How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Kijanki wrote:
"Well - I'm my own playback engineer and I choose the sound I like."

I think most of us do this to some extent, since we put a fair amount of effort into modifying our system and keep the changes that we think make things sound better.

But what makes things "sound better?" Sometimes it's a change in resolution. Sometimes it's a shift in tonal balance. Sometimes it's improved dynamics. And so on. In each case, we use our experience and our taste to make a judgment. The point of this thread is to talk about another aspect of one's system that may make things sound better.

We each weight these things as we see fit. Some people might not care about anything but resolution or pinpoint imaging, to the exclusion of everything else. Some people, like Newbee, don't think neutrality exists. So these people weight neutrality zero when considering system changes. You seem to prefer some degree of coloration, so there are at least some aspects of neutrality you don't care about. But to me, if I make a change and different instruments sound more different (while, obviously, remaining true to what they are), as Bryon suggested in his original post, then I've affected something that may make the music more enjoyable.

As for being one's own engineer, it's intriguing to think that we could individually EQ every song in our collection. It would even be worth the effort on some tracks. But, honestly, I think compression is our biggest enemy in the source, and I don't see a way to restore that without the cooperation of the record companies.

Byron, IMHO we simply disagreed on the use of the term neutral as it applies to this hobby and it appears that we just continue to do so. My ignorance, or inflexibility, perhaps. So be it. I've said far more than I ever intended.

BTW i never thought you had a commercial interest in audio but if by using this thread to expose a tad of contempt for those that do, when what they do is based on false premises, I've go to plead guilty to availing myself of the opportunity without regards to your sensitivities.

Ciao

Cbw723 - no I would not adjust sound for individual songs but rather pick affordable system that sounds best to me on average with the type of music I listen to.

Whole issue of neutrality is very fishy since there is nothing to compare to. Should my wife get neutral system if she doesn't like strong bass. Some people have ears more sensitive to certain frequencies than others. Older person with loss of hearing at high frequencies (we're all getting there) shouldn't be forced to listen at home to neutral system that plays what they hear at the concert with lack of highs. He should rather pick a little brighter system to compensate. Even gender matters - woman hear and see differently than man. Do all people have the same taste for the food. Do all people like spicy dishes?
Neutral food to hindu is too spicy for you. It is similar with hearing to lesser degree.

If neutral system could be really defined we could hire people with best hearing ability (conductors, musicians etc) to rate systems or pick them for us. It will never happen.

Tvad - You forgot "analog vs. digital" and "tube vs. SS"

If neutral system could be really defined we could hire people with best hearing ability (conductors, musicians etc) to rate systems or pick them for us.

Isn't that what part of what these talented people do? They have the know how to create music we like - sounds we like - musical arrangements that fit together beautifully. Some experts are in heavy demand for mastering for the sound quality they create. Others provide key artistic input during the production. Whilst some have great skill in getting the microphones setup perfectly (and to know by ear immediately what is wrong when it ain't right)

I believe there is such thing as great sound or excellent equipment and that this can be measured and rated by experts. (Dr. Floyd Toole spent years researching people's perceptions of sound quality and found that we are not so completely different - but I grant you that there are many here who at extremes of the bell curve, as one might expect from obsessive behaviour about sound rather than "music", which Newbee pointed out so well)

I had a girlfriend once, who was quite neutral looking, neutrally shaped (or shapes), in fact it was all rather boring and very nondescript, beige is how I would describe her. I now want an edgy, spikey, sharp, exciting, intoxicating woman, bit like my hi-fi setup.

Shadorne - I don't question existence of better recordings or better equipment. I just don't want to have gear that sound natural to experts and wrong or boring to me. Somebody mentioned going to studio and listening to what they listen to (to have reference point). Lets imagine that you are professional violin player and in studio playback violin doesn't sound right to you. Should you get system that faithfully will reproduce this (wrong) sound. To get again wine analogy - renown American wine expert Parker said once that anybody can taste good wine but what expert does is to predict based on 6 month old unfinish product how it will taste in the future (because restaurants place orders a year ahead). I don't know much about recording business but I suspect that recording engineer adjusts sound having in mind average system it will play on. He would not release record without compression even if it sound good to him.

Gawdbless - Do you still have her phone number? At my age I go for anything.

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.

Learsfool wrote:
"I can tell you that no two of us would agree on what this "neutrality" would sound like."

I agree with this. But I do not conclude from it, as many of the posters seem to, that neutrality is either (1) unreal, or (2) unknowable.

Learsfool wrote:
"Every piece of equipment, every system, every recording, has what you are calling 'coloration.'"

I agree with this. But I do not conclude from it that every piece of equipment, every system, or every recording is EQUALLY colored.

Learsfool wrote:
"I would be fascinated to hear you try to describe what this "neutrality" goal of yours would actually sound like..."

That is precisely what I tried to do in the original post, namely, to describe something that is, admittedly, very difficult to describe. My description was:

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

Learsfool wrote:
"What you are really trying to define, ultimately, is your own sonic ideal."

No. In my original post, I wrote:
"I’m not suggesting that neutrality is the most important goal in building an audio system..."

In a subsequent post, I wrote:
"As to the doubt, expressed by several posters, that neutrality is a vital consideration in assembling a satisfying music system, I am actually somewhat agnostic."

In my very last post, I wrote:
"I do not think that neutrality is of paramount important, of exclusive importance, or of essential importance."

So, for the fourth time: In my view, neutrality is one virtue AMONG MANY in an audio system. My intention in starting this thread was to propose a way to develop that particular virtue, not to suggest that it is the virtue to be valued above all others.

"I am actually somewhat agnostic." - don't worry, there is a cream for that.

So, for the fourth time: In my view, neutrality is one virtue AMONG MANY in an audio system. My intention in starting this thread was to propose a way to develop that particular virtue, not to suggest that it is the virtue to be valued above all others.

