How do you judge your system's neutrality?

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

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

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

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

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

On my system, I have found the following:

Concealment:- Solid state amplifiers - easy

Corruption -cables - easy

elimination - oversampling DACs - easy.

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

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

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

I used them to keep cables straight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cbw wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

THREE TYPES OF RESOLUTION LOSS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bryon writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Byron replied to my last post with questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learsfool wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 12/6, you wrote:

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

And on 12/6, I wrote:

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

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

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

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

I AM NOT AN ABSOLUTIST ABOUT NEUTRALITY.

I AM NOT AN OBJECTIVIST ABOUT ALL SONIC CHARACTERISTICS.

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

I have said this many times in this thread.

In your post from today, you wrote:

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

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

On 11/25, you wrote:

I just carefully re-read your original post, and the subsequent one where you defined "neutrality" and I still don't think that just because 1) individual pieces sound more unique, and 2) your music collection sounds more diverse, that this necessarily leads to the conclusion that your system is more "neutral". IMO you are presenting a "begging the question" type argument.

And on 11/25, I responded:

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

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

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

TO OPERATIONALIZE THE CONCEPT OF 'NEUTRALITY.'

To which, on 11/25, you responded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dgarretson – Very interesting post. As I understand it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learsfool wrote:

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

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

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

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

Learsfool wrote:

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

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

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

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

While music colorations are VARIABLES, playback colorations are CONSTANTS.

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

Learsfool wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Learsfool writes:

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

You've asserted this point about a half dozen times in this thread, and each and every time someone (usually Bryon) points out that neutrality, as used here (and in the audio world in general), is a relative term. A component may be either more or less neutral (which is exactly synonymous with saying that it may apply either less or more coloration to the source). It would seem an entirely uncontroversial assertion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,
-- Al

Tvad wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learsfool wrote:

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

To which Cbw replied:

If you believe that playback systems can add more or less coloration to a system, then you implicitly believe that a system can be more or less neutral, as defined here, whether you believe you believe that or not. You can't believe in speed (distance/time) and not believe in slowness (time/distance) and remain logically consistent.

I agree with Cbw that it is logically inconsistent to believe in coloration and not believe in neutrality, AS COLORATION AND NEUTRALITY HAVE BEEN DEFINED IN THIS THREAD, namely:

‘Coloration’: Additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music.

‘Neutrality’: The degree of absence of coloration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learsfool wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

With great respect, Learsfool, I must say that I am similarly dumbfounded, but in the opposite direction. It has been said numerous times in numerous ways that the less colored (or more accurate or more neutral or more whatever comparable term you prefer) that the system is (including the room), the greater the likelihood that the presumably desirable colorations that were present in the original performance will be reproduced accurately, when averaged across a wide selection of well done recordings.

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

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

Regards,
-- Al

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

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

Cbw723 - Aural memory of what? I've never been to recording studio much less particular session. Maybe concert that I just attended and they made CD recordings 2 days later when my memory is still fresh?

What If I had bad seat at the concert and system plays the way it sounded at the best seat. Should I assume that system is coloring or just be happy with good sound I got.

Learsfool writes:

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

No, the thing being debated is how one judges the relative neutrality of one's playback system. The neutrality of a playback system has been defined as the degree of the absence of coloration added by that playback system. If "DoN" is the degree of neutrality of a playback system, and "DoC" is the degree of coloration of a playback system, then (DoN = 1 / DoC) is the assumption of this thread as stated by Bryon. If you believe that playback systems can add more or less coloration to a system, then you implicitly believe that a system can be more or less neutral, as defined here, whether you believe you believe that or not. You can't believe in speed (distance/time) and not believe in slowness (time/distance) and remain logically consistent. If you want to change the definition of playback system coloration or playback system neutrality so that the above equation doesn't hold, feel free to do so, but please do so explicitly and be aware that your definition isn't the thing under discussion here.

As for the "coloration" part: you are using this term in an extremely narrow sense.

Yes, he is. He has stated numerous times that his is talking about certain types of alteration of source information by a playback system.

There is certainly no such thing as a "neutral" violin. A Strad, which costs millions, is not more "neutral" than a $500 school instrument, though of course all would agree it sounds far better, and has a very different "coloration."

