Mapman, I had an experience last night that suggests we have not gotten everything we can out of recordings. Involved was the Sinatra and Basie at the Sands recording. I had gotten it to be very satisfying with improvements in my system over the years, but not to the level of my vinyl.
I got in a prototype of a dac by Exemplar Audio. After two days of break in, last night, I had a very great improvement in what I seek always, realism. I could hear Sinatra moving around, could hear individual instruments in Basie's band, and could hear the audience's presence even when they were quiet. I was thrilled to say the least. I cannot say yet much about this dac, but I will not be really expensive and it uses tubes in the output. |
Mapman, IMHO your last two posts are the soul of great wisdom. I can't believe that this thread is still alive, and, apparently, well. :-) |
Tbg,
I have not given up on anything. In fact, it took a lot of time and some money to get to a good place. I have just learned to focus on the things i can control, not waste time with what i cannot, like how recordings are made. They is what they is. It does not pay to try to make them something they are not. |
Mapman, I know all too well that your stance is just giving up. Once you have heard the thrill of realism, you will persist. I only regret that I didn't have this forty years ago with my audio.
I would agree that people's tastes differ, some like what I think is a cop out that their system sound musical. I want a holographic image and brass to sound brassy. Otherwise I might as well listen to an Ipod and MP3 or better get just walk in the woods with no music. |
Audio is an illusion.
Any truth, to whatever extent ascertained, is just one flavor of that illusion.
Few people all like the same flavor. |
Pipedream is right.
I will say that some recordings resemble what I hear live enough to think them to be pretty neutral, but in general different recordings are recorded differently and will sound different. They is what they is. Attempts to make them into something else will usually have undesirable consequences.
Realizing this is one way to get off the high end audio merry go round.
Seeking perfection continuously with all or even most recordings is the best way to stay on. |
Well without being at the recording venue all is moot. The only way to tell is to hear a song live in your listening room record it and play it back.
Know a guitar or violin player? Have him or her sit inbetween your speakers and play. Then record it and play it back. It will be closer than you think. No recording processing, no stamping of such or digital transfers. Nada. Just a pure recording. You can try, digital or analog recording methods and discern the benifits of both formats. |
Orpheus10, I can only imagine trying to determine the "panel of distinguished audiophiles!" I guess I think this effort would be innocuous and irrelevant. I, of course, entirely agree that science cannot contribute here. I think all the following adjective might apply-neutral, real, transparent, dynamic, like being in the recording venue, not smeared, involving, detailed, having pace, having ease, etc. |
Truth is truth is a good place to start. I will attempt to communicate that truth. All measurements must have a standard; that means some components must be designated as neutral. Since I can't think of a scientific method of doing this, these components would be determined by a panel of distinguished audiophiles. Those components would communicate the truth we know in our minds. |
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." |
I would still like to hear from someone with the appropriate credentials regarding the proper use of these words in ordinary language...
I believe that 'English majors', especially those who have gone on to teach in our schools, are perfectly qualified to offer advise of the proper use of words. Your repeated calls for someone to definitively answer the question of how to define the terms 'neutrality' and 'accuracy' is odd to me. Who do you think is going to answer? If it is "those who have gone on to teach in our schools," why would their answer have any special authority to you? I have taught at the university level. Are those "appropriate credentials"? I am a writer by occupation. Does that make me more qualified? I studied the philosophy of language in the course of my Ph.D.. Does that make my opinion more valid to you? I suspect the answer to these questions is no. Because I suspect that your appeal to authority is not really in earnest. And if it is in earnest, and you really are looking for an "authoritative" answer to the common usage of the term 'accuracy', then look no further than a dictionary, as Mrtennis suggested. There you will find multiple definitions that confirm that the use of the word 'accuracy' in terms of degree is a FACT of the English language. People are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. bc |
Bryon, FWIW, I've never considered the mere collection of common opinions on any subject to be anything more than just that. What these opinions show, for the most part anyway, is that these particular individuals supported the use of 'neutral' as a descriptive term, and some of them were willing to modify the term in a gradient manner to illustrate the deviation from neutrality that they felt existed. So be it. They are very much entitled to this opinion both to hold and express. And to the extent that this facilitates the flow of a discussion as well as a resolution of the issues, that is a good thing too. However, to me, this does not constitute a stipulated agreement as I have come to know such.
