Here’s an answer I’ve been kicking around: Your system is becoming more neutral whenever you change a system element (component, cable, room treatment, etc.) and you get the following results:
(1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique. (2) Your music collection sounds more diverse.
This theory occurred to me one day when I changed amps and noticed that the timbres of instruments were suddenly more distinct from one another. With the old amp, all instruments seemed to have a common harmonic element (the signature of the amp?!). With the new amp, individual instrument timbres sounded more unique and the range of instrument timbres sounded more diverse. I went on to notice that whole songs (and even whole albums) sounded more unique, and that my music collection, taken as a whole, sounded more diverse.
That led me to the following idea: If, after changing a system element, (1) individual pieces of music sound more unique, and (2) your music collection sounds more diverse, then your system is contributing less of its own signature to the music. And less signature means more neutral.
Thoughts?
P.S. This is only a way of judging the relative neutrality of a system. Judging the absolute neutrality of a system is a philosophical question for another day.
P.P.S. I don’t believe a system’s signature can be reduced to zero. But it doesn’t follow from that that differences in neutrality do not exist.
P.P.P.S. I’m not suggesting that neutrality is the most important goal in building an audio system, but in my experience, the changes that have resulted in greater neutrality (using the standard above) have also been the changes that resulted in more musical enjoyment.
I believe that colorations are ALWAYS present, and that an absence of them is not possible in music reproduction.
Learsfool - I understand that you believe that colorations are always present in music reproduction. About this point we are in agreement. I have a four questions for you:
(1) Do you believe that colorations can be either increased or decreased?
(2) Do you believe that colorations can be evaluated as to their euphony or “dysphony” by individual listeners?
(3) Do you believe that judgments about euphony/dysphony have ANY consistency across multiple listeners?
Learsfool wrote:
When I made the analogy about coloration being in the ear of the listener, I meant that each listener will perceive these colorations differently, and that this is ultimately subjective…
In introductory philosophy classes, a thought experiment is often discussed called “spectral inversion.” It asks students to consider the logical possibility that what I see as red, for example, you see as blue. Many people wonder about this possibility outside the context of philosophy classes. But unlike most of them, philosophers take the problem quite seriously.
The possibility of spectral inversion is just one example of a whole class of thought experiments designed to highlight the PRIVACY OF SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES and the INACCESSIBILITY OF OTHER MINDS. Your suggestion that “each listener will perceive colorations differently” strikes me as a version of this attitude, except that, rather than being agnostic about the percepts of other minds, you believe that the percepts of other minds are sufficiently different from person to person to make agreement about colorations impossible. In a way, you are saying: What I hear as “red,” you hear as “blue.” So, my last question for you is:
Cbw – Those are excellent observations. Taking them one at a time…
(1) RE: Component Accuracy, expressed as CA = 1/L+N=D,* Cbw wrote:
...your intent to have all component accuracy be inversely proportional to all three of loss, noise, and distortion would be better written as CA = 1/(L+N+D).
*Where… CA = Component Accuracy L = Loss N = Noise D = Distortion
You are absolutely correct that the equation should be CA = 1/(L+N+D). It was an oversight on my part.
(2) RE: Component Resolution, expressed as CR = CA + FR,* Cbw wrote:
I don't think of a component's resolution as limited by the resolution of the source -- that is, the output at any given moment may be limited by the source, but that is not be the component's inherent resolution limit.
*Where… CR = Component Resolution CA = Component Accuracy FR = Format Resolution
I should have distinguished two different types of Component Resolution, namely, LATENT Resolution and OCCURRENT Resolution.
LATENT RESOLUTION: The amount of information about the music that a component can POTENTIALLY produce.
OCCURRENT RESOLUTION: The amount of information about the music that a component ACTUALLY does produce.
My equation for Component Resolution, CR = CA + FR, was intended to express the OCCURRENT resolution of a component. Occurrent Component Resolution is limited by Format Resolution, because a component cannot produce more actual resolution than it receives at its input. You are quite correct, however, that LATENT resolution is not limited by Format Resolution, as is illustrated in cases where a low resolution source is fed into high resolution downstream components.
I think you are also correct in that, when audiophiles talk about the resolution of an individual component, they are usually referring to its LATENT resolution, that is, how much resolution the component IS CAPABLE OF. The exception to this is when audiophiles talk about the resolution of the SOURCE component. In that case, resolution seems to refer to OCCURRENT resolution.
Also, when audiophiles talk about the resolution of a whole system, I believe that they are usually talking about its OCCURRENT resolution, that is, how much resolution the system ACTUALLY PRODUCES. Hence the inclusion of Format Resolution in my equation for System Resolution, expressed as: SR = SA + FR.
The value of distinguishing Latent Resolution from Occurrent Resolution is that it highlights the difference between System Accuracy and System Resolution, which I believe are two distinct virtues in an audio system. A highly accurate system passes the signal from software to ear with very little alteration to the musical information. But it need not be highly resolving, if the format resolution is low. Think: A $100K system playing MP3’s, and you have the idea of a highly accurate but not highly resolving system. A highly resolving system, on the other hand, presents a large amount of information about the music to the listener. To do this, it must start with a large amount of information about the music (high format resolution) and preserve that information through the playback chain (high system accuracy). Think: The same system playing a well recorded SACD.
(3) RE: System Accuracy, expressed as SA = SoCA,* Cbw wrote:
Some types of errors may not be simply propagated through downstream components, but may actually be reinforced by them. This kind of error may result in an exponential relationship, rather than a simple additive one.
*Where… SA = System Accuracy So = “sum of” CA = Component Accuracy
I agree that the “sum of” relationship expressed here is, in many cases, unlikely to be a simple sum. It may be multiplicative or exponential, depending on the type of inaccuracy in question. That is what I meant when I said that these were merely mathematical “analogies.” Having said that, it would nice to improve this equation so that it reflected the various types of inaccuracies that collectively determine System Accuracy. Do you have any ideas?
Hi Bryon - I think there is still some misunderstanding here. I am not disputing that there is a fact of the matter about whether there is coloration or not; as I have said before, I believe that colorations are ALWAYS present, and that an absence of them is not possible in music reproduction. When I made the analogy about coloration being in the ear of the listener, I meant that each listener will perceive these colorations differently, and that this is ultimately subjective no matter how much agreement can be made on terms. Taste comes into play here as well - which trade offs does one want to make, etc.
I also did not mean to imply that there is no such thing as an inaudible coloration. One obvious example is a digital processor designed to remove all frequencies above the range of human hearing, as many still are - this is clearly information that has been eliminated (it has also been proven that although the ear does not hear these frequencies, the brain does sense them and does perceive their absence).
Another clarification - I did not mean to imply that variety of tastes make it impossible to come to an agreement on quality. As you say, taste is not a static phenomenon at all. That is one of the main points of my brother's paper, in fact. That said, it still can be very easy to confuse taste with quality. For example, an audiophile who will refuse to own a tube amp, no matter how well made and how good it sounds because they consider them too "colored," a bias very often expressed here on this forum - insert your own favorite bias in place of this example. Almost none of us are as open minded as we would like to think we are.