A violin is not a playback system, it is a musical instrument. It therefore falls outside the scope of coloration and neutrality as discussed here. The sound of the musical instrument in its recording environment is the subject of our playback systems, not the object. Throughout this thread you have consistently equated playback system neutrality with musical neutrality, but that has never been the suggestion of the thread.

Again, as Kijanki and I keep asking, how do you know what anything is "supposed" to sound like?

I believe he has stated that aural memory is at least one route to this goal. But I don't even think that is necessary. If my system adds a 60Hz hum (a form of coloration) to everything it plays back, there is no guarantee that the removal of the hum will make what comes out of my speakers sound more like the things they are, but they're not going to sound less like them. So, objectively, by removing coloration (i.e., increasing neutrality), my playback system stands a better chance of accurately reproducing the source. Will it "sound better?" That's for me to decide. But it will be more neutral by the terms of this thread.

Bryon, for the first time, I am truly puzzled by your reasoning. You posed two questions about Al's example, "Do you not believe a 50K system is more neutral than a $300 Walmart system," and "do you not believe the $300 system has more coloration," and then proceeded to state "It is important to note that the two questions MUST be answered in the same way." My emphasis. Huh? It most certainly does NOT follow that just because I don't believe in neutrality, that therefore I don't believe in coloration! (The same goes for the "neutral room"/ "room coloration" thing). The only way this could possibly be true is within the context of your own personal definition, which is precisely what is under debate here. This is certainly a fallacy, as I said I think it is a form of question begging - I will have to ask my uncle, who used to teach philosophy/logic (and is also an audiophile, by the way). By the way, please do not take this as a personal criticism - I am often disappointed by my own arguments, and I am sure they also contain some fallacies. So far, the only way you have defined your "neutrality" characteristic is by saying that it is an absence of some other characteristic, which you are calling "coloration." Frankly, I am not certain that this would pass muster as a scientific definition in the first place - I don't think it is accepted to define one thing solely as an absence of some other thing?

I have spoken at length on the "neutrality" part of this. As for the "coloration" part: you are using this term in an extremely narrow sense. One could argue that everything is a coloration. Just as painting is the art of visual coloring, music is the art of aural coloring, if we can accept this crude analogy. There is certainly no such thing as a "neutral" violin. A Strad, which costs millions, is not more "neutral" than a $500 school instrument, though of course all would agree it sounds far better, and has a very different "coloration." Just so, just about all would agree the $50K system will sound far better than the $300 Walmart one - again with a very different "coloration." One Strad is not more neutral than another, either, though all sound different. Same with the two preamps in my example in my previous post - both may sound very different, but this does not mean one is either "better" (as Bryon correctly pointed out, even if chosen by a majority), or that it is more "neutral." They are "colored" differently, and deliberately, by their designers, according to the designer's artistic ideal of sound coloration. There is no such thing as the absence of color in sound (and therefore, it logically follows, in sound reproduction). Otherwise music could not exist. The things you are specifically describing as "colorations" (intermodulation distortion, etc.) of course exist. But they are not the only "colorations" that exist in sound or it's reproduction; their absence does not prove the existence of "neutrality." Again, as Kijanki and I keep asking, how do you know what anything is "supposed" to sound like? There is no one answer to that question, and your assertion that there is is dumbfounding. A great many audiophiles calling themselves "objectivists" would stop far short of such an assertion. I fail to see how anyone could think of music or it's reproduction in such black and white terms. It reminded Kijanki of a discussion of "good taste." It reminds me more of a devout and very learned theologian attempting to argue the existence of God (the textbook question begging argument, by the way), though I do not say that this is analogous, and I hope no one takes offense. I have greatly enjoyed the discussion, as I said. Cbw723, I think Newbee's description is very apt - "an artful construct to further an unattractive goal." Seeing the art of musical reproduction as black and white as this is certainly unattractive IMO, though there is no doubt that Bryon's argument in general is artfully done. Much more artfully done than mine, LOL! It's a darn good thing I make my living as a musician, not a writer!

The changes in uniqueness/diversity that I noticed were not limited to timbre. They included nearly every aspect of the recordings. Some of those changes are, no doubt, attributable to improved RESOLUTION, but I believe that others are the result of improved NEUTRALITY.

Which still leaves me with the question about timbre. It’s something I’ve noticed before with my system, and it’s specifically mentioned as the first thing you noticed with your new, more neutral system:

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.

