How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Trying to recapture live concert that I assumed was amplified through whatever equipment and speakers.... just how is anyone going to replicate that?

My son plays guitar, my wife piano, and daughter viola. Live music, and voices are the source for learning timbre and naturalness. I just attended a Christmas mens chorus held in a church with excellent acoustics. They were accompanied by a piano, and a Cello on one number. Occasionally the church organ would be used. Now, that is a a classroom for re-checking your understanding what real music sounds like.

There is no such thing as the absence of color in sound (and therefore, it logically follows, in sound reproduction). Otherwise music could not exist. The things you are specifically describing as "colorations" (intermodulation distortion, etc.) of course exist. But they are not the only "colorations" that exist in sound or it's reproduction; their absence does not prove the existence of "neutrality." Again, as Kijanki and I keep asking, how do you know what anything is "supposed" to sound like? There is no one answer to that question, and your assertion that there is is dumbfounding.

With great respect, Learsfool, I must say that I am similarly dumbfounded, but in the opposite direction. 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, when averaged across a wide selection of well done recordings.

Bryon has proposed a methodology (assessing the degree to which the system makes different recordings sound different) that seems self-evident (to me and several others who have posted) as having a substantial degree of correlation with the likelihood that a given component or system will help achieve that end. Your own post of 12/4 seemed to recognize that, thereby recognizing the usefulness, or at least potential usefulness, of the methodology ("The bottom line here does not mean you have operationalized the term neutrality. It just means you have a better sounding system").

So why does the fact that it is difficult, in general, to precisely know what anything is supposed to sound like have any relevance in this discussion? And I repeat my challenge of yesterday: Is there any rewording of Bryon's original proposal, including perhaps substitution of some other word or words for "neutrality," that would allow everyone to converge?

Regards,
-- Al

Learsfool wrote:

It most certainly does NOT follow that just because I don't believe in neutrality, that therefore I don't believe in coloration! (The same goes for the "neutral room"/ "room coloration" thing). The only way this could possibly be true is within the context of your own personal definition, which is precisely what is under debate here.

To which Cbw replied:

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. You can't believe in speed (distance/time) and not believe in slowness (time/distance) and remain logically consistent.

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.

Although this definition of ‘neutrality’ is defined by its RELATION TO coloration, that does not make my reasoning, which employs those concepts, circular.

Learsfool - Our current disagreement seems to be that you object to my definition of 'neutrality.' But I agree with Cbw that my definition of neutrality is NOT “precisely what is under debate,” as you suggested. The focus of the debate, and my original post, is not the DEFINITION of 'neutrality,' but the OPERATIONALIZATION of 'neutrality', that is, the identification of a set of observable conditions that indicate the presence of neutrality. In your post dated 11/25, you seemed to agree with this characterization of the debate:

Thanks for the clarification, Bryon. I guess where we really disagree, then, is on whether you have in fact proposed "conditions that reliably indicate the presence of a characteristic," emphasis on reliably.

Here you seem to acknowledge that the central question of the thread, and the central focus of our disagreement, is the validity of my OPERATIONALIZATION of 'neutrality,' not the validity of my DEFINITION of 'neutrality.'

Of course, you are perfectly entitled to question the validity of my definition of neutrality as well. But it is inaccurate to treat my arguments for the OPERATIONALIZATION of neutrality as though they were arguments for the DEFINITION of neutrality. Doing so does create the appearance of circularity, but it is not a fair characterization of my arguments or my views.

Moving on to one of your concerns with my DEFINITION of neutrality:

So far, the only way you have defined your "neutrality" characteristic is by saying that it is an absence of some other characteristic, which you are calling "coloration." Frankly, I am not certain that this would pass muster as a scientific definition in the first place - I don't think it is accepted to define one thing solely as an absence of some other thing?

You are right I define neutrality in RELATION TO coloration. I don’t see the problem in this. To begin with, I never suggested that my definition was “scientific,” though I suppose my efforts to operationalize the concept could be considered an attempt to make it scientific. Acknowledging that, you are mistaken to suggest that a scientific concept cannot be defined by ABSENCE, as I have done with the definition of ‘neutrality.’ Here are some scientific concepts defined by absence:

Entropy: The ABSENCE of order in a thermodynamic system.
Vacuum: The ASBENCE of matter in a volume of space.
Absolute Zero: The ABSENCE of molecular activity.
Equilibrium: The ABSENCE of global system-level activity resulting from the balance of component-level forces.

In light of this, I do not see why defining ‘neutrality’ in terms of the ABSENCE of coloration is a problem, even if the standard of conceptual validity is a “scientific” concept.

Learsfool wrote:

Kijanki and I keep asking, how do you know what anything is "supposed" to sound like? There is no one answer to that question, and your assertion that there is is dumbfounding. A great many audiophiles calling themselves "objectivists" would stop far short of such an assertion. I fail to see how anyone could think of music or it's reproduction in such black and white terms.

This is a mischaracterization of my view. You are running two different things together:

(1) Is there a FACT OF THE MATTER about whether a system contains colorations (i.e. deviations from neutrality)?
(2) Is there a SINGLE way that a playback system is SUPPOSED TO sound?

My answer to (1) is Yes. That is what makes me an Objectivist about neutrality. But being an Objectivist about neutrality does not make me an Objectivist about ALL CHARACTERISTICS of musical playback. As it turns out, I am NOT an Objectivist about all characteristics of musical playback. Because of that, my answer to (2) above is No – there is not a single way that a playback system is supposed to sound. I hope you will see that my thinking on these topics is not as black and white as you have stated.

Al, I doubt you are dying to hear from me again, but what the hell.

It might be helpful if Bryon didn't include the word 'music' as being "more unique". He is actually talking about sound and the quality thereof, not music. Consider that some audio enthusiasts used to demo their systems with recording of jets taking off or the sounds made by trains on a track or their whistles.

It might be helpful if he didn't referring to one's 'music collection' becoming more diverse. The music itself, nor the number of extant recordings in one's collection, doesn't become more 'diverse', only the ability to discern the differences in the sound being delivered by the system can be enhanced by refining the quality of a systems components. The music collection doesn't become more diverse, only the ability to discern the amount of information in the pits and grooves becomes more acute. Perhaps that would increase his appreciation of some of the records in his collection - and that would be a good thing. Conversely one could discover that the more you could hear on some of your recordings the less you might appreciate listening to them ergo your usable collection might actually diminish.

I have always found it interesting, and inexplicable, why someone with the experience with audio, education, attention to detail, and command of the English language, would come up with such lame descriptions (IMHO of course - I realize others are willing to infer meanings that I will not) of what the effects of 'neutrality' are (as he uses the term) as if his observations related to 'music' when in fact they relate only to sound from an audio system, which IMHO, is better described when you relate how your system improves when you eliminate/reduce/alter 'colors' (a term far too inclusive for my tastes). He could talk about the effects of diminishing distortion's (kinda broad too), the effects of rise times and decays, the effect of tonal deviations from 'flat', the effect of different components synergy with any given speaker system, speaker system set up, room issues, ad infinitum, all of which add to or detract from some concept of neutrality/transparency/accuracy or sense of resolution.

I think the post/conversation might have been far more interesting to some of us if we were to discuss what an optimum system (on paper) might be and why, starting with the most important selection of your speakers system. Dynamic/cones. Electrostats. Horns. Planers. Line source, ribbon, cone, or electrostats. And working back to the amp and sources.