But, assuming for the sake of argument that a 'stipulated agreement' does exist, even then it would only bind on the participants who have expressly agreed. So if I believe that 'neutral' is an absolute term, or if Mr T believes that 'accuracy' is a similar absolute term, we have the right to hold and express our opinions on the subject.
BTW, FWIW, I believe that 'English majors', especially those who have gone on to teach in our schools, are perfectly qualified to offer advise of the proper use of words. Certainly at least such common ones as we are discussing. Contrary to your statement I think their expertise is hardly restricted to 'diction' nor that they would need to be semanticists, as you imply, to assist us in such a simple tasks.
But all of this is really of little consequence. Time to move on..................
|
05-15-11: Newbee
...can you direct me to the post(s) in which the participants actually stipulated to the meanings and use of the terms you refer to. I must have missed it... You missed it? That's strange to me. Here's what I found... 11-06-09 Me: a conceptual definition of 'neutral' for audio might be something like, 'free from coloration.' 11-06-09 Buconero: Neutrality by definition is 'without difference'. 11-06-09 Dgarretson: Neutrality is about balance-- the notion of nothing more and nothing less, nothing added and nothing subtracted. 11-06-09 Cbw723: I think in the real world, Bryon's definition is workable. 11-07-09 Tvad: It seems to be essentially what's been defined as the Absolute Sound. 11-19-09 Almarg: …colorations/lack of transparency/lack of neutrality/whatever you want to call it… 11-20-09 Me: The degree to which a component or system is free from coloration. 11-20-09 Cbw723: I like this definition… 11-20-09 Almarg: when I used the phrase "lack of colorations/transparency/neutrality/whatever you want to call it," I should have added the word "accuracy" as well. Basically all of these terms relate to how accurately what is reproduced by the system (and its room environment), resembles what is sent into it by the recording. 11-22-09 Dgarretson: Personally I agree with Bryon that resolving, neutral, and transparent are three of the best audiophile adjectives…Of the three static terms, perhaps neutrality is the broadest and most appealing… 11-24-09 Me: Yes, every component is colored, just as all water sources are contaminated. But not every component is equally colored, just as not all water sources are equally contaminated. And the recognition that every component is colored does not motivate the conclusion that neutrality is useless concept any more than recognizing that all water sources are contaminated motivates the conclusion that water purity is a useless concept. 11-24-09 Cbw723: …I think the water analogy is pretty apt here. 11-25-09 Dgarretson: Perhaps audio components are analogous to brightness and contrast controls on a TV. With such controls it is possible to vary saturation and to whiten or darken the visual palette. Visual "neutrality" lies near the middle of the range of both controls. 11-26-09 Almarg: one of the things that I tried to express, but perhaps didn't as explicitly as I should have, is that if throughout this thread the word "accuracy" had been substituted for the word "neutrality," the amount of controversy and disagreement might have been significantly less. To me those two terms, in the context of an audio system, mean essentially the same thing. 12-02-09 Me: 'Accuracy' is a SECOND-ORDER CONCEPT that includes both 'resolution' and neutrality.' …NEUTRALITY: The degree to which a component or system is free from coloration. 12-02-09 Almarg: Bryon, that all strikes me as brilliantly conceived and brilliantly expressed! 12-02-09 Me (summarizing Al) (i) The target of the concept of ‘accuracy’ is the RECORDING, whereas the target of the concept of ‘transparency’ is the MUSICAL EVENT that the recording represents…In some cases, sacrificing some accuracy (to the recording) may increase transparency (to the musical event). 12-02-09 Almarg: Bryon, yes that is an excellent restatement of what I was trying to express. 