Has there ever been the assumption that a photo or painting could be mistaken for the real thing? Does that make it any less beautiful? Why should audio be any different?...
...for many, the fundamental goal of stereo reproduction is the illusion of the real thing. Not so for photographers. Maybe they are saving themselves a whole bunch of grief not trying to chase down the impossible.
Let's start at the beginning. Are there any recordings that truly sound real? Maybe the best one can hope for is perfect reproduction of what is on the original recording. Because even those are an artistic interpretation by the recording studio, just like a photograph. Cdc - You raise interesting and provocative questions, but I'm not sure exactly what point of view you are expressing. It sounds like you are saying that, since recordings are themselves "interpretations" of musical events, accuracy in playback is not especially important, particularly for those who value beauty above other things. My own view is that accuracy and beauty are related in the following way: As system accuracy increases, the beauty you hear is the beauty of the RECORDING, rather than the beauty of the SYSTEM. It may seem inconsequential whether the beauty you hear comes from the recording or the system. But I believe it's important, for the following reason: The beauty of a system is largely CONSTANT, whereas the beauty of recordings is infinitely VARIABLE. To illustrate with your analogy... As you point out, a photograph is an "interpretation" of an event, in the sense that the characteristics of the photograph - color, contrast ratio, depth of field, etc. - are not identical to the characteristics of the event that the photograph represents. It may be tempting to conclude from this that the presentation of that photograph – i.e. its display for viewing – might as well be an "interpretation" that maximizes the beauty of the photographs. So you decide, for example, to display a group of photographs under a pleasing golden light. By doing do, you may increase the CONSISTENCY of the beauty in the photographs (to those who find golden light beautiful), but you decrease the VARIETY of beauty among the photographs (assuming the photos are color). By giving the photographs a uniform yellow tint, you have reduced their visual diversity, and therefore reduced the variety of beauty in their presentation. A more ACCURATE presentation – i.e. uniform white light, white walls, etc. – would provide greater visual diversity, and therefore greater opportunity for variety in the beauty of the photographs. This highlights the value of accuracy even for those who value beauty above all else: Increasing the accuracy of the presentation increases the VARIETY of the beauty presented. In my view, the situation with musical playback is precisely the same. As you point out, a recording is an “interpretation” of a musical event, in the sense that the characteristics of the recording – dynamic range, frequency response, transient response, etc. – are not identical to the characteristics of the event that the recording represents. It may be tempting to conclude from this that the presentation of the recording – i.e. its playback – might as well be an "interpretation" that maximizes the beauty of the recordings. So you decide, for example, to use an amp that provides pleasing harmonic distortion. By doing so, you may increase the CONSISTENCY of the beauty in the recordings played back in the system, but you decrease the VARIETY of beauty among the recordings. By giving the recordings a uniform harmonic signature, you have reduced their sonic diversity, and therefore reduced the variety of beauty in their presentation. A more ACCURATE presentation – i.e. lower in colorations – would provide greater sonic diversity, and therefore greater opportunity for variety in the beauty of the recordings. This highlights the value of accuracy, even for those who value beauty above all else: Increasing the accuracy of the presentation increases the VARIETY of the beauty presented. For this reason, I don’t believe that the fact that a recording is an “interpretation” of a musical event supports the conclusion that accuracy is irrelevant for those who value beauty above other things. Even for people who value beauty above all else, accuracy is an important consideration, because it provides the opportunity to experience a greater variety of beauty. |
Muralman - I know nothing about your system, and so I cannot comment on your claims, though I assume you recognize how provocative they are.
I myself am a digital only person, so I would like to believe the things you are saying about digital playback. However, having listened to a number of high quality analog systems, I have to confess that they have typically sounded wonderful, in all the ways that analog is famous for. My own view is that it is possible to make digital sound almost like analog, but it is a difficult thing to achieve.
Having said that, the relative merits of digital and analog playback is a topic that is very far afield from the substance of this thread, and so I will now return to my system and try to contain my analog envy. :-) |
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. |
Muralman - I agree that noise, like distortion, diminishes the neutrality of a component or system. As far as neutrality being a "very tall order," it is worth keeping in mind that neutrality is a matter of degree. It is not a binary state. As colorations are decreased in a component/system, neutrality is increased. Hence a component/system may APPROXIMATE neutrality, to a greater or lesser degree. This was discussed at great length in this thread, though I'm not recommending that you go back and read the whole thread, unless you are prepared to sacrifice half a day of your life. :-) Concerning your view that "every circuit detracts from the very notion of neutrality," you mentioned something similar in your post on this thread from 12/02/09, where you wrote: It has been my experience less is more. My wires can't be more simple. The DAC lacks a filter chip. The preamp is spartan. Every little change proclaims itself loudly, training me to go simple. I think this is a valid point of view, though I have not approached system building the same way, as I wrote in reply to you on the same day: I don’t have a problem with this idea, in theory. In practice, it has not always been my experience. I can give two examples from assembling my system.
Example #1: The use of Room EQ Wizard software in combination with Meridian Room Correction made a dramatic difference in the quality of bass I was able to achieve in my listening room. This is reflected in a much flatter in-room frequency response below 200Hz, as well as the subjective impression, confirmed by other listeners, that my EQ work significantly improved the timing and transparency of my system. Meridian Room Correction involves intensive real time computation. It is not simple.
Example #2: The addition of a reclocker between my transport and my dac improved my system in at least four areas: (1) increased perceived resolution; (2) better imaging focus; (3) less shrillness in high frequencies; and (4) lower noise floor. The reclocker discards the timing data of a digital audio stream and reclocks the audio data using a high precision clock, thereby reducing jitter. Also, not simple.
