How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Cbw’s EQ challenge to my operationalization of ‘neutrality’ is a good one. Here is my understanding of it:

If you were to give a unique EQ to every track in your music collection, then you would meet the conditions of my operationalization, namely:

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

By meeting the conditions of my operationalization, we would have to conclude that the system was moving in the direction of greater neutrality, in the sense of freedom from coloration. However, there is reason to doubt that, since the use of EQ can easily change recordings so that they are MORE colored (what Cbw is calling “excess contrast”). And MORE colored means LESS neutral. Hence the use of track-specific EQ seems like it defeats my operationalization, since it meets conditions (1) and (2) while resulting is less neutrality.

I think Al’s solution to Cbw’s EQ challenge is valid. My operationalization is not defeated by the EQ challenge IF you interpret the use of track-specific EQ as resulting in many different “virtual” systems. That is because my operationalization is a method for evaluating neutrality WITHIN A SINGLE SYSTEM, not across multiple systems. If this feels like my operationalization is being saved by a technicality, then I agree with you. To make matters worse for me, I think the following is a valid reply to Al’s solution…

The use of track-specific EQ results in NEW RECORDINGS, not MANY DIFFERENT "VIRTUAL" SYSTEMS.

An EQ setting A, when applied to all the tracks played through a system, is obviously a characteristic of THE SYSTEM. But if you have a unique EQ setting (A, B, C…n) for every track played back through the system, it is less clear what whether the EQ settings are characteristics of THE SYSTEM or characteristics of NEW RECORDINGS YOU HAVE CREATED. Here are the two interpretations of the use of track-specific EQ:

(1) Original recordings with many different “virtual” systems.
(2) New recordings with a single, constant system.

Under interpretation (1), my operationalization of neutrality is saved from Cbw’s EQ challenge by Al’s solution. Under interpretation (2), what happens to my operationalization?

It is saved by another technicality. Under interpretation (2), the coloration is part of the RECORDING, not of the SYSTEM. And coloration in the recording does not impugn the neutrality of the SYSTEM, however undesirable the resulting sound might be.

So, in my view, Cbw’s EQ challenge fails to defeat my operationalization of 'neutrality.' The problem is: I keep thinking there is something in the spirit of his challenge that remains valid, something having to do with the need for a LIMITING CONDITION in the operationalization. Now I will have to do more mulling…

The same argument can be made for inter-recording contrast as I've just made here for intra-recording contrast by using recording-specific EQ.

That's the point that I'm questioning. Let's say that you have two recordings, and you play them back with eq settings that are different for each of the two recordings. You are trying to judge how much contrast is introduced between the two recordings by "the system," using what amounts to two different systems (one system for one recording, and another system for the other recording). Which takes us out of the realm to which Bryon's test is applicable, as well as being an unhelpful methodology.

Best regards,
-- Al

If the settings of an equalizer are changed from Setting A to Setting B, as I see it that amounts to a change in the system, which should be evaluated similarly to how substitution of one component for another component would be evaluated.

I agree with this. But I was mixing two points. My main point was more about the use of equalization (or some other process) to enhance contrast beyond what actually exists in the source or even the live performance. If we assume that neutrality is a characteristic to be maximized, and increasing contrast increases neutrality then, barring some counterbalancing force, we will always work to increase contrast. So, for instance, if I'm listening to a violin concerto, and I happen to know that the timbre of violins is controlled within a certain range of frequencies, I could cleverly EQ the recording to make the different violins sound more different from one another than they actually do. (The same argument can be made for inter-recording contrast as I've just made here for intra-recording contrast by using recording-specific EQ.) By the rules introduced in this thread, I've achieved greater neutrality, which is something we're trying to maximize. But the result is not desirable. So, assuming that excess contrast is possible, what can we introduce to counterbalance the drive toward always increasing contrast?

A thought on the dilemma concerning increasing the degree of contrast between recordings via equalization, which Cbw723 attempted to address with some creative mathematics in his last post.

I believe it is really a non-issue. If the settings of an equalizer are changed from Setting A to Setting B, as I see it that amounts to a change in the system, which should be evaluated similarly to how substitution of one component for another component would be evaluated.

Meaning that Bryon's proposed test, assessing the degree to which a system makes different recordings sound different, would entail assessing whether Setting A makes different recordings sound more or less different than Setting B. The degree of difference or contrast between Setting A and Setting B is in itself irrelevant with respect to Bryon's test.

Obviously direct A vs. B comparisons would also be made on individual recordings, just as would be done if one amplifier were substituted for another, but that is a separate matter which I think is unrelated to Bryon's test, and to which Bryon's test is supplemental.

Best regards,
-- Al

I find my system is most neutral at very high volume, at the beach on humid days. I like the changes that the Valhalla brings to my system.

