since all components are inaccurate, one cannot achieve perfections. coloration will always be present. perhspas a better term to use is a flat frequency response. get a spectral analyzer, pink or white noise and measure deviations from a flat frequency response. such an approach is objective. the other ideas are completely subjective and since perception differs, there will be disagreement. stick to objective terms which can be measured when dealing with accuracy, neutrality and transparency.
i must admit i am in the subjective camp. if i like the sound or if it doesn't drive me out of the room i'm happy. subjective analysis is a highly personal endeavor and meaningful to one listener. |
please explain how flat frequency response is inconsistent with accuracy of timbre and pitch. |
what is the purpose of assessing neutrality, if the goal of listening is musical enjoyment?
is this a philosophical endeavor or is there another reason for this question ? |
ok bryon, i see your point.
however, measuring the accuracy of individual components is probably near impossible, because accuracy is a multi-dimensional concept. how can you be sure you have measured every relevant variable.
also, if each component in a stereo system were accurate, does that imply that the stereo system is accurate ? |
hi byron:
some of my previous threads and posts concerned definition of words and not redundancy of analysis. |
preference for a particular coloration(s))and the general tendendency for most"audiophiles" to disagree about anything negates many of the aforementioned arguments presented so far. |
hi cbw:
aural memory is very short. when judging the diffference between live and recordeded sound it is likely that one will be able to do so.
however, when comparing two recordings as to which is closer to a live sound, there will be disagreements among serious listeneres, as the number of variables governing such a judgment is large.
regarding neutrality, without a reference it is impossible to judge neutrality, accuracy or transparency.
when a recording is considered a reference for assessing the neutrality of a stereo system, the reference, either a live sound or recording is not knowable. hence it is best to use other terms than the aforementioned when trying to describe the sound of a stereo sytem. |
in the english language , better is a subjective term, unless it is tied to a reference. since there is no known reference in audio as the sound of a recording is completely unknown and the memory of the sound of an instrument heard at a concert is unreliable , better is completely subjective.
thus, two audiophiles will disagree as to which audio system is closer to "neutrality". |
there is much subjectivity involved in making statements of a quantitative natture without a reference and relying exclusively upon memory.
when comparing say, 2 stereo systems, i suspect that there will be significant disagreements among serious listeners, unless a piano is available for comparison to a recording, as a basis for judgment. memory is too unreliable. i have some personal experienece as part of a master's program in psychology.
i do not trust aural memory.
there are ways to compare stereo systems which require elaborate designs, which are often impractical.
neutrality is such an abstract concept that it may be irrelevant as far as configuring a stereo system. |
does anyone posit that in order to enjoy the fruits of listening to music it is necessary or ssufficient to have a method of assessing a systems' neutrality ?
if , as i suspect it is not necessary or sufficient to be concenrened with the coloroations or lack thereof to enjoy music, why is there such an interest in trying to determine a stereo systems neutrality or the lack thereof, regardless of methodology.
there seems to be an implicit sense in the desirability of pursuing some algorithm for "measuring" neutrality which, unfortunately may be uncorrelated to the results of listening to music. |
hi byron:
my point is simple:
if you enjoy a stereo system while listening to music, you won't enjoy it any more by analyzing it.
unless one is a reviewer, the analytical mode is often an academic excercise with little reference to the satisfaction one attains from listening to music.
any attempt to judge the attributes of a stereo system ususually does not enhance the pleasure one gets from listening to music in general.
while reviewers assess the merits of stereo sysytems, i question the utility of such an endeavor for serious listeners.
obviously if you don't like the sound of your stereo system, it may be useful to determine the reason. |
there was an iteresting piece in stereophile edited by markus sauer which attempted to show that there was no evidence that sound quality had a high correlation to satisfaction when listening to music.
i agree, from an academic basisis, that analysis is a worthy pursuit. it sharpens the brain cells.
however, except for system malfunction, or disssatisfaction with what one is hearing, that it is a useful endeavor when listening to music.
there are many topics that i have introduced myself for purely philosophical purposes, rather than to enhance the enjoyment of music.