Obviously each speaker design and implementation produces different results. And that is where we will get into problems when we try to (assuming that we even do, although I think most experienced audiophiles do) recreate a home system which even begins to approach a sense of faithfulness to the recorded signal.

So, for me, I think it is not possible to change a few words in his post that would make it something I could agree with. If it were reduced to something like "As I improved the quality of my system's components, I found the sound became more clear, the sound was usually more enjoyable. In fact it sounds to me just as I would imagine it was recorded and I have found myself listening to more of my recordings, previously rejected for sonic reasons. I think my system is achieving a sense of reality that I can relate to."

Sorry I cannot be more accommodating. I'd like to be. :-)

Bryon wrote: "Is there a SINGLE way that a playback system is SUPPOSED TO sound?"

I was talking not about system sound but original performance sound. Did I miss this original performance? Neutral (or close) system exists - I don't question that (still no virtue to me). The problem I have is comparing its sound to, mentioned few times "original performance". How I can test for neutrality without knowing how it supposed to sound. To go to concert and wait for CD from this concert (assuming that recording engineer didn't touch it)? What Learsfool is trying to explain is that any instrument will sound differently in different halls on different days. My guitar sounds completely different in the summer (humid) and in the winter (dry). It sounds different with different picks and strings. It sounds completely different with new strings than with old strings. If I have Aural memory of guitar - is it my guitar or different guitar. There are hundreds of different guitars with different presence, projection, separation, sustain and tone. What Aural memory? What original performance?

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

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

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

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

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

Tvad wrote:

If one's goal is less system coloration to increase the likelihood that the colorations that were present in the original performance will be reproduced accurately, then precisely knowing what a recording is supposed to sound like is of utmost relevance. Without the baseline of knowing what a recording is supposed to sound like, one cannot judge the degree of coloration in a system.

Tvad is taking up the contention, made by Learsfool and Kijanki, that in order to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system, you must know what the recording is “supposed to sound like." Learsfool and Kijanki have used that contention as the first premise of the following argument:

(i) If you are to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system, you must know what the recording is supposed to sound like.
(ii) You cannot know what the recording is supposed to sound like.
(iii) Therefore, you cannot judge the coloration/neutrality of a system.

The reasoning of this argument is valid. But, in my view, the argument is unsound, because it contains a FALSE PREMISE, namely, premise (i), that the ONLY way to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system is to know what the recording is "supposed to sound like." That premise is false, I believe, because there is ANOTHER way to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system, namely:

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

In other words, my operationalization of neutralty is a method for judging the coloration/neutrality of a system that DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO KNOW WHAT THE RECORDING IS SUPPOSED TO SOUND LIKE. It only requires you to make judgments about changes in CONTRAST or DIFFERENTIATION.

Admittedly, my operationalization is only a way to judge the RELATIVE level of coloration/neutrality of a system, not its ABSOLUTE level of coloration/neutrality. But this is still valuable to the average audiophile, since he must make relative judgments all the time, such as, when changing components. And the fact that my operationalization of neutrality enables the audiophile to make (relative) judgments about coloration/neutrality without knowing what the recording is "supposed to sound like" is what makes the operationalization so actionable.

I believe that this also sheds some light on the disagreement between Learsfool, Kijanki, and Tvad (L/K/T) on the one hand, and me, Al, and Cbw (B/A/C) on ther other, concerning the RELEVANCE of premise (ii), that you cannot know what the recording is supposed to sound like. For L/K/T, premise (ii) is essential to the discussion, because of their belief that knowing what a recording is "supposed to sound like" is the ONLY way to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system. For B/A/C, premise (ii) seems irrelevant to the discussion, because of their belief that there is another way to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system, namely, the way I proposed in the original post.

Bryon: My operationalization of neutralty is a method for judging the coloration/neutrality of a system that DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO KNOW WHAT THE RECORDING IS SUPPOSED TO SOUND LIKE. It only requires you to make judgments about changes in CONTRAST or DIFFERENTIATION.

Admittedly, my operationalization is only a way to judge the RELATIVE level of coloration/neutrality of a system, not its ABSOLUTE level of coloration/neutrality. But this is still valuable to the average audiophile, since he must make relative judgments all the time, such as, when changing components.

Grant (Tvad), Newbee, Learsfool, Kijanki, this is exactly what I was getting at when I asked "why does the fact that it is difficult, in general, to precisely know what anything is supposed to sound like have any relevance in THIS DISCUSSION?" (emphasis added).

As I see it, Bryon has simply proposed a methodology or tool (I prefer those terms to "operationalization of neutrality" because they are easier for me to understand :)), which can be a useful addition to the arsenal of other methodologies (both subjective and objective) that we use to work toward the goal of more enjoyable listening. As I see it, it's as simple as that.

Best regards,
-- Al

Al, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who has difficulty with Bryon's 'operationalization of neutrality' used as a description of how to judge the sound of a system.

Perhaps I'm just exposing my ignorance, but I might be less resistive if Bryon, or anyone, could in a brief paragraph explain how one, in actual practice, utilizes this 'methodology', and if possible how this 'tool' or 'methodology' differs substantially from what audiophiles do every day when playing with their toys without placing a title on the process, i.e. as I described in the last paragraph of my last post.

Bryon wrote: "Admittedly, my operationalization is only a way to judge the RELATIVE level of coloration/neutrality of a system, not its ABSOLUTE level of coloration/neutrality."

Maybe it's possible to move the discussion in a slightly different direction with observations about reference points and relative vs. absolute measures. (On this tack I return to the notion of neutrality in the broad sense.)

Distinctions about coloration may be made relative to an external reference point of live music, or to an internal reference point of a previous or alternate iteration of one's system. Unfortunately fidelity to an external reference point will be debated ad nauseam, owing to endlessly varying opinions about live sound, as well as human frailty in reconstituting performance from memory.

So what internal references points are reliably available? Also, if one is to exclusively adopt internal reference points, any improvement is by definition relative to one’s current system rather than to an absolute. Bryon initially suggested two ideas to operationalize one’s aural judgment of neutrality—ideas about distinction and difference. I suggested that convergence was also a meaningful marker-- particularly the convergence of vinyl and digital sources through independent mod processes. Such convergence at least demonstrates CONSISTENCY between internal reference points. However the question arises as to whether such consistency merely reflects the bias of PREFERENCE rather than increased NEUTRALITY. Since all mods were made as single-variable changes on scientific grounds, I am inclined to view the progress as demonstrative of neutrality rather than personal preference. However others may reasonably disagree.

But more interestingly, can the scientific method be applied generally to the notion of subjective preference? Preference in this sense may be defined as movement toward one's PARTICULAR idea of live music. I believe the answer is yes to science, if the notion of personal preference is operationalized by the test that EVERY vectors of the listening experience must either be subjectively improved or remain unchanged. The basis here is to abandon the notion that colorations are a soup of isolated variables and combinations of inevitable compromises. If a system becomes more like that which one prefers in every sense (without a single shortcoming relative to prior iteration), then one may reliably conclude that neutrality is improved.