A while ago Bryon produced some equations. Among them:
1. CA = (1/L+N+D). A COMPONENT’S ACCURACY is determined by the amount of loss, noise, and distortion within the component. More specifically, a component's accuracy is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to its loss, noise, and distortion.
Just a nit pick here: operator precedence being what it is, the equation as written would be evaluated as CA = (1/L) + N + D. But your intent to have all component accuracy be inversely proportional to all three of loss, noise, and distortion would be better written as CA = 1/(L+N+D).
3. CR = CA + FR. A COMPONENT’S RESOLUTION is determined by the accuracy of the component and the format resolution of the source. Specifically, a component's resolution is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to its accuracy and the format resolution.
I've been wrestling with this one because I don't think of a component's resolution as limited by the resolution of the source -- that is, the output at any given moment may be limited by the source, but that is not be the component's inherent resolution limit. It is only when the source resolution exceeds the component resolution that you can know anything about the component resolution, at which point the source resolution ceases to be a factor. Or maybe I'm missing your point.
4. SA = SoCA. A SYSTEM’S ACCURACY is determined by the sum of its components’ accuracy. Specifically, they are DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL.
5. SN = SoCN. A SYSTEM’S NEUTRALITY is determined by the sum of its components’ neutrality. Specifically, they are DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL.
I have a couple of thoughts on these "sum of" relationships. 1) Some types of errors may not be simply propagated through downstream components, but may actually be reinforced by them. This kind of error may result in an exponential relationship, rather than a simple additive one. This would be an example of bad synergy among components. 2) In some cases, the entire chain may be limited by a single component. Resolution, for instance, may well be a function of the least resolving component in the chain, rather than the sum of small losses in several components. Neutrality, on the other hand, is likely the sum of the components contribution.
I realize that you did not intend these to be strict mathematical relationships, but these are some ideas that occurred to me about other types of relationships among components.
Newbee, Dgarretson, Al, and Cbw – Thank you all for your comments regarding this thread. As is no doubt obvious, it has been a valuable experience for me. It has helped clarify and develop my views on a wide range of ideas that have occupied space in my mind since I renewed my interest in high end audio about two years ago, after a long absence. By expressing my ideas, I also evict them from their residence in my mind, where they would otherwise become unruly. Removing those “squatters” has been a cathartic experience. Unfortunately, there are still a few squatters left, and so without further ado…
Learsfool wrote:
One's taste is going to have a huge influence on how one perceives the quality of a component, for instance. Also on whether something is a coloration or not, the degree of coloration, etc. You said yourself in your second post of today "what is 'valuable' is in the eye of the beholder." One could also easily say that what is a "coloration" is in the ear of the listener.
I completely agree that a person’s taste will influence his judgment about the quality of a component. In fact, it may be the principal determinant of that judgment. Another way of making this point is: No man is an Objectivist with his wallet. I agree with that as an observation about the behavior of audiophiles, and maybe about the behavior of consumers generally. Audiophiles choose the components they want to listen to. That often means choosing components with the kinds of colorations that suit them. There is nothing “wrong” with this, as was asked of me in an earlier post. People should do what makes them happy when it comes to enjoying themselves.
As far as your conclusion that “what is a coloration is in the ear of the listener,” I agree and I disagree. I agree to the extent that it is certainly true that one person may perceive a coloration where another does not. But I disagree that there is no FACT OF THE MATTER about whether a coloration exists. I have recently defined coloration as “an inaccuracy audible as a non-random sonic signature,” or more simply: Colorations are audible inaccuracies. I take it there is little controversy about whether or not inaccuracies are objective. Either information has been eliminated/concealed/corrupted, or it has not been. That information is a characteristic of the software, the hardware, and the room. Its existence, and the existence of inaccuracies, are therefore objective, in the sense that they are INDEPENDENT OF THE OBSERVER.
The challenge for an Objectivist like me is the use of the word 'audible' in my definition of ‘coloration.’ A Subjectivist might argue: If colorations are defined as ‘audible inaccuracies,’ then if they are not audible, they are not colorations. This reasoning is plausible, but it overlooks an important consideration: AUDIBLE TO WHOM?
My view here is that colorations should be considered to exist when they are audible to A SIGNIFICANT FRACTION OF EXPERT OBSERVERS. Otherwise they can be designated “mere” inaccuracies. To put it another way, if a significant fraction of experts do not perceive an inaccuracy, then it is a difference that does not make a difference. Hence it should not be designated a ‘coloration.’ To put it in philosophical terms, I am a Realist about coloration, though the “reality” in question must include both the world and the ears/brains of experts. This will no doubt stir up some controversy, as it begs the question: Who is to say who is an expert? I can say more about my views on that in my next post. For now, I will point out that it may be easier to identify who is NOT an expert. My mother, for example.
I would like to end this post with a few words on the topic of taste and quality, which you raised in your last two posts. As you have pointed out, taste is among the biggest factors in audiophile judgments. Since taste is so variable, you conclude that differences in taste hopelessly confound any effort to arrive at agreement with respect to quality. To this, I respond: Taste is not a static phenomenon. It changes with age, exposure, and training. The last of these - training - is particularly relevant. That is to say, I believe that, as a person develops expert perception, their tastes tend to change. As a classically trained musician, I would imagine that you have had lifelong experiences that confirm that musical tastes change with the development of expert perception. In fact, the stagnation of taste may be a sign that the development of perception has ceased.
Analogously, as a person develops expert perception with respect to the playback of recorded music, I believe that COLORATIONS BECOME MORE AUDIBLE. In fact, I would view this a one of the standards for judging the expertise of the listener.
To grossly summarize, our position would be that although colorations exist, this does not mean that neutrality does. We don't believe that there could ever be a piece of audio equipment, let alone an entire system, that has no coloration, meaning therefore that "neutrality" is an abstract concept, not something that has or could have real material existence.
By this argument, you also believe that pressure exists but vacuum does not because nobody has (or ever will) make one. So all these threads discussing "vacuum tubes" should really be corrected to be about "very low pressure tubes." Good luck with that.
One possibility is that, according to some posters, this thread is "philosophical" and "academic."
This is the part I find most puzzling. I realize that there is a certain anti-intellectualism running rampant in certain circles in the US these days, but I'm surprised to find it in the audiophile world of high-end music, aesthetic appreciation, and outrageously expensive equipment with no other purpose than personal enjoyment. All of which activities are, in a word, elitist. Leaving aside what historically happens in countries that let anti-intellectual demagoguery gain political sway, it would be hard to find a country that has benefited more from academic exercise than this one. From our wealthy, intellectual, elitist founding fathers dabbling in political philosophy and coming up with the Constitution, to a bunch of egghead scientists who for decades pondered quantum mechanical weirdness that had no practical use... until it did, to people like Nelson Pass sitting around trying to figure out which transistor "sounds better," we are the daily beneficiaries of activities that were, or are, largely academic. And that says nothing of the value of purely academic ideas in educating the minds of all the millions of people who, by learning to think rigorously, went on to do something "practical."
Personally, I have found this thread enormously valuable. I have had to think, in detail, about a number of concepts that I only had a vague notion of before, which has helped clarify my thinking and improved my understanding of the role of these concepts (and their interrelationship) in the audio chain. And by discussing them and holding them up to scrutiny, I feel I better understand their limitations.
