diverse, then your system is contributing less of its own signature to the music. And less signature means more neutral.

Thoughts?

P.S. This is only a way of judging the relative neutrality of a system. Judging the absolute neutrality of a system is a philosophical question for another day.

P.P.S. I don’t believe a system’s signature can be reduced to zero. But it doesn’t follow from that that differences in neutrality do not exist.

P.P.P.S. I’m not suggesting that neutrality is the most important goal in building an audio system, but in my experience, the changes that have resulted in greater neutrality (using the standard above) have also been the changes that resulted in more musical enjoyment.
bryoncunningham
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
hi byron

accuracy is not a matter of degree. something is either accurate or it is not. it is not a relative term. it is absolute.

is truth a matter of degree ? no. something is either true or false. there may be degrees of inaccuracy , but accuracy is a condition that one may try to attain therefore it is absolute.

if accurate were a relative term how would you know how accurate some thing is unless you had a reference ?

you may be confusing degrees of inaccuracy with degrees of accuracy which is illogical.

if you get 100 on a test that means as far as the test is concerned, you have answered the test questions accurately. you achieved the hihest score possible. there are no degrees of answering test questions accurately.

go to the dictionary and check.
almarg's avatar
almarg
8,673 posts
 
Mr. T, any measurement instrument ever devised, for the purpose of measuring anything, has (or at least should have) what is commonly referred to as an "accuracy" specification associated with it, notwithstanding the fact that the specification arguably would be better referred to as an "inaccuracy" specification.

A thermometer, for example, may be "accurate" to within +/- 0.5 degrees. A scale may be "accurate" to within +/- 0.1 pounds. A speedometer may be "accurate" to within +/- 2 mph.
05-14-11: Mrtennis
You may be confusing degrees of inaccuracy with degrees of accuracy which is illogical.
And from the current thread on accuracy:
05-13-11: Mrtennis
You guys are forgetting about a basic fact. accuracy means perfection.

for example one inch is exactly one inch. in audio, all components have flaws. they are imperfect. therefore accuracy cannot exist .

it has nothing to do with listening. its the fact that all components are designed with flaws. you might be able to find components which produce a sound which provides sufficient resolution , a balanced frequency response, and other attributes that appeal to audiophiles. if a stereo system performs that way , where most recordings sound different and there is no noticeable consistent sonic signature, the condition may be "virtual accuracy", but a stereo system can never be accurate (perfect) since the components that make up the stereo sytem are not accurate.
Your comments strike me as drawing a distinction without there being a meaningful difference. Do the facts that nothing is perfect, and nothing is perfectly accurate, negate the value of either striving for ways in which accuracy might be improved, or striving to identify and characterize inaccuracies, and in the process hopefully making possible better informed tradeoffs between accuracy and subjectively pleasing inaccuracies?

And, btw, nothing is perfect, not even in nature. Consider the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But fundamental to the design processes that underlie just about any engineering achievement are error analyses that address and take into account myriad contributors to inaccuracy.

IMO the fact that perfect accuracy in an audio component is neither achievable nor even precisely definable is not reason to declare inapplicable to audio the goals of striving to reduce inaccuracy/improve accuracy, and/or striving to better characterize the inaccuracy.

I agree with Bryon 100%.

Regards,
-- Al
bryoncunningham OP
888 posts
 
05-14-11: Mrtennis
accuracy is not a matter of degree. something is either accurate or it is not. it is not a relative term. it is absolute...go to the dictionary and check.

This sounded like helpful advice, so I did just that.

From the Oxford Dictionary...

"the DEGREE to which the result of a measurement, calculation, or specification conforms to the correct value or a standard"

From the American Heritage Dictionary...

"the EXTENT to which a given measurement agrees with the standard value for that measurement...the DEGREE of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc."

From Ambrose Bierce's Devils Dictionary...

"dictionary: A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic."

bc
learsfool
1,206 posts
 
LOL, Bryon - nice one, bringing out Bierce!
newbee
4,093 posts
 
FWIW, Mr T started out talking about 'neutrality' being an absolute (like the word 'unique' perhaps) and I happen to agree with him.

You do not modify an absolute term. It is or it ain't, at least according to my old English teacher who reprimanded me for trying to make something more 'unique' than it already must have been when I chose that word to describe it. But then the word morphed into 'accuracy' and posters felt that was not an absolute term and could be appropriately modified. In common usage I agree. It makes sense to me. But them, if it is not already evident, I'm not an English major.

Will the real English major amongst us come forward and explain the proper use of these terms, i.e. neutral and accurate. I think that many of us might benefit and then we can get back to arguing about things audio.
More to discover