...While I agree that complexity provides more opportunities to get things wrong, I think in some cases, it provides opportunities to correct things that are already going wrong. Having said that, it is probably significant that the two examples I mentioned are both in the digital domain. If you look at my system from the point at which it becomes analog, you will notice that it is quite simple: The preamp is in the same unit as the dac (the Meridian), followed by 1 meter of analog interconnects, followed by a Pass amp of very simple design, followed by 2 meters of speaker cable to the speakers. This reflects my partial agreement with you about the value of simplicity. My own view, FWIW, is that simplicity can be a great asset with analog signals, but it is somewhat less essential with digital signals. Here is my reasoning... You may be right that digital signal processing is always a deviation from neutrality AT THE LEVEL OF THE COMPONENT. But it does not follow, and I believe it is not true, that digital signal processing is always a deviation from neutrality AT THE LEVEL OF THE SYSTEM. That is because digital signal processing can compensate for deviations from neutrality ELSEWHERE IN THE SYSTEM. For example, a reclocker compensates for deviations from neutrality in the transport; room correction compensates for deviations from neutrality in the listening room. Hence, I believe that the added complexity of digital signal processing, if used judiciously, can result in greater neutrality AT THE LISTENING POSITION, which is where it counts. Having said that, I have heard digital systems with the kind of circuit simplicity you are advocating, and I agree with you that they can sound excellent. So I am not suggesting that one approach is better than the other. I think there are several paths to a rewarding musical experience. |
...if a recording distorts the sound of the instruments being recorded, how do you assess the accuracy/inaccuracy of the stereo system? ...if an optical lens distorts the characteristics of the light transmitted through it, how do you assess the accuracy/inaccuracy of the telescope? (1) Measure the accuracy of the individual optics. (2) Compare the telescope to other telescopes. (3) Perform a Star Test. RE: Audio systems... (1) Measure the accuracy of individual components. (2) Compare the system to other systems. (3) Perform the Neutrality Test that I described in the OP. Bryon |
...measuring the accuracy of individual components is probably near impossible, because accuracy is a multi-dimensional concept. how can you be sure you have measured every relevant variable. Mrtennis - I agree with you that accuracy is a "multi-dimensional concept," in the sense that it refers to a number of variables, rather than a single variable. But I do not conclude from this that accuracy is impossible to assess. Consider the analogy with telescopes again... A telescope's optics can suffer from various kinds of distortion, including spherical distortion, astigmatic distortion, and chromatic distortion. Hence the accuracy of a telescope is multi-dimensional, just like the accuracy of an audio component. The multi-dimensional nature of a telescope's accuracy makes it more difficult to assess, but not impossible. Similarly, the multi-dimensional nature of an audio component's accuracy makes it somewhat difficult to assess, but not impossible. Having said that, I agree with you that the common measurements of an audio component's accuracy, like those that routinely appear in Stereophile, are unlikely to be exhaustive. In other words, there are probably some unknown variables that are relevant to the assessment of a component's accuracy. But even the likely presence of unknown variables doesn't vitiate the concept of accuracy in audio. It merely makes judgments about accuracy FALLIBLE. But that shouldn't be news to anyone. also, if each component in a stereo system were accurate, does that imply that the stereo system is accurate? IMO, yes. Assuming that you include the listening room as part of the assessment of a system's accuracy, and acknowledging that what inaccuracies do exist in the various components may interact in non-linear or unpredictable ways. Bryon |
05-10-11: Roysen
Neutrality is what we are searching for. It’s the ultimate goal. That is why we upgrade. To get sound played back closer in quality to the real thing. Roysen – If you look at the posts on this thread, especially those by Newbee and Learsfool, you will see that some audiophiles do not value neutrality, or at least they do not prioritize it above other considerations. Personally, I do value neutrality. But I do not regard it as the “ultimate” goal, as you do. Our definitions of "neutrality" are similar, though not identical. You define neutrality as accuracy (relative to the recording). On this thread, I defined neutrality as the degree of absence of colorations, and I defined "colorations" as audible inaccuracies (relative to the recording). If we choose your definition of neutrality, then greater neutrality is synonymous with being more truthful to the recording. If we choose my definition of neutrality, then greater neutrality is *nearly* synonymous with being more truthful to the recording. I say “nearly synonymous” because, since I define neutrality in terms of *audible* inaccuracies, I must acknowledge that, while more audible inaccuracies always amounts to less neutrality, less neutrality does not always amount to more audible inaccuracies, for the simple reason that some inaccuracies are inaudible. If you can understand that sentence on first reading, you are a smarter man than I am. Nevertheless, it is a true statement, I believe. But it is irrelevant to the point I am trying to arrive at, which is... I do not believe that greater neutrality *always* results in sound that is, as you put it, “closer to the real thing.” I believe that, sometimes, small movements away from accuracy to the recording (i.e. away from neutrality) results in sound that is "closer to the real thing." The reason is this: Many, perhaps all, recordings REMOVE information that was present at the real event. Hence, a system that tries to ADD the missing information back may actually sound closer to the live event than the system that is strictly accurate to the recording (i.e. neutral). Of course, the EXACT information from the live event is lost forever, if it does not make it to the recording. But I believe that an APPROXIMATION of the lost information can sometimes be added back, and that by doing so, the system may be "closer to the real thing." I do not mean to overstate this. I do believe that efforts to make a system more accurate to the recording, and hence more neutral, will *generally* result in sound that is more truthful to the live event. But I do not think that is *always* the case. 05-10-11: Tbg
I do believe in "objective truth."…
When it comes to audio, however, I would imagine that it would be very difficult to find agreement as to what objective measures might be used to assess which speaker is better. It is easy to assess frequency response, phase correctness, and dispersion. Perhaps we could even agree about distortion. Were we to then choose the ten best speakers and conduct listening sessions, I doubt that we would have any agreement about which is best. The reason is we are missing too much of what makes a speaker better and don't share opinions about these other attributes, much less having the capability to measure them. As I mentioned on the Tidal thread, there are two issues at stake… 1. IS component x neutral? 2. HOW DO WE KNOW if component x is neutral? My impression is that Roysen is arguing that there are objective truths about (1) and you are arguing that there are not objective truths about (2). But the absence of objective truths about (2) does not prevent the existence of objective truths about (1). That was the point I was trying to make on the Tidal thread. Put another way, the fact that audiophiles cannot agree about the neutrality of a component does not mean that there is no fact of the matter about the neutrality of a component. Intersubjective agreement is not a necessary condition of objective truths. That is the whole point of saying a truth is “objective.” The force of the term “objective” with respect to truth is to express the idea that truth is INDEPENDENT OF PERSONS. And if truth is independent of persons, then agreement or disagreement is irrelevant to whether or not a component is, in fact, neutral. On the other hand, agreement and disagreement are not irrelevant to the QUESTION of whether a component is neutral or not. This may appear to be a play on words -- I admit that I'm in a bit of a Lewis Carroll mood today. But I can assure you that my comments are in earnest. Lastly, all of this has nothing to do with preference. People should choose components according to their own preferences, not someone else’s. Bryon |
I think the entire discussion is largely irrelevant... In light of this, I hope you will understand if I decline to answer you. bc |
A contribution to the topic of neutrality was posted on the Tidal thread by Jorn Janczak, founder of Tidal Audio: 05-12-11: Tidal
My two cents as the designer behind the speakers mentioned in this thread: neutrality is nothing but an objective criteria. It is a fact which can be found out, and no opinion or a feel.
Neutrality can be defined very simple by the difference between what goes inside of the speaker and what comes out of it. It can be measured in many complex ways. The most famous and also most simple one to understand is the 'frequency response', but it does not tell the whole story of a speaker at all - otherwise all speakers with a flat FRQ would do sound the same.
But almost all effects to "sound" can be measured and follows the same principle: the difference of IN and OUT. The less the difference, the more 'neutral'. And this is at least what we do at TIDAL: bringing this difference as low as possible.
But HOW one likes neutral speakers/systems closer to neutrality then others - well, about this one could talk back and forth since it is a subjective issue/feel/opinion.
many greetings, Jörn FWIW. bc |
I was not addressing you, Tbg.
bc |
05-13-11: Mrtennis
without perfection there is no neutrality or accuracy.