As for practical use, the thread started with a practical suggestion, and others have been made as the discussion progressed. My own conception of neutrality in terms of entropy (which is probably not original, but I don't know otherwise), has the potential to be a usable technique. Entropy, as discussed, is an actual, measurable quality of information. Were it to be measurable to a degree that would allow the detection of playback colorations (and I think it probably is), and were it to be correlated with listener experience (and I think it could be), it could become a quantity that was reported alongside other component measurements, like THD, channel separation, frequency response, etc., to help people choose the best component for their needs.
Tvad:
This discussion is analogous to juggling water.
Where audiophiles are concerned the analogies that come to my mind have more to do with bringing horses to water, and herding cats. As Bryon points out, there are seventy eight thousand threads on this site alone. Is this one really so dangerous and disruptive?
Hi Bryon - nice posts! Your second interpretation of the "reification" comment is the one meant - it is specifically in reference to the concept of "neutrality." However, I don't think it has necessarily to do with your definition by absence, as you assumed. To grossly summarize, our position would be that although colorations exist, this does not mean that neutrality does. We don't believe that there could ever be a piece of audio equipment, let alone an entire system, that has no coloration, meaning therefore that "neutrality" is an abstract concept, not something that has or could have real material existence.
As far as the validity/reliability, this is actually what was the more interesting/important part of all of this to him. To me, it is not so much the validity but the reliability of the operationalization as a whole that is definitely in question. The validity may or may not be, depending on what specific measures we happen to be speaking of (for various different types of colorations, for example - would we really be measuring what we are trying to or not). I hope this makes sense?
The taste/quality thing is complex. Taste and quality are often confused, as it is hard to separate the two sometimes. In the context of his paper I mentioned, audio is not involved; that was a discussion of music criticism (critics being the arbiters of taste), and the perceived meaning and value of musical works, and it looks at critics who failed to see the value of works at their premieres which are now considered masterpieces, and discusses the sociology of it all. It is very entertaining.
However, taste vs. quality is also applicable to our discussion here. One's taste is going to have a huge influence on how one perceives the quality of a component, for instance. Also on whether something is a coloration or not, the degree of coloration, etc. You said yourself in your second post of today "what is 'valuable' is in the eye of the beholder." One could also easily say that what is a "coloration" is in the ear of the listener.
Newbee: This thread has been a valuable learning experience for a lot of folks IMHO.
Dgarretson: This thread evidenced clear articulation of at least several new constructs. It was a refreshing change from the repetitiveness of many subjects posted to forum. The vocabulary of audio was expanded a bit, and perhaps as a result, some will think about about their systems and biases more clearly than before.
I second these thoughts, and share these feelings in my own case. I want to particularly thank Bryon, Learsfool, Dgarretson, and Cbw723 for what I consider to be an exceptionally high caliber, intellectually stimulating, and thought provoking thread.
A goodly number of years ago, when I was a first year law student taking a course in contracts (I have a law degree although my career and other degrees were in electrical engineering), the professor posed some question to the class. During the next hour or so a lot of students took turns proposing answers, each of which he then methodically, in Socratic style, tore to shreds with questions that revealed fallacies in the answers.
As this went on there was an increasing feeling of actual suspense among many of us wondering what on earth the answer could possibly be, with just about every conceivable answer having been reduced to rubble. Then, abruptly and anti-climactically, he declared that we had pretty much covered that subject, and went on to something else.
I later came to understand that there was no one correct answer, and the point was to improve the thinking skills that are brought into play when dealing with issues that are subtle and ambiguous.
Bryon wrote, "by improving the way you think about things, you improve the way you perceive things."
Similarly, as an English teacher once told me, if you can't communicate clearly in words, you are not thinking clearly. This thread evidenced clear articulation of at least several new constructs. It was a refreshing change from the repetitiveness of many subjects posted to forum. The vocabulary of audio was expanded a bit, and perhaps as a result, some will think about about their systems and biases more clearly than before.
Bryon, I would like to apologize to you for my acts of hostility, in what ever form they appeared. For the most part my hostile remarks were the result of a premature conclusion that you were a Troll, not just an audiophile wanting to revive and discuss an old controversy from a different prospective. Clearly you are NOT a Troll.
You are RIGHT, I think, when you observe that some subjectivists can be objectivists. I'm certainly an objectivist when it comes to pratical resolution of tangible issues. Finding and taking the shortest path to a goal is a fundamental goal for me. I can see that I should, and will, try to avoid participating in philosophical discussions and stick to those threads where a resolution of more practical issues are possible and are subject to a summing up easily understood by posters who are trying to understand this hobby in simple terms.
This thread has been a valuable learning experience for a lot of folks IMHO.
I would like to say a few words, not the detractors of neutrality, but to the detractors of this thread. A number of posters have questioned the value of these discussions. Some have expressed their doubts with arguments, others with jokes, and a few with hostility. In many of my posts, I have made a point of trying to explain the value of these discussions, as I see them. A few other posters have done likewise. But this has not silenced the steady stream of skeptics. In response, I would like say a few things. I generally cringe at the conversation becoming about itself. Others who feel the same can skip this post.
Some posters have expressed doubts about the value of conceptual analysis. This thread began with a question about neutrality, but quickly became about the concepts closely linked with it – coloration, accuracy, resolution, transparency. It seems to me that these concepts are employed daily by posters on Audiogon. Most of the time they remain undefined elements in the discussion. When they become a point of contention, it is often obvious that a great deal of the original disagreement is attributable to disparities in how people understand the terms of the discussion. That fact highlights the need for conceptual analysis.
However, some posters seem to believe that conceptual analysis is mere “semantics.” I think that that is a retreat from the challenge of being clear about the basic units of thought and communication, and a premature resignation to deadlocking. In other words, I have the (admittedly) optimistic view that, through the analysis of the terms of the discussion, a great deal of disagreement can be avoided or resolved. I am not so naïve as to believe that this will make audiophiles regularly agree. But I believe that, without this kind of effort, they will NEVER agree.
One last comment on the value of conceptual analysis. As I mentioned in a previous post, the refinement of concepts is crucial for the refinement of percepts. There is a great deal of scientific evidence for the view that perception is “cognitively penetrable.” That is to say, by improving the way you think about things, you improve the way you perceive things. This is an essential element in most “expert perception.” A symphony composer’s expert perception is developed not only through the refinement of his senses but also through the refinement of his mind.
Moving on, some posters have expressed doubts about the relevance of this thread to audiophiles. To begin with, it is certainly more germane to the interests of audiophiles than such threads as “Cars: What does the typical audiophile drive?” which is now up to 779 posts, without a chorus of detractors questioning its value. This begs the question: Why has this thread come under recurring criticism for its relevance when threads like the one above have not? One possibility is that, according to some posters, this thread is "philosophical" and "academic."
