How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Just because I am in a contrary mood tonight, I can't resist pointing out that this goes against any reasonable definition of the word neutral (making things sound more distinct from each other, I mean). I have always thought that this is the silliest of the many silly terms batted around to describe sound. Someone should really come up with a better term for that phenomena.

Nice posts again, guys! Vandermeulen, you make my main point much more simply than I did - everyone must decide for themselves through experience what they want their system to sound like.

However, I must repeat that there is no such thing as absolute neutrality. Any piece of audio equipment is going to contribute some "coloration." By way of explanation, let me go back to the recording studio example. These are almost always rooms that are almost completely dead. This is not because the engineer is trying to emulate some sort of absolute neutrality, as someone suggested. In fact, it is for the completely opposite reason - so the engineer can play with the recording and make it sound exactly how he wants it to via instrument placement, miking, mixing, and almost always the addition of digital effects that do not actually exist in the music being recorded. In other words, the engineer is eliminating what he calls "room noise" as much as possible and putting his own "coloration" onto the recording. And every single engineer will have a completely different idea of what this ideal "coloration" is, just as every acoustician will have a different idea of what an ideal concert hall should sound like.

Same thing with designers of audio equipment. They all have a very specific idea of the sound they are looking for when they start out, otherwise what the heck is the point?! They are trying to create something that sounds like their ideal, and every one of them will have a slightly different conception of it. This is what creates "system-induced coloration," as someone put it.

So in the end, Cbw723 is correct, I think - it doesn't really matter exactly how one defines these terms, as everyone is going to have a slightly different conception of them, and their own set of preferences. One can only decide what one's own ideal is for a piece of equipment (and how it matches up with other pieces of equipment in the system, of course) by experience. Someone who listens to almost entirely electronically-produced music is almost certainly going to have a very different opinion about all types of equipment to someone who listens almost exclusively to acoustic instruments, for instance. As for the question "is there a way to know if I'm hearing the music better, or just my system," I reply that again there are no absolutes here. Even assuming you are referencing live music (which not all audiophiles do - some of them, for various reasons, do not want their systems to sound anything like live music), there are many different types of venues and sounds, so your ideal may be very different from mine. That's another reason why there are so many different types of audio equipment out there - there are many different tastes, and no one of them is inherently right or wrong. It depends on what your sonic priorities are, and only you can determine that, through experience listening to different types of equipment and systems, always referencing this to your ideal of what live music should sound like, realizing that your system can never really recreate this.

Speaking of trying to recreate the live event, I should add, Byron, that no, I don't agree that the "least amount of coloration" will result in the closest thing to live music, necessarily - in fact, many (though of course not all) systems I have heard described as neutral actually sounded lifeless, without any sense of space, color, ambience, etc. - nothing like live music. My point is that just as all live music is "colored", so is all reproduced music - one must choose the type of "coloration" one wants in one's system. If any ten audiophiles assemble a system that they consider very close to whatever their conception of "neutrality" is, I guarantee you will have ten completely different sounding systems.

Again, great posts everyone! I have to agree with Newbee overall, especially his line "What makes you assess the resulting sound as neutral is nothing more than the free use of your imagination." I also agree that "natural" would be a better term. I don't believe that there is any such thing as freedom from what we are calling "coloration" in an audio component or system. I also don't believe that this is necessarily a bad thing. I don't believe that all of what we call distortions are necessarily bad, either (nor that it is possible for there to be zero distortion in an audio component or system). Live music has plenty of both of these elements. If it didn't, it would sound, well, unnatural.

Very interesting discussions, guys! Bryon, I think you do misunderstand my position after all. Basically, I do not believe that "neutrality" can possibly exist at all, whether we are talking about a single piece of equipment, the entire system as per your definition, or in live music; and, as Kijanki says, I seriously doubt anyone would think it a virtue if it did. I am not trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good - I don't believe there is a perfect.

Some other thoughts - Bryon wrote "The success of room correction relies on the technology involved and how it is implemented." This completely ignores the human ears setting up and/or listening to the result of the technology (not to mention the designer of the technology). The dealer who set up one room correction system I heard clearly thought he had done everything correctly, and he thought the result sounded just fine, yet the result sounded awful to most he played it for, worse than before the correction. I have heard others that made a huge positive difference.

As far as Bryon's characteristics of a good playback system vs. characteristics of good musical playback, I completely agree that these are not the same thing. Every playback system is different, and two completely different systems can both result in good musical playback. This seems obvious. Where we differ is I don't think either has anything to do with "neutrality."

Bryon wrote "A neutral room will make it easier to achieve a neutral system." There is no such thing as a neutral room. As I said in a previous post, the closest thing might be a recording studio. But the purpose of recording studios is NOT to make things somehow "neutral." In fact, as I said before, it is for the exact opposite purpose - removing as many characteristics of the room noise as possible allows the sound engineer as much leeway as possible to create the sound that he wants - to create the sound color of the engineer's personal choice. This also goes along with what I said before about designers of audio equipment - they are not striving for some sort of "neutrality." They are aiming at their personal ideal of what the sound should be.

Bryon wrote "It seems to me that the value of an audiophile developing expert perception of the playback of recorded music is self-evident." Again, I don't think there is any disagreement here. The disagreement is over whether "neutrality" has anything to do with it.

The bottom line here (going back to the OP) is that many of us feel that just because you change one piece of equipment in the system, making 1) individual pieces of music sound more unique, and 2) your music collection sound more diverse, this does not mean you have operationalized the term neutrality. It just means you have a better sounding system.

Let me give you an example, again going back to the OP. Assume a room with good qualities for music playback, and assume a very high quality music playback system (which this room is of course part of). Now, let us say you replace very high quality preamp A with very high quality preamp B, keeping everything else the same. How will you know which one is more "neutral"? I submit that you can't. But you can know which one makes the system sound better to you. And I would also guess that 100 audiophiles that listened to this comparison would probably split close to 50/50 on which one did sound better, and that there would be many different reasons why each made his choice. This is what Kijanki is driving at when he says "how do you know how it is supposed to sound?" There is no one answer to this question, which is where I think your "neutrality" concept/operationalization falls apart, despite your VERY good arguments - it requires that there is ultimately one answer. But thankfully, there is no black and white in music or music playback.

Fascinating discussion! Newbee, I agree with you 100%. Bryon, thanks for more clarification on your concept. I guess to summarize my objection about the use of the term "neutrality" - every person is going to have a totally different conception of it (to take just one example, someone who only listens to rock is going to have a completely different concept of what is a "coloration" than someone who only listens to small chamber music groups consisting of only acoustic instruments). Let's take Almarg's 50K system example. One could easily assemble several that would all sound really great yet completely and totally different. How could a group of people possibly agree on which one of them was the most "neutral?"

It seems to me that Samhar is on to something here. I believe that what you (Bryon) are describing as "neutrality" is actually your personal "reference point." If I can assume this, then the rest of your argument makes sense (though I do agree with what Newbee said about the false conclusion). In the above example of several 50K systems, though perhaps no one would agree on which one was the most "neutral," each person would have a very definite opinion on how close it was to their own personal "reference point." I personally would never describe my "reference point," or the sound of music, for that matter, as "neutral," so that's another reason I have a problem with that term. Maybe this is only a semantic issue, or "mental masturbation," as someone else put it, but going back to your original question again, I still say that there is no such thing as a system that does not contribute it's own "signature" or "coloration." And since everyone hears differently anyway (and has different sonic priorities), there is not much point to me to search for "neutrality." The "reference point" concept, however, I think has great value in your context for each individual.

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

Interesting posts, guys. First, the 50K systems example. I thought I had made it clear that I was also speaking of this level of system in my example. I do indeed maintain that even if heard in exactly the same space (easily done in a large dealer's biggest showroom, for example), that anyone, not just audiophiles, will hear significant differences between several different systems. I think the designers of the equipment in question would be appalled at the idea that someone couldn't. Frankly, I am baffled by the very idea that there should be eventual "convergence" - one of my favorite things to do is hear how different the exact same source material can sound on several different systems. I think the variety out there in high end audio is a good thing, and that it is a bad thing that new stuff coming out sounds more and more the same.