In practical terms, neutrality in this sense is the sum of positive vectors such as pitch, timbre, dynamics, frequency extension and control, spatiality, quiet background, and such others as one may consider important. The important thing is to develop an exhaustive list of significant variables and to listen carefully for each one. The test is made with respect to both the sum of variables and their differences. Even though these variables are not like terms, their differences can be measured with respect to the notion of preference, and positive must always be considered better. For the test of improved neutrality to be satisfied, no variable may go negative relative to another. A difficult test that few systems will pass—-but a test that forces the audiophile into a critical and uncompromising analysis of coloration.

Dgarretson - Well stated, summed up, and I agree totally. I think. :-)

The process of incremental modding leads me to the hypothesis that most of the qualitative measures of sound are linked variables depending upon the independent variable of a circuit change. When a circuit is changed in small ways according to rational engineering, all the variables of listening tend to move together in a direction of preference. This is particularly true when frequency response is unaltered, as anomalies of frequency response may confuse the perception of other qualities. Holding frequency response constant is desireable when evaluating other determinants of neutrality.

The experience of hearing disparate variables of listening moving in opposite directions after an incremental internal mod, is the exception rather than the rule. However in a complete system of multiple components the situation can be much more complex, with coloration occuring as the sum of complementary defects as much as a combination of strengths. Nonetheless, this is no reason to rationalize away some perceived zero-sum cul de sac as a preferred coloration.

Learsfool writes:

My position is that there is no such thing as an absence of "coloration" in music and/or music playback and/or an audio component; therefore Bryon's "neutrality" couldn't ever actually exist, even as he defines these terms.

You've asserted this point about a half dozen times in this thread, and each and every time someone (usually Bryon) points out that 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.

Neither Bryon, nor anyone else on this thread has suggested that absolute neutrality (i.e., zero coloration) either exists or is achievable in a playback system. All that has been suggested is that components may have either more or less coloration, and that it may be possible to distinguish one of those conditions from the other.

Learsfool wrote:

Bryon has yet to propose ANY CONDITION that indicates the presence of a characteristic of "neutrality" at all, let alone "reliably."[Emphasis added]

This strikes me as a strange thing to say, since I have proposed THE SAME TWO CONDITIONS many, many times in this thread:

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

These were the conditions I proposed in the original post. The have been discussed at great length, including by you. You may not AGREE with those conditions, but it is strange to suggest that I have not PROPOSED any.

Learsfool wrote:

Another part of my problem with your terms is that I cannot accept your use of the term "coloration" as a purely negative term, something always to be removed. My previous post spoke at length of the relationship of music and color.

We have also discussed this at length, and we are in complete agreement about the existence and desirability of coloration in music. For the purposes of my operationalization of neutrality, my use of the word ‘coloration’ is strictly about colorations INTRODUCED BY THE PLAYBACK SYSTEM. If you like, we can designate them:

(1) Music Colorations: The sonic signature of the musical event and/or the recording.

(2) Playback Colorations: The sonic signature of the playback system.

While music colorations are VARIABLES, playback colorations are CONSTANTS.

We are in complete agreement about the existence and desirability of MUSIC COLORATIONS. Our disagreement lies in the existence and desirability of PLAYBACK COLORATIONS. This point has been made now many times. Therefore, your objection to my use of the word ‘coloration’ seems unmotivated, since I have already acknowledged that my use is limited to playback. Perhaps you have the view that I should not use the word 'coloration' so narrowly. I have no problem using the phrase ‘playback colorations’ if that will prevent us from having this particular disagreement again.

Learsfool wrote:

A designer of a piece of equipment has a specific sound color he is aiming at, that is different from all other designs/models out there, otherwise why design another piece of equipment? "Neutrality" simply is not a goal of design…

I do not agree with this. Under the terms of the discussion, neutrality is degree of absence of coloration (now: “playback colorations”). Under the terms of this discussion, playback colorations are additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music.

Designers are, without doubt, sensitive to additions or subtraction to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that they are not sensitive to noise, distortion, crosstalk, power isolation, and a host of other considerations, ALL OF WHICH, if left unattended, can result in the concealment or corruption of information about the music. To acknowledge that designers are sensitive to such considerations is to acknowledge that designers are sensitive to PLAYBACK COLORATIONS. And if they are sensitive to playback colorations, then they are sensitive to NEUTRALITY, defined as the degree of absence of playback colorations.

It is important to point out that designers need not EXPLICITY conceptualize their design values in terms of coloration or neutrality, though I suspect some of them do. The vast majority of concepts, audio or otherwise, are IMPLICIT, which is to say, they are concepts about which we are unaware. It is enough for designers to have the concepts like intermodulation distortion, crosstalk, speaker cabinet resonance, etc., and to treat those phenomena as THINGS TO BE MINIMIZED TO IMPROVE THE SOUND OF THE MUSIC. By doing that, they reveal the presence of an IMPLICIT concept of coloration, and an IMPLICIT concept of neutrality, as defined here.

It is also important to point out that I am not suggested that minimizing playback coloration/maximizing neutrality is the PRINCIPAL goal of most, or any, designers. But I believe that it is likely to be ONE GOAL AMONG MANY. The evidence for this belief is the existence of a large number of audiophile components that, in my view, have relatively low levels of playback coloration/high level of neutrality, especially when compared with the low-fi playback systems available on the mass market. It is hard to believe that this is an accident.

Cbw723 wrote, "All that has been suggested is that components may have either more or less coloration, and that it may be possible to distinguish one of those conditions from the other."

My point is not too different from yours. Movement along a continuum toward a relative lack of coloration is possible. An advance in engineering and neutrality has been indicated when all variables of the listening experience are carried in the direction of preference. But if after making a change in your system you find that some of the variables of listening have moved opposite to preference, this indicates a lack of advance toward neutrality. Whether or not you prefer to stop along the way and accept a relatively colored presentation is your business. But given the way electronics function, the chances are good that a preferred coloration is accompanied by an unpreferred coloration, and one must make grudging compromise between the two. What colored system is without defect recognized even by its owner...

Dgarretson – Very interesting post. As I understand it:

(1) You advocate a METHODOLOGICAL INTERNALISM for evaluating coloration/neutrality...

Distinctions about coloration may be made relative to an external reference point of live music, or to an internal reference point of a previous or alternate iteration of one's system. Unfortunately fidelity to an external reference point will be debated ad nauseam, owing to endlessly varying opinions about live sound, as well as human frailty in reconstituting performance from memory.

(2) You acknowledge that, because of your Methodological Internalism, ABSOLUTE judgments about coloration/neutrality are impossible. However, you believe that RELATIVE judgments about coloration/neutrality are possible...

...if one is to exclusively adopt internal reference points, any improvement is by definition relative to one’s current system rather than to an absolute.

(3) You propose an ALTERNATIVE OPERATIONALIZATION of ‘neutrality,’ namely:

DGARRETSON'S OPERATIONALIZATION: Neutrality can be judged to be increasing when, after a change to a system, all sonic characteristics are improved...

An advance in engineering and neutrality has been indicated when all variables of the listening experience are carried in the direction of preference.

I have mixed feelings about (1). I completely agree with (2). And I am still mulling over (3). I have a few questions to help me understand (3) better:

(i) What about situations where you change a component and you get the result that SOME characteristics have improved and SOME have stayed constant. Is that an improvement in neutrality?