Well, after 61 posts so far in this thread, I'll throw in my own brief $0.02. Upon careful reading and re-reading of Byron's well written initial post, it seems to me that it makes perfect sense, and that it proposes an evaluation criterion that will often be useful.

It seems obvious to me that there will be a significant DEGREE of correlation (although certainly not a perfect correlation) between colorations/lack of transparency/lack of neutrality/whatever you want to call it, that may be introduced by a component or system, and the degree of enjoyment that system will provide to the average discriminating listener when averaged across a wide range of recordings. An inverse partial correlation, to be perfectly precise.

Byron has proposed a means of facilitating assessment of that coloration/lack of transparency/lack of neutrality/whatever you want to call it that, while perhaps not commonly recognized, seems to me to be both valuable and self-evident on its face. It's as simple as that.

Regards,
-- Al

Kijanki wrote: "no I would not adjust sound for individual songs but rather pick affordable system that sounds best to me on average with the type of music I listen to."

Affordable? What does affordable have to do with anything? I thought this was an audiophile discussion.

Cbw723 - Don't you have any financial limitations?

If not, I can recommend an amp (Stereophile class A few years ago) that costs $350k - perfect sound, no compromises there. For the rest of us it is always choice between many factors. Many audiophilles give up extension to get better transparency or imaging etc.

I assume of course that we're talking seriously and not about "imaginary gear"

I've been doing critical listening lately from 12-24" away. You can hear a lot more hash and detail from the driver than the normal 6-10 feet. Cuts out room interactions too.
I don't know why but listening farther away smooths out the sound and also removes a lot of micro-detail.

I've been doing critical listening lately from 12-24" away. You can hear a lot more hash and detail from the driver than the normal 6-10 feet.

You may have an issue with room acoustics (extremely common - so don't worry) - if your space is fairly reflective and on the small side then it can clutter the sound - you need space between primary direct arrival and reflected sound in order for things to sound clean and clear.

Upon careful reading and re-reading of Byron's well written initial post, it seems to me that it makes perfect sense, and that it proposes an evaluation criterion that will often be useful.

Al, We agree (as usual) - see the first posted reply in this thread.

I started this thread with a proposal about how to identify neutrality in an audio system. The thread has become largely a debate about (1) the existence of neutrality; and (2) the value of neutrality. Several of the posters who deny the existence or value of neutrality have contrasted it with the existence and value of resolution and transparency. In light of that, I have a new proposal, one that addresses both the existence and value of neutrality. Here it is:

RESOLUTION + NEUTRALITY = TRANSPARENCY

Let’s define some terms:

RESOLUTION: The amount of information presented by a component or system. In a digital component, for example, resolution is measured by bit depth and sampling rate. But I take it that it is uncontroversial that every major component of an audio system, and the system as a whole, can be evaluated as to its resolution, whether that can be measured or not. Resolution is, of course, a matter of degree.

NEUTRALITY: The degree to which a component or system is free from coloration. Once again, this does NOT refer to coloration in the recording, but only to coloration introduced by the playback system. I have argued above that neutrality, like resolution, is a matter of degree.

TRANSPARENCY: The degree to which a component or system is sonically “invisible.” Transparency is a visual metaphor for something that is not visual. As the metaphor is used by audiophiles, a component or a system is transparent when it allows the listener to “see through” itself and perceive the recording, the event, or the music. Transparency, thus understood, is also a matter of degree.

The current proposal is that, as the resolution and neutrality of a component or system increases, so does its transparency. This can be understood in terms of four prototypical systems:

LOW RESOLUTION, LOW NEUTRALITY:
This system lacks detail and it makes everything sound the same. Think: A boombox.

HIGH RESOLUTION, LOW NEUTRALITY:
This system has lots of detail, but there is a certain “sameness” to everything played through it. It always sounds like THAT system.

LOW RESOLUTION, HIGH NEUTRALITY:
This system lacks a certain amount of information or detail, but it is a chameleon. It’s hard to pin down what the system sounds like, since it sounds different on every recording.

HIGH RESOLUTION, HIGH NEUTRALITY:
This system provides the information missing from the last system, while also being a sonic chameleon. It has a high level of detail within a recording, but also a high level of variety across different recordings. It's easy to get lost in the music when listening to this system, since the system itself never seems to “get in the way.” Of the four systems, this is the most TRANSPARENT.

These hypothetical systems are merely prototypes, in the sense that they describe categories whose members are (1) joined by resemblance, and (2) differentiated by degree.

I hope that this proposal illustrates the value of neutrality, insofar as it links neutrality to other sonic characteristics - resolution and transparency - that are valued by the the detractors of neutrality.

Fire away!

I like this definition, but what about imaging? Couldn't a system have a high degree of both neutrality and resolution, but have fuzzy image focus? That would tend to disrupt the impression of a live event or a well-integrated studio recording, and make the system fail to disappear as required by transparency. Or does resolution (in stereo) necessarily require imaging?

I think the original two point are valid but a third point is needed.

Dgarretson nailed it at the start.
"a better term to use is a flat frequency response"
Ignores correct pitch & timbre, the hallmark of a high-end system.
"No real performing space is "neutral"...the room's acoustics always have a huge effect on the musician's sounds...The reference point should be what you want the music to sound like."
Does the room in which the playback system resides really affect sonics as much as the original recording space? IMO not true of any high-performance system-- particularly at lower volumes.

A "reference point" is necessary and should be #3 on the list. For me that point is acoustic nylon stringed guitar something I played.
Without a "reference point" it just all seems like mental masturbation. Very interesting but....