"most neutral" reminds me of being a little bit pregnant. Since... Accuracy is a matter of degree. Therefore... Inaccuracies are a matter of degree. Therefore... Neutrality is a matter of degree. Therefore... Neutrality is not like being pregnant. Therefore... "Perfect" neutrality is a red herring. Bryon |
05-15-11: Newbee
Will the real English major amongst us come forward and explain the proper use of these terms, i.e. neutral and accurate. This issue is way above an English major's pay grade. It is not a question of diction, but rather a question of lexicography, the philosophy of language, and the science of linguistics. The standard Mrtennis proposed for the meaning of the word 'accurate' was the dictionary. By that standard...well, you saw the result. Having said that, the quotation from Bierce, if it was not self explanatory, was intended to make the following observation... Dictionaries are often INADEQUATE STANDARDS for resolving disputes about the meanings of words. There are a number of reasons for this... Dictionary word meanings are determined by common usage. But the meanings provided by common usage are often too ambiguous or imprecise for conversations requiring a high level of exactitude. There are two common solutions to this problem: (a) technical definitions (b) stipulated definitions RE: (a) Technical definitions are created by communities of experts and are often formal, i.e. standardized across various discussions. RE: (b) Stipulated definitions are created by any group of people trying to have a successful discussion and are almost always informal, i.e. standardized only for a single discussion. This thread has provided STIPULATED DEFINITIONS a number of times. Here are some of the stipulated definitions that consistently appeared: -neutrality: the degree of absence of colorations -colorations: audible inaccuracies -inaccuracy: the degree to which a component's output differs from its input -accuracy: the degree to which a component's output is identical to its input Anyone is free to challenge these stipulated definitions, since no one "owns" the terms, NOT EVEN THE DICTIONARY. Here is the reason why... If two experts disagree about a technical definition, or two ordinary people disagree about a stipulated definition, then the disagreement about the term can be resolved in one of two ways: (c) The term is given a modifier. (d) A new term is created. The process by which (c) and (d) occur CANNOT BE RESOLVED BY A DICTIONARY, since the dictionary is a catalogue of ordinary usage, and it was the imprecision and/or ambiguity of ordinary usage that led people to create the technical or stipulated definitions in the first place! Hence, the process by which (c) and (d) occur must be resolved BY THE PEOPLE HAVING THE DISCUSSIONS, whether they are experts or ordinary folks like us. If someone wants to propose alternative stipulated definitions for 'neutrality' or 'accuracy' or any other term, they are certainly free to do so. But each person's comments should be understood in terms of how THEY THEMSELVES have stipulated the terms. To facilitate communication, most people are willing to agree upon a COMMON set of stipulated definitions for the purposes of discussion. But as we have seen in recent posts, some people have a problem accepting the stipulated definitions of others, the technical definitions of experts, and even the ordinary definitions of dictionaries. That is a real shame, as it obstructs what would otherwise be constructive conversation. Bryon |
05-15-11: Newbee
...can you direct me to the post(s) in which the participants actually stipulated to the meanings and use of the terms you refer to. I must have missed it... You missed it? That's strange to me. Here's what I found... 11-06-09 Me: a conceptual definition of 'neutral' for audio might be something like, 'free from coloration.' 11-06-09 Buconero: Neutrality by definition is 'without difference'. 11-06-09 Dgarretson: Neutrality is about balance-- the notion of nothing more and nothing less, nothing added and nothing subtracted. 11-06-09 Cbw723: I think in the real world, Bryon's definition is workable. 11-07-09 Tvad: It seems to be essentially what's been defined as the Absolute Sound. 11-19-09 Almarg: …colorations/lack of transparency/lack of neutrality/whatever you want to call it… 11-20-09 Me: The degree to which a component or system is free from coloration. 11-20-09 Cbw723: I like this definition… 11-20-09 Almarg: when I used the phrase "lack of colorations/transparency/neutrality/whatever you want to call it," I should have added the word "accuracy" as well. Basically all of these terms relate to how accurately what is reproduced by the system (and its room environment), resembles what is sent into it by the recording. 11-22-09 Dgarretson: Personally I agree with Bryon that resolving, neutral, and transparent are three of the best audiophile adjectives…Of the three static terms, perhaps neutrality is the broadest and most appealing… 11-24-09 Me: Yes, every component is colored, just as all water sources are contaminated. But not every component is equally colored, just as not all water sources are equally contaminated. And the recognition that every component is colored does not motivate the conclusion that neutrality is useless concept any more than recognizing that all water sources are contaminated motivates the conclusion that water purity is a useless concept. 11-24-09 Cbw723: …I think the water analogy is pretty apt here. 11-25-09 Dgarretson: Perhaps audio components are analogous to brightness and contrast controls on a TV. With such controls it is possible to vary saturation and to whiten or darken the visual palette. Visual "neutrality" lies near the middle of the range of both controls. 11-26-09 Almarg: one of the things that I tried to express, but perhaps didn't as explicitly as I should have, is that if throughout this thread the word "accuracy" had been substituted for the word "neutrality," the amount of controversy and disagreement might have been significantly less. To me those two terms, in the context of an audio system, mean essentially the same thing. 12-02-09 Me: 'Accuracy' is a SECOND-ORDER CONCEPT that includes both 'resolution' and neutrality.' …NEUTRALITY: The degree to which a component or system is free from coloration. 12-02-09 Almarg: Bryon, that all strikes me as brilliantly conceived and brilliantly expressed! 12-02-09 Me (summarizing Al) (i) The target of the concept of ‘accuracy’ is the RECORDING, whereas the target of the concept of ‘transparency’ is the MUSICAL EVENT that the recording represents…In some cases, sacrificing some accuracy (to the recording) may increase transparency (to the musical event). 12-02-09 Almarg: Bryon, yes that is an excellent restatement of what I was trying to express. 12-05-09 Me: Colorations are additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music…Do these phenomena exist? If they do, then neutrality exists, as it has been defined on this thread, namely, THE (DEGREE OF) ABSENCE OF COLORATION. 12-05-09 Almarg: …neutrality represents the degree to which coloration is absent. 12-06-09 Cbw723: …the thing being debated is how one judges the relative neutrality of one's playback system. The neutrality of a playback system has been defined as the degree of the absence of coloration added by that playback system. If "DoN" is the degree of neutrality of a playback system, and "DoC" is the degree of coloration of a playback system, then (DoN = 1 / DoC) is the assumption of this thread as stated by Bryon. If you believe that playback systems can add more or less coloration to a system, then you implicitly believe that a system can be more or less neutral, as defined here, whether you believe you believe that or not. 12-06-09 Almarg: It has been said numerous times in numerous ways that the less colored (or more accurate or more neutral or more whatever comparable term you prefer) that the system is (including the room), the greater the likelihood that the presumably desirable colorations that were present in the original performance will be reproduced accurately… 12-06-09 Me: I agree with Cbw that it is logically inconsistent to believe in coloration and not believe in neutrality, AS COLORATION AND NEUTRALITY HAVE BEEN DEFINED IN THIS THREAD, namely: ‘Coloration’: Additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music. ‘Neutrality’: The degree of absence of coloration. 12-07-09 Cbw723: …neutrality, as used here (and in the audio world in general), is a relative term. A component may be either more or less neutral (which is exactly synonymous with saying that it may apply either less or more coloration to the source). It would seem an entirely uncontroversial assertion. 12-08-09 Dgarretson: The Objectivist defines neutrality as an absence of coloration… 12-11-09 Dgarretson: Eliminating an undesirable coloration is always progress toward neutrality. 12-12-09 Me: INNACCURACY: Alterations to the playback chain that eliminate, conceal, or corrupt information about the music.* …COLORATION: Inaccuracies audible as a non-random** sonic signature. 12-13-09 Dgarretson (quoting G. Holt) Neutral: Free from coloration. 12-14-09 Me: ACCURACY: 1. The relative amount of information about the music presented by a component or system, comparing output to input. 2. The degree of absence of inaccuracies …INACCURACY: An alteration to information in a component or system that eliminates, conceals, or corrupts information about the music. …NEUTRALITY: The degree of absence of coloration within a component or system….COLORATION: An inaccuracy audible as a non-random sonic signature. 12-27-09 Dgarretson: …my view is that analytic & sterile err at the opposite extreme of unresolving warmth. Both kinds of extremes are colorations and as such, represent deviations from neutrality. bc |
Thanks for the responses so far. One point of clarification. My original post was not intended to conceptually define 'neutral,' as one or two people suggested. It was intended to operationalize the term 'neutral.' This is not merely semantic, as I hope you will see...