Al – I agree with everything in your last post. Also, I was happy to read that you are valuing the discussions on this thread. I am as well. As far as your remark that “It would seem to be verging on forming a good basis for a master's thesis, if not a doctoral dissertation!” I should mention that I actually did write a doctoral dissertation relevant to many of these topics. It was for a Ph.D. in philosophy, and my dissertation concentrated on topics in the philosophy of science. Audio was never mentioned, as it focused on technical issues concerning intertheoretic relations, objective vs. subjective knowledge, taxonomic categorization, interlevel reductionism, and mechanistic vs. complex systems. Yet it has occurred to me many times during this thread that there is a remarkable amount of overlap between those topics and topics that audiophiles commonly discuss.

Learsfool wrote:

I have heard "room correction" in an enthusiastic dealer's showroom that resulted in a very dead, lifeless sound as well -it depends on how it is applied, which depends on who is applying it.

I agree with this. I too have heard bad examples of room correction. The success of room correction relies on the technology involved and how it is implemented. But that is true of virtually everything in audio.

Learsfool wrote:

Unless I am very much mistaken, it is not possible to remove all of the effects of room nodes and other similar acoustic phenomena, no matter how good the room correction system is.

This is most certainly true, but just because we can’t control ALL room effects does not mean we can’t control ANY room effects, or that our efforts to do so aren’t worthwhile. Your reasoning here reminds me of your earlier comments about neutrality, when you seemed to suggest that, since we can’t achieve absolute neutrality, there was no point in trying to make a system sound as neutral as possible. To my mind, both these arguments suffer from the same mistake: They make THE PERFECT the enemy of THE GOOD.

Learsfool wrote:

These phenomena [i.e. room effects] are a part of what gives all great concert halls their individual character, for instance.

I understand that every concert hall, like every other room, has a unique sonic signature, and that it is important to be able to hear the sonic signature of the concert hall when listening to music that was recorded it. But the way to hear the sonic signature of the concert hall is not to RECREATE its sonic signature in your playback room. The way to hear the sonic signature of the concert hall is to MINIMIZE the sonic signature of your playback room. Al made the same point in his last post:

Ideally the recording should capture the acoustic characteristics of the hall, as they exist at some presumably well chosen location within it. If that recording is then played back on a system that has flat frequency response (and that has good accuracy in other respects) then it will accurately reproduce those hall characteristics, including any deviations from frequency response flatness, as well as ambiance, reverberation, etc.

And I made a corollary point earlier on this thread:

The more neutral an audio system, the less it colors the music with ITS OWN SIGNATURE. The less an audio system colors the music with its own signature, the more you will hear THE SIGNATURE OF THE MUSIC.

Learsfool – I believe that a recurring disagreement between us is whether the following two things are the same:

(1) The characteristics of GOOD MUSICAL PLAYBACK.
(2) The characteristics of A GOOD PLAYBACK SYSTEM.

I think that you believe that (1) and (2) are the same. I believe that (1) and (2) are often different, and sometimes opposite. Take neutrality, for example. You have said that neutrality is not a characteristic of GOOD MUSICAL PLAYBACK. As you have pointed out, musicians and recording engineers do not want their music to sound “neutral.” I completely agree with this.

But you seem to conclude from the fact that neutrality is not a characteristic of GOOD MUSICAL PLAYBACK that neutrality is not a characteristic of A GOOD PLAYBACK SYSTEM. I disagree with that conclusion. The assumption underlying your conclusion seems to be that, if a playback system is neutral, it will make the music played back on it sound neutral. I believe that assumption is false, as I said in an earlier post:

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

Because of this, I believe that the characteristics of good musical playback and the characteristics of a good playback system are not the same, and sometimes opposite.

Learsfool wrote:

Many audiophiles do use EQ for many other purposes besides room correction…I would think that almost all of these other uses of EQ would be a violation of your "neutrality" principles, if I understand them correctly (for instance, wanting to make a violin's extreme high register sound less harsh), would they not?

I don’t use EQ for any other purpose than room correction, and the EQ I’m using precedes any D/A conversion. Like many audiophiles, I would be very hesitant to run an analog signal through a multiband equalizer for playback, mostly because of concerns about the loss of resolution.

But your 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.

My own view is that both component-level neutrality and system-level neutrality are important. A neutral room will make it easier to achieve a neutral system. In this respect, it is probably the most important component in the system.

Newbee wrote:

But [this thread] does seem to have morf'd into something completely different from the original post where in, as I interpreted it, Bryon was informing us that he had discovered by increasing the quality of his components he was hearing far better replications of the recordings he was playing and he could hear differences that had previously lost. No problem there! Most anyone willing to be called an audiophile would agree with that - we've all been there/done that.

Newbee - Your interpretation of my original post, as described above, misses the central point of it: To propose an operationalization of the concept of ‘neutrality.’ I doubt that many audiophiles would say that they had “been there/done that” with respect to operationalizing the concept of ‘neutrality.’

Newbee wrote:

Despite noble attempts, perhaps even Herculean, by Bryon I doubt that any of us really agree on the subtle differences if any (I can tell by deeply gazing into my crystal ball).

There is no evidence in this thread to support that conclusion. So far, my proposals have received support from Shadorne, Almarg, Dgarretson, and Cbw723. Notable detractors have included you, Learsfool, Blindjim, Kijanski, and Hamburg. That is a fairly even split. I usually resist the temptation to keep score, since it lowers the tenor of the conversation, but your comment misrepresents the composition of views on this thread.