(ii) Can you say more about the phrase “carried in the direction of preference”? That seems like a Subjectivist thing to say, but you are an avowed Objectivist with respect to neutrality. I am not “holding you to” your previous posts. It’s that I get the sense that you are STILL an Objectivist, and so I am confused by the distinctly Subjectivist wording of your operationalization. Maybe you can elaborate. Thanks!

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

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

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

Learsfool wrote:

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

NO! You are, once again, running two things together:

(1) Objectivism about neutrality.
(2) Absolutism about neutrality.

Being an OBJECTIVIST about neutrality means that you believe that there is a FACT OF THE MATTER about the existence and degree of coloration in a system. Being an ABSOLUTIST about neutrality means that you believe that ZERO COLORATION IS POSSIBLE. I am an Objectivist about neutrality. I am NOT an Absolutist. I have said that MANY times.

In addition, you are running the following two things together:

(1) Objectivism about neutrality.
(3) Objectivism about ALL sonic characteristics.

(1) is an accurate characterization of my arguments and my views. (2) is NOT. As I have said MANY times, including in the original post, I believe that there are many sonic characteristics other than neutrality that are important, and for at least some of the them, I am a Subjectivist. In other words:

I HAVE COMMITED MYSELF TO BEING AN OBJECTIVIST ABOUT NEUTRALITY ONLY!

As far my post on 12/5, which you cite as evidence that I am an Absolutist about neutrality and an Objectivist about all sonic characteristics, WE HAVE ALREADY RESOLVED THAT MISUNDERSTANDING:

On 12/6, you wrote:

Kijanki and I keep asking, how do you know what anything is "supposed" to sound like? There is no one answer to that question, and your assertion that there is is dumbfounding. A great many audiophiles calling themselves "objectivists" would stop far short of such an assertion. I fail to see how anyone could think of music or it's reproduction in such black and white terms.

And on 12/6, I wrote:

This is a mischaracterization of my view. You are running two different things together:

(1) Is there a FACT OF THE MATTER about whether a system contains colorations (i.e. deviations from neutrality)?
(2) Is there a SINGLE way that a playback system is SUPPOSED TO sound?

My answer to (1) is Yes. That is what makes me an Objectivist about neutrality. But being an Objectivist about neutrality does not make me an Objectivist about ALL CHARACTERISTICS of musical playback. As it turns out, I am NOT an Objectivist about all characteristics of musical playback. Because of that, my answer to (2) above is No – there is not a single way that a playback system is supposed to sound. I hope you will see that my thinking on these topics is not as black and white as you have stated.

If you do not accept my characterization of my position on 12/5, then please accept this as my characterization of my position now:

I AM NOT AN ABSOLUTIST ABOUT NEUTRALITY.

I AM NOT AN OBJECTIVIST ABOUT ALL SONIC CHARACTERISTICS.

THEREFORE, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A SINGLE WAY THAT A PLAYBACK SYSTEM IS "SUPPOSED TO" SOUND.

I have said this many times in this thread.

In your post from today, you wrote:

I will repeat that Bryon's two premises do not prove the existence of "neutrality." (In fact, they assume it's existence, which is why I originally called it a question-begging argument.)

WE HAVE ALREADY HAD, AND RESOLVED, THAT DISCUSSION...

On 11/25, you wrote:

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.

And on 11/25, I responded:

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.'

To which, on 11/25, you responded:

Thanks for the clarification, Bryon. I guess where we really disagree, then, is on whether you have in fact proposed "conditions that reliably indicate the presence of a characteristic”…

This reply led me to believe that this misunderstanding was behind us, but it appears again in your post from today. So do you mischaracterizations of me as an Absolutist about neutrality and an Objectivist about all sonic characteristics, mischaracterizations that I believed we had previously resolved.

This is not an issue of clarity of expression. I do not know whether you are merely skimming my posts, or if you have difficulty remembering them, but the momentum of this thread is being impeded by these repetitions. You have been an excellent opponent, and I don't mean to discourage you from continuing to post on this thread. I do mean to encourage you to take our previous discussions into consideration when posting.

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

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

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

Byron replied to my last post with questions:

(i) What about situations where you change a component and you get the result that SOME characteristics have improved and SOME have stayed constant. Is that an improvement in neutrality?

(ii) Can you say more about the phrase “carried in the direction of preference”? That seems like a Subjectivist thing to say, but you are an avowed Objectivist with respect to neutrality. I am not “holding you to” your previous posts. It’s that I get the sense that you are STILL an Objectivist, and so I am confused by the distinctly Subjectivist wording of your operationalization.

The answer below includes consideration of some ideas from the last few posts. To address question (ii) first:

The Objectivist defines neutrality as an absence of coloration, yet may refrain from absolutism by observing that neutrality is in practice an incremental process toward an unattainable goal. Perhaps we should call the Objectivist who is also an Absolutist with respect to believing that it is feasible to arrive finally at the goal of neutrality(wire with gain, absolute sound, etc.) an EXTREME OBJECTIVIST. In the opposing corner, the Subjectivist takes on more diverse incarnations. His principal certainty is that colorations are inevitable. He believes that there are good and bad colorations. While he knows what he likes, he may believe that making a fine distinction between good and bad that is generally acceptable to others, is difficult or irrelevant in view of varying listener tastes & priorities and the overwhelming complexity of systems variables. Finally, he may adopt a wholly relativistic POV by asserting that even a basic distinction between good and bad is impossible-- in which case he is an EXTREME SUBJECTIVIST. At such an extreme he may become hopelessly vague about distinctions and mystical about equipment. Such Extreme Subjectivism may reasonably be banished from this forum with a boom box and Ipod as a parting gift, if not a 100 lb. solid copper chassis with a foot tall KR tube...

A close analysis of preference behaviors may be used to escape the irreconcilable differences of objectivism and subjectivism. For the Subjectivist, any choice of preferred coloration, if examined critically, is by definition a compromise that accepts both appealing and unappealing colorations. The truth of this assertion follows from the inevitable limitations of electronics. The propagation of a desirable coloration is necessarily accompanied by the propagation of undesirable coloration. Objectivists and subjectivists can agree on this point, as both experience restless compromise in the selection of audio components. On the other hand, for the Objectivist it becomes apparent that a choice reflecting one's preference for a relatively less colored component by definition includes fewer factors that war against preference. The two view the same problem from different perspectives. The Objectivist seeks to eliminate coloration, the Subjectivist seeks to increase desirable coloration without adding undesirable coloration, and both choose components that move them in the direction of preference. However both have the burden of careful reflection upon compromises made at particular stopping points along the continuum of coloration. The subjectivist may bear an additional intellectual burden to avoid dismissing or rationalizing away some undesirable coloration in order to justify a preferred coloration.

Assuming that the many variables of the listening experience are numbered and accounted for, an answer is suggested to Bryon’s question (i): All that is necessary to signify increased neutrality is for one variable of the listening experience to advance toward one’s preference without the retreat of another other variable. If this condition is met, for the Subjectivist no coloration has been compromised by any other, and for the Objectivist a coloration has been reduced or eliminated. This UNITY of improvement evidences an ADVANCE in engineering. It is not important for the Subjectivist and the Objectivist to agree, provided that the Subjectivist is careful to watch all his variables carefully and notice when he is being betrayed by his electronics. The Objectivist is en garde to colorations by definition.