12-05-09 Me: Colorations are additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music…Do these phenomena exist? If they do, then neutrality exists, as it has been defined on this thread, namely, THE (DEGREE OF) ABSENCE OF COLORATION. 12-05-09 Almarg: …neutrality represents the degree to which coloration is absent. 12-06-09 Cbw723: …the thing being debated is how one judges the relative neutrality of one's playback system. The neutrality of a playback system has been defined as the degree of the absence of coloration added by that playback system. If "DoN" is the degree of neutrality of a playback system, and "DoC" is the degree of coloration of a playback system, then (DoN = 1 / DoC) is the assumption of this thread as stated by Bryon. If you believe that playback systems can add more or less coloration to a system, then you implicitly believe that a system can be more or less neutral, as defined here, whether you believe you believe that or not. 12-06-09 Almarg: It has been said numerous times in numerous ways that the less colored (or more accurate or more neutral or more whatever comparable term you prefer) that the system is (including the room), the greater the likelihood that the presumably desirable colorations that were present in the original performance will be reproduced accurately… 12-06-09 Me: I agree with Cbw that it is logically inconsistent to believe in coloration and not believe in neutrality, AS COLORATION AND NEUTRALITY HAVE BEEN DEFINED IN THIS THREAD, namely: ‘Coloration’: Additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music. ‘Neutrality’: The degree of absence of coloration. 12-07-09 Cbw723: …neutrality, as used here (and in the audio world in general), is a relative term. A component may be either more or less neutral (which is exactly synonymous with saying that it may apply either less or more coloration to the source). It would seem an entirely uncontroversial assertion. 12-08-09 Dgarretson: The Objectivist defines neutrality as an absence of coloration… 12-11-09 Dgarretson: Eliminating an undesirable coloration is always progress toward neutrality. 12-12-09 Me: INNACCURACY: Alterations to the playback chain that eliminate, conceal, or corrupt information about the music.* …COLORATION: Inaccuracies audible as a non-random** sonic signature. 12-13-09 Dgarretson (quoting G. Holt) Neutral: Free from coloration. 12-14-09 Me: ACCURACY: 1. The relative amount of information about the music presented by a component or system, comparing output to input. 2. The degree of absence of inaccuracies …INACCURACY: An alteration to information in a component or system that eliminates, conceals, or corrupts information about the music. …NEUTRALITY: The degree of absence of coloration within a component or system….COLORATION: An inaccuracy audible as a non-random sonic signature. 12-27-09 Dgarretson: …my view is that analytic & sterile err at the opposite extreme of unresolving warmth. Both kinds of extremes are colorations and as such, represent deviations from neutrality. bc |
Bryon, Your last post raises an issue I was not expecting. I'm sure I must have missed it somewhere, but can you direct me to the post(s) in which the participants actually stipulated to the meanings and use of the terms you refer to. I must have missed it. FWIW, and it is not an issue I want to reopen, I made my objection to your use of the word neutral or neutrality, with some specificity, on page 1.
Your last post is excellent, at least in its creativity if not its totality, and I would agree with the conclusions you reach, provided that you can furnish evidence of the actual existence of an expressed 'stipulation', written or oral, and its acceptance by thread participants.
Not to put too fine a point on my post I was really trying to suggest to Mr Tennis that his posts were turning this thread more into a matter of semantics and introduced nothing new except a willingness to be pedantic. Upon reflection perhaps I'm no better.
BTW, FWIW, since the proper use of the English language has arisen, I would still like to hear from someone with the appropriate credentials regarding the proper use of these words in ordinary language, written or spoken, absent any 'stipulation'.