Byron, It's hard to argue with your new, or restated, position. Not many nits, for me anyway, that are worth picking or restating. But you lost me with your conclusion that getting to your optimum combiniation of resolution, transparancy, and neutrality, allowed one to get lost in the music. It may allow YOU to get lost, but consider that this is a very personal experience and might well not be shared by many others.

You have stated, under the caption High Resolution, High Neutrality "Its easy to get lost in the music when listening to this system........".

IMHO listening to MUSIC is easily distinguished from listening to the sonic character of audio components by playing recordings of music. And I think this is worth restating, especially for those who might be inclined to adopt your conclusion about the value of a highly resolved, transparen/neutral system.

When you have an audio system that is highly resolved and highly neutral/transparent etc, as you describe, you will hear all of the warts in the recording process including mic placement, edits, mixing, instrument highlighting, etc. None of which is natural to a live performance in any sense but which is a construct for the purpose of reducing the music to a recording format in a manner that will reproduce a sense of space when played back at home.

Of course the more successful the recording process the more successful the illusion when played back at home. The perfect recording played back over a perfect system in a perfect room would be a wonderful experience (I must assume I'm afraid - I've never heard it). Not live, but one you could certainly get lost in listening to the music. Maybe that proves your point, but........

Very few recordings come even remotely close to recording a performance in a natural style that comes accross as such when played back at home. If your interest is in sound and audio recording practices your optomized system is fine. You will hear all that is in the pits and grooves. But that does not cause ME to become absorbed in the MUSIC unless and until I have to trained my ears/mind to listen thru all of the artifice that the recording process adds to the performance or my recordings are, or close to, perfect replications of the live event.

I must conclude that if one is inclined to prize neutrality to the source more than some of us music enthusiasts, who are comfortible in seeking systems that manage to combine both resolution and tonality which may not be up to the sound enthusiasts level of approval, but which allow us to get lost in the MUSIC without the constant reminders that we are just listening to a RECORDING of music, that it is a perfectly valid audio goal, but it is not exclusive of other goals.

Before you consider posting and reminding me of all of your qualifying statements, as you have previously done, consider that this post would not have occurred if you had not made the statement about what conditions allowed you to get lost in the music. That statement, to me nullifies most of your qualifying statements and reflects your real priorities, which many of us do not share, no matter how artfully you try to present them. But since you want to enlighten us, let me share the spirit. The word 'unique' as you have used in your original post, is absolute, it cannot be (should not be) modified further by using terms like less or more as is so commonly done. And, FWIW, my musical collection is very diverse - I fail to understand how changing the quality of my audio system will ever make my collection more diverse. But then, I listen to the MUSIC in the first place, so would never make these errors.

Almarg, I tried but I just can't emulate you. Damm......:-)

Excellent last several posts, most definitely including Newbee's despite (and perhaps because of) it's non-emulation of a particular lesser light around here :)

I still feel, though, that the main thrust of the op has been diverted throughout most of this thread by unnecessary focus on semantic nuances, as well as on matters which (although well reasoned, and about which reasonable people can differ) are essentially extraneous to the issue at hand.

After I submitted my previous post, it occurred to me that when I used the phrase "lack of colorations/transparency/neutrality/whatever you want to call it," I should have added the word "accuracy" as well.

Basically all of these terms relate to how accurately what is reproduced by the system (and its room environment), resembles what is sent into it by the recording.

And my restatement of what I believe to be Byron's (Bryon's?) initial basic point, which which I agree, consists of two elements:

1)A significant degree of correlation (although certainly not a perfect correlation) can be expected between listener satisfaction and lack of coloration/increased transparency/neutrality/accuracy or whatever such term may be preferred. And,

2)If a component change, or a change to the entire system, results in consistently increased differentiation of the sounds of different recordings, there is a good likelihood that "lack of coloration/increased transparency/neutrality/accuracy or whatever such term may be preferred" has been improved. Meaning, per item 1, that listener satisfaction stands a good chance of having been improved as well.

Regards,
-- Al

"The word 'unique' as you have used in your original post, is absolute, it cannot be (should not be) modified further by using terms like less or more as is so commonly done."

This is simply no longer true. Traditionalist grammarians didn't like it, but modern usage recognizes and allows qualification of "unique."

But even if it were true, it seems an odd issue to take when the meaning in the original post was clear. What point are you making about the application of the word "neutrality?" Do you want to substitute another word for "unique" in the original post? How would that affect the points being made?

"But then, I listen to the MUSIC in the first place, so would never make these errors."

I don't see any need for this kind of hostility. This is a discussion about defining and applying some terminology. Is there any reason it can't remain civil?

Al - You have stated exactly the intention of my original post. And yes, my name is Bryon, not Byron. It's a strange spelling of Bryan.

Cbw723 wrote:
"Couldn't a system have a high degree of both neutrality and resolution, but have fuzzy image focus? "

I doubt this. I think any highly resolving system is also a system that images well.

Newbee - Your last post puzzles me. In it, you wrote:

"When you have an audio system that is highly resolved and highly neutral/transparent etc, as you describe, you will hear all of the warts in the recording process including mic placement, edits, mixing, instrument highlighting, etc. None of which is natural to a live performance..."

But, in your first post on this thread, you wrote:

"IMHO, a systems resolution, i.e. its ability TO RESOLVE AND PRESENT ALL OF THE INFORMATION IN THE RECORDING in a balanced manner, linear if you will, combined with an overall tone that pleases you is all that counts." [emphasis added]

These two statements appear contradictory. Similarly, in your last post, you wrote:

"If your interest is in sound and audio recording practices your optomized system is fine. You will hear all that is in the pits and grooves. But that does not cause ME to become absorbed in the MUSIC..." [emphasis original]

But in your first post, you wrote:

"There is no recorded performance that will ever sound like a live event...So what are we left with? 'Resolution' so we can hear ALL THAT IS IN THE PITS AND GROOVES' and tonality that pleases our ears and expectations." [emphasis added]

These two statements also appear contradictory.