To criticize something as “philosophical” is usually to say that it is “excessively abstract.” My reaction to this is that “excessively abstract” is in the eye of the beholder. I think some people are more comfortable with abstractions than others. There are those who enjoy abstractions, which I think is difficult for some people to identify with. And there is often an assumption that those who enjoy abstraction could not possibly enjoy music, an assumption which is patently false to those, like myself, who enjoy both. And for those for whom this thread has been excessively abstract, I would ask: As of last count, there are 78,328 threads on Audiogon – What is the risk in having one that is “philosophical”?
To criticize something is “academic” is usually to say that it is “of no practical value.” In my view, what is “practical” is also largely in the eye of the beholder. What is perceived as practical depends upon the interests and ingenuity of the perceiver, and those vary widely. And finally, what is “valuable” is in the eye of the beholder. I find it ironic that the detractors of this thread, who are almost uniformly Subjectivist with respect to neutrality, appear uniformly OBJECTIVIST WITH RESPECT TO WHAT IS VALUABLE. That is to say, they seem to believe that, if something is not valuable to them, then it is not valuable to anyone. And they seem to believe this in spite of evidence to the contrary, namely, the continued participation of several posters on this thread, including an outspoken opponent of neutrality. In my view, that participation is unambiguous evidence that at least some people do not share their beliefs about what is valuable.
Learsfool – Although it is hazardous to argue by proxy, I will do my best to respond to your brother’s comments.
To begin with, your brother suggested that I was guilty of the REIFICATION, which you define as “treating an abstract concept as if it had real material existence.” In the absence of more information, I can think of only two possible interpretations of this comment.
The first interpretation is that I have treated concepts IN GENERAL as though they had “real material existence.” In a way, this is true, because I have sometimes treated concepts as MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS of abstract categories. But mental representations have “real material existence,” insofar as they are characteristics of real physical things, namely persons. This use of the word ‘concept’ is not arbitrary or idiosyncratic. It is the prevailing use of the term in the cognitive sciences. However, the ordinary usage of the word ‘concept’ is ambiguous, in that it does not differentiate between concepts as ABSTRACT CATEGORIES and concepts as the MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS of those categories. Because of that, many of the posts in this thread contain that ambiguity, though it doesn’t seem to have affected the discussion much. I myself have used the term ‘concept’ sometimes to refer to abstract categories, and sometimes to refer to the mental representations of those categories, depending on the context. While acknowledging that ambiguity, I suspect you will be hard pressed to find examples of equivocation (i.e. arguments that exploit that ambiguity).
My views on these matters are quite conventional: Categories are abstractions. As such they do not have “real material existence.” Concepts are mental representations of abstract categories. As such, they do have “real material existence” IN HUMAN BRAINS. I would only qualify the last statement with the observation that, for any given category, there are many diverse conceptualizations, as I discussed in my post on 12/10.
The second interpretation of the charge of reification is that I have treated the concept of ‘neutrality’ IN PARTICULAR as though it had “real material existence.” If this is what your brother means, then I assume your brother’s reasoning is similar to your reasoning from an earlier post, when you objected to my definition of neutrality because it was defined in terms of the ABSENCE of coloration. I would ask your brother: Is entropy real? Is a vacuum real? Is biological equilibrium real? All of these scientific concepts are defined BY ABSENCE, as I mentioned in my post on 12/6. I would say that neutrality is as real as entropy, a vaccum, and biological equilibrium. And, in my view, that is real enough to make them valuable concepts, even if they create some metaphysical uneasiness about the existence of things defined by absence. For the scrupulous metaphysician, all of my observations about playback neutrality (which is defined by absence) can be easily converted into observations about playback coloration (which is defined by presence). But I believe that this level of metaphysical parsimony is unnecessary. And if your brother is advocating it, I would add that it is a surprising attitude in a social scientist.
Your brother also raises doubt about the validity and reliability of my operationalization of neutrality. To question its validity is to say that the observable conditions I mentioned to do not correlate with neutrality, but with some other variable, or with nothing. To question its reliability is to say that different observers would come to different conclusions about the observable conditions in my operationalization.
RE: RELIABILITY. You have questioned my operationalization’s reliability throughout this thread, arguing that audiophiles will never be able to agree on whether a particular component or system is more or less neutral. I have been more optimistic. Unfortunately, the answer to the question of reliability is a matter of speculation for both of us. This is where the scientific metaphors break down, because there is not likely to be a scientifically valid experiment testing the reliability of my operationalization any time before, say, the heat death of the universe. So we are limited to our conjectures, hunches, and intuitions.
RE: VALIDITY. There has been somewhat less debate on this thread about the validity of my operationalization. The empirical evidence offered is both anecdotal and controversial. Personally I have had a number of experiences that are consistent with the operationalization. But for those who have not, the only evidence possible is theoretical. One kind of theoretical evidence presented on this thread was the concept of ‘neutrality’ that emerges from looking at the playback system from the point of view of information. That is to say, by comparing the information available at the source vs. the information available at the ear, it is inevitable that some information will be eliminated, concealed, or corrupted. When that is audible and non-random, components and systems have sonic signatures, which I have called colorations, in keeping with widespread audiophile usage. And as I have argued, if differences in coloration exist, then differences in neutrality “exist” (with the necessary qualifications to avoid reification). Having said that, I believe that the controversy over the “existence” of neutrality is a distraction from the more essential issue: The existence of colorations. If colorations exist, they constitute some theoretical evidence for the validity of my operationalization. The whole issue of the "existence" of neutrality can be avoided with one simple change to the operationalization: Instead of it being a method for identifying GREATER NEUTRALITY, it is a method for identifying LESS COLORATION. And that is really the heart of the matter.
As far as your brother’s observation that "taste confounds quality, and people mess those up,” I guess I’m a little unclear what that means. Specifically, what does ‘quality’ mean here? Is he talking about the qualitative characteristics of music, or the virtues of a playback system?
Hi Bryon - I agree that this has been an interesting debate. I shared this thread with my brother today, who is a sociologist and fellow audiophile, and he had a take on it that I think you and others will find interesting, so I have decided to share it. I should say that he considers himself more in the subjectivist camp, though he did say that Dgarretson's description of an extreme subjectivist sounded about the same as a post-modernist, and post-modernism is "crap," as he put it. He agrees with us that the moderates in both camps differ mostly in method.
He also agrees with me that "neutrality" does not exist, and in fact came up with the term I had been searching for. His opinion is that you are engaging in "reification," which is defined as the treating of an abstract concept as if it has real material existence (I should add that I checked with my uncle, who used to teach philosophy/logic, and he corrected me that this is not actually a logical fallacy, as I had thought).
He also talked about something similar to what Dgarretson did, that objectivists sometimes are forced to make subjective judgements and then try to operationalize their ideas. Many objectivist criteria are in actuality subjective, as the measures they come up with often lack "validity" (is the measure measuring what it is supposed to) or "reliability" (will different people using the same instrument get the same result under the same conditions).
His opinion is that many measures for audio "colorations" would not be "reliable" in the above sense because of the lack of agreement on terms. He added that even with agreement on criteria for measurements, there is the human ear factor we have discussed. He commented that in disciplines like sociology or psychology it is possible to come up with measures that are valid and reliable in the above senses, but that in music, and I will now quote him directly "taste confounds quality, and people mess those up." He has actually written a fascinating article on this taste/quality issue, entitled "Music as Evil: Deviance and Norm Promotion in Classical Music," in which he applies the sociology of deviance (one of his specialties) to the sociology of high-art, specifically music. I think I could provide a link to anyone interested, with his permission.