:-) |
Once again I am in complete agreement with Bryon, despite the fact that his latest post perhaps negates my earlier claim that nothing is perfect :-)
Regards,
-- Al |
05-15-11: Newbee
Will the real English major amongst us come forward and explain the proper use of these terms, i.e. neutral and accurate. This issue is way above an English major's pay grade. It is not a question of diction, but rather a question of lexicography, the philosophy of language, and the science of linguistics. The standard Mrtennis proposed for the meaning of the word 'accurate' was the dictionary. By that standard...well, you saw the result. Having said that, the quotation from Bierce, if it was not self explanatory, was intended to make the following observation... Dictionaries are often INADEQUATE STANDARDS for resolving disputes about the meanings of words. There are a number of reasons for this... Dictionary word meanings are determined by common usage. But the meanings provided by common usage are often too ambiguous or imprecise for conversations requiring a high level of exactitude. There are two common solutions to this problem: (a) technical definitions (b) stipulated definitions RE: (a) Technical definitions are created by communities of experts and are often formal, i.e. standardized across various discussions. RE: (b) Stipulated definitions are created by any group of people trying to have a successful discussion and are almost always informal, i.e. standardized only for a single discussion. This thread has provided STIPULATED DEFINITIONS a number of times. Here are some of the stipulated definitions that consistently appeared: -neutrality: the degree of absence of colorations -colorations: audible inaccuracies -inaccuracy: the degree to which a component's output differs from its input -accuracy: the degree to which a component's output is identical to its input Anyone is free to challenge these stipulated definitions, since no one "owns" the terms, NOT EVEN THE DICTIONARY. Here is the reason why... If two experts disagree about a technical definition, or two ordinary people disagree about a stipulated definition, then the disagreement about the term can be resolved in one of two ways: (c) The term is given a modifier. (d) A new term is created. The process by which (c) and (d) occur CANNOT BE RESOLVED BY A DICTIONARY, since the dictionary is a catalogue of ordinary usage, and it was the imprecision and/or ambiguity of ordinary usage that led people to create the technical or stipulated definitions in the first place! Hence, the process by which (c) and (d) occur must be resolved BY THE PEOPLE HAVING THE DISCUSSIONS, whether they are experts or ordinary folks like us. If someone wants to propose alternative stipulated definitions for 'neutrality' or 'accuracy' or any other term, they are certainly free to do so. But each person's comments should be understood in terms of how THEY THEMSELVES have stipulated the terms. To facilitate communication, most people are willing to agree upon a COMMON set of stipulated definitions for the purposes of discussion. But as we have seen in recent posts, some people have a problem accepting the stipulated definitions of others, the technical definitions of experts, and even the ordinary definitions of dictionaries. That is a real shame, as it obstructs what would otherwise be constructive conversation. Bryon |
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. |
FWIW, Mr T started out talking about 'neutrality' being an absolute (like the word 'unique' perhaps) and I happen to agree with him.
You do not modify an absolute term. It is or it ain't, at least according to my old English teacher who reprimanded me for trying to make something more 'unique' than it already must have been when I chose that word to describe it. But then the word morphed into 'accuracy' and posters felt that was not an absolute term and could be appropriately modified. In common usage I agree. It makes sense to me. But them, if it is not already evident, I'm not an English major.
Will the real English major amongst us come forward and explain the proper use of these terms, i.e. neutral and accurate. I think that many of us might benefit and then we can get back to arguing about things audio. |
LOL, Bryon - nice one, bringing out Bierce! |
05-14-11: Mrtennis
accuracy is not a matter of degree. something is either accurate or it is not. it is not a relative term. it is absolute...go to the dictionary and check. This sounded like helpful advice, so I did just that. From the Oxford Dictionary... "the DEGREE to which the result of a measurement, calculation, or specification conforms to the correct value or a standard" From the American Heritage Dictionary... "the EXTENT to which a given measurement agrees with the standard value for that measurement...the DEGREE of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc." From Ambrose Bierce's Devils Dictionary... "dictionary: A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic." bc |
Mr. T, any measurement instrument ever devised, for the purpose of measuring anything, has (or at least should have) what is commonly referred to as an "accuracy" specification associated with it, notwithstanding the fact that the specification arguably would be better referred to as an "inaccuracy" specification. A thermometer, for example, may be "accurate" to within +/- 0.5 degrees. A scale may be "accurate" to within +/- 0.1 pounds. A speedometer may be "accurate" to within +/- 2 mph. 05-14-11: Mrtennis
You may be confusing degrees of inaccuracy with degrees of accuracy which is illogical. And from the current thread on accuracy: 05-13-11: Mrtennis
You guys are forgetting about a basic fact. accuracy means perfection.
for example one inch is exactly one inch. in audio, all components have flaws. they are imperfect. therefore accuracy cannot exist .