Dgarretson's comment about his vinyl and CD rigs sounding more and more like each other as he improves them (if I am paraphrasing properly) I think actually speaks more to my own point - they sound more the same not necessarily because the technology is "better" (though it certainly could be), but because he is refining his own personal "reference point," and only in this sense might it be considered more "neutral," and even then only for him and others with similar sonic tastes. A different person, audiophile or not, may think it sounds much less like live music, or "neutral," or whatever their reference point is. As I said before, I don't think this is a bad thing at all. Every audiophile has to decide for themselves what their own personal reference point is. Much of what Dgarretson says about auditory memory is true - but what can also be the case, it should be pointed out, is that sometimes in the quest to improve the sound of their systems, many audiophiles completely lose the forest for the trees, and begin thinking that their system sounds "better" than live music. I certainly don't consider my own system the best of all possible worlds. As far as "golden ears" go, I have never heard anyone actually claim to have them. This is usually used as a derogatory term in my experience. The fact is, some people do hear better than others, and there are a great many audiophiles out there who do not actually have very good ears. And among people with very good ears, there can still be big variation in the sorts of things they are good at hearing. Yet another reason why you will never get very many people to agree on which system is the most "neutral." Everyone hears differently, whether their ears are trained well or not.

Please do not take this personally, Bryon, but another comment I can't refrain from making is that I don't see how anyone could consider "correct pitch and timbre" part of "neutrality." I actually flinched when I read that - a musician's carefully crafted tone colors are NOT "neutral," and I personally would never want to listen for long to a system that removed subtle differences in this area (as many very expensive latest greatest systems do). Are you saying you really want us to sound the same every time?? This thought is very depressing to me. If "better technology" becomes more important than the music, to the great detriment of the latter, priorities aren't right.

Hi Bryon - I am once again thankful I became a musician, and not a writer. I tend to ramble and obscure the very points I am most trying to make. 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," to use the popular phrase, very deliberately by its designer (otherwise why bother with another design?), just as every recording engineer very deliberately "colors" each recording, just as live music is "colored" by all sorts of variables. Hence, why I think that "neutrality" is a useless concept. I of course agree that a good audio system will make every recording sound different. I just don't think that has anything to do with "neutrality." Many audiophiles oppose the terms "colored" and "neutrality" in the way you do, but if no one can agree on what "neutrality" is, to me it logically follows that no one will completely agree on what "colored" is, either. Even if the "reference point" or "neutrality" is live, acoustic music, as it is for many of us, one can ask where? Which hall? How far back are you seated in said hall? Many audiophiles can't stand horn speakers, or electrostats. Many others won't listen to anything else. Some think vinyl still comes far closer to resolving acoustic instrumental and vocal tone color than anything digital sound has yet produced, others can't stand vinyl. To pick just two very basic, common examples. I think if there were such a thing as a definable, true "neutrality," we wouldn't have the variety in high end audio that we do. With all the great variety of great equipment out there, I think worrying about this elusive "neutrality" is pointless. Just decide what your sonic priorities are for your system, and build it/refine it accordingly. If you like the sound better, than that equipment is better for you - it really is that simple. I think of all of these audiophile terms as guides, not goals in themselves. They are ways in which we can communicate with each other about what we are hearing, since none of us hear the same. When I first started reading the audio mags and sites like this one in preparation for purchasing my system with my very limited funds, my approach in using them was to read them over a long period of time, so I could determine the reviewers/posters sonic preferences and how closely they accorded with my own (and often I learned the most from people I clearly disagreed with - this is very often much more instructive than people you usually agree with, IMO). This helped greatly in narrowing my equipment choices for serious auditioning (I generally listened at least briefly to pretty much anything I could get a chance to hear). But even after careful reading for over a year and a half, I was still sometimes quite surprised by what I heard. Then I would go back and re-read the reviews/posts in question to learn more about what these other people's preferences were, and how they thought about sound (again, I found this much more instructive in cases where I did not agree with the reviewer). I always found the term "neutral" to be the least helpful term out there, as I have heard pretty much every single piece of audio equipment described that way by somebody. In the end, my actual choices of course came down to what I thought sounded best within the parameters of budget, availability, etc. And of course since that time I have continued reading and talking with other audiophiles and musicians in preparation for the time when I can audition new equipment. I have of course also listened to a whole lot more equipment, and there are many other things I want to hear.

Dgarretson, I agree with much of your last post, I would just argue (or perhaps restate would be a better word) that you have not rendered coloration almost undetectable - you have just built/refined your system closer to your personal reference point of live music. I think that is a much more workable concept that can apply to all audiophiles, regardless of their tastes/preferences/biases. Any designer will be very quick to tell you why his/her equipment sounds different and better and why (whether it actually does or not), often offering up a great deal of cloudy techno-babble by way of explanation (particularly when it doesn't really sound that different). There are many dealers out there who avoid sonic description entirely, and judge the equipment they carry on specs alone. I don't need to tell you that there are always very audible sonic differences between say, two different speaker pairs both purporting to have flat frequency responses. Or that some of the most widely respected speakers in existence don't have anywhere close to a flat frequency response, including many deemed "neutral."

By the way, I agree that most systems fall short in dynamics, however I think most fall far shorter in the area of timbral reproduction, and also in what many audiophiles call "imaging" and "soundstaging." Digital systems in particular tend to have a hard time with those three issues - even the latest greatest processing still tends to remove much of the overtones in instrumental and vocal timbres. However, many audiophiles don't consider these issues a big deal, since they listen to mostly electronically produced music anyway, which doesn't make nearly as much demands on an audio system. And as you said in a previous post, many people have never heard an analog recording nowadays, or even good digital sound - only MP3's, etc. I am happy you and Bryon and everyone else are getting closer and closer to your goal in your own system, whatever you choose to call it. I just don't think it truly helps anyone else to call it "neutral." OK, once again I have rambled far too long, so I'll sign off now.

Interesting points, guys. Dgarretson, in general I agree with you - certainly a designer of a piece of audio equipment is not thinking of every timbre of every instrument when he "voices" his equipment. Though I do remember reading an interview with a very prominent current designer of an extremely high-end speaker where he said that he started out by trying to design one that made his guitar sound right, which was interesting, and it grew from there. I am sure that each individual designer does have a definite idea about how he wants the equipment to sound, however, and it is in this sense that I was speaking of (actually, I don't think I used the term - when I referred to the negatives of digital processing, I was referring to unintended effects that the designers are still trying to solve). This is part of the reason I argue that there can be no such thing as true "neutrality" in a piece of audio equipment - each is "colored" in this way by it's designer.

Bryon, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I will point out a flaw in your water analogy, though. 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. We just don't have the technology to remove all of the impurities yet, as you said. This is certainly not the case with a piece of audio equipment. In high end audio, there will always be debate over what is a "coloration" and what is not. 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. All anyone can do is use their ears to decide whether the piece of equipment is an improvement towards our own individual ideal sound or not. Of course, there are those who don't listen and only go by the specs, but such a person wouldn't be following this particular thread anyway, I wouldn't think....

Cbw, loved your post! Almarg, I have always enjoyed your interesting and informative posts as well. In this case, however, although I see what you are driving at, I am not sure that the substitution of "accuracy" for "neutrality" really changes anything. Those who buy into the concept of neutrality will naturally make this equation of terms; however, those who do not would just as naturally not equate accuracy with it.

A designer of a piece of audio equipment I think certainly would attempt to be truthful to his reference point of live music (and actually, I would not consider that a "constraint" - that's an interesting choice of word - I prefer to think of it as the designer being "free" to try to create the sound he wants, and I am pretty sure the vast majority of designers would feel that way - many of them I think correctly consider themselves artists), but this reference point will still be different for every designer and for every listener. What sounds accurate to one will not to another. I usually ignore the term "accuracy" when encountering it in reviews, etc., unless it refers specifically to pitch accuracy, for example in reference to a turntable's speed accuracy.

Wow. Fascinating posts, Bryon. However, ultimately I remain unconvinced by your argument, though it is an impressive statement of your case. Just to take a couple of for instances, first the EQ issue. Surely if a system is very "neutral," "transparent," or "accurate," it would not need any EQ? It seems to me that by applying EQ, you are not faithful or truthful either to the recording or the musical event that it represents. Again, IMO you are merely changing the sound of your system (and the recording, of course) so that it represents your personal sonic priorities. There is also the "flat frequency response" thing we have already discussed in this thread - no concert hall has a flat frequency response - this simply doesn't sound good for the live event, so to try to create it in your system seems pointless (and usually results in a very lifeless/soulless sound, IME). The room correction issue is interesting, too - again, what is the standard that you are trying to correct the room to? I don't think any two audiophiles would perfectly agree on this. To be clear, I am not suggesting that room correction is worthless, indeed these systems can make a big difference; I just wonder - how do you know when it has been corrected? Again, only you can answer that for yourself, and your answer may be very different from any other given audiophile's. The "lower noise floor" is also a topic of much division among audiophiles - take my brother's Nottingham turntable, a line which is well known for it's "black background." To my ears, the sacrifice made here to attain this is the removal of too much of what some call "low level information," for example a loss of much of the sense of the sound of the actual musical event/space that was recorded. Live music does not exist in a vacuum, even in a very dead recording studio - the sound of the space is an integral part of the music. This is particularly noticeable in moments of silence within the music. As John Cage famously demonstrated with his piece 4'30", silence is never really silence in a concert hall.