DEFINING 'NEUTRAL'
The 2nd definition of 'neutral' in my desktop dictionary is: "having no strongly marked or positive characteristics or features." It is in this sense that the word is used, perhaps somewhat metaphorically, to describe a component that is free from coloration (another metaphor). So, a conceptual definition of 'neutral' for audio might be something like, 'free from coloration.'
Of course, no component is completely free from coloration, and some are more colored than others, which raises the question, relevant to audiophiles: HOW DO I KNOW if I'm choosing components that are less colored? In some cases it is obvious, but in many cases it is not (think: cables). In cases where it is not obvious, answering the question "HOW DO I KNOW which of these components is more neutral?" requires you to operationalize the term 'neutral,' which brings us to...
OPERATIONALIZING THE TERM 'NEUTRAL'
Operationalizing a term is a matter of identifying some observable conditions that reliably indicate the presence of a characteristic and determine its value (i.e. how much of it is there is). Blindjim was proposing a way to operationalize the term 'neutral' when he wrote:
"Bring into the room a guitar, symbols, clarinet, sax or trombone. Play ‘em. Then play your solo music pieces. That should help you determine how neutral your system is…"
I think that is a great way to operationalize the term 'neutral,' and it would be a highly informative test for any audio system. However, since it's not very feasible for many audiophiles, I proposed a more actionable way to operationalize the term 'neutral,' in terms of (1) the sonic uniqueness of individual pieces of music; and (2) the sonic diversity your collection of music.
I will be the first to admit that I am a bit of a terminological fetishist, but I don't think this topic is merely mental masturbation, for the following reason: These kinds of terms refer to the concepts that help us understand what we are hearing and why, and that is an essential step to choosing audio components that result in long term fulfillment. As I mentioned in the final postscript of my original post, the changes in my audio system that have resulted in greater neutrality (operationalized the way I proposed) are the very same changes that resulted in more musical enjoyment. |
Learsfool wrote:
"Music is not, and never should be "neutral." As a professional musician, the term has always been hilarious to me when applied in this context. No musician wants to sound "neutral," that's for sure!"
The term 'neutral' is not a description of the music. It is a description of the playback system and its components.
And:
"...no good engineer would start from some strange idea of "neutral," either. One of the reasons recording studios are so dead is because then the engineer can make the recording sound however he wants easier"
I think you are talking here about the engineers who record and rerecord (i.e. mix) music, and I quite agree with you about that. However, there are certainly engineers who think about neutrality, namely, the engineers who built the recording studio! In fact, neutrality is an essential consideration in any recording system. Otherwise, the mixes recorded on that system will not "translate" to other playback environments.
And:
"I agree with blindjim, there is no such thing as 'absolute neutrality'"
Agreed. I said this in my original post. However, it does not follow from the fact that there is no absolute neutrality that there are no differences in neutrality among systems and components.
And:
"I don't believe that "neutrality" should be a reference point. The reference point should be what you want the music to sound like, which for most of us is as close to "live" as we can get."
Isn't the way to make your system sound as close to the "live" event as possible by building a system with the least coloration? In other words, building the most neutral possible system? |
Learsfool - Excellent post. I don't think we are much closer to agreeing with each other, but I definitely understand and appreciate your point of view better now.
Your observations about recordings being colored is well taken. I have spent time in mixing stages and I know how much "coloration" is added to a typical recording. Neutrality is not a virtue in the recording studio. It is a virtue in the playback system. By having a playback system that is as neutral as possible, you will be closest to hearing WHAT WAS HEARD IN THE RECORDING STUDIO, and therefore you will be closest to hearing the INTENTIONS OF THE ARTIST (and the intentions of the recording engineer, and the studio executive, and the studio executive's five year old child...but that is a lamentation for another day). The point is that what makes for good recording (namely, coloration) and what makes for good playback (namely, neutrality) are different, and often opposite.
Learsfool wrote:
"However, I must repeat that there is no such thing as absolute neutrality."
I agree with this, if it means: No component or system is perfectly neutral. I disagree with this, if it means: There is nothing against which we can measure the neutrality of a component or system. Which brings me to...
Newbee - I wasn't suggesting that audiophiles should be "objective." An Objectivist is not someone who is objective. An Objectivist is someone who believes that there is such a thing as truth. An Objectivist, with respect to sonic neutrality, therefore, is a person who believes that components and systems can be evaluated as to their "truthfulness." Sometimes you hear that expressed in terms of "what is on the recording." Other times you hear that expressed in terms of the real-world event that the recording captured. I would express it in terms of what was heard in the recording studio when the artist and engineer leaned back in their chairs and said, "We're done. Let's take a listen." Of course, we can't compare our systems to what they heard without a time machine, but I don't think that means we must abandon the idea of neutrality (now: truthfulness) in a playback system. It means we must find other ways to determine the neutrality of a playback system, which is precisely why, I believe, we need to operationalize the term 'neutrality.' That was the goal in my original post.
To put another one of my cards on the table: I am an Objectivist, in the sense above, with respect to sonic neutrality. That is to say, I believe that some components and systems reproduce recordings more truthfully than others.
As to the doubt, expressed by several posters, that neutrality is a vital consideration in assembling a satisfying music system, I am actually somewhat agnostic. In my (admittedly limited) experiences, the changes to my system that resulted in greater neutrality (now: truthfulness) were the same changes that resulted in more musical enjoyment for me. But I am open to the idea that this was just an accident of my personal upgrade history. |
Learsfool wrote:
"You posted that you want to hear as close as possible to what is heard in the recording studio. My point about the actual recording studios is that you would NEVER want to do this. Recording studios are not designed for listening to music - they are extremely dead, with none of the reverberance or other positive sound characteristics of an actual live music venue."
Yes, I am aware that recording studios are extremely dead, having spent some time in them (not as the artist, but as the recording engineer. No, I do not do this for a living).
My point was not that I want to hear what it sounded like in the acoustically dead studio recording room with the musician. Nor do I want to hear what it sounded like in the control booth, recording that musician. I want to hear what it sounded like in the mastering stage/suite/room, when the music is fully mixed (i.e., level adjusted, channel placed, EQ'd, reverbed, etc.).
I know that, often, the artists themselves have little say over what they sound like (hence my joke about the studio executive's child having "notes" for the recording engineer). This is true of rock and pop music more than any other genre, but I have no doubt that similarly depressing realities affect many other types of recordings. But these facts about the recording industry do not mean we cannot strive to build an audio system that faithfully reproduces, to the extent that is possible, what was heard IN THE FINAL MIX.