From a practical point of view, it may be argued that this condition can never be met. However my own experience in making single-variable changes inside components suggests otherwise. In practice the majority of single-variable mods made on the grounds of solid engineering practice tend to move all variables of listening in a positive direction. This reinforces the idea of LINKED VARIABLES. Admittedly however, it is difficult (though not impossible) to extend this idea to a complex system of multiple components with a greater number of engineering variables.

Learsfool – I apologize for the frustration I expressed in my last post. This has been one of the most rewarding discussions I’ve had in a long time, and you are a big part of the reason for that. I completely agree with the sentiment you expressed in the final paragraph of your last post, that we learn more from people we disagree with than the people we agree with. This is particularly true when your opponents are thoughtful and intellectually honest. You have been both.

Ironically, you said something in your last post that may have affected our deadlock, if only by a little:

You have brought up some types of distortion that can be measured, and certainly I agree that a designer of a piece of equipment can guard against these types of what you call "colorations." However, you seem to be ignoring other ways in which pieces of equipment can sound different from each other that have been brought up, for instance my two preamps in the same exact system where one was warmer sounding than the other…

I think this is accurate, insofar as I have been ignoring ways that systems can sound different that are NOT attributable to differences in playback colorations. I will call those differences COLORATION-INDEPENDENT CHARACTERISTICS. A coloration-independent characteristic is sonic characteristics of a component/system that is:

(1) VARIABLE, in the sense that multiple values of the characteristic are possible, and
(2) COLORATION-NEUTRAL, in the sense that, for at least a limited range of values, differences in the value of that variable have either (a) no effects or (b) identical effects on the concealment and corruption of information about the music.

Here are two candidates for coloration-independent characteristics of systems that I can think of:

(1) Maximum undistorted SPL.
(2) Listening room reverberation time.

There may be many more. I would be interested to hear from you, Learsfool, or others, about candidates for coloration-independent characteristics.

It is worth pointing out that this topic relates to Dgarretson’s first of two operationalizations of 'neutrality':

DGARRETSON’S OPERATIONALIZATION #1: Neutrality can be judged to be increasing when, after a change to a system, the sonic characteristics of two or more formats move toward CONVERGENCE.

The SMALLER the number of coloration-independent characteristics that exist, the MORE convergence between formats will occur as playback colorations are removed. The LARGER the number of coloration-independent characteristics that exist, the LESS convergence between formats will occur as playback colorations are removed. Therefore, if a large number of coloration-independent characteristics exist, then even if we were to, hypothetically, achieve perfect system neutrality, THERE WOULD STILL BE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES in how formats sound.

This issue can be extended, analogically, to whole systems: The SMALLER the number of coloration-independent characteristics that exist, the MORE systems will converge as playback colorations are removed. The LARGER the number of coloration-independent characteristics exist, the LESS systems will converge as playback colorations are removed. In light of this, it would be useful to know: Just how many coloration-independent characteristics are there?

what is the purpose of assessing neutrality, if the goal of listening is musical enjoyment?

is this a philosophical endeavor or is there another reason for this question ?

Mrtennis, For me the interesting aspect is deconstruction of the notion of coloration, which is often left unexamined by subjectivists focused purely on aesthetic enjoyment. Unlike a live acoustic performance, audio playback is at the intersection of art and engineering, and as such may deserve its own vocabulary to translate between art and science as precisely as possible. In addition, there is a certain tension between art and science that may be best examined through philosophy.

Bryon writes:

I think this is accurate, insofar as I have been ignoring ways that systems can sound different that are NOT attributable to differences in playback colorations. I will call those differences COLORATION-INDEPENDENT CHARACTERISTICS. A coloration-independent characteristic is sonic characteristics of a component/system that is:

(1) VARIABLE, in the sense that multiple values of the characteristic are possible, and
(2) COLORATION-NEUTRAL, in the sense that, for at least a limited range of values, differences in the value of that variable have either (a) no effects or (b) identical effects on the concealment and corruption of information about the music.

I'm not sure I agree with #2. We've already identified resolution as existing outside of neutrality/coloration, but it would not pass part b of this test, because low resolution would conceal information.

Coloration-neutral characteristics would seem to demand a definition that speaks in some way to their frequency independence, and could then include things like dynamic range (headroom?), scale, and microdynamics. Although, honestly, there is very little in audio that is frequency independent, so the definition will have to be a matter of degree.

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

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

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

In my last post, I suggested a definition for ‘coloration-independent characteristics’:

A coloration-independent characteristic is sonic characteristics of a component/system that is:

(1) VARIABLE, in the sense that multiple values of the characteristic are possible, and
(2) COLORATION-NEUTRAL, in the sense that, for at least a limited range of values, differences in the value of that variable have either (a) no effects or (b) identical effects on the concealment and corruption of information about the music.

Cbw wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with #2. We've already identified resolution as existing outside of neutrality/coloration, but it would not pass part b of this test, because low resolution would conceal information.

Cbw’s objection to my definition of ‘coloration-independent characteristics’ is implicitly an objection to my definition of ‘coloration’:

COLORATION: Additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music.

The apparent problem identified by Cbw with my definition ‘coloration’ can be expressed in the following argument:

(1) Resolution loss is not a type of coloration.
(2) Resolution loss satisfies my definition of ‘coloration,’ since it is a subtraction in the playback chain that conceals information about the music.
(3) Therefore, my definition of ‘coloration’ is flawed, and by entailment, so is my definition of ‘coloration-independent characteristics.’

My reply to this is that premise (1) is partly true, partly false. That is to say, some resolution loss is a consequence coloration and some is not. What I would like to propose is that resolution loss can be thought of as falling into three types...

THREE TYPES OF RESOLUTION LOSS:

(1) CONCEALMENT of information about the music.
(2) CORRUPTION of information about the music.
(3) ELIMINATION of information about the music.

The loss of information through concealment or corruption is resolution loss BY COLORATION. The loss of information through elimination is RESOLUTION LOSS PROPER.

CONCEALMENT is the kind of loss that results, for example, from comb filtering, where some frequencies are exaggerated, others attenuated, by constructive and destructive interference. CORRUPTION is the kind of loss that results, for example, from intermodulation distortion, where spurious frequencies are added to an amplified signal. And ELIMINATION is the kind of loss that results, for example, from the informational compression of an MP3.

I chose the words “conceal or corrupt,” rather than “eliminate” for my definition of ‘coloration’ precisely because I was hoping to define ‘coloration’ in a way that does not entirely subsume the concept of ‘resolution’ under the concept of ‘neutrality,’ which would not reflect the usage of those concepts by audiophiles, or their usage on this thread. My definition of ‘coloration’ forces me to acknowledge that some resolution loss is a consequence of colorations, but it allows me to preserve a concept of ‘resolution’ that is INDEPENDENT OF the concepts of ‘coloration' and 'neutrality,' thereby addressing Cbw’s concern with the definitions of ‘coloration’ and ‘coloration-independent characteristic.’