Sorry about the rambling - I'm under the weather, and never was the clearest writer - your posts are much better than mine in that regard! I just wanted to share the thoughts that came to me as I read your interesting posts. I would be particularly interested in your answer to my first question about the EQ issue, as it seems to me that if true "neutrality", "accuracy", and "transparency" could exist in a system, EQ would be completely unnecessary, and I was very surprised to see you mention it in this context.

Bryon, for the first time, I am truly puzzled by your reasoning. You posed two questions about Al's example, "Do you not believe a 50K system is more neutral than a $300 Walmart system," and "do you not believe the $300 system has more coloration," and then proceeded to state "It is important to note that the two questions MUST be answered in the same way." My emphasis. Huh? It most certainly does NOT follow that just because I don't believe in neutrality, that therefore I don't believe in coloration! (The same goes for the "neutral room"/ "room coloration" thing). The only way this could possibly be true is within the context of your own personal definition, which is precisely what is under debate here. This is certainly a fallacy, as I said I think it is a form of question begging - I will have to ask my uncle, who used to teach philosophy/logic (and is also an audiophile, by the way). By the way, please do not take this as a personal criticism - I am often disappointed by my own arguments, and I am sure they also contain some fallacies. So far, the only way you have defined your "neutrality" characteristic is by saying that it is an absence of some other characteristic, which you are calling "coloration." Frankly, I am not certain that this would pass muster as a scientific definition in the first place - I don't think it is accepted to define one thing solely as an absence of some other thing?

I have spoken at length on the "neutrality" part of this. As for the "coloration" part: you are using this term in an extremely narrow sense. One could argue that everything is a coloration. Just as painting is the art of visual coloring, music is the art of aural coloring, if we can accept this crude analogy. There is certainly no such thing as a "neutral" violin. A Strad, which costs millions, is not more "neutral" than a $500 school instrument, though of course all would agree it sounds far better, and has a very different "coloration." Just so, just about all would agree the $50K system will sound far better than the $300 Walmart one - again with a very different "coloration." One Strad is not more neutral than another, either, though all sound different. Same with the two preamps in my example in my previous post - both may sound very different, but this does not mean one is either "better" (as Bryon correctly pointed out, even if chosen by a majority), or that it is more "neutral." They are "colored" differently, and deliberately, by their designers, according to the designer's artistic ideal of sound coloration. There is no such thing as the absence of color in sound (and therefore, it logically follows, in sound reproduction). Otherwise music could not exist. The things you are specifically describing as "colorations" (intermodulation distortion, etc.) of course exist. But they are not the only "colorations" that exist in sound or it's reproduction; their absence does not prove the existence of "neutrality." Again, as Kijanki and I keep asking, how do you know what anything is "supposed" to sound like? There is no one answer to that question, and your assertion that there is is dumbfounding. A great many audiophiles calling themselves "objectivists" would stop far short of such an assertion. I fail to see how anyone could think of music or it's reproduction in such black and white terms. It reminded Kijanki of a discussion of "good taste." It reminds me more of a devout and very learned theologian attempting to argue the existence of God (the textbook question begging argument, by the way), though I do not say that this is analogous, and I hope no one takes offense. I have greatly enjoyed the discussion, as I said. Cbw723, I think Newbee's description is very apt - "an artful construct to further an unattractive goal." Seeing the art of musical reproduction as black and white as this is certainly unattractive IMO, though there is no doubt that Bryon's argument in general is artfully done. Much more artfully done than mine, LOL! It's a darn good thing I make my living as a musician, not a writer!

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

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

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

Bryon, those are good examples of definition in relation to absence, thanks! However, I am compelled to point out that all of those things you list have been proven to exist - your "neutrality" is much more elusive. Another part of my problem with your terms is that I cannot accept your use of the term "coloration" as a purely negative term, something always to be removed. My previous post spoke at length of the relationship of music and color. A designer of a piece of equipment has a specific sound color he is aiming at, that is different from all other designs/models out there, otherwise why design another piece of equipment? "Neutrality" simply is not a goal of design (for a start, that would require knowing what "neutrality" sounded like). Let me refer again to my two high-end preamps within the same exact system example. How could you tell which of them was more "neutral?" I submit you couldn't, and therefore, your operationalization of the term does not have any real practical value for audiophiles, as Kijanki keeps pointing out.

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

OK Bryon - I think we both have some misunderstandings about these other posts. I am truly sorry for my mischaracterizations. You have made yourself very clear, and I envy your superior ability to do so. Let me try once more to be equally clear - I feel that you are refusing to consider the possibility that "neutrality" does not exist. This is what I was trying to get at by saying in that previous post that where we differ is on whether or not you have proposed conditions that reliably indicate the presence of a condition. I still feel that you have not presented any conditions that NECESSARILY indicate the presence of "neutrality." This is my fundamental objection to your operationalization - IMO, you are attempting to operationalize something that does not exist. This is our basic disagreement, as I see it.

That said, even if hypothetically I did accept the possibility that "neutrality" could exist, I still stand by my statement at the end of my previous post, that there are far too many variables involved for all audiophiles to ever agree even on the RELATIVE "neutrality" of any given system. You have brought up some types of distortion that can be measured, and certainly I agree that a designer of a piece of equipment can guard against these types of what you call "colorations." However, you seem to be ignoring other ways in which pieces of equipment can sound different from each other that have been brought up, for instance my two preamps in the same exact system where one was warmer sounding than the other (and yes, the term "warmer" is vague as well, but does I think have more meaning to most audiophiles than "neutral"). Still unanswered is my question, how can you know which preamp is more relatively "neutral"? I feel the inability to answer this question makes the operationalization at best not very useful in actual practice, no matter how attractive it may be in theory. I was trying very hard to keep this from turning into another subjectivist/objectivist type debate (I think I only used the term objectivist when responding to someone else who used it - I dislike such labels). I agree with Newbee that this would be far less interesting. Unfortunately, it seems that perhaps that is what our disagreement really is, as you seem to be ignoring almost all of the subjective elements of the posters who have disagreed with you, Kijanki's in particular.

I hope that the above is clear. Though I disagree with your operationalization, I do admire the thought behind it, and your ability to express it, and I really have enjoyed this discussion, and I am truly sorry for any misrepresentations I have made. Ever since I joined this site, I find I have actually learned quite a bit more from those I disagree with, and I have definitely learned some things from you in the course of this thread. This type of conversation/debate is always thought-provoking and helps to clarify one's own ideas/perceptions. It reminds me of what one of my horn teachers used to say - you should always learn SOMETHING anytime you hear someone else play, even if it is only one more way not to do it.

Dgarretson, that is probably the best description of the objectivist/subjectivist perspectives that I have ever seen, and amusingly done, as well! I would add only one thing - you mention the subjectivist must watch his variables carefully and guard against being betrayed by his electronics. This is certainly true. I would add that on the other side, the objectivist must be careful not to be too seduced by the either the technology/equipment or his ideals, thereby losing the forest for the trees. When this happens, the music often becomes secondary, to the point where they don't even enjoy listening to most of their recordings because they are obsessing over a technical issue. They also can fall into the trap/habit of describing anything that doesn't fit their personal preferences/ideals as a coloration, even if it isn't really, one of the main reasons why I try to avoid that term. To put this more humorously, these objectivists sometimes fail to remain objective.

Mrtennis, although I also see no point in either searching for or assessing relative "neutrality" when the goal is musical enjoyment, I do enjoy the philosophical endeavor. As I said in a previous post, I like to understand the perspective of those whom I disagree with, as there is always something to be learned. It helps to clarify one's own thoughts, if nothing else. I like to keep testing/questioning my own beliefs in this fashion. I had a very good history teacher at the Interlochen Arts Academy who constantly played "devil's advocate," arguing from a position we knew she opposed (and that the vast majority of the class opposed as well), to teach us the value of this. Her ability to do this fascinated me, and I have been perhaps too eager to jump into debate just for the sake of it ever since. It drives my friends crazy sometimes. It is also fascinating/instructive for me as a professional performing musician to hear the different perspectives on music that audiophiles have, and I can sometimes be of help to them in return from my own perspective. Other times I start typing very late at night when I shouldn't be and start spouting a bunch of crap.