Way cool discussion going on here. Had a feeling this one would grow legs. If Almarg has summarized the OP's proposal succinctly and accurately --

1)A significant degree of correlation (although certainly not a perfect correlation) can be expected between listener satisfaction and lack of coloration/increased transparency/neutrality/accuracy or whatever such term may be preferred. And,

2)If a component change, or a change to the entire system, results in consistently increased differentiation of the sounds of different recordings, there is a good likelihood that "lack of coloration/increased transparency/neutrality/accuracy or whatever such term may be preferred" has been improved. Meaning, per item 1, that listener satisfaction stands a good chance of having been improved as well.

My question is, how is there a necessary correlation between neutrality, as defined herein, and listener satisfaction? I submit part of the love affair with tubes is their added 'warmth' -- hardly neutral. Apologies to all here if this has been brought up or discussed, I didn't have time to read this entire thread -- damn boss keeps coming over.

My question is, how is there a necessary correlation between neutrality, as defined herein, and listener satisfaction? I submit part of the love affair with tubes is their added 'warmth' -- hardly neutral.

Good question, T, and I think that the answer stems from the fact, as I said in my posts, that the correlation is only a partial one. "Correlation," as it might be taught in a statistics class, can be any number between 1.0 (denoting perfect, absolute correlation) and 0 (denoting complete lack of correlation, the two variables being random relative to one another).

In this case, as I noted:

"A significant degree of correlation (although certainly not a perfect correlation) can be expected between listener satisfaction and lack of coloration/increased transparency/neutrality/accuracy or whatever such term may be preferred."

Euphonic (subjectively pleasing) inaccuracies that can be added by some tube designs would account for part of the difference between "significant degree of correlation" and "perfect correlation."

I think that the validity of the underlying point can be most easily seen by considering a very extreme example. Consider a system purchased at Walmart for a total system price of $300, in comparison with say a $50K system such as some Audiogoner's have. I don't think anyone here will disagree as to which one will provide better and more enjoyable sound, and I don't think that anyone here will disagree as to which one is more neutral/accurate/etc., and I don't think anyone here will disagree that the $50K system is likely to make different recordings sound more different than when those same recordings are played on the $300 system.

But would the $50K system sound completely "neutral," in the sense of recreating what is on the recording with absolute perfection? Obviously not. And would it sound the same as someone else's different $50K system? Also obviously not. But that is beside the point. Both $50K systems, which may sound very different from one another, will be far preferable to the $300 system, and both will make different recordings sound more different than the $300 system.

Which $50K system is preferable, on the other hand, is likely to be subjective, and the decision-making process choosing between them may be an example of one which will not be helped by the test Bryon has proposed. But that does not mean that the test won't be useful to many people, as components are compared, and systems evolve.

Regards,
-- Al

Cbw723, You are right civility is very important and hostility is always out of place. I should have stopped at the end of my second sentence in the last paragraph by which time I had said all that was on my mind regarding the subject at hand.

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.

Learsfool - I agree with your observation that it would difficult for a group of audiophiles to agree about which high resolution system was the most neutral. But I believe that (1) more agreement exists than has been generally acknowledged in this thread; and (2) more agreement is possible if the term neutral is operationalized (perhaps in the way I have suggested, perhaps not).

Al essentially made point (1) when he wrote:

I think that the validity of the underlying point can be most easily seen by considering a very extreme example. Consider a system purchased at Walmart for a total system price of $300, in comparison with say a $50K system such as some Audiogoner's have. I don't think anyone here will disagree as to which one will provide better and more enjoyable sound, and I don't think that anyone here will disagree as to which one is more neutral/accurate/etc.

Al chose this extreme example to make the point, but I believe that agreement among audiophiles concerning neutrality would not be limited to such extremes, particularly if they were to evaluate a variety of high resolution systems in acoustically identical rooms. This is merely a thought experiment used to illustrate my belief that there is more overlap in audiophiles' perception, including the perception of neutrality, than has been generally acknowledged in this thread. Learsfool expressed skepticism about agreement among audiophiles in his last post:

"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?"

Perhaps these systems would sound "completely and totally different" to some group of audiophiles, because audiophiles are attuned to very subtle differences in audio, and we have very well defined preferences about those differences. But I think it's informative to also consider the perception of non-audiophiles. To them, I doubt these systems would sound "completely and totally different."

Which is more valid in evaluating how different these systems sound: the expert judgment of the audiophile or the naive judgment of the layman? I'm not sure there's an answer to this question. But it's useful to consider because it highlights the possibility that more convergence exists among high resolution systems than is commonly recognized among audiophiles. And if that's true, then perhaps the inability of audiophiles to come to an agreement says more about the audiophiles (myself included) than it does about the systems they listen to.

It would be complicated for non-audiophiles to judge neutrality or any other metric of high quality playback. My wife does well in this regard despite a disinterest in audio, because her ears have been educated through long exposure to the “second-hand smoke” of my audio habit. The general population-- widely exposed to norms of Ipod and boom box listening-- has insurmountable biases against neutrality. Finally, the non-audiophile exposed to live music outside of a controlled studio environment or a cat-bird seat in a concert hall, may have a good sense of realism without having heard sound free of hall and pro audio affects. The best hope is that experienced audiophiles can gravitate to a convergence of opinion—which is unlikely given that most are hunkered down in private listening. Web reviews of RMAF and CES are unreliable, as room sounds at shows tend to morph over the several days of the show. For me the local Audio Club meeting is the only reliable venue to explore a possible convergence of opinion. In this month’s meeting in my area, about 45 members heard a presentation of second-from-top ATC active speakers—which are widely consider “neutral.” I know how I felt about these speakers, but will wait for the club president to compile separate reviews from all members before rejecting the theoretical possibility of consensus in a congress of audiophiles.