His are essentially the same arguments I have been making, though expressed quite a bit differently - he is certainly more scientifically minded than I am. I hope I have represented his ideas adequately. I would love to hear your thoughts!
Learsfool – I appreciate your thanks and I’m grateful for your participation. Though our points of view never converged, I learned a lot from our debate along the way. Your final comments about training the ear, which I think of as training the brain, are well taken. Although we didn’t discuss it much in this thread, the ear/brain is probably the most important “component” in the system.
Cbw – I have given some thought to your suggestions for revising the working definition of ‘inaccuracy.’ Here is what I came up with:
INACCURACY: An alteration to information in a component or system that eliminates, conceals, or corrupts information about the music.
Defining 'inaccuracy' in this way raises the question: How does this new concept of 'inaccuracy' relate to the concepts of 'accuracy,' 'neutrality,' and ‘resolution’? I would like to offer a new proposal about the relations among these concepts. To begin with some definitions:
ACCURACY: 1. The relative amount of information about the music presented by a component or system, comparing output to input. 2. The degree of absence of inaccuracies.
INACCURACY: An alteration to information in a component or system that eliminates, conceals, or corrupts information about the music.
NEUTRALITY: The degree of absence of coloration within a component or system.
COLORATION: An inaccuracy audible as a non-random sonic signature.
RESOLUTION: The absolute limit of information about the music that a component or system can present.
These concepts form some of the basic units of a set of equations that express the relations among accuracy, neutrality, and resolution:
1. CA = (1/L+N+D) 2. CN = (1/DoC) 3. CR = CA + FR 4. SA = SoCA 5. SN = SoCN 6. SR = SA + FR
Where…
CA = Component Accuracy CN = Component Neutrality CR = Component Resolution SA = System Accuracy SN = System Neutrality SR = System Resolution FR = Format Resolution L = Loss N = Noise D = Distortion So = “Sum of” Do = “Degree of”
Taking them one at a time…
1. CA = (1/L+N+D). A COMPONENT’S ACCURACY is determined by the amount of loss, noise, and distortion within the component. More specifically, a component's accuracy is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to its loss, noise, and distortion. The other way of saying the same thing: A component's inaccuracy is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to its loss (the elimination of information), noise (the concealment of information), and distortion (the corruption of information).
2. CN = (1/DoC). A COMPONENT’S NEUTRALITY is determined by its degree of coloration. More specifically, a component's neutrality is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to its degree of coloration. This equation was proposed by Cbw in an earlier post.
3. CR = CA + FR. A COMPONENT’S RESOLUTION is determined by the accuracy of the component and the format resolution of the source. Specifically, a component's resolution is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to its accuracy and the format resolution.
4. SA = SoCA. A SYSTEM’S ACCURACY is determined by the sum of its components’ accuracy. Specifically, they are DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL.
5. SN = SoCN. A SYSTEM’S NEUTRALITY is determined by the sum of its components’ neutrality. Specifically, they are DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL.
6. SR = SA + FR. A SYSTEM’S RESOLUTION is determined by the system's accuracy and the format resolution of the source. Specifically, a system's resolution is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to its accuracy and the format resolution.
I'm not really proposing a deep mathematical relationship among these concepts. The equations are more of a mathematical analogy for describing the logical and conceptual relations among these categories.
preference for a particular coloration(s))and the general tendendency for most"audiophiles" to disagree about anything negates many of the aforementioned arguments presented so far.
Dgarretson, thanks for the clarification. I actually didn't know about the Holt dictionary. The only place I had previously seen common audiophile terms defined was in Robert Harley's book. I'm sure there isn't much difference between those two, anyway. That Holt book would be fascinating reading. I find it amusing that he defines "neutral" as free from coloration, as you guys are, but then feels the need to define "uncolored" as free from AUDIBLE coloration. This is especially funny to me coming from the guy who defined "subjectivist" reviewing! Harley's book also speaks of the objectivist/subjectivist divide in the same sense as Holt does, by the way. It was my understanding, though, that Harry Pearson was the one who defined many of these terms originally, and he was certainly the one who defined the concept of "the absolute sound."
Getting back more on topic, I have one comment on your observation that "To distinguish problems in playback from problems in recording, the trained listener merely needs to listen to a wide variety of recordings on the same playback system." While I do agree with this as far as it goes, this is only part of it. I believe the trained listener must also do the opposite - listen to the same few recordings that one is very familiar with on a wide variety of playback systems. This is much more useful for evaluating the playback end of the equation, while the former helps distinguish problems in recording.
However, no matter how precisely we can define various different terms and types of colorations, etc., (and I am not saying this is not valuable) people will hear many of them differently, for many different reasons. Setting aside personal preferences/reference points, one audiophile may have a much better/more trained ear than another. One could also have a better but more untrained ear than the other, a case which can really confuse the issue for both. Another example I find is all too common in the audiophile world - someone who thinks they have a good and/or trained ear, and knows quite a bit about the science behind audio products, but unfortunately doesn't actually hear very well. I'm sure we can all think of a dealer where this is the case! Others mentioned the effects of aging/hearing loss - everyone's ear, no matter what level it is/was originally, can/does/will change, for better and/or for worse. Unfortunately, as an orchestral musician I am guaranteed to lose at least 20% of my hearing over the course of my career. What sounds better to you today may not tomorrow, and this will change your perception of many types of "colorations." I guess I've said all I really have to say on the subject, though I do find the discussion of terms interesting and will continue to follow the thread.
Speaking of ear training, I would urge all audiophiles to consider taking a formal aural skills course - these are often offered as adult extension courses at music programs in large universities. This sort of ear training is much more valuable for actually listening to your music (as opposed to your system), and always leads to much more enjoyment of your music, no matter what type you listen to. It will also have the benefit of greatly increasing your ability to listen for your system's characteristics, especially the more musically-related ones. And it is much cheaper than a new component for your system, too, LOL! It's all about the music in the end, or should be, anyway. I have greatly enjoyed the discussion - thanks for starting the thread, Bryon!
This has been discussed in a different thread before, the idea that many audiophiles assume that some "colorations" they are hearing are caused by their system, when in fact they are on the recording itself. I have seen more than one situation where two people could not agree on which was the case ("Well in MY system, it doesn't sound like that!" etc). This is yet another reason why I don't think there could ever be much agreement on any two people's sense of "neutrality."
Like many people, I have had this experience both with audio and video. While in video, a proper calibration usually clears up the ambiguity between software colorations and hardware colorations, I agree that, in audio, it's not so simple. But again, I'm more optimistic about the possibility of some agreement some of the time. It's also worth pointing out that my proposed operationalization of neutrality does not require us to be able to differentiate software from hardware colorations as such. It only requires us to make judgments about how much differentiation a system is capable of.