Since I fear I will start doing so very soon now (I have already begun rambling too far astray, I think), I will put off replying to Bryon until tomorrow. I will just close by again complimenting Dgarretson on this line: "there is a certain tension between art and science that can best be examined through philosophy." I think that's exactly why I am enjoying this thread so much, even though I disagree with it's basic premise. I will also observe that scientists are very supportive of the arts, especially music, in large numbers compared to many other fields, a fact I find very interesting. There is much more common ground between science and art than appears on the surface, despite the obvious tension (just as there is between objectivists and subjectivists). OK, I'll shut up now.

Very interesting posts, indeed. Cbw, I did not mean to suggest that complete agreement on terms is necessary - certainly all of these terms are inexact. And you are correct that the vast majority of musicians are very comfortable with shades of grey and non-absolutist thinking. Almost none would call themselves "objectivists" as Dgarrestson has so well defined the perspective (however, very few would also say that they would be completely "subjectivists", either, though they would lean much more in that direction). This is a large part of the reason that the concept of "neutrality" does not have any appeal even as an idea to me and many others. I was speaking more of agreement on colorations when listening to a system, not when defining types of colorations. As you say, there is room for general agreement in defining certain types - I think the disagreement could come even over whether you were hearing them or not, and certainly over whether they were desirable or not.

Dgarretson, hilarious opening of your post! And we are in agreement about subjectivists and objectivists using much of each other's methods. As I said, your approach is very close to the one I suggested. And they do indeed share the same hubris/foibles. I also think you are correct on any desirable colorations also being accompanied by undesirable ones. There are always trade-offs, I think.

I would like to point out a connection to something Dgarretson said, and something Bryon said in their latest posts. Dgarretson speaks of "my idea of professed subjectivists and objectivists whose different aesthetics may each progress toward separate but valid senses of neutrality defined in the broadest sense." Bryon speaks in his last paragraph of stipulating definitions, and calls this "heuristic." I had not encountered that term in long time, and will admit having to look it up. Bryon is using it in the sense of the first definition in my unabridged dictionary, which reads very close to his explanation in his post. I was struck by the second definition, however, which is "encouraging a person to learn, discover, understand, or solve problems ON HIS OR HER OWN, as by experimenting, evaluating possible answers or solutions, or by trial and error." My emphasis, and I would also emphasize the plurals - answers and solutions.

It seems to me that Dgarretson's comment implies that there is more than one valid "neutrality." Perhaps this was not your intention, but it seems to me that here you are really talking about a "personal reference point," a phrase I used earlier on in this discussion. Likewise, Bryon, I think that although it may be possible to come up with a very lengthy list of different categories of colorations that many audiophiles could agree upon IN THEORY, I doubt that there would ever be much consensus on this IN PRACTICE, the result being that very few audiophiles would end up coming up with the same sense of "neutrality." Everyone's hearing is different, and their sonic priorities will be different as well. I think your approach ultimately is only useful for each individual on his or her own, to come up with his or her own "personal reference point." I don't think there could ever be a generally accepted sense of "neutrality," even as you have refined it with the different types of colorations.

Cbw, my interpretation of Bryon's posts has been that he wants to find common ground on neutrality among all audiophiles and all systems, not just within each individual's own system. Please correct me, Bryon, if I am wrong, but I don't think I have been the only one putting that interpretation on the original post! By the way, Cbw, that is a fascinating discussion of entropy in your last post.

Dgarretson has some interesting additions, as well, though much of it I either don't understand or would disagree with. For instance, when you say that "continuousness" is "consistency of musical expression throughout the frequency range." Not sure what you mean by this. My first reaction on reading it is to say that no acoustic instrument (including the voice) has consistency of "expression" (assuming you mean things like timbre? volume?) throughout it's full range. If they were made to sound as if they did, it seems to me this would be a violation of what you guys are calling "neutrality?"

I am also not certain that your concept of "organization" is not another form of "coloration," since you are speaking of "small corrections to pitch and timbre, improved transients and decay against a quieter background." Corrections from what, exactly?

While I would agree with you that "warm" and "analytical" are not mutually exclusive, I would strongly disagree with the notion that there is no such thing as too much resolution. Just one example. Almost all orchestral recordings made today are done with too many microphones set up, in the musician's opinions, far too close to our instruments. The vast majority of the mix uses these mikes instead of any placed overhead, and many engineers don't even put any out in the hall anymore. The resulting sound of the recording is nothing like what a concertgoer actually hears, no matter where they are seated in the hall.

I realize that you are speaking of the resolution of the system, but many high end systems I have heard create a very similar effect on a recording that was done well. And whether this bothers someone or not would be down to their personal preference as well (so is the statement that the recording was "done well," for that matter). This has been discussed in a different thread before, the idea that many audiophiles assume that some "colorations" they are hearing are caused by their system, when in fact they are on the recording itself. I have seen more than one situation where two people could not agree on which was the case ("Well in MY system, it doesn't sound like that!" etc). This is yet another reason why I don't think there could ever be much agreement on any two people's sense of "neutrality." There are far too many subjective variables, no matter how well we could define colorations on the page.

Dgarretson, thanks for the clarification. I actually didn't know about the Holt dictionary. The only place I had previously seen common audiophile terms defined was in Robert Harley's book. I'm sure there isn't much difference between those two, anyway. That Holt book would be fascinating reading. I find it amusing that he defines "neutral" as free from coloration, as you guys are, but then feels the need to define "uncolored" as free from AUDIBLE coloration. This is especially funny to me coming from the guy who defined "subjectivist" reviewing! Harley's book also speaks of the objectivist/subjectivist divide in the same sense as Holt does, by the way. It was my understanding, though, that Harry Pearson was the one who defined many of these terms originally, and he was certainly the one who defined the concept of "the absolute sound."

Getting back more on topic, I have one comment on your observation that "To distinguish problems in playback from problems in recording, the trained listener merely needs to listen to a wide variety of recordings on the same playback system." While I do agree with this as far as it goes, this is only part of it. I believe the trained listener must also do the opposite - listen to the same few recordings that one is very familiar with on a wide variety of playback systems. This is much more useful for evaluating the playback end of the equation, while the former helps distinguish problems in recording.

However, no matter how precisely we can define various different terms and types of colorations, etc., (and I am not saying this is not valuable) people will hear many of them differently, for many different reasons. Setting aside personal preferences/reference points, one audiophile may have a much better/more trained ear than another. One could also have a better but more untrained ear than the other, a case which can really confuse the issue for both. Another example I find is all too common in the audiophile world - someone who thinks they have a good and/or trained ear, and knows quite a bit about the science behind audio products, but unfortunately doesn't actually hear very well. I'm sure we can all think of a dealer where this is the case! Others mentioned the effects of aging/hearing loss - everyone's ear, no matter what level it is/was originally, can/does/will change, for better and/or for worse. Unfortunately, as an orchestral musician I am guaranteed to lose at least 20% of my hearing over the course of my career. What sounds better to you today may not tomorrow, and this will change your perception of many types of "colorations." I guess I've said all I really have to say on the subject, though I do find the discussion of terms interesting and will continue to follow the thread.

Speaking of ear training, I would urge all audiophiles to consider taking a formal aural skills course - these are often offered as adult extension courses at music programs in large universities. This sort of ear training is much more valuable for actually listening to your music (as opposed to your system), and always leads to much more enjoyment of your music, no matter what type you listen to. It will also have the benefit of greatly increasing your ability to listen for your system's characteristics, especially the more musically-related ones. And it is much cheaper than a new component for your system, too, LOL! It's all about the music in the end, or should be, anyway. I have greatly enjoyed the discussion - thanks for starting the thread, Bryon!

Hi Bryon - I agree that this has been an interesting debate. I shared this thread with my brother today, who is a sociologist and fellow audiophile, and he had a take on it that I think you and others will find interesting, so I have decided to share it. I should say that he considers himself more in the subjectivist camp, though he did say that Dgarretson's description of an extreme subjectivist sounded about the same as a post-modernist, and post-modernism is "crap," as he put it. He agrees with us that the moderates in both camps differ mostly in method.

He also agrees with me that "neutrality" does not exist, and in fact came up with the term I had been searching for. His opinion is that you are engaging in "reification," which is defined as the treating of an abstract concept as if it has real material existence (I should add that I checked with my uncle, who used to teach philosophy/logic, and he corrected me that this is not actually a logical fallacy, as I had thought).