Seems to me the discussion is ultimately a dispute about the hierarchy of adjectives used to describe the listening experience. What are the properties(whether described directly in aural terminology, or indirectly by analogy drawn mostly from visual processes) that are most fundamentally descriptive of playback? What other less significant descriptors lie underneath? Does a "better" component reveal the interconnectedness between all the perceived properties of playback, or do the properties just float around independently inside a component like monads or seasonings?

Personally I agree with Bryon that resolving, neutral, and transparent are three of the best audiophile adjectives. But allowing even for wide disagreement among audiophiles regarding the meaning and significance of these descriptors, his three are in the final analysis somewhat static. They fail to account for time-domain factors like microdynamics, macrodynamics, pitch, timbre, and of course timing itself. Of the three static terms, perhaps neutrality is the broadest and most appealing, as it is free of precise visual metaphor and therefore available for a wide range of interpretations and contexts. For me the idea of neutrality refers mostly to flat frequency response.

As a modifier, in the course of making small changes inside a component I can hold control variables constant and listen to the effect of a single variable change such as a low-noise resistor or an improved power supply rectifier. Some of the biggest surprises occur around one's perception of neutrality in the sense of flat frequency response. For example, one of the most difficult things to eliminate in a tube system is loose bass. You can be absolutely convinced that your tube component is resolving and transparent and has realistic tonality in the midrange and treble, while rationalizing away a lack of bass control as warmth, embodiment, involvement, whatever. Now make a single improvement to PS, and bass control and perceived neutrality markedly improve. But note as well that dynamics have improved, and midrange & treble pitch, timbre, etc. have all improved. The funny thing is that with the vast majority of circuit changes made on solid technical grounds, all the descriptors of listening are dragged upward. Solving the most stubborn & obvious problem like sloppy bass usually ameliorates a range of lesser, even unrecognized deficiencies. In the rare case where something goes wrong when something else goes right, some further incremental change will usually redress the situation.

Assuming one accepts the possibility of continuous improvement (and what restless audiophile does not), as remarked several times in the thread, we still need an external reference point. For most this reference point is live music as recalled from memory. My experience is that this conviction that one has “golden ears” is mostly a conceit about the power of auditory memory. Auditory memory for most of us (and probably most pro reviewers as well) is problematic and more flawed than we understand. Hence I argue that the reference point needs to be present in the room. For me the side-by-side comparison of source formats—vinyl & RBCD— provides the best cues about neutrality and other metrics. I’ve had the same CDP and vinyl rig for many years. In stock form they were respectable but sounded very different. The more technical improvements poured into each down unrelated analog & digital paths, the closer they converge on the same sound. And this convergence may be as good a demonstration of neutrality as any other.

It's not for nothing that philosophy has been fascinated by the close relationship between music and mathematics. If there is anything to this view of music, it is reasonable to hope for consensus regarding terminology in audio.

Dgarretson - Great post. Some thoughts...

It would be complicated for non-audiophiles to judge neutrality or any other metric of high quality playback...The general population-- widely exposed to norms of Ipod and boom box listening-- has insurmountable biases against neutrality.

I agree with this. I wasn't trying to suggest that a laymen's naive judgment about neutrality would be valuable. It would not be. I was trying to suggest that a layman's naive judgment about how different high resolution systems sound from one another would be valuable. I think the laymen would hear fewer differences than the audiophile, and as a result, judge those systems to be more similar than the audiophile does. This was a way of making the point that perhaps audiophiles exaggerate the differences among high resolution systems, as, for example, when they describe them as "completely and totally different." No doubt differences exist, and they are something audiophiles are passionate about. But my (admittedly optimistic) view is that there is more potential for common ground than some audiophiles suggest. I quite agree with you, though, that "consensus" is not often achieved.

Personally I agree with Bryon that resolving, neutral, and transparent are three of the best audiophile adjectives. But allowing even for wide disagreement among audiophiles regarding the meaning and significance of these descriptors, his three are in the final analysis somewhat static. They fail to account for time-domain factors like microdynamics, macrodynamics, pitch, timbre, and of course timing itself.

I agree completely that any concept of transparency must include time domain characteristics. I am inclined to think of time domain characteristics, like micro- and macrodynamics, as part of resolution. And I am inclined to think of correct pitch and timbre as part of neutrality. But now I really am being semantic. So on to more important matters...

The more technical improvements poured into each down unrelated analog & digital paths, the closer they converge on the same sound. And this convergence may be as good a demonstration of neutrality as any other.

This idea is fascinating. You mentioned it in your first post in this thread and, although no one ran with it, it stuck with me. I wonder how other posters feel about it...

Bryon, so much of this is about convergence. Interesting speculation that as we move up the food chain of components, instead of arriving at a convergence of opinion, distinctions continue regarding nuances. This is understandable, as once the worst of common coloration is removed, the more small differences are revealed for scrutiny.

In the past few years we increasingly read magazine editors & reviewers remark upon the accelerating pace of sonic improvement. The context for these remarks is usually highly-engineered solutions that stand out from previous designs. I'm inclined to agree with some of this-- particularly in the area of loudspeakers and piece parts. As a generalization, the best equipment is beginning to sound more alike, and the few remaining differences between the best components are more challenging to articulate. Yet even as a rising tide lifts all boats, small differences still tend to jump out at you. Reviewers continue to make distinctions using the same words, but the words describe a changed reality closer to convergence. Does this arise merely because of the all too human need to make distinctions(and to sell magazines), even without meaningful differences? If the pace of change continues, at some point ALL components will join Stereophile Class A Recommended Components, even as the magazine's reviewers continue to try to communicate uniqueness in the full reviews.

The aging of the high end consumer has also brought nostalgia into tastes and purchases. Vinyl takes us back, MM/MI takes us back, under-engineered SET amps takes us back. In the context of aging, coloration becomes a virtue.