So why isn’t there a rule:

0a) Instrument timbres sound more distinct from one another (or “unique”).
0b) The range of instrument timbres sounds more diverse.

In other words, is relative timbre distinctness a sufficient criterion for judging relative neutrality? If not, why not? Your argument, as presented above, almost makes it seem as if song/album uniqueness and collection diversity were the consequences of timbre distinctness, though I think that was not your intent. But it does lead me to wonder whether relative timbre distinctness might also be a necessary criterion.

But that brings me to:

…wouldn't criteria #1 and #2 be consequences of increased neutrality rather than standards by which we identify it?

This is a false contrast.

True, when taken out of context. But what I wrote was:

If [detecting the degree of neutrality] is reducible to timbre, then wouldn't the operationalization of neutrality be, "Instrument timbres sound more distinct?" And then wouldn't criteria #1 and #2 be consequences of increased neutrality rather than standards by which we identify it?

In which case it is the distinction between the primary observable and the byproducts of that observable. You could, for example, study the solar spectrum by observing its reflection from the moon but, when direct observation is available, simpler, and more accurate, why would you? Now, you have suggested that there are other aspects, besides timbre, that contribute to uniqueness/diversity, so there may be reasons to consider the other criteria. And you may argue above that timbre distinctness is not sufficient for detecting any degree of neutrality, so then #1 and #2 would be back to being the primary observables.

But I hope they don’t turn out to be because they are harder to apply and therefore inferior to rule #0. Generating absolute uniqueness in a complex system is easier than doing so in a simple system because it requires only a single change in a larger number of characteristics. But judging relative uniqueness becomes harder with a complex system because you must consider, and weigh, all of characteristics, many of which may be different. Judging (relative) timbre uniqueness is easier than judging (relative) song uniqueness, which is easier than judging collection (relative) diversity.

Is criterion #2 a consequence of, in whole or in part, criterion #1?

No, criterion #2 is not a “consequence” of criterion #1, because the relation between criterion #1 and criterion #2 is not CAUSAL.

I don’t understand how increasing the uniqueness of the songs in a collection would not automatically increase the diversity of that collection. That is not to say that there are not other ways of increasing collection diversity, but increased song uniqueness certainly seems like one. Can you elaborate?

Bryon attributes the improvements to 'neutrality' and I think that is where we start to go different paths.

I think it would be more accurate to characterize Bryon as attributing certain kinds of improvements to neutrality, and that those improvements should be weighed with other system characteristics in tuning playback to maximize listener enjoyment.

Unfortunately, there are often underlying issues inherrent in this type of thread which are often decried loudly and crudely. I do not know that this is the case here, but frankly I concluded long ago that this thread was an artful construct to further an unattractive goal.

What does "artful construct to further an unattractive goal" mean? Is there some nefarious plot going on here of which I was previously unaware? I thought we were discussing ways of identifying the relative impact of a particular system characteristic.

Al, I for one, have no reason why I couldn't agree with your proposal as suggested in the 1st sentence of your last paragraph.

Loosly interperted I see that proposal as agreeing that one can improve the quality of his audio system by the addition of components which have better audio characteristics that those that were replaced, without regard to whether it was because of any specific attribute or symply because of better synergy. Bryon attributes the improvements to 'neutrality' and I think that is where we start to go different paths.

Unfortunately I get lost in the symantics, i.e. the differences between transparency, resolution, neutrality and accuracy, as well as their utilization by folks who consider themselves to be either objectivists or subjectivists. I think we all use them differently even though our use may be considered inaccurate or inconsistent.

It appears that Bryon considers himself an 'objectivist' and his goal of 'neutrality' is the correct one, for him at least. And I say good for him! He has a defined a goal.

Unfortunately, there are often underlying issues inherrent in this type of thread which are often decried loudly and crudely. I do not know that this is the case here, but frankly I concluded long ago that this thread was an artful construct to further an unattractive goal. But, that is just me, my cynicism may be misplaced. The poster is relatively new to the forum. Time will tell.

Learfool 12/24: The bottom line here (going back to the OP) is that many of us feel that just because you change one piece of equipment in the system, making 1) individual pieces of music sound more unique, and 2) your music collection sound more diverse, this does not mean you have operationalized the term neutrality. It just means you have a better sounding system.

I think that this statement gives increased credence to what was implicit in my post in this thread dated 11/26, that perhaps the most fundamental reason for the disagreements we have seen in this thread is simply disagreement about semantics.