Newbee wrote:
"But in my view 'neutrality' really doesn't and cannot exist because it is a term like life or death, neutrality is an absolute thing. There is no room for equivication. It is either neutral or it isn't. Like being pregnant! No halfway measures."
I have a hard time understanding this point of view. 'Neutrality,' in the way we've been discussing it, is a way of talking about freedom from coloration. Is that really an all or nothing thing? Can we not agree that, however different our systems may sound from one another, they are all less colored than a boombox? And isn't admitting those kinds of comparisons an acknowledgement that neutrality is a matter of degree? I believe that neutrality is a continuum, like virtually ever other measure of quality in audio, whether objective or subjective. |
Newbee wrote:
"Using the term neutrality as a goal is, for me, no different that using the phrase absolute sound, i.e. live music (thanks to Harry Pearson). It is unachievable and serves no really purpose other than to put consumers on an endless (and expensive) pursuit (goal) of the achieving the impossible. It works well for folks with commercial interests though."
I have no commercial interests of any kind in the audio industry. I don't even know anyone who has a commercial interest in the audio industry.
In addition, I don't see how treating neutrality as a virtue in an audio system is any more likely to lead to equipment addiction than treating resolution, transparency, dynamics, imaging, etc. as a virtue. Any one of these characteristics can be fetishized, if a person is so inclined. I do not believe that I have fetishized neutrality in this thread. In fact, in my original post, I wrote:
"I’m not suggesting that neutrality is the most important goal in building an audio system..."
In a subsequent post, I wrote:
"As to the doubt, expressed by several posters, that neutrality is a vital consideration in assembling a satisfying music system, I am actually somewhat agnostic."
As I believe is obvious from these comments, I do not think that neutrality is of paramount important, of exclusive importance, or of essential importance. In my view, it is simply one goal among many. That is the view I have expressed throughout this thread. To suggest otherwise is to make a straw man of me. |
Learsfool wrote:
"I can tell you that no two of us would agree on what this "neutrality" would sound like."
I agree with this. But I do not conclude from it, as many of the posters seem to, that neutrality is either (1) unreal, or (2) unknowable.
Learsfool wrote:
"Every piece of equipment, every system, every recording, has what you are calling 'coloration.'"
I agree with this. But I do not conclude from it that every piece of equipment, every system, or every recording is EQUALLY colored.
Learsfool wrote:
"I would be fascinated to hear you try to describe what this "neutrality" goal of yours would actually sound like..."
That is precisely what I tried to do in the original post, namely, to describe something that is, admittedly, very difficult to describe. My description was:
"(1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique.
(2) Your music collection sounds more diverse."
Learsfool wrote:
"What you are really trying to define, ultimately, is your own sonic ideal."
No. In my original post, I wrote:
"I’m not suggesting that neutrality is the most important goal in building an audio system..."
In a subsequent post, I wrote:
"As to the doubt, expressed by several posters, that neutrality is a vital consideration in assembling a satisfying music system, I am actually somewhat agnostic."
In my very last post, I wrote:
"I do not think that neutrality is of paramount important, of exclusive importance, or of essential importance."
So, for the fourth time: In my view, neutrality is one virtue AMONG MANY in an audio system. My intention in starting this thread was to propose a way to develop that particular virtue, not to suggest that it is the virtue to be valued above all others. |
I started this thread with a proposal about how to identify neutrality in an audio system. The thread has become largely a debate about (1) the existence of neutrality; and (2) the value of neutrality. Several of the posters who deny the existence or value of neutrality have contrasted it with the existence and value of resolution and transparency. In light of that, I have a new proposal, one that addresses both the existence and value of neutrality. Here it is:
RESOLUTION + NEUTRALITY = TRANSPARENCY
Let’s define some terms:
RESOLUTION: The amount of information presented by a component or system. In a digital component, for example, resolution is measured by bit depth and sampling rate. But I take it that it is uncontroversial that every major component of an audio system, and the system as a whole, can be evaluated as to its resolution, whether that can be measured or not. Resolution is, of course, a matter of degree.
NEUTRALITY: The degree to which a component or system is free from coloration. Once again, this does NOT refer to coloration in the recording, but only to coloration introduced by the playback system. I have argued above that neutrality, like resolution, is a matter of degree.
TRANSPARENCY: The degree to which a component or system is sonically “invisible.” Transparency is a visual metaphor for something that is not visual. As the metaphor is used by audiophiles, a component or a system is transparent when it allows the listener to “see through” itself and perceive the recording, the event, or the music. Transparency, thus understood, is also a matter of degree.
The current proposal is that, as the resolution and neutrality of a component or system increases, so does its transparency. This can be understood in terms of four prototypical systems:
LOW RESOLUTION, LOW NEUTRALITY:
This system lacks detail and it makes everything sound the same. Think: A boombox.
HIGH RESOLUTION, LOW NEUTRALITY:
This system has lots of detail, but there is a certain “sameness” to everything played through it. It always sounds like THAT system.
LOW RESOLUTION, HIGH NEUTRALITY:
This system lacks a certain amount of information or detail, but it is a chameleon. It’s hard to pin down what the system sounds like, since it sounds different on every recording.
HIGH RESOLUTION, HIGH NEUTRALITY:
This system provides the information missing from the last system, while also being a sonic chameleon. It has a high level of detail within a recording, but also a high level of variety across different recordings. It's easy to get lost in the music when listening to this system, since the system itself never seems to “get in the way.” Of the four systems, this is the most TRANSPARENT.
These hypothetical systems are merely prototypes, in the sense that they describe categories whose members are (1) joined by resemblance, and (2) differentiated by degree.
I hope that this proposal illustrates the value of neutrality, insofar as it links neutrality to other sonic characteristics - resolution and transparency - that are valued by the the detractors of neutrality.
Fire away! |
Al - You have stated exactly the intention of my original post. And yes, my name is Bryon, not Byron. It's a strange spelling of Bryan.
Cbw723 wrote:
"Couldn't a system have a high degree of both neutrality and resolution, but have fuzzy image focus? "
I doubt this. I think any highly resolving system is also a system that images well.
Newbee - Your last post puzzles me. In it, you wrote:
"When you have an audio system that is highly resolved and highly neutral/transparent etc, as you describe, you will hear all of the warts in the recording process including mic placement, edits, mixing, instrument highlighting, etc. None of which is natural to a live performance..."