it has nothing to do with listening. its the fact that all components are designed with flaws. you might be able to find components which produce a sound which provides sufficient resolution , a balanced frequency response, and other attributes that appeal to audiophiles. if a stereo system performs that way , where most recordings sound different and there is no noticeable consistent sonic signature, the condition may be "virtual accuracy", but a stereo system can never be accurate (perfect) since the components that make up the stereo sytem are not accurate. Your comments strike me as drawing a distinction without there being a meaningful difference. Do the facts that nothing is perfect, and nothing is perfectly accurate, negate the value of either striving for ways in which accuracy might be improved, or striving to identify and characterize inaccuracies, and in the process hopefully making possible better informed tradeoffs between accuracy and subjectively pleasing inaccuracies? And, btw, nothing is perfect, not even in nature. Consider the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But fundamental to the design processes that underlie just about any engineering achievement are error analyses that address and take into account myriad contributors to inaccuracy. IMO the fact that perfect accuracy in an audio component is neither achievable nor even precisely definable is not reason to declare inapplicable to audio the goals of striving to reduce inaccuracy/improve accuracy, and/or striving to better characterize the inaccuracy. I agree with Bryon 100%. Regards, -- Al |
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. |
what you hear with neutral versus colored sound is analogous to what you see through clear and transparent versus tinted glass |
05-13-11: Mrtennis
without perfection there is no neutrality or accuracy.
"most neutral" reminds me of being a little bit pregnant. Since... Accuracy is a matter of degree. Therefore... Inaccuracies are a matter of degree. Therefore... Neutrality is a matter of degree. Therefore... Neutrality is not like being pregnant. Therefore... "Perfect" neutrality is a red herring. Bryon |
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. |
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 ? |
I was not addressing you, Tbg.
bc |
Bryoncunningham , You say, "Or my post from yesterday...
People should choose components according to their own preferences, not someone else's.
That is another straw man."
I must admit it is beyond my comprehension what you are saying here, but as we agreed on the other thread, I am dropping this discussion. |
Swiss speakers are the most neutral. |
You can record the sound over the air with a two channel pro recorded like Nagra and then replay the rerording in your system. Then compare to the original recording. This should help reveal any colorations and distortions if the recording is good and high quality. I think I read this in a magazine once, but never tried it. A person used this to proove to some teenage kids that his high end system was indeed superior to thier cheap stereo and had every bit as much bass. Thier cheap stereo was just distored and skewed towards lots of bass. He recorded the kids stero and then played back the recording on his system. The kids were astonished at how much it then sounded like there system. |
What kind of equipment does this straw man own? |
05-12-11: Mrtennis
since all components are imperfect, a thorough audition will reveal some flaw or consistent sonic signature.
if there exists a component which is "virtually" neutral, i.e., does not reveal any flaws, i would like to know about it. Not a single person on this thread, which is now up to 353 posts, has suggested that there is any such thing as a perfectly neutral component. You should know that as well as anyone, Mrtennis, since you have been one of this thread's regular participants. You are attacking a straw man. For those who have not read this thread, a glance at the OP would reveal my view on the subject... P.P.S. I don’t believe a system’s signature can be reduced to zero. That view was discussed at length in MANY subsequent posts. And no one is suggesting that people should buy speakers on the basis of neutrality or measurements. A glance at the OP would clear that up as well... P.P.P.S. I’m not suggesting that neutrality is the most important goal in building an audio system... Or my post from yesterday... People should choose components according to their own preferences, not someone else's. That is another straw man. Bryon |
Mrtennis, I have given up that quest, nor will I trust most who might tell me there is such a speaker. Norm, don't tell me you purchased a speaker just because it sounds good and you enjoy it? What in the world is this site coming to... |
Mrtennis, I have given up that quest, nor will I trust most who might tell me there is such a speaker. |
A contribution to the topic of neutrality was posted on the Tidal thread by Jorn Janczak, founder of Tidal Audio: 05-12-11: Tidal
My two cents as the designer behind the speakers mentioned in this thread: neutrality is nothing but an objective criteria. It is a fact which can be found out, and no opinion or a feel.
Neutrality can be defined very simple by the difference between what goes inside of the speaker and what comes out of it. It can be measured in many complex ways. The most famous and also most simple one to understand is the 'frequency response', but it does not tell the whole story of a speaker at all - otherwise all speakers with a flat FRQ would do sound the same.
But almost all effects to "sound" can be measured and follows the same principle: the difference of IN and OUT. The less the difference, the more 'neutral'. And this is at least what we do at TIDAL: bringing this difference as low as possible.
But HOW one likes neutral speakers/systems closer to neutrality then others - well, about this one could talk back and forth since it is a subjective issue/feel/opinion.
many greetings, Jörn FWIW. bc |
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. |
Bryoncunningham, I agree. |
I think the entire discussion is largely irrelevant... In light of this, I hope you will understand if I decline to answer you. bc |
Bryoncunningham, when you are assessing whether component x is neutral in any objective sense, you have to use measures that others will agree or valid. If you use multiple measures, you have to further argue how they interface or what weight should be given to each. I have no certainty that we could ever reach any agreement on valid measures. I have no idea whether one speaker would stand apart once we had done all of this. So I totally reject any notion that there is truth independent of persons.