I proposed at that time substituting the word "accuracy" for the word "neutrality," meaning that Bryon's proposed methodology be viewed as a tool that can facilitate evolution of the system + room such that they can accurately reproduce what is on the recording. Which of course does not by any means necessarily constitute the end-point in the evolution of any particular system, but narrowing system inaccuracy to some degree is certainly an important part of that process. At least until the tolerance has become small enough to be overshadowed by other factors and preferences, whether subjective or objective.

Bryon then guided that thought to the point where it was agreed by at least some of us that neutrality represents the degree to which coloration is absent. With accuracy referring to the degree to which a component or system is both resolving and neutral, resolution referring to the amount of information presented by a component or system.

There was further discussion of the distinctions between accuracy, which focuses on minimizing differences between what is on the recording and what is presented to the listener's ears, and transparency, which focuses on minimizing differences between what is presented to the listener's ears and the original musical event, thereby encompassing issues with the recording as well as with the system and the room. And in turn it was recognized that inaccuracy in the system + room might in some cases be complementary to inaccuracy in the recording, with the two sets of inaccuracies tending to negate one another.

Given all of this, I would ask those who have opposed Bryon's proposal, as expressed in post 1 of this thread, to consider whether there is any wording change, or any change in their initial interpretation of the existing words, that would allow everyone's position to converge.

My basic feeling about all this is that Bryon has proposed a methodology or tool which can be helpful in working towards the goal of optimizing a system, and by "optimizing" I mean subjectively maximizing the degree of enjoyment that system will provide to its owner. Is there a way that Bryon's proposal/tool can be accepted in that spirit? Learsfool's paragraph that I quoted at the beginning of this post gives me some degree of optimism that it can be, and I think it certainly should be.

Regarding the last sentence in that quoted paragraph, my response is QED!

Regards,
-- Al

Kijanki wrote:

Defining neutrality reminds me TV discussion on the subject of "good taste" where serious people tried to define it (it does not exist).

Again, I would ask: Does coloration exist? Colorations are additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music. I have given at least six examples from both equipment and listening rooms: intermodulation distortion, speaker cabinet resonance, crosstalk, room modes, flutter echo, and comb filtering. There are undoubtedly many more. Do these phenomena exist? If they do, then neutrality exists, as it has been defined on this thread, namely, THE (DEGREE OF) ABSENCE OF COLORATION.

Kijanki wrote:

My Benchmark DAC1 was praised by studio engineers and often called by people sterile and uninvolving. Studio engineers made once experiment in the studio recording guitar live and playing thru different DACs (similar price range). Benchmark was the most accurate but people liked other DACs more.

I have addressed this issue many times on this thread, including in my very last post, where I wrote:

...if a consensus were reached about which component was more neutral in an A/B test, it does not follow that the more neutral component is the "better" component, since there are other sonic virtues that are, and should be, considered when evaluating components.

Cbw – Excellent post. And yes, “operationalization” is a word.

Cbw wrote:

In the original post, you mention instrument timbres specifically sounding more distinct from one another, and then go on to say whole songs and albums sounded more unique and your collection, more diverse. Is that all a consequence of the change in timbres, or were there other characteristics that contributed to the uniqueness/diversity?

The changes in uniqueness/diversity that I noticed were not limited to timbre. They included nearly every aspect of the recordings. Some of those changes are, no doubt, attributable to improved RESOLUTION, but I believe that others are the result of improved NEUTRALITY.

Cbw wrote:

Is criterion #2 a consequence of, in whole or in part, criterion #1?

No, criterion #2 is not a “consequence” of criterion #1, because the relation between criterion #1 and criterion #2 is not CAUSAL. That is to say, criterion #1 is not the CAUSE of criterion #2. Criterion #1 and criterion #2 are really just two different ways of identifying the same thing: INCREASED DIFFERENTIATION.

If there is a causal relationship relevant here, it is that increasing neutrality is the cause and criteria #1 and #2 are the effects.

Cbw wrote:

…wouldn't criteria #1 and #2 be consequences of increased neutrality rather than standards by which we identify it?