But, in your first post on this thread, you wrote:
"IMHO, a systems resolution, i.e. its ability TO RESOLVE AND PRESENT ALL OF THE INFORMATION IN THE RECORDING in a balanced manner, linear if you will, combined with an overall tone that pleases you is all that counts." [emphasis added]
These two statements appear contradictory. Similarly, in your last post, you wrote:
"If your interest is in sound and audio recording practices your optomized system is fine. You will hear all that is in the pits and grooves. But that does not cause ME to become absorbed in the MUSIC..." [emphasis original]
But in your first post, you wrote:
"There is no recorded performance that will ever sound like a live event...So what are we left with? 'Resolution' so we can hear ALL THAT IS IN THE PITS AND GROOVES' and tonality that pleases our ears and expectations." [emphasis added]
These two statements also appear contradictory. |
Dgarretson - Great post. Some thoughts... It would be complicated for non-audiophiles to judge neutrality or any other metric of high quality playback...The general population-- widely exposed to norms of Ipod and boom box listening-- has insurmountable biases against neutrality. I agree with this. I wasn't trying to suggest that a laymen's naive judgment about neutrality would be valuable. It would not be. I was trying to suggest that a layman's naive judgment about how different high resolution systems sound from one another would be valuable. I think the laymen would hear fewer differences than the audiophile, and as a result, judge those systems to be more similar than the audiophile does. This was a way of making the point that perhaps audiophiles exaggerate the differences among high resolution systems, as, for example, when they describe them as "completely and totally different." No doubt differences exist, and they are something audiophiles are passionate about. But my (admittedly optimistic) view is that there is more potential for common ground than some audiophiles suggest. I quite agree with you, though, that "consensus" is not often achieved. Personally I agree with Bryon that resolving, neutral, and transparent are three of the best audiophile adjectives. But allowing even for wide disagreement among audiophiles regarding the meaning and significance of these descriptors, his three are in the final analysis somewhat static. They fail to account for time-domain factors like microdynamics, macrodynamics, pitch, timbre, and of course timing itself. I agree completely that any concept of transparency must include time domain characteristics. I am inclined to think of time domain characteristics, like micro- and macrodynamics, as part of resolution. And I am inclined to think of correct pitch and timbre as part of neutrality. But now I really am being semantic. So on to more important matters... The more technical improvements poured into each down unrelated analog & digital paths, the closer they converge on the same sound. And this convergence may be as good a demonstration of neutrality as any other. This idea is fascinating. You mentioned it in your first post in this thread and, although no one ran with it, it stuck with me. I wonder how other posters feel about it... |
Learsfool - Your last post contains many interesting and valid observations, IMO. But I disagree with the following argument: The answer I would make to your question in your last post is that I believe there is no such thing as a neutral audio system, nor could there be. Every piece of audio equipment is "colored"...Hence, why I think that "neutrality" is a useless concept. As far as your observation that "every piece of audio equipment is colored," I am in complete agreement, as I have said many times throughout this thread, including in the original post, where I wrote: "I don't believe a system's signature can be reduced to zero." What I disagree with is (1) your conclusion that neutrality is a "useless concept" and (2) your reasoning to that conclusion. First your reasoning: It does not follow from the fact that every component is colored that every component is EQUALLY colored. The existence of differences in coloration was a point illustrated by Al's (intentionally extreme) example of the differences between a $300 boombox and any $50K system. The idea was that no one would deny that differences in neutrality exist between those two systems. Maybe you would deny that. Or maybe your view is that, once you achieve a certain (fairly low) level of fidelity, there are no longer differences in neutrality. My own view is that differences in neutrality persist into quite expensive systems, including $50K systems. As far as your conclusion that neutrality is a "useless concept" because "every piece of audio equipment is colored," I would say: Is 'water purity' a useless concept because every water source is contaminated? Certainly not. The whole point of the concept of water purity is to (1) identify the contaminants; (2) determine which are the most harmful; and (3) remove them, to the extent that it is technologically and economically feasible. That is exactly the same thing I would say about coloration and neutrality. Yes, every component is colored, just as all water sources are contaminated. But not every component is equally colored, just as not all water sources are equally contaminated. And the recognition that every component is colored does not motivate the conclusion that neutrality is useless concept any more than recognizing that all water sources are contaminated motivates the conclusion that water purity is a useless concept. Instead, I believe it should motivate an effort to (1) identify the colorations; (2) determine which are the most harmful; and (3) remove them, to the extent that it is technologically and economically feasible. |
Learsfool wrote: With water, although all sources are indeed contaminated, we can identify the definite impurities, and there is no debate on the subject, because science call tell us what truly pure water would be like...This is certainly not the case with a piece of audio equipment. I disagree that we cannot identify definite colorations in audio components (the analogue of the "definite impurities" in the water analogy). I believe there are uncontroversial examples of coloration in audio equipment. I mentioned one earlier in this thread: Intermodulation distortion. As you no doubt know, when two frequencies are fed into the input of an amplifier, the sum and the difference of those two signals will appear at the amplifier's output. So if a 1K and a 10K signal are fed into the input, an 11K (the sum) and a 9K (the difference) signal will appear at the output. That is a coloration of the original signal. And since intermodulation distortion is harmonically unrelated to the input frequencies, it is not a euphonic coloration. The art of identifying and removing colorations from audio equipment may not be as advanced as the science of removing contaminants from water supplies, but the idea that colorations in audio components are unobservable and unmeasurable is, I believe, an exaggeration of the limitations of audio design. Learsfool wrote: There is no way to know what this "neutrality" would be/sound like, since there is no single "absolute sound" to measure your "neutrality" with/against. I agree that there is no "absolute sound" against which we can evaluate a system’s neutrality. But that does not mean we are left with nothing with which to evaluate neutrality. What we are left with are INDICES OF NEUTRALITY, i.e., characteristics that covary with neutrality. These indices might include measurements of variables we know to be colorations, like intermodulation distortion. (BTW, I do NOT have the view that you can judge a component by its specs alone). Other indices of neutrality might include one or more of the attempts to operationalize neutrality contained in this thread. Incidentally, the inaccessibility of the “absolute sound” in audio is precisely analogous to the inaccessibility of “absolute reality” in science. There is no "absolute reality," accessible to human beings, against which we can evaluate the truth of theories. But that does not mean we must abandon the concept of ‘truth,’ since theories can be evaluated by INDICES OF TRUTH like coherence, explanatory and predictive power, and intertheoretic corroboration. These characteristics covary with truth, and so they are the measure of the truthfulness of scientific theories. In my view, the case is almost exactly the same with judging neutrality. There is no "absolute sound," accessible to the audiophile, against which we can evaluate the neutrality of a system. But that does not mean we must abandon the concept of ‘neutrality,’ since systems can be evaluated by INDICES OF NEUTRALITY. My original post is a proposal about one possible index of 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. |
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 |
Cbw’s EQ challenge to my operationalization of ‘neutrality’ is a good one. Here is my understanding of it:
If you were to give a unique EQ to every track in your music collection, then you would meet the conditions of my operationalization, namely:
(1) Individual pieces of music would sound more unique.
(2) Your music collection would sound more diverse.
By meeting the conditions of my operationalization, we would have to conclude that the system was moving in the direction of greater neutrality, in the sense of freedom from coloration. However, there is reason to doubt that, since the use of EQ can easily change recordings so that they are MORE colored (what Cbw is calling “excess contrast”). And MORE colored means LESS neutral. Hence the use of track-specific EQ seems like it defeats my operationalization, since it meets conditions (1) and (2) while resulting is less neutrality.
I think Al’s solution to Cbw’s EQ challenge is valid. My operationalization is not defeated by the EQ challenge IF you interpret the use of track-specific EQ as resulting in many different “virtual” systems. That is because my operationalization is a method for evaluating neutrality WITHIN A SINGLE SYSTEM, not across multiple systems. If this feels like my operationalization is being saved by a technicality, then I agree with you. To make matters worse for me, I think the following is a valid reply to Al’s solution…
The use of track-specific EQ results in NEW RECORDINGS, not MANY DIFFERENT "VIRTUAL" SYSTEMS.