In the case you mention, where variations in the sound of the same software on two different systems leads to ambiguity about software vs. hardware colorations, my method of determining neutrality offers a potential solution to the deadlock. By determining which system has greater differentiation, particularly in the domain where the ambiguous coloration occurs (e.g., instrument timbre), you can conclude which system is the more neutral of the two. If the coloration in question does not occur, or occurs less, on the more neutral system, then it is likely to be a playback coloration added or aggravated by the less neutral system. This method is, of course, fallible. But I believe it is useful for providing clues to distinguishing software colorations from hardware colorations. And if you were willing to move equipment around, the same method could be employed for distinguishing equipment colorations from room colorations.
Cbw - Your suggestion about revising the definition of 'inaccuracy' is a good one. Will work on it.
Dgarretson - I have a question for you about Cbw's entropy theory and your first operationalization of neutrality, namely, the idea that increasing neutrality results in increasing source convergence. Would Cbw's explanation of coloration in terms of decreasing entropy explain the convergence you predicted? And since his explanation extends to the entire playback chain, should we predict that, as whole systems become more neutral, they will sound more and more similar to one another?
A fuller extract of ideas from G. Holt’s audio glossary seems relevant in context:
1. Frequency response: Phase shift and distortion can sound like frequency-response aberrations.
(Note 1: Perception of neutral frequency response may be subjectively similar to perception of low distortion and correct phase. One is therefore be tempted to use the term neutrality in all three contexts.)
2. Balance: The subjective relationship between the relative loudness of the upper and lower halves of the audio spectrum; "tonal balance."
3. Coherent: seamless from top to bottom… no audible evidence of different… colorations in different frequency ranges.
4. Continuity: Uniformity of coloration (across the operating range).
5. Discontinuity: A change of timbre or coloration due to the signal's transition (across the operating range through) dissimilar coloration.
6. Seamless: Having no perceptible discontinuities throughout the audio range.
(Note 2-6: He identifies colorations as shifts in tonality across the frequency range. My previous reference to neutrality as “continuousness of musical expression across frequency range” was an attempt to describe this. I question whether there can really be such a thing as continuous coloration, positing instead that inevitable variations in coloration across frequency range indicate unsolved problems in the playback system. To distinguish problems in playback from problems in recording, the trained listener merely needs to listen to a wide variety of recordings on the same playback system.)
7. Pitch resolution: The clarity with which pitch…is perceived. Poor pitch resolution makes all notes sound similar…
(Note 7: Here he touches both on Bryon’s original notion of coloration as a failure to differentiate, and on Cbw723’s remarks on Shannon entropy.)
8. Fast: Reaction time, which allows a reproducing system to "keep up with" the signal fed to it. (A "fast woofer" would seem to be an oxymoron, but this usage refers to a woofer tuning that does not boom, make the music sound "slow," obscure musical phrasing, or lead to "one-note bass.") Similar to "taut," but referring to the entire audio-frequency range instead of just the bass.
9. Smooth: Not necessarily a positive system attribute if accompanied by a slow, uninvolving character.
10. Control: The extent to which a (system) sounds as if it is "tracking" the signal being fed to it. The sound is tight, detailed, and focused.
(Note 8-10: Here he identifies fast & controlled dynamics as essential to an uncolored presentation. Absent precise dynamics, differentiation is lost (e.g. “one-note bass.”))
11. Definition (also Resolution): That quality of sound reproduction which enables the listener to distinguish between, and follow the melodic lines of, the individual voices or instruments comprising a large performing group.
12. Detail: The subtlest, most delicate parts of the original sound, which are usually the first things lost by imperfect components.
13. Veiled, veiling: Pertaining to a deficiency of detail and focus, due to moderate amounts of distortion, treble-range restriction, or attack rounding.
14. Focus: The enhanced ability to hear the brief moments of silence between the musical impulses in reproduced sound.
15. Hangover: A tendency for reproduced sounds to last longer than they should.
16. Ringing: The audible effect of a resonance: coloration, smear, shrillness, or boominess.
(Note 11-16: Higher resolution defined in this sense a good thing, and is connected by Holt to Bryon’s original notions about the distinction of differences. Interestingly, the related quality of Focus entails removal of additive colorations so as to reveal interstitial silences. Also, Holt connects compromised resolution to “attack rounding”—or failed dynamics.)
17. Error of commission: Signal degradation due to the addition of sounds that were not present in the original signal. Distortion and coloration are examples of errors of commission.
18. Error of omission: Signal degradation due to the loss of information that was present in the original signal. Smearing and treble loss are examples of errors of omission.
19. Gestalt response: The evocation of a complete memory recognition by an incomplete set of sensory cues. A gestalt response to the few things an audio system does outstandingly well can make imperfect reproduction seem more realistic than it actually is.
(Note 17-19: Here he gets into interesting territory similar to Bryon’s ideas about coloration as additions, subtractions, or alterations. I think we may conclude that Holt regarded coloration primarily as an error of commission. The idea about Gestalt response is fascinating insofar as he suggests that absent errors of commission, a less than fully resolving playback system may be convincing and perhaps even uncolored in the strictest sense of the word.)
20. Neutral: Free from coloration.
21. Uncolored: Free from audible colorations.
Finally, Holt used the terms Subjectivism and Objectivism in a particular sense. Subjective reviewing is his term of art for critical observation based on controlled listening, psychoacoustics, and a precise vocabulary to evaluate colorations. He considered Objectivists to be the so-called “meter men” test bench-oriented reviewers of Julian Hersh school who tended to ignore the science of listening. Holt’s Subjectivism is not inconsistent with objective analysis. As he says in the glossary, given a precise definition of terms “there is no longer any excuse for an audio reviewer saying, ‘I can hear a difference, but there's no way of describing it.’ Now, there is a way.”
So Holt's view was that audible colorations can be precisely described, and if inaudible, do not exist.
Yes, that is essentially the argument. #1 and #3 are by definition. The reason for #2 is I am asserting that the coloration processes are not stochastic. This assertion is consistent with the definition you quoted from Stereophile:
Coloration: An audible "signature" with which a reproducing system imbues all signals passing through it.
Which is to say that colorations are replacing/concealing/corrupting musical information with a "signature" (i.e., more predictable information).
This understanding of the entropy-neutrality relationship is somewhat in contrast to something I wrote earlier (first quoting Dgarretson):
Relating to continuousness, movement toward neutrality implies a more organized presentation.
This is an interesting notion. If we consider the source as maximally organized information, then each stage in the audio chain has the potential to disorganize some information. The extent to which we don't corrupt the information determines the organization of the final presentation. So for a system, the greater its neutrality, the lower its entropy.
Here I was talking specifically about the entropy of the musical organization. However I failed to consider that the colorations were, in fact, more organized than the music. So while the music was becoming less organized *as music*, the overall presentation was actually more organized (i.e., it had lower overall entropy). So I had mistakenly reversed the neutrality-entropy relationship.
Bryon writes:
INNACCURACY: Alterations to the playback chain that eliminate, conceal, or corrupt information about the music.
My only problem with this definition (aside from the typo) is a nit pick: "Alterations to the playback chain..." sounds like you are talking about changes to the hardware. More precise might be something like, "Alterations to the source (or music) as it passes through the playback chain..." and then drop "...about the music." Or maybe just change the word "to" to "within."