i enjoy a good debate and i think that this subject lends itself to practice one's debating skills.
the question of this thread may be rhetorical, after all, in that it has no definitive answer. |
it seems there exists a dichotomy--enjoment of music and analysis for its own sake. one may satisify the need for achievment (analysis to achieve neutrality) while the other may attain pleasure for a liatener. |
ultimately, i think most of us do not listen to music in an analytic mode and are more concerned whether the sound reaching the ears is pleasurable. in that sense, musicality may be more important to most audiophiles. |
wow, what an academic series of discussions which have not been proven relevant to the satisfaction accruing from listening to music.
the key word is "proof". can someone offer up a study which shows as one approaches a neutral presentation of recorded music, one's enjoyment increases ? |
mathematically speaking, it is not possible to assess a system's neutrality, bacause, the components and recordings are unknown variables, leading to a diophantine equation.
you can assess its resolution, and also get some idea of its inaccuracy. |
ok, no one is contradicting my assertions.
here is another issue.
if a recording distorts the sound of the instruments being recorded, how do you assess the accuracy/inaccuracy of the stereo system ?
if you were present at a recording studio, you would audition the recording through the equipment at the studio.
such an audition would not reveal the sound of the recording, because of the inherent flaws of the stereo system at the studio. |
i admit that you can measure frequency response of a stereo system, which while an incomplete measurement of accuracy, may be sufficient for most purposes.
if each component in a stereo system were accurate, there could still be impedance mismatches, and the affects of long cables upon frequency response as well as other unintended consequences. |
hi byron
accuracy is not a matter of degree. something is either accurate or it is not. it is not a relative term. it is absolute.
is truth a matter of degree ? no. something is either true or false. there may be degrees of inaccuracy , but accuracy is a condition that one may try to attain therefore it is absolute.
if accurate were a relative term how would you know how accurate some thing is unless you had a reference ?
you may be confusing degrees of inaccuracy with degrees of accuracy which is illogical.
if you get 100 on a test that means as far as the test is concerned, you have answered the test questions accurately. you achieved the hihest score possible. there are no degrees of answering test questions accurately.
go to the dictionary and check. |
since all components are imperfect, a thorough audition will reveal some flaw or consistent sonic signature.
if there exists a component which is "virtually" neutral, i.e., does not reveal any flaws, i would like to know about it. |
the question is "how to judge neutrality ?"
if neutrality doesn't not exist, you can't judge it ?
without perfection there is no neutrality or accuracy.
there are ways of judging inaccuracy, or distortion or coloration , but not absolute freedom from errors, since components have flaws. whether you can hear them or not, no human being can achieve perfection, so why try to judge it ? |
hi mike:
just a joke but "most neutral" reminds me of being a little bit pregnant. i think you meant swiss speakers are minimally inaccurate. |
here is what i found from the site:
merriamwebster.com/dictionary/accuracy
freedom from mistake or error, correctness, conformity to truth or to a standard or model, exactness.
if accuracy is axactness, something is either exact or it isn't. freedom from error is absolute. |
i have many things to say. first, many of the preceding comments seem rather academic and superfluous. one of the purposes of listening to music is to enjoy it. thus it may not be necessary to analyze it (a stereo system to the extent indicated)in any way.
secondly, one cannot assume what forms of coloration are prefereable or not orefereable. i may prefer a boomy cabinet and be in the minority of serious listeners.
in the third case the term "audiophile" has been used many times but has not been defined. i suspect that i am not an audiophile and am not subject to the aforementioned stipulations. i may be the exception to the "rule".
finally, KISS. some of the analysis seems unnecessary and perhaps the term "serious listener" should substitute for "audiophile". after all, without defining the term the conclusions are obvious.
although the theme has generated many posts, it would seem that points have been made and that further discusssion may not add value to what has already been said.
i am not and never will consider myself an audiophile, as my pursuit is the enjoyment of music , rather than an analysis of stereo systems.
the neutrality of stereo systems theme should be the basis for a debate in an academic institution. |