Another motivation for differentiating CONCEALMENT from CORRUPTION from ELIMINATION is the idea that these three types of information loss have different (1) TYPICAL LOCALIZATIONS; and (2) TYPICAL DEGREES OF RECOVERABILITY:

TYPE OF LOSS.......LOCALIZATION..........RECOVERABILITY
(1) Concealment........Listening room................Easy
(2) Corruption...........Equipment.......................Difficult
(3) Elimination..........Format............................Impossible

Information loss through CONCEALMENT, as typically happens in the listening room, includes phenomena such as room modes, flutter echo, and comb filtering. The information concealed by each of these phenomena is contained upstream in the system. The information is being CONCEALED by the listening room (Or more accurately, by the physical relations among the listening room, the speakers, and the listener). Because of this, the lost information is relatively EASY TO RECOVER. It can often be achieved with modest room treatments (as in the case of flutter echo) or change of speaker position (as in the case of comb filtering).

Information loss through CORRUPTION, as typically happens in equipment, includes phenomena such as intermodulation distortion, crosstalk, and speaker cabinet resonance. Once again, the information concealed by these phenomena is contained upstream in the system. The information is being CORRUPTED by the equipment. Because of this, the lost information is MORE DIFFICULT TO RECOVER. It can sometimes be accomplished by modifying components.

Information loss through ELIMINATION, as typically happens in the format, includes phenomena such as the informational compression of an MP3. The lost information does not exist upstream in the system. Hence, it is UNRECOVERABLE. The only way to get this information into your system is to change components, and possibly formats.

It is important to point out that I am proposing these three types of information loss as IDEALIZED CATEGORIES, in the sense that the loss of information in any real-world system will merely RESEMBLE these idealizations. Having said that, I believe these categories are valuable to the audiophile, insofar as they help him conceptualize what is wrong, where it went wrong, and how hard it will be to fix it.

According to the advertisements I have seen on TV, wives have found that a little blue pill seems to fix the neutrality of home hi-fi systems. At least, anecdotally, men suddenly stop spending the majority of their time worrying about the neutrality of their home hi-fi system and also stop spending endless hours tinkering with it.

I am not sure how this can possibly have such a dramatic effect on the Hi-Fi - seems to much like "magic pebbles" to me - but worth a try perhaps...

Shadrone, You are right. I put 4 of those little blue pills adjacent to some EL84's. After the amp warmed up it sounded like an octet of KT90's. Wonder what a picture of Penelope Cruz would do................Sure would keep my hand out of the blue pill jar!

I used them to keep cables straight.

Dgarretson - I have a better understanding of the approach you are proposing. It's a very interesting idea. I have another question about it. You wrote:

The propagation of a desirable coloration is necessarily accompanied by the propagation of undesirable coloration.

I think you are probably right, but how do we know this?

As long as your are pointing a finger at transgressors to good sound, I have my own findings, and the difficulty in changing them was relatively easy.

On my system, I have found the following:

Concealment:- Solid state amplifiers - easy

Corruption -cables - easy

elimination - oversampling DACs - easy.

The distinction between "easy," "difficult," and "impossible" degrees of recoverability was really just a shorthand way of talking about how much the system would have to change in order to recover the missing information.

In the case of concealment, relatively SMALL changes to the system, such as repositioning the speakers, can recover the concealed information. Hence the word 'EASY.'

In the case of corruption, LARGER changes to the system, such as modifying or changing components, are necessary to recover the corrupted information. Hence the word 'DIFFICULT.'

In the case of elimination, NO changes to the system, other than changing formats, will recover the eliminated information. Hence the word 'IMPOSSIBLE.'

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

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

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

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

Learsfool writes:

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

I don't know how Bryon will respond to this, but for my thinking, I don't see that complete agreement is required in order to achieve a better understanding of the processes we are discussing. We are dealing with terminology that, in general usage, is not exact. If we insist on rigid conformance to our personal usage, you are right, agreement will never be reached. And even then, the discussion may be useful.

"Coloration," for instance, is a term for which my usage is considerably narrower than is Bryon's. My understanding of the term is closer to the visual analogy than is his: a coloration is a band-limited (or narrow-band) distortion. I found this definition on line, which is even narrower than my understanding of the term:

Coloration: Change in frequency response caused by resonance peaks.

Things like speaker cabinet resonance and room modes fit my definition (as per the above), but so do descriptions of systems that are "bright," "dark," "warm," "bass-heavy," etc., because these characteristics tend to be the result of excess or insufficiency (relative to the source) within a particular frequency range. I would put things like intermodulation distortion and crosstalk under a broader category of "distortion" or something like that (because, despite possibly being frequency dependent, they tend to wide-band), and put "coloration" as a sub-category within that category. But my understanding may not reflect the general usage within the community. It may be that Bryon's usage is the more normal. In which case "coloration" is the broad category, and "narrow-band coloration" is a sub-category. But in either case, I understand the term "neutrality," as used here, to apply to the broad category. When Bryon talks about playback system coloration, I just substitute "playback system distortion" because I know that is the way he is using the term. If I come to believe that my understanding of the term is non-standard, I'll adjust my thinking accordingly. If I become convinced that I'm right, I'll suggest to Bryon that he adjust his terminology.

As to the question of whether one kind of resolution loss should be assigned to one category or another, I don't see it as being enough to derail the general progress toward a clearer understanding of the topic. In my own classification scheme, I'm not even sure where I'd put harmonic distortion. But I can live with that. As a musician, you must be comfortable with shades of gray and non-absolutist thinking, even though the notes are set down in ink on a piece of paper by the guy who wrote the music.

The little blue pill may be a case in point regarding preference choices relating to neutrality and coloration. Of course there are more Subjectivists than Objectivists in this particular coloratura, so consensus tends to move in an upward bias toward the contention that the more color the better. But if this argument is to stand up to the close analysis, we must consider whether the pill adds coloration or removes it, in the sense of removing the corrupting veil that separates us from faithful reproduction of the “original performance”? But by removing this veil, have we achieved a realistic performance that is neutral in the manner of real life, or something more colored and larger than life? Before answering too quickly, consider that too many pills make one literally “see blue” as a side effect—and btw she is not fooled and may possibly even become uncomfortable by the stilted & exaggerated performance of TOO MUCH BLUE. But short of choking on this extremity, all vectors of experience tend to move together in the direction of preference, and for both sexes. However if after the deed is done a woman has been satisfied, then we may reasonable conclude that the analogy to high end audio has in the end gone limp.

Somewhat more seriously, Learsfool, granting your point, general agreement on a definition of neutrality is pinned to agreement about coloration—which is why I’m starting to think of neutrality in the broadest terms as “absence of coloration.” Also as you suggest, the Objectivist may fall into traps as easily as the Subjectivist. But if at an extreme the Objectivist emphasizes analysis over aesthetics, the Objectivist is guilty more of intellectual hubris than demonstrative of a failure of aesthetic appreciation. Similarly the Subjectivist may believe that by emphasizing taste and appreciation over analysis he has a monopoly on aesthetics—which in turn evidences his own kind of intellectual hubris. The two see the same phenomena from opposite directions but with similar human foibles. But make no mistake about it, in selecting his component according to preference, a cultivated Subjectivist has analyzed (even if selectively or subliminally) many listening variables, just as a cultivated Objectivist makes choices that are aesthetic as well analytical. That is why I began to explore preference choices as common ground for both parties, and to look at the dichotomous viewpoints of these observers on coloration as a possible basis for a deeper convergence.