An EQ setting A, when applied to all the tracks played through a system, is obviously a characteristic of THE SYSTEM. But if you have a unique EQ setting (A, B, C…n) for every track played back through the system, it is less clear what whether the EQ settings are characteristics of THE SYSTEM or characteristics of NEW RECORDINGS YOU HAVE CREATED. Here are the two interpretations of the use of track-specific EQ:
(1) Original recordings with many different “virtual” systems.
(2) New recordings with a single, constant system.
Under interpretation (1), my operationalization of neutrality is saved from Cbw’s EQ challenge by Al’s solution. Under interpretation (2), what happens to my operationalization?
It is saved by another technicality. Under interpretation (2), the coloration is part of the RECORDING, not of the SYSTEM. And coloration in the recording does not impugn the neutrality of the SYSTEM, however undesirable the resulting sound might be.
So, in my view, Cbw’s EQ challenge fails to defeat my operationalization of 'neutrality.' The problem is: I keep thinking there is something in the spirit of his challenge that remains valid, something having to do with the need for a LIMITING CONDITION in the operationalization. Now I will have to do more mulling… |
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. |
Dgarretson wrote: ...movement toward neutrality implies a more organized presentation. The notion of ORGANIZATION is not far removed from Bryon’s notion of distinctness...One aspect of an organized presentation is that dynamics are more precisely expressed through instrument bodies. Absent this natural sense of embodiment, dynamics tend to travel on their own envelop apart from instruments. This seeming dislocation of dynamics from instruments can be a bumpy & disorganized ride. In contrast, with NATURAL EMBODIMENT there is a sense of heightened control and containment of dynamics within the three dimensional boundaries of instruments. This is a very interesting observation. I have never seen someone point this phenomenon out before, but it is consistent with my own experiences. As things have improved in my own system, I have noticed that dynamics are embodied in instruments rather than being "superimposed" on top of the whole sound field. The result is a more lifelike presentation. It is a very hard thing to describe. I am not exactly sure how it relates to neutrality, though. I would have been more inclined to think of this change as an improvement imaging or in resolution. Can you say a little more about your view on the link between this phenomenon and neutrality? |
Dgarretson – Thanks for clarifying your view on “embodiment.” It is a fascinating topic in its own right. I agree with you that a taxonomy of colorations would be very useful in these discussions. I will spend some time thinking about possible taxonomic schemes. BTW, you are one of funniest posters I’ve seen on A’gon. Cbw wrote: Consider the information in the source (the music) to have some amount of entropy, X. (Interestingly, and perhaps helpfully, X will be a measure of how much the source can be compressed without loss.) The colorations/distortions are processes that reduce that entropy. Why? Because those processes are predictable. This is not to say they are fixed, or constant (we’ve discussed processes that are frequency dependent, for example), but they are predictable in that their effect on a signal may be known. And because they conceal/corrupt/eliminate some source information and replace it with predictable information, they reduce (at output) the original entropy of the source to something less than X. Let me first say: This is impressive. I think it offers a very plausible theory for the effects of neutrality specified in my operationalization, namely, distinctness and diversity. Given your theory, here are some things I believe you would agree to: (1) Decreasing entropy = Increasing predictability. (2) Increasing predictability = Increasing coloration. (3) Increasing coloration = Decreasing neutrality. .....Therefore: (4) Decreasing entropy = Decreasing neutrality. .....And also: (5) Preservation of entropy = Preservation of neutrality. Is this correct? |
Learsfool – I appreciate your thanks and I’m grateful for your participation. Though our points of view never converged, I learned a lot from our debate along the way. Your final comments about training the ear, which I think of as training the brain, are well taken. Although we didn’t discuss it much in this thread, the ear/brain is probably the most important “component” in the system.
Cbw – I have given some thought to your suggestions for revising the working definition of ‘inaccuracy.’ Here is what I came up with:
INACCURACY: An alteration to information in a component or system that eliminates, conceals, or corrupts information about the music.
Defining 'inaccuracy' in this way raises the question: How does this new concept of 'inaccuracy' relate to the concepts of 'accuracy,' 'neutrality,' and ‘resolution’? I would like to offer a new proposal about the relations among these concepts. To begin with some definitions:
ACCURACY: 1. The relative amount of information about the music presented by a component or system, comparing output to input. 2. The degree of absence of inaccuracies.
INACCURACY: An alteration to information in a component or system that eliminates, conceals, or corrupts information about the music.
NEUTRALITY: The degree of absence of coloration within a component or system.
COLORATION: An inaccuracy audible as a non-random sonic signature.
RESOLUTION: The absolute limit of information about the music that a component or system can present.
These concepts form some of the basic units of a set of equations that express the relations among accuracy, neutrality, and resolution:
1. CA = (1/L+N+D)
2. CN = (1/DoC)
3. CR = CA + FR
4. SA = SoCA
5. SN = SoCN
6. SR = SA + FR
Where…
CA = Component Accuracy
CN = Component Neutrality
CR = Component Resolution
SA = System Accuracy
SN = System Neutrality
SR = System Resolution
FR = Format Resolution
L = Loss
N = Noise
D = Distortion
So = “Sum of”
Do = “Degree of”
Taking them one at a time…
1. CA = (1/L+N+D). A COMPONENT’S ACCURACY is determined by the amount of loss, noise, and distortion within the component. More specifically, a component's accuracy is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to its loss, noise, and distortion. The other way of saying the same thing: A component's inaccuracy is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to its loss (the elimination of information), noise (the concealment of information), and distortion (the corruption of information).
2. CN = (1/DoC). A COMPONENT’S NEUTRALITY is determined by its degree of coloration. More specifically, a component's neutrality is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to its degree of coloration. This equation was proposed by Cbw in an earlier post.
3. CR = CA + FR. A COMPONENT’S RESOLUTION is determined by the accuracy of the component and the format resolution of the source. Specifically, a component's resolution is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to its accuracy and the format resolution.
4. SA = SoCA. A SYSTEM’S ACCURACY is determined by the sum of its components’ accuracy. Specifically, they are DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL.
5. SN = SoCN. A SYSTEM’S NEUTRALITY is determined by the sum of its components’ neutrality. Specifically, they are DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL.
6. SR = SA + FR. A SYSTEM’S RESOLUTION is determined by the system's accuracy and the format resolution of the source. Specifically, a system's resolution is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to its accuracy and the format resolution.
I'm not really proposing a deep mathematical relationship among these concepts. The equations are more of a mathematical analogy for describing the logical and conceptual relations among these categories. |
When I began this thread, I advocated a strict kind of Objectivism regarding coloration and neutrality. That is to say, I argued that coloration and neutrality are characteristics that are INDPENDENT OF PERSONS. In my second post on 12/12, I relaxed my position somewhat, by defining colorations as “audible inaccuracies.” If colorations are “audible,” I conceded, then their existence is DEPENDENT UPON PERSONS. In that sense, I believe that…
(1) Colorations are SUBJECTIVE characteristics.
To say that colorations are subjective characteristics is to say that their existence is DEPENDENT UPON PERSONS. For example, one person may hear distortion when another person does not, which seems true enough. In cases where two people disagree about the presence of a coloration, a Subjectivist might conclude either…
(a) There is no fact of the matter about whether the coloration in question exists.
…or…
(b) The coloration in question exists for one person but not for the other.