I think the entire discussion is largely irrelevant as people will buy what they like and can afford. |
05-10-11: Roysen
Neutrality is what we are searching for. It’s the ultimate goal. That is why we upgrade. To get sound played back closer in quality to the real thing. Roysen – If you look at the posts on this thread, especially those by Newbee and Learsfool, you will see that some audiophiles do not value neutrality, or at least they do not prioritize it above other considerations. Personally, I do value neutrality. But I do not regard it as the “ultimate” goal, as you do. Our definitions of "neutrality" are similar, though not identical. You define neutrality as accuracy (relative to the recording). On this thread, I defined neutrality as the degree of absence of colorations, and I defined "colorations" as audible inaccuracies (relative to the recording). If we choose your definition of neutrality, then greater neutrality is synonymous with being more truthful to the recording. If we choose my definition of neutrality, then greater neutrality is *nearly* synonymous with being more truthful to the recording. I say “nearly synonymous” because, since I define neutrality in terms of *audible* inaccuracies, I must acknowledge that, while more audible inaccuracies always amounts to less neutrality, less neutrality does not always amount to more audible inaccuracies, for the simple reason that some inaccuracies are inaudible. If you can understand that sentence on first reading, you are a smarter man than I am. Nevertheless, it is a true statement, I believe. But it is irrelevant to the point I am trying to arrive at, which is... I do not believe that greater neutrality *always* results in sound that is, as you put it, “closer to the real thing.” I believe that, sometimes, small movements away from accuracy to the recording (i.e. away from neutrality) results in sound that is "closer to the real thing." The reason is this: Many, perhaps all, recordings REMOVE information that was present at the real event. Hence, a system that tries to ADD the missing information back may actually sound closer to the live event than the system that is strictly accurate to the recording (i.e. neutral). Of course, the EXACT information from the live event is lost forever, if it does not make it to the recording. But I believe that an APPROXIMATION of the lost information can sometimes be added back, and that by doing so, the system may be "closer to the real thing." I do not mean to overstate this. I do believe that efforts to make a system more accurate to the recording, and hence more neutral, will *generally* result in sound that is more truthful to the live event. But I do not think that is *always* the case. 05-10-11: Tbg
I do believe in "objective truth."…
When it comes to audio, however, I would imagine that it would be very difficult to find agreement as to what objective measures might be used to assess which speaker is better. It is easy to assess frequency response, phase correctness, and dispersion. Perhaps we could even agree about distortion. Were we to then choose the ten best speakers and conduct listening sessions, I doubt that we would have any agreement about which is best. The reason is we are missing too much of what makes a speaker better and don't share opinions about these other attributes, much less having the capability to measure them. As I mentioned on the Tidal thread, there are two issues at stake… 1. IS component x neutral? 2. HOW DO WE KNOW if component x is neutral? My impression is that Roysen is arguing that there are objective truths about (1) and you are arguing that there are not objective truths about (2). But the absence of objective truths about (2) does not prevent the existence of objective truths about (1). That was the point I was trying to make on the Tidal thread. Put another way, the fact that audiophiles cannot agree about the neutrality of a component does not mean that there is no fact of the matter about the neutrality of a component. Intersubjective agreement is not a necessary condition of objective truths. That is the whole point of saying a truth is “objective.” The force of the term “objective” with respect to truth is to express the idea that truth is INDEPENDENT OF PERSONS. And if truth is independent of persons, then agreement or disagreement is irrelevant to whether or not a component is, in fact, neutral. On the other hand, agreement and disagreement are not irrelevant to the QUESTION of whether a component is neutral or not. This may appear to be a play on words -- I admit that I'm in a bit of a Lewis Carroll mood today. But I can assure you that my comments are in earnest. Lastly, all of this has nothing to do with preference. People should choose components according to their own preferences, not someone else’s. Bryon |