This is a false contrast. That is to say, X can be BOTH a consequence of Y AND the standard by which we identify it. In science, this is the relation between observables and theoretical entities – observables are both a consequence of theoretical entities and the standard by which we identify them. If you have concerns about the circularity of that relationship, then you are not alone. Philosophers and scientists have worried about that for quite a while. One way to mitigate the circularity is to find corroboration of the existence and nature of theoretical entities through an interrelated set of other theoretical entities and observables. To apply this to our discussion: Neutrality is the theoretical entity and criteria #1 and #2 are its observables. But this does not throw doubt on the existence of neutrality, since it is corroborated by an interrelated set of other theoretical entities and observables.

Bryon, I have some more thoughts on the "excess contrast" issue, but in thinking about it, I realized there were some holes in my understanding of the operationalization (is that a word?) itself:

1) In the original post, you mention instrument timbres specifically sounding more distinct from one another, and then go on to say whole songs and albums sounded more unique and your collection, more diverse. Is that all a consequence of the change in timbres, or were there other characteristics that contributed to the uniqueness/diversity? (If it is reducible to timbre, then wouldn't the operationalization of neutrality be, "Instrument timbres sound more distinct?" And then wouldn't criteria #1 and #2 be consequences of increased neutrality rather than standards by which we identify it?)

2) Is criterion #2 a consequence of, in whole or in part, criterion #1? If so, and in whole, then a similar reduction might be possible. If not, or only in part, what are the additional characteristics that contribute to #2?

Bryon wrote: "I do not believe that there is one "right" way to listen, but I do believe that there are more neutral, resolving, and accurate ways to listen."

And I do believe that there is "perfect" woman out there but I'm not interested.

It is very subjective. I can always find somebody who will like sound of your Walmart system more (and call it more neutral/natural sounding). There is a few reasons for that. Some say clear=sterile and resolution=analytic. I read opinion that instruments should not sound separately but together. Some people don't like strong dynamics. There is no right or wrong here. Listener is a part of the system as room is and there is no escape from that. Who will be the judge? The proper question is not whether it sounds neutral (how to know that?) but rather if sound is pleasant, involving etc.
Can musical presentation that is "uninvolving" be more neutral? Presentation can often be converted to involving one by spicing frequency extremes or adding a little bit of distortion. My Benchmark DAC1 was praised by studio engineers and often called by people sterile and uninvolving. Studio engineers made once experiment in the studio recording guitar live and playing thru different DACs (similar price range). Benchmark was the most accurate but people liked other DACs more.

Defining neutrality reminds me TV discussion on the subject of "good taste" where serious people tried to define it (it does not exist).

Learsfool wrote:

Basically, I do not believe that "neutrality" can possibly exist at all, whether we are talking about a single piece of equipment, the entire system as per your definition, or in live music...

Learsfool - What do you think of Al's comment:

Consider a system purchased at Walmart for a total system price of $300, in comparison with say a $50K system such as some Audiogoner's have. I don't think anyone here will disagree as to which one will provide better and more enjoyable sound, and I don't think that anyone here will disagree as to which one is more neutral/accurate/etc.

Do you not believe that a $50K system is more neutral than a $300 Walmart system? And conversely, do you not believe that the $300 system has more coloration?

It is important to note that the last two questions must be answered the same way. That is to say, if you do not believe in neutrality, then YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN COLORATION. That is because neutrality has been defined on this thread as the (degree of) ABSENCE OF COLORATION.

Colorations are additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music. If you believe that coloration does not exist, then what is intermodulation distortion? What is the resonance of a speaker cabinet? What is crosstalk? In my view, they are additions to the playback chain that conceal and corrupt information about the music. That is to say, they are colorations. And if colorations exist, then neutrality, defined as the (degree of) absence of coloration, exists.

Learsfool wrote:

There is no such thing as a neutral room.

If you believe this, then you believe that there is no such thing as ROOM COLORATION. Then what is a room mode? What is flutter echo? What is comb filtering? In my view, they are additions and subtractions to the playback chain that conceal and corrupt information about the music. That is to say, they are colorations. And if colorations exist, then neutrality exists.

Learsfool wrote:

Bryon wrote "The success of room correction relies on the technology involved and how it is implemented." This completely ignores the human ears setting up and/or listening to the result of the technology…

I was not ignoring the human element. I meant that to be part of “implementation.” ‘Implementation’ can refer to the PHYSICAL DEVICES that perform some function or the ACT of performing some function, presumably by a person. I meant for both to be included.