COLORATION: Inaccuracies audible as a non-random** sonic signature.
I very much like this definition as it closely matches my thinking about what a coloration is, without the restrictive "narrow band" constraint that I was considering.
A little while back, Al suggested substituting another term, such as ‘accuracy,’ for the term ‘neutrality.’ More recently, Cbw mentioned that, when reading my posts, he tends to substitute the term ‘distortion’ for ‘coloration.’ And Learsfool has argued in many different ways that ‘coloration’ is a subjective category.
I believe that these three points of view are related, in that they all identify the same shortcoming in my definition of coloration, namely: It makes ‘coloration’ too OBJECTIVE a category. Here is the definition of ‘coloration’ I have been working with:
COLORATION: Additions, subtraction, and alterations to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music.
I think Al was correct in his view that the above definition is close to a definition of ‘inaccuracy.’ I think Cbw was also correct in his view that the above definition is close to a definition of 'distortion.' And I think Learsfool was correct in his view that the above definition is not subjective enough.
For these reasons, I would like to propose four things:
(1) Following Al’s advice, we make my former definition of ‘coloration’ the new working definition of ‘inaccuracy.’
INNACCURACY: Alterations to the playback chain that eliminate, conceal, or corrupt information about the music.*
*There are two other slight changes to this definition. I have changed “additions, subtractions, and alterations” to simply “alterations,” since all additions and subtractions are necessarily alterations. I have also included “eliminate” with “conceal and corrupt,” since the former seems to be just as much a possible type of inaccuracy as the latter.
(2) In the spirit of Cbw’s substitution, we identify distortion as one of the determinants of inaccuracy:
DETERMINANTS OF INACCURACY: Various kinds of distortion, loss, and noise, such as jitter, crosstalk, intermodulation distortion, speaker cabinet resonance, phase shifts, room modes, comb filtering, flutter echo, etc.
(3) Acknowledging Learsfool’s objections, we make the definition of ‘coloration’ more subjective:
COLORATION: Inaccuracies audible as a non-random** sonic signature.
This new definition entails that COLORATION IS A TYPE OF INACCURACY, the type that results in an audible, non-random sonic signature. It is consistent with the existence of other types of inaccuracies that do not result in an audible, non-random sonic signature.
This new definition also makes the term ‘coloration’ somewhat more SUBJECTIVE, since it includes FACTS ABOUT THE SUBJECT, by employing the concept of ‘audibility' (more on this below).
**I almost said “constant” sonic signature, rather than “non-random,” until I read Cbw’s recent post where he reminded me that many colorations vary with frequency, and so are not, strictly speaking, "constant." So it is more precise to say that colorations are non-random, or what Cbw calls, “predictable, in that their affect on a signal may be known.”
(4) The definition of 'neutrality' stays the same, namely, the degree of absence of coloration.
There are two advantages to the proposals expressed in (1)-(4). The first is that these definitions more closely reflect audiophile usage. This is evidenced by Stereophile’s audiophile dictionary. It is by no means definitive, but it is a relevant data point concerning usage:
Accuracy: The degree to which the output signal from a component or system is perceived as replicating the sonic qualities of its input signal. An accurate device reproduces what is on the recording, which may or may not be an accurate representation of the original sound.
Neutral: Free from coloration.
Coloration: An audible "signature" with which a reproducing system imbues all signals passing through it.
The second advantage of these new proposals is that they bring the conflicting views of the Objectivist and the Subjectivist one step closer together. It is only a step, though, since the new definition of ‘coloration’ I am proposing is only subjective in the sense that it includes facts about the subject, facts that, I believe, are themselves largely OBJECTIVE. So this is not a retreat from Objectivism, so much as it is an acknowledgement that understanding coloration and neutrality is partly a matter of understanding HOW INACCURACIES ARE PERCEIVED.
Cbw, my interpretation of Bryon's posts has been that he wants to find common ground on neutrality among all audiophiles and all systems, not just within each individual's own system. Please correct me, Bryon, if I am wrong, but I don't think I have been the only one putting that interpretation on the original post! By the way, Cbw, that is a fascinating discussion of entropy in your last post.
Dgarretson has some interesting additions, as well, though much of it I either don't understand or would disagree with. For instance, when you say that "continuousness" is "consistency of musical expression throughout the frequency range." Not sure what you mean by this. My first reaction on reading it is to say that no acoustic instrument (including the voice) has consistency of "expression" (assuming you mean things like timbre? volume?) throughout it's full range. If they were made to sound as if they did, it seems to me this would be a violation of what you guys are calling "neutrality?"
I am also not certain that your concept of "organization" is not another form of "coloration," since you are speaking of "small corrections to pitch and timbre, improved transients and decay against a quieter background." Corrections from what, exactly?
While I would agree with you that "warm" and "analytical" are not mutually exclusive, I would strongly disagree with the notion that there is no such thing as too much resolution. Just one example. Almost all orchestral recordings made today are done with too many microphones set up, in the musician's opinions, far too close to our instruments. The vast majority of the mix uses these mikes instead of any placed overhead, and many engineers don't even put any out in the hall anymore. The resulting sound of the recording is nothing like what a concertgoer actually hears, no matter where they are seated in the hall.
I realize that you are speaking of the resolution of the system, but many high end systems I have heard create a very similar effect on a recording that was done well. And whether this bothers someone or not would be down to their personal preference as well (so is the statement that the recording was "done well," for that matter). This has been discussed in a different thread before, the idea that many audiophiles assume that some "colorations" they are hearing are caused by their system, when in fact they are on the recording itself. I have seen more than one situation where two people could not agree on which was the case ("Well in MY system, it doesn't sound like that!" etc). This is yet another reason why I don't think there could ever be much agreement on any two people's sense of "neutrality." There are far too many subjective variables, no matter how well we could define colorations on the page.
Dgarretson – Thanks for clarifying your view on “embodiment.” It is a fascinating topic in its own right. I agree with you that a taxonomy of colorations would be very useful in these discussions. I will spend some time thinking about possible taxonomic schemes. BTW, you are one of funniest posters I’ve seen on A’gon.
Cbw wrote:
Consider the information in the source (the music) to have some amount of entropy, X. (Interestingly, and perhaps helpfully, X will be a measure of how much the source can be compressed without loss.) The colorations/distortions are processes that reduce that entropy. Why? Because those processes are predictable. This is not to say they are fixed, or constant (we’ve discussed processes that are frequency dependent, for example), but they are predictable in that their effect on a signal may be known. And because they conceal/corrupt/eliminate some source information and replace it with predictable information, they reduce (at output) the original entropy of the source to something less than X.
Let me first say: This is impressive. I think it offers a very plausible theory for the effects of neutrality specified in my operationalization, namely, distinctness and diversity. Given your theory, here are some things I believe you would agree to:
Newbee, Sorry I was inhospitable. Your speculation that the entirety of this thread constitutes trolling is interesting. Even more interesting, the derivation of internet trolling comes from the practice of TROLLING FOR NEWBIES, as popularized by usenet veterans of the early '90s who enjoyed drawing gullible "newbies" into circular discussions. I suppose Bryon could theoretically be a troll, albeit a kind of PHILOSOPHER TROLL. In any case, your choice of the moniker Newbee places you at personal risk of being considered TROLL BAIT.