i admit that you can measure frequency response of a stereo system, which while an incomplete measurement of accuracy, may be sufficient for most purposes. As you no doubt know, there are many other measurements relevant to accuracy besides frequency response, such as: Impulse response, harmonic distortion, intermodulation distortion, transient intermodulation distortion, signal to noise, crosstalk, jitter...the list goes on. Each of these is a measurement of how a component's output differs from its input, which is, by definition, inaccuracy. Hence there are many measurements relevant to an assessment of a component's accuracy. if each component in a stereo system were accurate, there could still be impedance mismatches, and the affects of long cables upon frequency response as well as other unintended consequences. Agreed. A collection of accurate components does not guarantee an accurate system, since interactions among components can diminish the system's accuracy. Having said that, I believe that a collection of accurate components is more likely to result in an accurate system than a collection of components chosen for their "counterbalancing" colorations. Of course, many audiophiles value musicality or some other characteristic more than accuracy, as this thread has illustrated. Bryon |
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. |
...measuring the accuracy of individual components is probably near impossible, because accuracy is a multi-dimensional concept. how can you be sure you have measured every relevant variable. Mrtennis - I agree with you that accuracy is a "multi-dimensional concept," in the sense that it refers to a number of variables, rather than a single variable. But I do not conclude from this that accuracy is impossible to assess. Consider the analogy with telescopes again... A telescope's optics can suffer from various kinds of distortion, including spherical distortion, astigmatic distortion, and chromatic distortion. Hence the accuracy of a telescope is multi-dimensional, just like the accuracy of an audio component. The multi-dimensional nature of a telescope's accuracy makes it more difficult to assess, but not impossible. Similarly, the multi-dimensional nature of an audio component's accuracy makes it somewhat difficult to assess, but not impossible. Having said that, I agree with you that the common measurements of an audio component's accuracy, like those that routinely appear in Stereophile, are unlikely to be exhaustive. In other words, there are probably some unknown variables that are relevant to the assessment of a component's accuracy. But even the likely presence of unknown variables doesn't vitiate the concept of accuracy in audio. It merely makes judgments about accuracy FALLIBLE. But that shouldn't be news to anyone. also, if each component in a stereo system were accurate, does that imply that the stereo system is accurate? IMO, yes. Assuming that you include the listening room as part of the assessment of a system's accuracy, and acknowledging that what inaccuracies do exist in the various components may interact in non-linear or unpredictable ways. Bryon |
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 ? |
...if a recording distorts the sound of the instruments being recorded, how do you assess the accuracy/inaccuracy of the stereo system? ...if an optical lens distorts the characteristics of the light transmitted through it, how do you assess the accuracy/inaccuracy of the telescope? (1) Measure the accuracy of the individual optics. (2) Compare the telescope to other telescopes. (3) Perform a Star Test. RE: Audio systems... (1) Measure the accuracy of individual components. (2) Compare the system to other systems. (3) Perform the Neutrality Test that I described in the OP. Bryon |
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 used to say "flat frequency response". While that it important, there is such a wide variations in FR of the recordings I listen to, I couldn't get a flat FR unless I eq'd each recording.
There are some others like:
1) Consistent sound between drivers. I had a speaker with poly mid/woofer and metal tweeter. The drivers did not blend together at all and sound like two different speakers.
2) Dimensionality. As one reviewer wrote, when a system reproduced things spatially, you know it is working very well. Or words to that effect.
3) Transient response. For one thing, when you limit a driver in the frequency domain, you limit it in the time domain as well. I'm guessing that's one reason why speakers put a bump at 100 hz. It's to try to add the bass that gets lost from dampened transient response. It's why SET amps are so popular. Again, IMHO. |
"can't miss judge Wapner." |
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. |
I bought recently Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1 (a decent amateur camera) knowing that colors produced by the sensor are a little off (shifted toward green). To my surprise it is only in JPEG while RAW is pretty accurate. In-camera processing somehow makes colors unnatural. The same might be true for digital audio. I read Stereophile review of Meridian CDP that uses different filtering scheme (non-apodizing filter) that better reproduces transients. It is not as simple as just turning off oversampling and getting rid of digital filter calling it NOS - otherwise everybody would do that, including Meridian. Once we have to reproduce sinewave at 10kHz (harmonics) in 4 points (44.1kHz) it will be ugly no matter what scheme we prefer. |