He also talked about something similar to what Dgarretson did, that objectivists sometimes are forced to make subjective judgements and then try to operationalize their ideas. Many objectivist criteria are in actuality subjective, as the measures they come up with often lack "validity" (is the measure measuring what it is supposed to) or "reliability" (will different people using the same instrument get the same result under the same conditions).

His opinion is that many measures for audio "colorations" would not be "reliable" in the above sense because of the lack of agreement on terms. He added that even with agreement on criteria for measurements, there is the human ear factor we have discussed. He commented that in disciplines like sociology or psychology it is possible to come up with measures that are valid and reliable in the above senses, but that in music, and I will now quote him directly "taste confounds quality, and people mess those up." He has actually written a fascinating article on this taste/quality issue, entitled "Music as Evil: Deviance and Norm Promotion in Classical Music," in which he applies the sociology of deviance (one of his specialties) to the sociology of high-art, specifically music. I think I could provide a link to anyone interested, with his permission.

His are essentially the same arguments I have been making, though expressed quite a bit differently - he is certainly more scientifically minded than I am. I hope I have represented his ideas adequately. I would love to hear your thoughts!

Hi Bryon - interesting questions, and I am sorry I can't take more time to answer them at the moment. The very short answer to the first one would be that that of course would depend on the specific coloration in question. The second question is a little puzzling to me, as I am not sure why anyone would answer that in the negative. Surely we all are always evaluating the euphony of our systems, even including Dgarretson's extreme objectivist?

As for the third question, sure, multiple audiophiles with similar tastes will often agree completely on that sort of judgement. I think there would rarely be complete agreement among a large number however, except perhaps in extreme cases, such as Al's $50,000 system vs. a Wal-mart boom box. Some colorations bother certain people much more/less than others. The digital distortions vs. analog distortions debate is a classic example.

As for the fourth question, I must admit I am completely unfamiliar with the "spectral inversion" thing, so I really can't say. Using your color analogy, perhaps a better example of what I meant than red/blue might be light purple/dark violet? Or perhaps back to my two high-end preamps in the otherwise same exact system example? One person might say that they prefer preamp A's warmer sound, where another will insist that it is too "colored." This would be a subjective judgement, EVEN IF THEY WERE IN AGREEMENT. Another example - one of the oldest types of audio component that has been in continuous production is the horn speaker. Many would say that clearly the longevity alone means that there is something fundamentally correct about the design. But of course there are a HUGE number of audiophiles who can't stand them, and completely write them off as an outdated, hopelessly "colored" design. Both opinions are frequently expressed on audio forums. This is a subjective judgement. I don't know if these brief answers help or not, but there they are.

Dgarretson, I was speaking more of improvement in listener ability than improvement in technology. It would be the former, not the latter, that would "liberate him to reassess and refine preference," no matter what the context. As I think I may have said some time back in this thread, one should learn something anytime one listens critically, even if it is one more way not to do it. As different audiophiles refine their own preferences in this way, these preferences should become more and more unique to each individual.

As far as technology is concerned, I think a great many audiophiles would argue that there haven't necessarily been any huge advances in basic audio technology in a long time now. Many people on this and other boards lament the trend towards more and more compression, etc. Certainly the "golden age" of orchestral recording was decades ago now. My point is not to start an argument over different types/advances in technology, but merely to point out that a new technology is not necessarily better. Also, as you implied in your last post, no matter what type of technology one prefers for the various system components, building a system with the best possible components is simply out of reach of most of our budgets. We all make choices based on what we can afford, refining these as we go along in this hobby. I have a few different ideas about the directions I would like to go with my system in the future, but they are on hold, probably for some time.

Bryon, I understand how you are differentiating priorities from preferences. However, I think that the latter should always determine the former, not the other way around. As far as "taste" goes, the interpretation my brother and I are using is the set of judgements about what is most valuable when choosing among characteristics, as you put it. Quality would have more to do with how close a component or system comes to matching the ideal playback characteristics in this context, though again this would ultimately be a subjective judgement as well.

I guess my feeling is that too many audiophiles lose the forest for the trees by getting bogged down in trying to eliminate various types of colorations, etc. This is ultimately a negative approach, and as several have pointed out, the search for "neutrality" usually ends up with a very lifeless, unmusical presentation. A better approach, for me, is to keep the concentration on the forest by choosing components that come the closest to how you want the music to sound overall. Analysis of different types of colorations can help this, but too much focus on it is detrimental in the end. The same goes for a performer that gets too bogged down in certain aspects of technique, losing the focus on the phrasing, for example. One of the most famous horn players and teachers in the country likes to say "analysis is paralysis." Some is very necessary, but too much is fatal. He also says that "technique should serve the music, never the other way around." Similarly, the overall sound of the system is most important, not any one particular detail of it. Put another way, one's system choices IMO should be much more artistic than scientific, the science being used in the service of the music, not indulged in for it's own sake.

Hi Bryon - I have been out of town again for several days, and have just read your last two posts. To respond to the 12/31 one first: evidence for too many audiophiles losing the forest for the trees is all over any audio site. I would estimate that at least one person a week posts in each one about how he drove himself crazy and is not enjoying the hobby or the music anymore, or some such story. We will have to agree to disagree about the applications of analysis to music performance vs. music playback. As you say, both result in music, and the bottom line is whether the music is enjoyable or not. To use your phrases, too many listeners to an audio system have their attention split between the music and the equipment, resulting in impaired functionality. They will completely ignore many recordings, even entire recording labels, because "they don't sound good on my system." This, to me, is a crying shame; the definition of misplaced priorities, the system becoming more important than the music. Many threads on this forum and others have discussed such issues at length. I agree completely that both the art and the science are important, and both have their subjective and objective aspects - it is a question of prioritizing all of this, which will vary with each individual, and there are a great many audiophiles who complain that they struggle with how to do this. My contention earlier in the thread was that if more audiophiles spent some time learning a little music theory and taking an aural skills class, that this will be much more beneficial to their enjoyment of their music in the short term, and for their ability to hear how better to tweak their systems in the long run as they develop these abilities. The one must be done to truly be able to do the other, as one must decide not just whether or not a coloration is there, but how damaging to the music it actually is - preferences determining priorities (the classic example would be the analog/digital debate).

This brings me to your post of 1/5. Not sure I agree with everything you say about your numbers 1), 2), and 3), but granting them for the moment, the real issue I have is with the "expert listener" concept. The fact that everyone hears differently has been much discussed already in this thread, I will only point out that this certainly includes "expert listeners." Mrtennis has made some other very good points about human hearing in this thread. Too many audiophiles are ONLY concerned about learning to listen for flaws in their systems, and this is as far as their ear training ever goes. I would never call an audiophile of this variety an "expert listener," no matter how many years experience in the hobby they have. I have talked with people who cannot identify a major from a minor chord, yet claim to hear very specific "colorations" in a speaker when in fact they are merely biased against it's design based on things they have read/been told, and probably could not tell one speaker from another if their back was turned and they were only relying on their ears, to use an extreme example. I have often read a review of one of my orchestra's concerts in the paper the next day and wondered if the reviewer was at the same concert I was. Same with the reviewer of a piece of audio equipment. And just because one is an audiophile does not mean that one has better ears than someone who is not. On this forum there is usually a new thread every couple of weeks, it seems, where some guy is posting about how his wife heard something better than he did, even though she knows nothing about the hobby, helping him make up his mind. Orson Welles' final film, F for Fake, is a hilarious send-up of the idea of "expertise," by the way. I think you would greatly enjoy it, though as an objectivist you may find it very disturbing. :)

Cbw, the example I gave in my last post was of computer music being played back to a live audience, not someone listening to it on their own on their own system. I thought this was clear from the context, I apologize.

However, I think most people would agree that any recording of music meant to be listened to, whatever the context, is a performance; it is just not a live performance. In fact, this thread is the first time I have ever seen that concept disputed. Let me rephrase my statement as a question: if music is not performed, what is it?

Very informative post, Bryon! I am still unclear on my original question, though. I follow your discussion about truth being objective and human judgement subjective, and I do not find that strange. But WHY do you say that a Subjectivist is unable to judge the truthfulness of a recording without acting as an Objectivist, especially in light of the fact that human judgement is ultimately subjective? Is this because a Subjectivist would not believe that the recording could be truthful, or is there some other reason? It seems to me that even if he does not believe a recording could be truthful, that he could still judge how close it comes to it, especially since this judgement is subjective.