Bryon, it may be appealing to view neutrality as a phenomenon of both time and frequency domains. I tend to think of imaging and resolution mostly in the frequency category, and dynamics in the time category. However, these are linked characterics, insofar as a well-resolved image frames dynamics within a precise boundary. Taken together these characteristics communicate embodiment. A dislocation of dynamics from imaging in this sense may be considered coloration and therefore a failure of neutrality.
IMO the discussion is ultimately down to an enumeration of the taxonomy of coloration. My last post was about changes in sound that I hear when improvements are made according to generally accepted engineering principals(e.g. Schottky rectification, discrete voltage regulation stages, galvanic separation, low-noise resistors, low-resonance capacitors). Others will likely have different perceptions of coloration.
Meanwhile, back in the on-topic world, I think I’ve come up with a theoretical explanation for Bryon’s observations. My earlier mention of entropy got me thinking about another kind of entropy: Shannon entropy in information theory. The entropy I mentioned previously was thermodynamic entropy, for which organization and entropy are inversely related (i.e., more entropy implies less organization, and vice versa). But Shannon entropy describes the predictability of a variable (or process).
The prototypical example to demonstrate Shannon entropy is of a “fair” coin. (A fair coin is one with an equal probability of coming up heads or tails when flipped.) Such a coin is maximally unpredictable and, because there are two possible outcomes, has one bit of entropy (i.e., you need one bit of information to communicate the result of the next flip). A coin that always comes up one way (either heads or tails), is entirely predictable, and therefore has zero bits of entropy. A coin that is biased (i.e., one result is more probable than the other) has entropy somewhere between zero and one, depending on how biased it is.
The main point here is: Higher entropy => less predictability Lower entropy => more predictability
What does this have to do with music and playback systems? Everything. Consider the information in the source (the music) to have some amount of entropy, X. (Interestingly, and perhaps helpfully, X will be a measure of how much the source can be compressed without loss.) The colorations/distortions are processes that reduce that entropy. Why? Because those processes are predictable. This is not to say they are fixed, or constant (we’ve discussed processes that are frequency dependent, for example), but they are predictable in that their effect on a signal may be known. And because they conceal/corrupt/eliminate some source information and replace it with predictable information, they reduce (at output) the original entropy of the source to something less than X.
Consider a system that when you play a source, it puts out a 60Hz hum. This system delivers a zero-entropy playback. It is maximally predictable. If you improve the system so that some of the source material starts poking through the hum, the entropy increases. Entropy is maximized when the source is played back with minimal predictable content, (and the only source of unpredictable content is the source itself).
So, getting back to Bryon’s observations, the reason that a more neutral system causes timbres/songs/albums to sound more unique and their ranges sound more diverse, is because they literally are more unique/diverse upon delivery to the ears. Which is to say they have higher entropy.
This also explains our intuitive notion that while some colorations may be desirable, they will still tend to homogenize the music.
This also helps put to rest my concerns over the issue of excess contrast requiring a modification of the terms of the operationalization. The Rube Goldberg machine (as Bryon put it) that I proposed was meant to be one endpoint in the continuum of contrast (the sine wave generator being the other). But to enhance contrast my machine replaced sounds from the source (and more generally the set of all recorded music) with sounds from the (larger) set of all recorded sound. So, I effectively increased the entropy, but I did it by bringing non-source information into the system. Which is cheating because real audio systems don’t do that. The only source (of which I am aware) of outside information (other than the source) that enters an audio system is the power. Power fluctuations and noise on the line, to the extent that they are stochastic processes, would act to increase entropy (and to the extent that they are not stochastic processes, would decrease entropy). But my guess is that their nature is such that they would not act to increase perceived contrast in the music. In any event, I think the notion that the operationalization would push us toward systems of excess contrast can be dispensed with.
The appearance of this thread certainly could be evidence of the activity of a troll.
LOL! By posting an on-topic discussion on the application of a term that is in common use within the community, he's a troll? Somebody alert the authorities.
I thought the term Troll was reserved for folks who posted threads on controversial subjects in which people are known to have strong diverse opinions and resolution is not possible.
No, in this context a troll would be someone who posts off-topic, insulting, disparaging, and generally rude comments, with no other goal than to disrupt an otherwise civil discussion.
Dgarretson, YOU are as sharp as a tack! Love your response and sense of humor as well. I have been hectoring a bit (too much) haven't I.
But troll, I don't think so.
I thought the term Troll was reserved for folks who posted threads on controversial subjects in which people are known to have strong diverse opinions and resolution is not possible. A thread that predictably sucks in readers to responding (in good faith) to no good end except for the opportunities it provided the OP.
The appearance of this thread certainly could be evidence of the activity of a troll. One thing is clear, and the OP admitted this somewhere in his posts, he loves to argue and considers himself quite skilled. One could think that his husbanding of the direction of the subject was a little over the top considering the issues involved and that it was more in furtherance of his love of arguing than for anything else. At least I did.
You guys can continue your discussions in peace now. I'll hector no more.
Similar to Barnard Malamud's Roy Hobbs in the "The Natural", who tried with futility to hit a hectoring dwarf (troll?) in the grandstands with line drives from his Wonderbat.
Many message boards give you the option to put trolls on ignore. It cuts down the clutter. I think I'll suggest it to the Audiogon folks.
...movement toward neutrality implies a more organized presentation. The notion of ORGANIZATION is not far removed from Bryon’s notion of distinctness...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.
This is a very interesting observation. I have never seen someone point this phenomenon out before, but it is consistent with my own experiences. As things have improved in my own system, I have noticed that dynamics are embodied in instruments rather than being "superimposed" on top of the whole sound field. The result is a more lifelike presentation. It is a very hard thing to describe.
I am not exactly sure how it relates to neutrality, though. I would have been more inclined to think of this change as an improvement imaging or in resolution. Can you say a little more about your view on the link between this phenomenon and neutrality?
It would be particularly interesting to hear from designers of boomy cabinets.
Heh.
Relating to continuousness, movement toward neutrality implies a more organized presentation.
This is an interesting notion. If we consider the source as maximally organized information, then each stage in the audio chain has the potential to disorganize some information. The extent to which we don't corrupt the information determines the organization of the final presentation. So for a system, the greater its neutrality, the lower its entropy.
Thanks, I hadn't really thought about it like that. It helps explain why upstream improvements (i.e., toward the source) often seem to have the biggest impact: the reduction in entropy is carried through more components, maximizing the potential gain across the entire system.
Tolstoy: "Truth, like gold, is to be obtained not by its growth, but by washing away from it all that is not gold."
Similar to Barnard Malamud's Roy Hobbs in the "The Natural", who tried with futility to hit a hectoring dwarf (troll?) in the grandstands with line drives from his Wonderbat.
Unfortunately not a single rational idea may be attributed to Ayn Rand, particularly in view of the acolytes of Objectivism(having nothing to do with Audio) who nearly brought us to a second great depression-- which for some readers continues in 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.
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. :-).
...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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