Bryon questioned why I feel “The propagation of a desirable coloration is necessarily accompanied by the propagation of undesirable coloration.” The thought is simply the obverse of practice in modding of making a single-variable change inside of a component based on solid technical grounds. After making such a change I generally observe that all variables of the listening experience tended to move in the direction of preference—which as an Objectivist I consider a less colored presentation closer to neutrality. Had the same mod been done in reverse, varying kinds of coloration would have emerged. I think I could demonstrate to any experienced audiophile of either persuasion that some of these emergent colorations were undesirable to all, while other colorations might be considered by some as benign or even preferable—were they not accompanied by the collateral damage in other areas. So in view of this last point, my operationalization of conditions required for movement toward neutrality requires the absence of retreat of any listening variables from preference. Admittedly this requires that the Subjectivist become more objective in terms of exhaustive definition and analysis of listening variables. Admittedly the experiment is harder to operationalize in the context of a complex system involving whole component swaps. The approach may have particular appeal to DIYers, and also to owners of designs like Merlin and Atma-Sphere, which have been refined in small steps over many years. IMO practicing slow incremental change trains the ear to connect the art to the engineering differently than swapping through a succession of so-called “break-through” products.

Bryon, I like this idea of coloration-independent characteristics and loosely connect it to my idea of professed subjectivists and objectivists whose different aesthetics may each progress toward separate but valid senses of neutrality defined in the broadest sense. In the end this approach allows each to settle on a different sound that is in its own way close to colored, or colored with the minimal number of undesirable colorations. However my mod experience suggests it is very challenging to separate desirable from undesirable colorations, in the sense that a single engineering change does not affect everything through linked variables.

Reading a recent audio club review of a speaker that was demoed to around forty educated listeners, I was struck how the generally negative reviewers accentuated a wide array of perceived defects, while positive reviewers focused on the few strengths that they considered paramount in a component. Maybe Objectivists & Subjectivists divide along these lines when thinking about audio.

Dgarretson – Hilarious post. And informative.

Learsfool wrote:

It is apparent that there is already disagreement even between the three of you on exactly what is a "coloration" and what is not. Though these differences may be minimized some by further discussion, I don't think they can be eliminated. So going back to your definition of "neutrality" as the absence of coloration, if there can be no consensus on "coloration," there cannot be on "neutrality," either.

This is the issue of CATEGORY MEMBERSHIP, in that it raises the question: Just what things fall into the category of ‘coloration’ and what do not? It is a valid question, and any effort to refine our understanding of neutrality must address it. I have proposed a definition of 'coloration' that gives some minimal guidance as to its category members:

(1) They are additions or subtractions to the playback chain.

I should probably have included ‘alterations,’ so I will include it now:

(1b) They are additions, subtractions, or alterations to the playback chain.

And:

(2) They conceal or corrupt (as opposed to eliminate) information about the music.

Admittedly, this is a very broad category. I do not think that its broadness diminishes its validity, however, so long as we find STRUCTURE within the category, in the form of SUBSETS, i.e., TYPES of coloration (or, using the language of a previous post, LOWER-ORDER categories). The more structure we find within the category of ‘coloration,’ the more useful it becomes, and the more guidance we will have to make judgments about CATEGORY MEMBERSHIP. I tried to begin the process of finding structure within the category in my first post on 12/9.

It is worth pointing out that many, many categories have ambiguity and/or disagreement about category membership, including some scientific categories like ‘life’ (Is a virus alive?) and ‘planet’ (Is Pluto a planet?).

It is also worth pointing out that concepts, in the sense of mental representations of categories, are never identical from person to person. There is abundant evidence from cognitive psychology that shows that significant differences exist across individuals’ conceptualizations of all categories. For example, my conceptualization of the category ‘dog’ is similar but not identical to yours, because each of our conceptualizations is shaped by our experience with specific breeds (exposure effects), what dogs we’ve seen recently (recency effects), and a host of other variables. What this means is that there is NO SINGLE CONCEPT of ‘dog.’ There are many overlapping conceptualizations of ‘dog.’ Two things follow from this.

The first is that the disagreement among me, Cbw, and Dgarretson about the conceptualization of ‘coloration’ is to be expected, because IT IS TRUE OF ALL CONCEPTS. But that does not make the category 'coloration' useless any more than diverse conceptualizations of ‘dog’ make that category useless. Whether or not the differences among our various conceptualizations of 'coloration' can be minimized through discussion and debate is yet to be seen. In the meantime, I think Cbw's approach is the right one:

When Bryon talks about playback system coloration, I just substitute "playback system distortion" because I know that is the way he is using the term. If I come to believe that my understanding of the term is non-standard, I'll adjust my thinking accordingly. If I become convinced that I'm right, I'll suggest to Bryon that he adjust his terminology.

Second, the existence of diverse conceptualizations of ‘coloration’ highlights the need to STIPULATE a definition for the purposes of conversation. The stipulated definition is subject to error, ambiguity, vagueness, debate, and revision, but it is a necessary step in the discussion and development of ideas. The value of a stipulated definition should be judged by its ability to further investigation. In that sense, it is a HEURISTIC. Heuristics are sometimes messy, confusing, and frustrating, but they are the mainstay of the exploration of ideas.

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

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

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

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

I think your approach ultimately is only useful for each individual on his or her own, to come up with his or her own "personal reference point." I don't think there could ever be a generally accepted sense of "neutrality," even as you have refined it with the different types of colorations.

I'd like to point out that the title of this thread is "How do YOU judge YOUR SYSTEM'S neutrality?" [Emphasis mine.] It is not, "I'm going to compel you to make your system conform to my idea of neutrality." It seems an obvious point, but it appears to have been lost in much of the discussion throughout this thread.

Likewise, Bryon, I think that although it may be possible to come up with a very lengthy list of different categories of colorations that many audiophiles could agree upon IN THEORY, I doubt that there would ever be much consensus on this IN PRACTICE, the result being that very few audiophiles would end up coming up with the same sense of "neutrality."

I disagree. My own experience with my system leads me to believe that if you could A/B the various types of coloration in an otherwise constant system, almost all audiophiles would prefer the more neutral system. Maybe Dgarretson or Almarg could tell us if such a test is possible on some of the forms of coloration (for instance, is there a way you could introduce and remove intermodulation distortion, harmonic distortion, crosstalk, etc.?), but how many audiophiles are going to prefer a boomy speaker cabinet, room modes, comb filtering, etc.? I had the opportunity to listen to reduced jitter in my system in two stages (first my adding a Monarchy box between my computer and DAC, then going with a DAC with asynchronous USB), and with each improvement, there we significant improvements in sound quality that I can't imagine any audiophile not preferring. I liked my sound before, but after reducing this form of coloration, I can not imagine going back.

I think personal preference plays its strongest role when tradeoffs are required. For instance, if one has to choose between an excess of speaker cabinet resonance, or having poorer resolution, it is likely that audiophiles would be split. But the choice between more or less cabinet resonance is simple, and I think most audiophiles would choose less.

i have many things to say. first, many of the preceding comments seem rather academic and superfluous. one of the purposes of listening to music is to enjoy it. thus it may not be necessary to analyze it (a stereo system to the extent indicated)in any way.

secondly, one cannot assume what forms of coloration are prefereable or not orefereable. i may prefer a boomy cabinet and be in the minority of serious listeners.

in the third case the term "audiophile" has been used many times but has not been defined. i suspect that i am not an audiophile and am not subject to the aforementioned stipulations. i may be the exception to the "rule".

finally, KISS. some of the analysis seems unnecessary and perhaps the term "serious listener" should substitute for "audiophile". after all, without defining the term the conclusions are obvious.

although the theme has generated many posts, it would seem that points have been made and that further discusssion may not add value to what has already been said.

i am not and never will consider myself an audiophile, as my pursuit is the enjoyment of music , rather than an analysis of stereo systems.

the neutrality of stereo systems theme should be the basis for a debate in an academic institution.