Hi Bryon - to reply to the first part of your post first, I could certainly quibble with you about that distinction. Especially the "performance" part - one could argue that even a device going straight to a recording medium is still a performance. Frank Zappa certainly thought so, for one. As soon as anyone else listens to it, it does technically become a performance. Also, in your 1) it is still much easier for recording engineers to record an electronic music performance than an acoustic one, for the reasons I have already stated. The difference between 1) and 2) is not as great as you seem to believe, though it is of course there, and I do understand the distinction - certainly the acoustic of the room is eliminated in 2), as is the mike. However, this elimination of variables arguably makes the objectivist perspective even more apropos, not less.

Going back to the real vs. virtual distinction you are making, I must point out that nowadays, and really for quite some time now, just about all recordings made would be virtual by your definition (multiple mikes with different perspectives, music editing, creative mixing techniques). Even a "live" orchestral broadcast on the radio is not usually. The broadcast is very rarely actually live (though that still sometimes does happen) - it is almost always a presentation of the best bits of the weekend. The first movement of the symphony may be from Saturday while the rest is from Sunday, for instance.

In fact, unless a concert is truly being broadcast live over the radio as it is actually being played, there really isn't any such thing as a "real" recording anymore, now that digital recording techniques have completely taken over. There are always many different mikes used, and all kinds of mixing and editing techniques are applied routinely. I know of no orchestra nowadays that releases any commercial recordings without any editing whatsoever, and there is usually a ton of it. Georg Solti was the last conductor I know of who insisted on "one-take" recording (with some funny results sometimes, I might add). It of course goes without saying that all digital recordings have heavy mixing applied to them, which one could argue is a form of editing as well.

And any recording of any pop or jazz singer is done with a digital mike that alters their voice - most of the time this is even done at live performances. The bigger the star, the bigger the mixing board that her/his voice is being put through before it even gets to the speakers. There is far more mixing of rock and pop and country done than with classical or jazz or even folk. There is almost never any such thing as a recording that would not be virtual by your definition anymore, no matter what type of music is involved, and this has been the case for at least two decades now (to use the most conservative estimate, three would probably be more accurate). And as you say, this makes an objectivist viewpoint less and less warranted. This is indeed what I was arguing back when this whole thread first started.

Cbw and Bryon - you both seem to be assuming that a "performance" must be a live event. Musicians consider all recordings to be performances. The difference between a live and a recorded performance is that the recorded performance is permanent, and a live performance is not. Even a recording made straight to a recording device would therefore be considered a performance, as I mentioned before, with Zappa as one of the more famous examples.

I also understand perfectly that you are speaking of a continuum. I still maintain that you have it backwards, however, IF you are speaking of truthfulness. Let me try a different take, with a live event as an example this time. The more virtual a recording is, by Bryon's definition, the more control the engineer has over the result. I don't think you are disputing this. What I am saying is that this makes it easier, not more difficult, to hear whether or not the engineer has been truthful to the live event. Therefore, applying an objectivist perspective is more warranted, not less, the more virtual the recording.

This brings me to "truthfulness" vs. "transparency." Bryon, you seem to equate these two things, and this is where the confusion lies. I think your continuum IS correct IF you are speaking of transparency, not truthfulness. In my view, a recording can be very transparent yet not truthful (in fact, this is exactly how many musicians describe digital recording in general). This difference in perspective has come up earlier in this thread, when Kijanki brought up sitars, I believe it was, and asked you how you could tell whether the recording was true to it (I am paraphrasing, I did not go back and search the thread for an exact quote). Your response was basically "because I have heard one." To me, this is a subjective, not an objective judgement. Another example - I know you know what a French horn sounds like. However, you have absolutely no idea what MY horn sounds like. If I mailed you two different recordings made of the exact same live performance of mine, you could judge which one was more transparent, but you could not judge which one was more truthful without being familiar with my specific sound (and the same of course goes for the performance space). Only if one has familiarity with the performers and the venue can one accurately judge the truthfulness of a recording. I have much experience with this distinction, having the good fortune to be a professional performer, and to be familiar with a great many different performers and venues through personal experience, both performing and as an audience member. I also regularly listen to all of the archival recordings made by various engineers of my orchestra's classical subscription concerts (I am in fact on the committee which decides what goes over the radio broadcast). Every engineer's recordings sound different, as they place mikes differently, and mix them differently, and edit differently (in fact, each recording each engineer makes sounds different). I can assure you that the more mikes used, and the more mixing done (in other words the more virtual the recording), the easier it is to hear where the recording falls short of the live event as far as truthfulness is concerned. I am able to apply this objectivist perspective in this way because I am VERY familiar with the hall and my colleagues. If one is not familiar with these things, then all one can do is guess at the truthfulness of the recording - you can only know approximately (as you put it when you were speaking of transparency). Therefore you would really be applying a subjectivist, not an objectivist perspective, because you don't really know what the live event sounded like. You would have to use your own personal reference point for how you think it is supposed to sound. You can, however, judge a recording's transparency in the way you suggest, and this application of an objectivist perspective would work how you described.

I know I do not express myself particularly well with words, but I hope this clears up some confusion.

Hi Bryon - first, the performance discussion. All music MUST be performed, otherwise it has no function or purpose (some would even argue that it has no existence without performance, though I am not sure if I would go that far). Even a completely electronic composition of the type you describe (and which I have hands on experience with myself), despite being composed and entered into the computer over a long period of time, IS eventually played back in real time in it's entirety, and this act does constitute a performance of the work. Otherwise, what is the point of creating the work in the first place, if no one is ever going to hear it? The main difference is that there are no human "performers," only a computer. Another big difference is that all performances of the work are exactly the same, unless the composer edits the work. Some composers are very attracted to the idea of having no human error messing up their performance, and the idea of being the sole interpreter of the work as well. There is no third party between them and their audience. But most certainly they are considering an audience listening to a performance when they create the work.

As for the truthfulness/transparency thing, I think we were indeed using the terms differently. I could state a bit more about how I would use some of these terms differently from you, but this is your thread, and it will keep things much simpler to use your terms. After reading your last post a few times, I think I understand what you mean by all of your terms. I think before I was also confused sometimes about whether your real/virtual discussion referred to the recording or to the live event, though I should hasten to add that this confusion was mine, not yours. My remaining confusion still lies in exactly what you mean by truthfulness, as you say that your transparency definition is only a part of it (which, if I have understood correctly, I certainly agree with). Again, if you are speaking only about transparency as the correspondence between your 1) and 2), and not overall truthfulness, then I think your 5a is correct, and we are in agreement there.

My confusion lies in what you mean by truthfulness overall, then, especially with regard to 6a. Are you saying that a Subjectivist cannot evaluate the truthfulness of a recording?? If you mean by this that a Subjectivist believes a recording can never be completely truthful, then I agree. It seems quite clear that there certainly is not now and never will be a recording made that anyone would mistake for a live event, for many different reasons. I would disagree strongly, however, that a Subjectivist would be unable to judge how close a recording comes to the live, real event it is a representation of. In fact, this would also ultimately be a subjective judgement, I believe, despite some objectivist measures being needed. For example, two different sets of microphones in different set-ups recording the same live event. Which one is closer to the truth? Perspective would matter greatly here.

Very interesting, Bryon, thanks very much for that very informative post. I have not yet really studied philosophy, though I intend to, and was not aware that there was such a big difference between the normal/philosophical definitions of those terms. This does make what you have said lately make much more sense to me now. I have really enjoyed this whole thread, and have learned a great deal from you. I also greatly envy your ability to express yourself so clearly with words. You are definitely a great asset to this community, sir!

Thanks for the recommendation, Bryon. My uncle, who taught philosophy, has given me a couple of books as well, I just haven't gotten around to it yet. I think I am going to tackle mythology first, actually. I have read a few logic books, and I took a logic course in college, but that is the extent of the philosophy background I have.

Hi guys - Cdc, Bryon, and Albert, you made some very interesting points, which I agree with as well. Cdc, on the photography issues, yes photographers also have heated debates over the merits of the latest digital technology vs. the older equipment. I have a cousin who is a professional photographer, and he likes to say that most serious photographers only use the digital cameras for going to a location and taking a great many pictures at once. Then they go back, look carefully over them, choose the exact shot they want, and go back to the location and set up their "real" camera, as he calls it. Of course, there are many professionals who have switched over to the all digital stuff and who would vehemently disagree. For myself, I would say that digital photography is FAR ahead of digital audio.

LOL, Bryon - nice one, bringing out Bierce!

The latest part of this thread reminds me of one of my favorite Peter Schickele quotes, in his PDQ Bach stuff: "Truth is truth. You can't have opinions about truth."

Fascinating posts, guys, deserving of a more serious response. I agree with blindjim that transparency is a much better term for what we are talking about here. 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!