Finally, through the economic bubble there has been a huge accumulation of high-end inventory in the marketplace-- much of it falling into the bland middle ground of the bell curve of performance. During this period boutique manufacturers and costly components proliferated all out of bounds, and with this the challenge to review and compare equipment. In some instances subjective opinions about the advantages of certain colorations may be used to advance hidden agendas or retroactively to justify unwise purchases.

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.

Learsfool wrote:

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...

I am not saying that a musician's "tonal colors" are, or should be, neutral. We have already had that conversation on this thread. In your second post, you wrote:

Music is not, and never should be "neutral." As a professional musician, the term has always been hilarious to me when applied in this context. No musician wants to sound "neutral," that's for sure!

To which I responded:

The term 'neutral' is not a description of the music. It is a description of the playback system and its components.

In a subsequent post, I wrote:

Again, neutrality is not a virtue of music or of recording. It is a virtue of a playback system.

And in a recent post, I wrote:

NEUTRALITY: The degree to which a component or system is free from coloration. Once again, this does NOT refer to coloration in the recording, but only to coloration introduced by the playback system.

As I hope is clear from this, my view is that neutrality is NOT a desirable characteristic in music or in recording. It is a desirable characteristic in a playback system.

As to your comment that "I personally would never want to listen for long to a system that removed subtle differences in this area," I am in complete agreement. But it is my view that the more neutral the playback system, the MORE it will reveal subtle differences in tone/timbre. That was my point in the original post, when I wrote:

This theory occurred to me one day when I changed amps and noticed that the timbres of instruments were suddenly more distinct from one another. With the old amp, all instruments seemed to have a common harmonic element (the signature of the amp?!). With the new amp, individual instrument timbres sounded more unique and the range of instrument timbres sounded more diverse.

Learsfool - I think our disagreement here can be reduced to two different answers to the following question:

WOULD A NEUTRAL AUDIO SYSTEM MAKE THE MUSIC SOUND "NEUTRAL"?

Judging from your posts, I believe you would answer this question "Yes." In other words, I think your view is that, the more neutral an audio system is, the more it makes things sound THE SAME. I have the exact opposite view, namely, that the more neutral an audio system is, the more it makes things sound DIFFERENT.

The reasoning for my view is the following: The more neutral an audio system, the less it colors the music with ITS OWN SIGNATURE. The less an audio system colors the music with its own signature, the more you will hear THE SIGNATURE OF THE MUSIC. And the more you hear the signature of the music, the more DISTINCT individual pieces of music will sound, and the more DIVERSE your collection of music will sound.

As to correct pitch and timbre, the rationale for including them under the concept of neutrality is the following: A system that is highly neutral contaminates pitch and timbre (with its own signature) less than one that is highly colored. And the less pitch and timbre are contaminated, the more "correct" they are.

To summarize my view on this: Neutrality (i.e. freedom from coloration) in an audio system does not lead to neutrality (i.e. SAMENESS) in the music played back on it, but rather the opposite. Neutrality in an audio system leads to DIVERSITY in the music played back on it.

Learsfool, there is a remote possibility that the gradual convergence between modded analog & digital sources occurred by coincidence or was guided by a common bias operating separately through two qualitatively different mod processes. However, as analog and digital sources approach each other AND coloration becomes nearly undetectable, then perhaps sufficient conditions for neutrality have been satisfied. Not that listening is a perfect science, or that there are no differences of opinion between listeners regarding neutrality. However once and awhile one hears a system that sounds very much like real music free from coloration, and IMO this should set the particular listener's expectation for neutrality. IMO in terms of flat frequency response, correct pitch and timbre, resolution & transparency, the current SOTA gets quite close to live music. Where all systems seem to fall short is in the dynamics of live music. Or if they communicate excellent dynamics, then they tend to fail by other measures. In any case the quality of dynamics should probably be distinguished from neutrality.

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.

Learsfool, all good points. Regarding whether "convergence" on some ideal of neutrality or transparency is possible or even desireable, the question should not be what "most" audio systems fail to do(whether through shortcomings in dynamics or other nuances of playback). The spirit of the OP was more about how to describe or operationalize the improvement that one hears when the veil is lifted by a superior component. Is what one hears from the better component closer to an idealized "neutrality", or merely some more preferable coloration? In the end we are down to the familiar subjectivist/ objectivist debate on whether the merry-go-round is nothing more than an endless trade of one coloration for another, or presents occasional glimpses of real improvement.

IMO audio components are very different from instruments, halls, etc., each of which exhibits its own indelible character. There is no mistaking a terrible child's violin played in an echoing bathroom for anything but a real instrument played in a real space. By definition all violins are real violins, regardless of "voicing." In contrast, the notion of "voicing" an audio system is problematic. In "most" components voicing is the sum of built-to-cost compromises and major or minor deficits in design-- affectations that may have little to do with pure concepts like designer's original intent. In any case the result in audio is nearly always a sound that is not mistaken for a real violin. In audio components as in all other things the exception to the rule is rare and more interesting to contemplate.

Incidently, in forums & industry market-speak the notion of "voicing" as representing the pure expression of a designer's original intent is probably as misapplied as "neutrality" to forgive all sorts of shortcomings.

Learsfool - Your last post contains many interesting and valid observations, IMO. But I disagree with the following argument:

The answer I would make to your question in your last post is that I believe there is no such thing as a neutral audio system, nor could there be. Every piece of audio equipment is "colored"...Hence, why I think that "neutrality" is a useless concept.

As far as your observation that "every piece of audio equipment is colored," I am in complete agreement, as I have said many times throughout this thread, including in the original post, where I wrote: "I don't believe a system's signature can be reduced to zero."