I believe that (b) is correct. In other words, in cases of intersubjective disagreement, a coloration exists for one person but not for another. Put another way, the existence of a coloration is, to some extent, IN THE EAR OF THE BEHOLDER. I say “to some extent” because, to a complementary extent, colorations are also IN THE WORLD, as I will now try to show…
Recall that I defined colorations as “audible inaccuracies.” By defining colorations as “audible,” I have acknowledged that they are SUBJECTIVE. But by defining colorations as “inaccuracies,” I have subsumed colorations under a larger category of characteristics that are OBJECTIVE, namely, inaccuracies. In other words, I believe that…
(2) Inaccuracies are OBJECTIVE characteristics.
In a previous post, I defined inaccuracies as: Alterations to information in the playback system that conceal, corrupt, or eliminate information about the music. To say that inaccuracies are objective is to say that their existence is INDEPENDENT OF PERSONS. For example, jitter may exist in a playback system even if no one can hear it. The existence of jitter is therefore independent of persons, or objective. Likewise for other inaccuracies.
Taking (1) and (2) together, we get:
(1) Colorations are SUBJECTIVE characteristics.
(2) Inaccuracies are OBJECTIVE characteristics.
This raises the following question: What is the relation between colorations, as subjective characteristics, and inaccuracies, as objective characteristics? The answer, I believe, is that…
(3) Colorations CORRELATE with inaccuracies for expert listeners.
In my view, as a person develops expert perception with respect to the playback of recorded music, inaccuracies become more audible. Put another way, as listener expertise increases, the perceptibility of colorations increases. For this reason, the expert listener will hear far more colorations than the naïve listener.
In light of this, colorations are clues that help the audiophile understand his system. By correlating with inaccuracies, colorations enable the audiophile to use his ears to identify how information about the music has been concealed, corrupted, or eliminated by his system. And colorations empower the audiophile to make informed changes to his system when the inaccuracies those colorations reveal are inconsistent with his preferences. |
Learsfool - I am aware of the extent to which recording, editing, and mixing techniques are employed in music recording, particularly popular music recording. I am also aware of the fact that many of these techniques are standard practice in classical and jazz recordings. But I do not see that these realities eliminate the possibility of evaluating a recording's truthfulness, i.e., its transparency to a real musical event, so long as transparency is understood as being an APPROXIMATION. The transparency of a recording is an approximation TO THE EXTENT THAT: (1) The recording is incomplete or imperfect. (2) The event is not real. RE: (1). Of course, all recordings are incomplete and imperfect, but they are not all EQUALLY incomplete or imperfect. Some are much more incomplete or imperfect than others. Recordings delivered on low resolution formats like MP3, for example, are much more incomplete than recordings delivered on high resolution formats like SACD. Recordings that inadvertently encode gross distortions (e.g., overmodulation distortion, jitter, phase errors) into the signal during the recording process, for example, are much more imperfect than those that do not. RE: (2). As you point out, very few (or perhaps no) recordings are FULLY real, since nearly all recordings involve at least some editing and mixing techniques. So nearly all (or possibly all) recordings are, to some extent, virtual. But they are not all EQUALLY virtual. Some are much more virtual than others. Recordings that make liberal use of recording, editing, and mixing techniques are more virtual than recordings that use those techniques sparingly. This is a common difference between popular music and some audiophile classical recordings, for example. I freely admit that even audiophile classical recordings are, to some extent, virtual. But they seem to me to be, on average, considerably less virtual than most popular music. The point I am making is that, even if we agree that ALL recordings are to some extent virtual, it does not follow, and it is not true, that all recordings are EQUALLY virtual. In other words, some recordings are more real than others, even if no recording is COMPLETELY real. I made this point in a slightly different way in my post on 1/18: Music recordings can be thought of on a continuum according to how REAL or VIRTUAL the event is that the recording represents...At one end of the continuum is a music recording that represents a musical event that is MAXIMALLY REAL...At the other end of the continuum is a music recording that represents a musical event that is MAXIMALLY VIRTUAL...In the middle of the continuum is where the vast majority of music lies... By locating recordings on a CONTINUUM between the (admittedly idealized) extremes of representing fully real and fully virtual musical events, I tried to highlight the fact that important differences exist in the degree to which a recording can be evaluated in terms of its truthfulness, that is, its transparency to a real musical event. And if that is true, I believe, then the attitude of Objectivism is more warranted the more a recording represents a REAL-ISH event, while the attitude of Subjectivism is more warranted the more a recording represents a VIRTUAL-ISH event. |
i admit that you can measure frequency response of a stereo system, which while an incomplete measurement of accuracy, may be sufficient for most purposes. As you no doubt know, there are many other measurements relevant to accuracy besides frequency response, such as: Impulse response, harmonic distortion, intermodulation distortion, transient intermodulation distortion, signal to noise, crosstalk, jitter...the list goes on. Each of these is a measurement of how a component's output differs from its input, which is, by definition, inaccuracy. Hence there are many measurements relevant to an assessment of a component's accuracy. if each component in a stereo system were accurate, there could still be impedance mismatches, and the affects of long cables upon frequency response as well as other unintended consequences. Agreed. A collection of accurate components does not guarantee an accurate system, since interactions among components can diminish the system's accuracy. Having said that, I believe that a collection of accurate components is more likely to result in an accurate system than a collection of components chosen for their "counterbalancing" colorations. Of course, many audiophiles value musicality or some other characteristic more than accuracy, as this thread has illustrated. Bryon |
05-12-11: Mrtennis
since all components are imperfect, a thorough audition will reveal some flaw or consistent sonic signature.
if there exists a component which is "virtually" neutral, i.e., does not reveal any flaws, i would like to know about it. Not a single person on this thread, which is now up to 353 posts, has suggested that there is any such thing as a perfectly neutral component. You should know that as well as anyone, Mrtennis, since you have been one of this thread's regular participants. You are attacking a straw man. For those who have not read this thread, a glance at the OP would reveal my view on the subject... P.P.S. I don’t believe a system’s signature can be reduced to zero. That view was discussed at length in MANY subsequent posts. And no one is suggesting that people should buy speakers on the basis of neutrality or measurements. A glance at the OP would clear that up as well... P.P.P.S. I’m not suggesting that neutrality is the most important goal in building an audio system... Or my post from yesterday... People should choose components according to their own preferences, not someone else's. That is another straw man. Bryon |
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 |
I would still like to hear from someone with the appropriate credentials regarding the proper use of these words in ordinary language...
I believe that 'English majors', especially those who have gone on to teach in our schools, are perfectly qualified to offer advise of the proper use of words. Your repeated calls for someone to definitively answer the question of how to define the terms 'neutrality' and 'accuracy' is odd to me. Who do you think is going to answer? If it is "those who have gone on to teach in our schools," why would their answer have any special authority to you? I have taught at the university level. Are those "appropriate credentials"? I am a writer by occupation. Does that make me more qualified? I studied the philosophy of language in the course of my Ph.D.. Does that make my opinion more valid to you? I suspect the answer to these questions is no. Because I suspect that your appeal to authority is not really in earnest. And if it is in earnest, and you really are looking for an "authoritative" answer to the common usage of the term 'accuracy', then look no further than a dictionary, as Mrtennis suggested. There you will find multiple definitions that confirm that the use of the word 'accuracy' in terms of degree is a FACT of the English language. People are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. bc |