And Vandermeulen, 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 ("coloration?"). No real performing space is "neutral" - the room's acoustics always have a huge effect on the musician's sounds (natural coloration, if you will). If an orchestra is on tour, for instance, playing the same piece several nights in several different venues, there are constant adjustments made to account for the different acoustics. This is one problem with the concept of "the absolute sound." Which hall is supposed to be the example of this? There are a great many different answers to your final question - what is the music supposed to sound like? No two engineers or musicians will agree exactly, nor should they.

So to get back to the OP's point, then, 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 (and this will take the sort of study that Vandermeulen was talking about, to decide what you think it should sound like). I agree with blindjim, there is no such thing as "absolute neutrality" or transparency in a piece of audio equipment - there is always going to be some designer bias, whether he/she is even conscious of it or not - the equipment will sound how the designer wants it to.

Hi Byron - I must make an observation here. 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. They sound terrible, actually, and it is quite difficult to play in them. Everyone is isolated from everyone else, using click-tracks to stay together - there is much less connection between the performers than normal. Often every single performer is on a separate track, if it is a small group. As I said before, this is all done by design, so that the recording engineer can design the sound to his own specifications - they have complete control, and you are at their mercy as to what you are going to end up sounding like. There is almost nothing "real" about a recording studio. Some of the most famous artists, whether pop or classical, will of course have some measure of control if they wish it, but most often the studio execs have the control. As an orchestral musician, I certainly have no input as to what I end up sounding like (though most orchestras making a symphonic recording do not record in recording studios, of course, but in a real live venue - I am speaking of say an orchestra put together to record a jingle for a TV commercial, etc.). The orchestral players that record for all the movie and television studios (both Hollywood and London and anywhere else), for instance, have no control over their own sounds, either, and I can tell you that they are quite often very dissatisfied with the results when they see the film in the theaters or the episode on TV. Even young and up and coming wannabe pop stars usually have no control over what they sound like, either - their sound is designed by the record label execs. If you heard them without the mikes and the mixing boards, which are of course always present when they perform live as well, the vast majority of them would be unrecognizable. I think even some of the most knowledgeable audiophiles would be shocked and horrified if they realized just how their favorite rock and pop singers sound "for real." There is almost no "truth," as you call it, to anything that comes out of a recording studio, in the vast majority of cases, as opposed to something recorded in a live venue. If the producers want it to sound like a live venue, they will record in one.

Great posts - Byron, I guess what myself, Newbee, Kijanki, Shadorne, and others are saying here is that no two people are ever going to agree on just what "neutrality" sounds like. A couple of recent posts mentioned "if we could hire conductors, musicians" to assemble systems. Well, I am a professional musician, and many of my colleagues, including conductors, instrumentalists, vocalists, engineers, and many others in the music world are also audiophiles. I can tell you that no two of us would agree on what this "neutrality" would sound like. As Newbee said, this is as hopeless as defining exactly what the "absolute sound" would be. Every piece of equipment, every system, every recording, has what you are calling "coloration." Every live music venue has it as well. Every room I play my horn in sounds totally different, and has a great effect on what I sound like. There is no possible way to "eliminate" it (recording studios being the closest thing, as I and others have said before, but every one of these sounds totally different as well), nor would this even necessarily be desirable. There are a great many different great sounds - how could anyone declare one of them arbitrarily to be the best?

Every audiophile must decide for themselves what their sonic preferences are, and try to build their systems accordingly. No one is denying that you can change one component and like your system's sound better. What we are saying is that just because you like the sound better doesn't mean you have either a more or less "neutral" system. I would be fascinated to hear you try to describe what this "neutrality" goal of yours would actually sound like, and I am all but certain that you couldn't find one single other audiophile who would perfectly agree with it. What you are really trying to define, ultimately, is your own sonic ideal. And there's nothing wrong with that! Variety is the spice of life, and that goes for music as well.

Very interesting thoughts, Bryon, points on the water analogy well taken. By the way, I did not mean to suggest that science or truth should be thrown out, and I am not quite sure what exactly about my post suggested that, though clearly it must have to more than one person. I also don't mean to suggest that you are left with nothing to evaluate your system with. Speaking of distortions, by the way, I should point out that there are many types of distortions that audiophiles greatly disagree on. Distortions are not necessarily bad - some of them occur quite naturally in live acoustic music, and the attempt to remove them digitally results in some very unnatural sounding timbres sometimes. Yet some would claim that the sound produced in this way is more "transparent," which someone else earlier in this thread suggested was another term for "neutral." I have heard many a dealer or audiophile brag about a digital system that they thought was so "transparent" or "neutral," and it turned out to be an extremely "analytical" and lifeless sounding system indeed. I realize that this is almost certainly not what you are talking about in your post, I just bring it up to point out another reason why I don't think you will ever have widespread agreement on a concept of neutrality - distortions are a whole other can of worms. I just carefully re-read your original post, and the subsequent one where you defined "neutrality" and I still don't think that just because 1) individual pieces sound more unique, and 2) your music collection sounds more diverse, that this necessarily leads to the conclusion that your system is more "neutral". IMO you are presenting a "begging the question" type argument. At least I think that is the logic term I mean, I would have to look it up to be sure. Anyway, it has been an interesting discussion, very thought-provoking.

Hi Bryon - obviously, the room has a big effect on how the system sounds, I am not arguing this at all, in fact I believe I said this in my post, and I also said that I agreed that room correction systems can make a huge difference. My point was that "changes to the signal in the equipment," even assuming they are only via room correction still do not necessarily result in either more or less "neutrality", "transparency", or "accuracy". I have heard "room correction" in an enthusiastic dealer's showroom that resulted in a very dead, lifeless sound as well -it depends on how it is applied, which depends on who is applying it. Unless I am very much mistaken, it is not possible to remove all of the effects of room nodes and other similar acoustic phenomena, no matter how good the room correction system is. These phenomena are a part of what gives all great concert halls their individual character, for instance.

Sorry for misunderstanding that your EQ comment only applied to room correction, by the way. I was also not speaking specifically of your system, the question was meant as a general one. Many audiophiles do use EQ for many other purposes besides room correction (I do not), as has been mentioned in this thread, with posted links about it, and I was asking your opinion on these uses as well. I would think that almost all of these other uses of EQ would be a violation of your "neutrality" principles, if I understand them correctly (for instance, wanting to make a violin's extreme high register sound less harsh), would they not?

Cbw723, Bryon has indeed stated, in his post of 12/5, that he believes that there is ultimately one way that music reproduction should sound, and went on to comment that that is what it means to be an Objectivist. So yes, he is therefore arguing that there is an absolute neutrality, though he of course is not arguing that he has actually achieved it.

Bryon, your reconstruction of my argument is incorrect. I would never state the first premise you give at all (I also agree with you that in the context of your operationalization, it would be false), since my position is that neutrality does not and cannot exist, and that there is no one correct way that music or it's reproduction or any piece of audio equipment is "supposed" to sound.

I will repeat that Bryon's two premises do not prove the existence of "neutrality." (In fact, they assume it's existence, which is why I originally called it a question-begging argument.) One can make relative judgements about contrast and differentiation without any need for an operationalization of "neutrality." This concept/operationalization is an artful theoretical construct; but in the end it has very little, if any, PRACTICAL use to ALL audiophiles (any usefulness being limited to each individual set of sonic tastes/priorities, or reference point, or whatever you want to call it). Even within the context of Bryon's operationalization, there are far too many variables, both in music and in audio equipment, and also in human hearing, for there to be any convergence of opinion on, let alone RELIABLE ways of measurement of even relative "neutrality". I gave an alternative way of thinking about the improvement of one's system, as did Newbee and Dgarretson, each of which is of good practical use for all audiophiles, which was the goal of the original post. It has certainly been a fascinating discussion.

Hello Bryon - I have carefully re-read Dgarretson's alternative operationalizations of "neutrality," especially the post from 12/7. I have also read and digested your further posts and Cbw's on your new "coloration" definitions. I have two general thoughts about all of this.

First, the further discussion of "coloration." It is apparent that there is already disagreement even between the three of you on exactly what is a "coloration" and what is not. Though these differences may be minimized some by further discussion, I don't think they can be eliminated. So going back to your definition of "neutrality" as the absence of coloration, if there can be no consensus on "coloration," there cannot be on "neutrality," either. What one person may see as a coloration, another will not, as I have said all along. I feel that despite your valiant attempt to expand into different categories of colorations, the early disagreement illustrates this.