What I disagree with is (1) your conclusion that neutrality is a "useless concept" and (2) your reasoning to that conclusion.

First your reasoning: It does not follow from the fact that every component is colored that every component is EQUALLY colored. The existence of differences in coloration was a point illustrated by Al's (intentionally extreme) example of the differences between a $300 boombox and any $50K system. The idea was that no one would deny that differences in neutrality exist between those two systems. Maybe you would deny that. Or maybe your view is that, once you achieve a certain (fairly low) level of fidelity, there are no longer differences in neutrality. My own view is that differences in neutrality persist into quite expensive systems, including $50K systems.

As far as your conclusion that neutrality is a "useless concept" because "every piece of audio equipment is colored," I would say: Is 'water purity' a useless concept because every water source is contaminated? Certainly not. The whole point of the concept of water purity is to (1) identify the contaminants; (2) determine which are the most harmful; and (3) remove them, to the extent that it is technologically and economically feasible.

That is exactly the same thing I would say about coloration and neutrality. Yes, every component is colored, just as all water sources are contaminated. But not every component is equally colored, just as not all water sources are equally contaminated. And the recognition that every component is colored does not motivate the conclusion that neutrality is useless concept any more than recognizing that all water sources are contaminated motivates the conclusion that water purity is a useless concept. Instead, I believe it should motivate an effort to (1) identify the colorations; (2) determine which are the most harmful; and (3) remove them, to the extent that it is technologically and economically feasible.

The more technical improvements poured into each down unrelated analog & digital paths, the closer they converge on the same sound. And this convergence may be as good a demonstration of neutrality as any other.

This idea is fascinating. You mentioned it in your first post in this thread and, although no one ran with it, it stuck with me. I wonder how other posters feel about it...

I just want to bump Bryon's question, because I, too, wondered about this concept. It seems to me if you listen to two different sources (digital and vinyl) through the same system, you've actually eliminated the variable of system neutrality from the equation, and what you are experiencing is source convergence. That may, I suppose, be referred to as a kind of neutrality (and perhaps a worthy goal) but even if you were to achieve it perfectly, what would that say about the overall system's neutrality?

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....

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.

Actually, I think the water analogy is pretty apt here. Science rarely, if ever, delivers absolute truth -- send a bunch of water samples around to different labs, and you get different answers and those answers will all come with error bars. And, as you say, we can't filter out everything in water any more than we can build perfect audio components.

But just because science can't deliver absolute truth (any more than an engineer can deliver a perfectly neutral audio component) should we throw away the whole concept of science?

Cbw723, I can't extend my experience of close convergence between modded analog & digital sources to downstream components. I can only report that mods to downstream components were IMO technically sound and moved the system closer to neutrality as I sense neutrality. The leap of faith necessary to believe this is whether you accept that piece parts made by Duelund, Mundorf, ClarityCap, V-Cap, VSE Superregulators, etc., result in superior performance or merely alternative colorations. However dropping some of these exotic pieces into standard commercial designs is if nothing else an interesting test of the subjectivist viewpoint.

Learsfool wrote:

With water, although all sources are indeed contaminated, we can identify the definite impurities, and there is no debate on the subject, because science call tell us what truly pure water would be like...This is certainly not the case with a piece of audio equipment.

I disagree that we cannot identify definite colorations in audio components (the analogue of the "definite impurities" in the water analogy). I believe there are uncontroversial examples of coloration in audio equipment. I mentioned one earlier in this thread: Intermodulation distortion. As you no doubt know, when two frequencies are fed into the input of an amplifier, the sum and the difference of those two signals will appear at the amplifier's output. So if a 1K and a 10K signal are fed into the input, an 11K (the sum) and a 9K (the difference) signal will appear at the output. That is a coloration of the original signal. And since intermodulation distortion is harmonically unrelated to the input frequencies, it is not a euphonic coloration.

The art of identifying and removing colorations from audio equipment may not be as advanced as the science of removing contaminants from water supplies, but the idea that colorations in audio components are unobservable and unmeasurable is, I believe, an exaggeration of the limitations of audio design.

Learsfool wrote:

There is no way to know what this "neutrality" would be/sound like, since there is no single "absolute sound" to measure your "neutrality" with/against.

I agree that there is no "absolute sound" against which we can evaluate a system’s neutrality. But that does not mean we are left with nothing with which to evaluate neutrality. What we are left with are INDICES OF NEUTRALITY, i.e., characteristics that covary with neutrality. These indices might include measurements of variables we know to be colorations, like intermodulation distortion. (BTW, I do NOT have the view that you can judge a component by its specs alone). Other indices of neutrality might include one or more of the attempts to operationalize neutrality contained in this thread.

Incidentally, the inaccessibility of the “absolute sound” in audio is precisely analogous to the inaccessibility of “absolute reality” in science. There is no "absolute reality," accessible to human beings, against which we can evaluate the truth of theories. But that does not mean we must abandon the concept of ‘truth,’ since theories can be evaluated by INDICES OF TRUTH like coherence, explanatory and predictive power, and intertheoretic corroboration. These characteristics covary with truth, and so they are the measure of the truthfulness of scientific theories.

In my view, the case is almost exactly the same with judging neutrality. There is no "absolute sound," accessible to the audiophile, against which we can evaluate the neutrality of a system. But that does not mean we must abandon the concept of ‘neutrality,’ since systems can be evaluated by INDICES OF NEUTRALITY. My original post is a proposal about one possible index of neutrality.

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.

You all realize, just changing the volume knob up or down a notch changes everything. True neutrality means you have to play it back at the same volume, or loudness as it was recorded. That information is missing from the album so it is anybody's guess. But when my wife tells me to turn it down, I tell her that I must listen to it at the original sound level because any difference in sound level is distortion. She makes me turn it down anyway.