Learsfool wrote:

Now, let us say you replace very high quality preamp A with very high quality preamp B, keeping everything else the same. How will you know which one is more "neutral"? I submit that you can't. But you can know which one makes the system sound better to you. And I would also guess that 100 audiophiles that listened to this comparison would probably split close to 50/50 on which one did sound better, and that there would be many different reasons why each made his choice.

One of the advantages to my operationalization of ‘neutrality’ is that forming judgments about neutrality does not require us to be able to arrive at a consensus about which is the better component in an A/B test, which as you point out, is often difficult and sometimes impossible. It only requires us to arrive at a consensus about which component makes individual pieces of music sound more unique and a collection of music more diverse. Perhaps that would be a difficult consensus to achieve as well, but I suspect it is far more realizable than getting audiophiles to agree on which component is "better" in any given A/B test.

And if a consensus were reached about which component was more neutral in an A/B test, it does not follow that the more neutral component is the "better" component, since there are other sonic virtues that are, and should be, considered when evaluating components.

Learsfool wrote:

I think your "neutrality" concept/operationalization falls apart, despite your VERY good arguments - it requires that there is ultimately one answer.

Yes. That is what it means to be an Objectivist.

Kijanki wrote:

Do you think that person who likes more bass than neutral should force himself to listen at home the way he doesn't like (neutral). If I cannot hear treble as well as when I was young - am I allowed to get brighter system?

You are allowed to do as you like. It is not for me to tell anyone how to listen to music. I think if you were to read my posts on this thread you would not find a single comment suggesting that someone else SHOULD listen in a certain way. I have, however, made arguments about the value of neutrality. This may seem like a contradiction, but it is not. That is because, while I am an Objectivist about neutrality, resolution, and accuracy, I am a Subjectivist about audiophile values. I do not believe that there is one "right" way to listen, but I do believe that there are more neutral, resolving, and accurate ways to listen.

As far as your comment about compensating for your high frequency hearing loss with a brighter system, the issue there is exactly analogous to the use of EQ in a system to compensate for room effects. In a previous post, I wrote:

[The] question is whether the use of EQ is NECESSARILY a deviation from neutrality. The answer is: It depends on which level of organization you are talking about. By definition, the use of EQ is a deviation from neutrality AT THE LEVEL OF THE COMPONENT. But it is not necessarily a deviation from neutrality AT THE LEVEL OF THE SYSTEM, where "the system" includes the room and your listening position in it. That is because the judicious use of EQ could compensate for room effects that are themselves deviations from neutrality. For example, if the room contains a lot of hard surfaces and is bright, EQ’ing the treble could result in a SYSTEM that is more neutral, even though, at the component level, you have made the signal less neutral.

Analogously, in the case of compensating for your high frequency hearing loss with a brighter system, I would say: That "compensation" is itself an attempt to achieve a measure of neutrality in the system, by removing the midrange and bass "coloration" created by your loss of high frequencies. But in your case, "the system" no longer stops at your ears - it INCLUDES your ears, along with the details of your hearing loss.

I think you hit a homer there, Kijanki. Hearing is an issue. I know a reviewer who has a high frequency deficiency. Music that is loud and dynamic is a good thing. Accuracy is not. Amazingly, my hearing is very good. I want sound at it's proper levels still.

How do you know how it supposed to sound? Sitar from Northern India sounds completely different than Sitar from southern India. How do you know?

Bryon wrote: "By having heard one."

That's the problem - by having heard one where? In small humid room or big concert hall. What brand of Sitar?

As for neutrality being a virtue - Do you think that person who likes more bass than neutral should force himself to listen at home the way he doesn't like (neutral). If I cannot hear treble as well as when I was young - am I allowed to get brighter system. Overall result might be neutral but to who's standard (since I cannot hear treble in live performance). Whole issue is very foggy. I can only say what sounds good to me. As Learsfool mentioned sound of instrument in sound-dead studio is colored by recording engineer (therefore not neutral). Why do I have to adhere to this. Some instruments like cello have very complicated radiating pattern (only backwards at 300Hz I think). Can you imagine what mess recording engineer can make here. At the concert sound is far from perfect and different each time. Open air concert is way different than small auditorium etc.