Which brings me to Dgarretson's approach. What is very interesting about this to me is that if we remove the concept of "neutrality" from his post (again I am speaking of the 12/7 post), sticking to the "personal preference" term alone, it seems to me to be very close to what I have been arguing myself; the main difference is his approach is much more methodical - a more scientifically oriented as opposed to my more artistically oriented perspective, if you will. Other than this difference in perspective, it strikes me as basically the same approach. Where I would disagree with him would be that I would not say that "If a system becomes more like that which one prefers in every sense (without a single shortcoming relative to prior iteration), then one may RELIABLY (my emphasis) conclude that neutrality is improved." I would say that this "consistency between internal reference points" he is seeking would indeed "merely reflect the bias of preference rather than increased neutrality." Two different audiophiles could listen to the same exact modification to any given system and disagree strongly as to whether the result was an improvement or not, depending on their personal preferences, to use his term again. And who could say which one of them was right, or whether the mod resulted in more "neutrality" or not?

Lastly, if Shadorne is still reading this thread, I had a really good belly laugh over your post, thanks for that!

Hi Bryon - nice posts! Your second interpretation of the "reification" comment is the one meant - it is specifically in reference to the concept of "neutrality." However, I don't think it has necessarily to do with your definition by absence, as you assumed. To grossly summarize, our position would be that although colorations exist, this does not mean that neutrality does. We don't believe that there could ever be a piece of audio equipment, let alone an entire system, that has no coloration, meaning therefore that "neutrality" is an abstract concept, not something that has or could have real material existence.

As far as the validity/reliability, this is actually what was the more interesting/important part of all of this to him. To me, it is not so much the validity but the reliability of the operationalization as a whole that is definitely in question. The validity may or may not be, depending on what specific measures we happen to be speaking of (for various different types of colorations, for example - would we really be measuring what we are trying to or not). I hope this makes sense?

The taste/quality thing is complex. Taste and quality are often confused, as it is hard to separate the two sometimes. In the context of his paper I mentioned, audio is not involved; that was a discussion of music criticism (critics being the arbiters of taste), and the perceived meaning and value of musical works, and it looks at critics who failed to see the value of works at their premieres which are now considered masterpieces, and discusses the sociology of it all. It is very entertaining.

However, taste vs. quality is also applicable to our discussion here. One's taste is going to have a huge influence on how one perceives the quality of a component, for instance. Also on whether something is a coloration or not, the degree of coloration, etc. You said yourself in your second post of today "what is 'valuable' is in the eye of the beholder." One could also easily say that what is a "coloration" is in the ear of the listener.

Hi Bryon - I think there is still some misunderstanding here. I am not disputing that there is a fact of the matter about whether there is coloration or not; as I have said before, I believe that colorations are ALWAYS present, and that an absence of them is not possible in music reproduction. When I made the analogy about coloration being in the ear of the listener, I meant that each listener will perceive these colorations differently, and that this is ultimately subjective no matter how much agreement can be made on terms. Taste comes into play here as well - which trade offs does one want to make, etc.

I also did not mean to imply that there is no such thing as an inaudible coloration. One obvious example is a digital processor designed to remove all frequencies above the range of human hearing, as many still are - this is clearly information that has been eliminated (it has also been proven that although the ear does not hear these frequencies, the brain does sense them and does perceive their absence).

Another clarification - I did not mean to imply that variety of tastes make it impossible to come to an agreement on quality. As you say, taste is not a static phenomenon at all. That is one of the main points of my brother's paper, in fact. That said, it still can be very easy to confuse taste with quality. For example, an audiophile who will refuse to own a tube amp, no matter how well made and how good it sounds because they consider them too "colored," a bias very often expressed here on this forum - insert your own favorite bias in place of this example. Almost none of us are as open minded as we would like to think we are.

Wow - I have been unable to read/post here for a while now due to the busy holiday season, and I see that I have missed quite a bit! I would like to comment on a couple of different things here.

Mrtennis - I would like to give you an example of a different sort of analysis that can greatly increase your enjoyment of music, and this would be the study of music theory, particularly the study of different musical forms. Your appreciation and enjoyment of the genius behind say a Bach fugue, or a Mozart symphony will be greatly enhanced by the study of these forms. Or say you prefer jazz - there are several basic forms one can study here that will yield much greater appreciation for the art of Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Wynton Marsalis, or whoever your favorites are. A great book I like to recommend, which is written in terms a "layman" can understand, is the composer Aaron Copland's book What To Listen For In Music. I do not know of a better introduction to these sorts of topics for the listener than this excellent work. Many audiophiles devote an amazing amount of time studying electronics, etc.; musical forms are a much less complex and easier to understand subject, and this sort of study is much more directly beneficial to your enjoyment of whatever you are listening to.

Bryon, your preference/perception discussion is interesting. I would go a little farther than dgarretson's response and say that perception is always going to be hugely influenced by preference for each individual listener. This is what my brother was driving at in his taste/quality comment. It is all too easy, no matter how experienced the listener is, for taste to influence the judgement of quality - perception cannot be totally separated from preference, even if one is trying to be as objective as possible. The main thing I would disagree with in your argument would be where you state that the more listener expertise increases, the more preference will decrease. I would go so far as to state the opposite. The more one's listening skills improve, the more this will help determine and reinforce what one's preferences are. This has been the case with my own explorations of the different options in high end audio. The more I learn, the clearer and stronger my preferences become. You seem to be arguing that the more experienced listeners will gravitate towards the same idea of "neutrality," whereas I would argue that the opposite would be the case. I think the recent discussion between dgarretson and muralman and kijanki on preferences bears this out. Ultimately, your "neutrality" is a subjective, personal judgement, no matter how well we can objectively identify different types of colorations.

Hi Bryon - just saw your most recent post. Very interesting. My initial thought, after reading it twice and thinking about it, is that I am not so sure that you don't have your points 5a and 5b (and therefore the following 6a and 6b) backwards. If I may give two examples - first of a real event, as I understand your terms. This could be me playing my horn on a concert hall stage. A virtual event could be someone creating an electronic tone on a synthesizer in a recording studio. Now what is interesting to me about these examples is that the first one would be almost impossible to recreate EXACTLY. Sure, I can play the same note twice and it will sound exactly the same to all but the very most discerning listeners. However, chances are that it isn't actually exactly the same. Whereas in my virtual event example, anyone anywhere using the same synthesizer could theoretically EXACTLY reproduce that sound. This is the biggest advantage of electronic instruments. So it seems to me that this reverses what you state - objectivism would be more appropriate to the second, virtual example than the first, real example. Now I realize you are speaking of recordings, not live events, but if the standard for recording is to reproduce the live event as closely as possible, it is clearly much easier to come close to the "truth" of my second example on a recording than my first, as I understand your use of the term. In the first example, it would be almost impossible to determine, as Cbw asks, how much your system is altering the source material (let alone how the recording altered the live event), whereas with my second example, this would be easier to determine. What do you think? Am I misinterpreting your terms?

Hi Bryon - good reply. I grant your point that 4) does not necessarily follow from 3) ( truthfulness of types of recordings cannot validly be inferred from the repeatability of types of performances).

However, I completely disagree with you about 4) itself. 4) to me is an obviously true statement (that's why I didn't mention it), and I am a little puzzled as to why you think it is false. Any recording engineer will tell you that electronic instruments are MUCH easier to record than acoustic instruments or voices. Despite the more complex wave forms today's digital systems are capable of creating, these wave forms are still far less complex than those created by acoustic instruments and voices (they still haven't even come close, despite the theoretical potential). The simpler the timbre, the easier it is to reproduce, and the easier it is to tell whether or not the reproduction is "truthful." Electronically produced sounds are also much less affected by room acoustics, at least when we are considering timbre, especially if the room in question is a recording studio. Electronically produced tones can be 100% controlled, regardless of environment, making them much easier to record. You brought up the point that we are less familiar with electronic timbres. This may be true, but I think that this is actually irrelevant, especially since as you said we are speaking of recordings, not the live event. A recording engineer can know EXACTLY how an electronically produced tone is going to sound. This is NEVER true of acoustic instruments or voices, even the same exact player of the same exact instrument in the same exact environment from one day to another. This is a big reason why engineers want to make sure that a recording of any given song or movement of a multi-movement work is finished in one session - it is simply too difficult to reproduce the exact same pitch level on a different session (which is why many engineers/orchestra conductors still forgo patch sessions when making a "live" recording). This is of course no problem for electronic instruments.

Based on the above, then, it follows that one can be much more of an objectivist about electronically produced music. The standard for judging "truthfulness" can be much more, not less exact than with acoustic instruments.