Cbw723 wrote: "But the choice between more or less cabinet resonance is simple, and I think most audiophiles would choose less."

I'm not so sure. Cabinet might resonate with the floor at the lowest bass notes that otherwise would not be audible. I know myself people who like it. Some people like "punch" in the midbass that again cabinet resonance might bring.

Many reviews of Benchmark DAC1 mentioned that sound might appear lifeless (too clean) without all the jitter introduced noise and that was exactly my first impression. Many people call Benchmark lifeless, analytical or sterile. When you add a little THD it becomes "lively" (like fuzz guitar compare to clean jazz guitar).

Personal preference is what it is - personal and very subjective and there is also no reference point/baseline. In addition all colorations affect each other.

Without disgorging the entire critical vocabulary, it may be worth exploring several aspects of coloration that relate to one listener's perception of neutrality. Anyone who prefers a boomy cabinet may go at it. It would be particularly interesting to hear from designers of boomy cabinets.

Movement in the direction of neutrality implies flatter frequency response.

Neutrality implies CONTINUOUSNESS, in the sense of consistency of musical expression throughout the frequency range. A COLORIST may argue that continuousness demonstrates little more than seamlessness of coloration. To this I reply that coloration necessarily manifests itself discontinuously across the frequency range, and necessarily through a distribution of undesirable colorations in addition to desirable colorations. Eliminating an undesirable coloration is always progress toward neutrality. Even avowed colorists will express this preference. More on this further down. For the moment consider continuousness a virtue.

Relating to continuousness, movement toward neutrality implies a more organized presentation. The notion of ORGANIZATION is not far removed from Bryon’s notion of distinctness. Improved organization of sound is likely the consequence of small corrections to pitch and timbre, improved transients and decay against a quieter background-- that may result from reduced distortions and interstitial resonance peaks in frequency response as identified by Cbw723. However, in terms of how one hears a better organized presentation qua neutrality, the overall gestalt is that the system “settles down” and sounds more balanced and unforced. The example that Cbw723 cites of adding an aftermarket clock falls nicely into this category.

One aspect of an organized presentation is that dynamics are more precisely expressed through instrument bodies. Absent this natural sense of embodiment, dynamics tend to travel on their own envelop apart from instruments. This seeming dislocation of dynamics from instruments can be a bumpy & disorganized ride. In contrast, with NATURAL EMBODIMENT there is a sense of heightened control and containment of dynamics within the three dimensional boundaries of instruments. Neutrality in this sense is to be distinguished from imaging, insofar as the precise embodiment of dynamics adds characteristics from the time domain to imaging. Neutrality is also indicated by good downward dynamic range, by which I mean that the sense of natural balance and organization is preserved with low-level information or as the volume is lowered.

There is linguistic austerity in notions of continuousness, organization, balance, and control, that may be germane to popular usage of the word “neutrality”. I have intentionally omitted visual metaphors, the absence of which helps differentiate neutrality from aspects of sound best described in static terms.

Add the requirements of CLARITY and high frequency extension, which provide framing for dynamics within resolving detail, while also contributing to neutrality in the frequency domain. Conventional wisdom considers “warm” and “analytical” to be mutually exclusive; this is where the majority of colorists make their compromise. Anyone who has experienced treble edge is naturally inclined toward a padded treble in the service of euphonic warmth. However, many such problems stem from disagreeable colorations that are the unintended consequences of more agreeable colorations. IME there is really no such thing as too much resolution(with the possible exception of digital processes such as upsampling), provided that careful attention is given to engineering and quality piece parts. Resolving problems in this way invariably improves both resolution and musicality. Finally, clarity and HF extension are critical to clearing a transparent soundstage through which instruments emerge fully delineated and in correct proportions. The rock solid STABILITY of delineated images across the time domain may also signify neutrality, as this reinforces the sense of continuity, organization, and control discussed above.

Mrtennis - Absolutely agree. It became academic discussion with a lot of words (193 posts, most few pages long) and no use to anybody.

Which part didn't you like, the Viagra or the sex?

Mrtennis wrote:

...many of the preceding comments seem rather academic and superfluous. one of the purposes of listening to music is to enjoy it. thus it may not be necessary to analyze it (a stereo system to the extent indicated)in any way…i am not and never will consider myself an audiophile, as my pursuit is the enjoyment of music, rather than an analysis of stereo systems.

These comments puzzle me. You yourself have initiated 88 threads on Audiogon. Here are some of your titles:

-What is good sound?
-Hardware or software: Which is more important?
-Minimize ambiguity when describing audio components
-What is the difference between good and bad sound?
-Neutrality and transparency: What’s the difference?

From your thread, "Neutrality or transparency: What's the difference?", your original post read:

neutral and transparency are often considered the same by some hobbyists.

in fact they are not.

neutrality implies no alteration of the signal, whatsoever.
i have used the term "virtually" neutral to imply no audible coloration. of course this is a subjective term.

transparency is a subset of neutrality. it implies a perfectly clear window on the recording.

let me illustrate. suppose an amplifier has a slight deficiency in bass reproduction, e.g., it cannot reproduce any frequencies below 40 hz. that amplifier would not be considered a neutral component.

if said amp reproduced all "information" on a recroding within its range, i.e., above 40 to whatever, without covering up any detail, it would be a transparent device.

thus transparent includes the pssibility of an error, but also implies the passing of all information within the range or capability of the component.

transparency is a subjective term. often when used it means "virtual" transparency because it is possible a component may be hiding information that one is not aware of, but yet one perceives that no information is missing.

any thoughts ?

Does this passage not bear a striking resemblance to the topics discussed on this thread? Is it not "an analysis of stereo systems"?

"Which part didn't you like, the Viagra or the sex?"

I don't remember having sex (very common at my age) but If I had I'm sure I liked it - I think.

hi byron:

some of my previous threads and posts concerned definition of words and not redundancy of analysis.

Viagra and sex! I thought that Shadrone's comments were the highlights of this thread as it now stands.

Frankly I think I'd rather read 'Atlas Shrugged', 'The Fixer', or 'War and Peace'. Atlas Shrugged because I'm still looking for John Galt, The Fixer because it reminds me that not everything ends well despite all hope, and War and Peace because at least as difficult as it is to remember all those Russian names in the end it is at least an entertaining read.

All hope is lost for those just finding this thread. :-).

Bryioncunningham Paying for new equipment may be hard. Where I call such a change an easy decision is when the change moves the sound forward along those qualifiers you so adroitly wrote down here. Sometimes, the push forward comes in surprisingly inexpensive ways.

Shadorne was right about a lot of things, the most salient for me being waterfall plots of a lot of new speakers not approaching the ancient Quad 57. I would like to add to a short list that would include the venerable original Apogee Scintilla.