Very interesting discussions, guys! Bryon, I think you do misunderstand my position after all. Basically, I do not believe that "neutrality" can possibly exist at all, whether we are talking about a single piece of equipment, the entire system as per your definition, or in live music; and, as Kijanki says, I seriously doubt anyone would think it a virtue if it did. I am not trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good - I don't believe there is a perfect.

Some other thoughts - Bryon wrote "The success of room correction relies on the technology involved and how it is implemented." This completely ignores the human ears setting up and/or listening to the result of the technology (not to mention the designer of the technology). The dealer who set up one room correction system I heard clearly thought he had done everything correctly, and he thought the result sounded just fine, yet the result sounded awful to most he played it for, worse than before the correction. I have heard others that made a huge positive difference.

As far as Bryon's characteristics of a good playback system vs. characteristics of good musical playback, I completely agree that these are not the same thing. Every playback system is different, and two completely different systems can both result in good musical playback. This seems obvious. Where we differ is I don't think either has anything to do with "neutrality."

Bryon wrote "A neutral room will make it easier to achieve a neutral system." There is no such thing as a neutral room. As I said in a previous post, the closest thing might be a recording studio. But the purpose of recording studios is NOT to make things somehow "neutral." In fact, as I said before, it is for the exact opposite purpose - removing as many characteristics of the room noise as possible allows the sound engineer as much leeway as possible to create the sound that he wants - to create the sound color of the engineer's personal choice. This also goes along with what I said before about designers of audio equipment - they are not striving for some sort of "neutrality." They are aiming at their personal ideal of what the sound should be.

Bryon wrote "It seems to me that the value of an audiophile developing expert perception of the playback of recorded music is self-evident." Again, I don't think there is any disagreement here. The disagreement is over whether "neutrality" has anything to do with it.

The bottom line here (going back to the OP) is that many of us feel that just because you change one piece of equipment in the system, making 1) individual pieces of music sound more unique, and 2) your music collection sound more diverse, this does not mean you have operationalized the term neutrality. It just means you have a better sounding system.

Let me give you an example, again going back to the OP. Assume a room with good qualities for music playback, and assume a very high quality music playback system (which this room is of course part of). Now, let us say you replace very high quality preamp A with very high quality preamp B, keeping everything else the same. How will you know which one is more "neutral"? I submit that you can't. But you can know which one makes the system sound better to you. And I would also guess that 100 audiophiles that listened to this comparison would probably split close to 50/50 on which one did sound better, and that there would be many different reasons why each made his choice. This is what Kijanki is driving at when he says "how do you know how it is supposed to sound?" There is no one answer to this question, which is where I think your "neutrality" concept/operationalization falls apart, despite your VERY good arguments - it requires that there is ultimately one answer. But thankfully, there is no black and white in music or music playback.

Bryon - I'm under impression that you discuss mostly frequency response of the system hence word EQ is repeated often. What about whole bunch of other things like macro and micro dynamics?

Frequency response has been mentioned a few times on this thread, but not much by me. One or two posters have suggested that neutrality was reducible to frequency response. I do not agree with that idea, since, as Shadorne and Audioengr pointed out, FREQUENCY response does not include TRANSIENT response. And I quite agree with you that dynamics are an important consideration when evaluating an audio system.

As far as the phrase "EQ," its first appearance on this thread was just a few posts ago in the context of discussing room correction. Then it reappeared in Cbw's EQ challenge. So far as I can tell, it has not been a particular focus of mine or anyone else.

It is difficult to discuss something that cannot be measured and is very subjective.

This may be true, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to try. Art "cannot be measured and is very subjective," but people have found endless ways to talk about it, and some of them are useful.

How do you know how it supposed to sound? Sitar from Northern India sounds completely different than Sitar from southern India. How do you know?

By having heard one.

From the tone of discussion I got even impression that neutrality is considered a virtue. I'm not so sure of that.

Some of the posters seem to believe neutrality is a virtue, others clearly not. My own view is that it is a virtue, but not the only one.

Bryon - I'm under impression that you discuss mostly frequency response of the system hence word EQ is repeated often. What about whole bunch of other things like macro and micro dynamics? how do you measure "sweet sound" or "relaxed sound". It is difficult to discuss something that cannot be measured and is very subjective. How do you know how it supposed to sound? Sitar from Northern India sounds completely different than Sitar from southern India. How do you know. From the tone of discussion I got even impression that neutrality is considered a virtue. I'm not so sure of that.