I know, why not hire your favorite band to play in your living room? Then you can A/B them with your stereo.

Learsfool - I agree that this has been a thought-provoking discussion. I also agree that distortions are not necessarily bad. Reading papers by Nelson Pass, listening to his amplifiers, and owning two of them, I am convinced by his view that whether or not distortion is bad depends upon the KIND of distortion it is. While I'm on the subject of things we agree about, let me add: I too think that the term 'neutral' can be misused as a euphemism for systems that are analytical and lifeless. I, like you, am not moved by those systems. I try to listen with my heart, not my brain (though this is a struggle for any audiophile).

As far as begging the question in my original post: A question-begging argument is one in which the conclusion (the proposition to be proved) is assumed, implicitly or explicitly, in one of the premises (the propositions allegedly doing the proving). It's also known as circular reasoning.

The charge of question begging applies to 'arguments' in the strict sense of the word, namely: An argument is a set of propositions, containing a conclusion and one or premises, in which the premises ENTAIL the conclusion. Entailment is a logical relation between two propositions A and B, such that, if A is true, B must also be true. Arguments are judged by the standard of soundness, where soundness is both a matter of (a) validity, i.e. logic; and (b) truth. Hence, to criticize an argument is to say that either (a) the reasoning is invalid, or (b) one or more of the premises are untrue. If you criticize an argument as question begging, then you are saying that its reasoning is circular, and therefore invalid.

In light of this, I can see why you might think my original post was question begging, if you interpret the following three claims as an argument, in the sense above:

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

But it was NOT my intention for those claims to be interpreted as an argument, in the sense above. Items (1) and (2) were NOT intended to be the premises of an argument, nor was item (3) intended to be the conclusion of an argument. In addition, I do NOT believe that items (1) and (2) entail item (3). A formal argument is only one possible relation among a set of propositions, and it was not my goal in the original post. So what was my goal?

TO OPERATIONALIZE THE CONCEPT OF 'NEUTRALITY.'

In an earlier post, I wrote:

Operationalizing a term is a matter of identifying some observable conditions that reliably indicate the presence of a characteristic and determine its value (i.e. how much of it is there is)...I proposed a more actionable way to operationalize the term 'neutral,' in terms of (1) the sonic uniqueness of individual pieces of music; and (2) the sonic diversity your collection of music.

From this, I hope it is clear what my intentions were in the original post - Not to create a formal argument in which items (1) and (2) entailed item (3), but rather to propose a way to operationalize the concept of 'neutrality.' Or to put it in the language of my last post, to identify two INDICES OF NEUTRALITY. That is how I view items (1) and (2) - they are indices of neutrality, i.e., characteristics that covary with neutrality. Identifying the indices of neutrality and operationalizing the concept of 'neutrality,' are therefore, two ways of saying the same thing.

Of course, you are free to challenge my proposal that items (1) and (2) are indices of neutrality. One poster did so earlier in this thread when he wrote:

If one were to wear yellow glasses while skiing during an overcast day, visual improvement in the snow's light and dark shadow detail would be apparent. Those same glasses on a bright day would not be beneficial...
The improvements in your system may have actually increased the level of contrast above and beyond the original instruments of the musician.

Here, Hamburg is challenging the idea that items (1) and (2) are indices of neutrality. I thought this to be one of the more effective and relevant challenges to my original post, but no one seemed to run with it.

In any case, I hope this helps with the ongoing effort to clarify my views on what has turned out to be a complex set of issues.

This simile of a filtering ski goggle is interesting, as is the water analogy. Perhaps audio components are analogous to brightness and contrast controls on a TV. With such controls it is possible to vary saturation and to whiten or darken the visual palette. Visual "neutrality" lies near the middle of the range of both controls. Perhaps the stereotypical SET has over-saturated contrast, while SS amp is under-saturated with brightness turned up. However to develop useful indices of audio neutrality, one should probabably avoid reasoning by analogy and describe aural phenomena directly. But this is more difficult(and perhaps less interesting)than analogies.

If you really are looking for neutrality then get a Frequency Spectrum Analyzer and a pink noise generator. Set up the calibrated microphone, or even better get a binaural head and set it up in your listening position. Then you can adjust your system and the room with dampeners to achieve a flat frequency response. See if you like those results. I did that back in the early 90's (I was doing a lot of NVH research in Automotive at that time) and the system sounded dead-lifeless. Seeking neutrality is a dead end road.

When you get your system tuned to a point that you just smile and start tapping your feet, then you have found the magic. Meters and cables can only go so far.

Tonywinse wrote:

If you really are looking for neutrality then get a Frequency Spectrum Analyzer and a pink noise generator. Set up the calibrated microphone, or even better get a binaural head and set it up in your listening position. Then you can adjust your system and the room with dampeners to achieve a flat frequency response. See if you like those results. I did that back in the early 90's (I was doing a lot of NVH research in Automotive at that time) and the system sounded dead-lifeless. Seeking neutrality is a dead end road.

This test of the value of neutrality is not testing 'neutrality' in the sense it has been used in this thread. In your example, neutrality is: FLAT FREQUENCY RESPONSE AT THE LISTENING POSITION. When you achieved this in your test and you heard disappointing results, you concluded that neutrality is not a thing to be valued. But the term 'neutrality' has not been used in this thread to mean flat frequency response at the listening position. It has been used to mean: FREEDOM FROM COLORATION.

One of the previous posters in this thread suggested that neutrality, in the sense of freedom from coloration, is REDUCIBLE to flat frequency response. I don't share this view, since it ignores the transient and harmonic characteristics of components/systems.

In the context of your example, a more valid test of neutrality would be: Am I hearing at my listening position what the rerecording engineer heard at his listening position IN THE FINAL MIX? To the extent that I am, my system is neutral. I very seriously doubt that that would turn out to be the same as flat frequency response.