Newbee wrote:

…assuming that we have discussed adequately all of the philosophical issues, how does the aspiring audiophile utilize anything in this post to help him achieve his goals? Al, a degree perhaps, but in what. :-)

Newbee - It seems you don’t believe this discussion is valuable to audiophiles. This is apparently a change of heart, because until recently, you were among the thread’s most active contributors. It is unfortunate, and perhaps revealing, that you question the value of this thread on the same day that another poster expressed how much he values it.

As far as answering the question, “how does the aspiring audiophile utilize anything in this post [sic] to help him achieve his goals?” my answer is:

Expertise in any domain is involves both the development of concepts and the development of perception. (Some forms of expertise also involve the development of motor skills, but that is not relevant here.) The acquisition and refinement of concepts, which much of this thread has been devoted to, facilitates the development of expert perception. That is to say, improving the way you think about things improves the way you see and hear things.

The symphony conductor’s acquisition and refinement of musical concepts improves his expert perception of music. The psychologist’s acquisition and refinement of psychological concepts improves his expert perception of human behavior. And the audiophile’s acquisition and refinement of audio concepts improves his expert perception of the playback of recorded music. It seems to me that the value of an audiophile developing expert perception of the playback of recorded music is self-evident.

I think Bryon and Almarg addressed most of Learsfool's comments, but I'd like to add something on this point:

To be clear, I am not suggesting that room correction is worthless, indeed these systems can make a big difference; I just wonder - how do you know when it has been corrected? Again, only you can answer that for yourself, and your answer may be very different from any other given audiophile's.

Typically with room correction there is a fair amount of objectivity in the process. You play frequency sweeps through the system and then look at the response curve, with the goal of setting filters to reduce peaks caused by room modes. Some systems do this entirely automatically, though I believe that the manual approach is still better. But I don't think this is the same as setting the system so it sounds good to the individual. It is set to neutralize room modes, and as a byproduct the system sounds better.

This is really not all that different from voicing a system by moving speakers around and looking at the results on a real time analyzer. A properly treated room with well-placed speakers is an attempt to minimize the coloration caused by the room. But a lot of folks have limited options for treatments and speaker placement, and for them, room EQ is a viable alternative for achieving less system coloration.

Almarg wrote:

If a system is truly accurate yet still results in a lifeless/soulless sound, then it seems to me that there is a problem with the recording(s) being listened to. In that case, it seems to me to be perfectly legitimate to introduce some modest degree of inaccuracy into the system, such as non-flat frequency response, to compensate. The price that will be paid is that other recordings which are more accurate and transparent will then no longer be reproduced to their full potential.

I mentioned in an earlier post that it is now possible to provide different EQ for every song in your library. (The capability is a bit crude now, and would be difficult to implement for analog sources, but there are no technological hurdles to this capability.) This is the have your cake and eat it too scenario. You could fix up the recordings that need it, and leave the others alone. One could imagine adding other tools besides just EQ: volume graphing, dynamic range enhancement, etc.

On that same point, this capability appears to be one (less Rube Goldbergesque) way of achieving greater contrast within and among recordings, even to the point of exceeding the contrast in the source. Which would, by the definition given in the OP, increase neutrality. (While also being less accurate, and possibly more or less transparent.)

So, again, do we need to rein in neutrality with some counterinfluence beyond a simple monotonic relationship with contrast? There are a couple of approaches that one would ordinarily use:

1) Instead of a simple linear function, you would add a saturation term. Lets use "N" for neutrality and "C" for contrast. Lower case letters will be constants. We have something like N = a + b*C. But we could add a term to cause neutrality to saturate and even reverse: N = a + b*C - d*C^2 (where "C^2" is C squared). Here, d would be small, so that for small C the linear term dominates, but when we get to larger C, the C^2 term dominates. Thus, for increasing contrast, you get increasing neutrality to a point, then the function rolls over and neutrality starts to decrease.

2) You can leave the function alone, but introduce another function whose behavior is in the opposite direction. Say the parameter in question is X, then you have X = c + d*C, where d is negative. Note that it doesn't have to be C, contrast, but could be some other parameter tied to C. You then adjust the coefficients so that the intersection of the two lines is ideally neutral and ideally X. On one side of that point you want to increase contrast, on the other, you want to decrease contrast (or the related parameter).

The problem with both of these approaches is that you need a reference point of some sort. In #1 you need to know how much contrast is too much. In #2, you need to define ideal neutrality (and ideal X) so you can set your intersection. I confess I don't know how to do that, though I think the answer might be found in knowing what things actually sound like. But that gets back to my earlier question: If one could define that point, would it alone be a sufficient condition for neutrality? And if one can't define the point, how do we know when too much contrast is too much?

FWIW, amoungst my failings, please include a total lack of editing skills. Total! :-)

Gee, I was only gone for a week or so and I come back to find this thread still active. But it does seem to have morf'd into something completely different from the original post where in, as I interpreted it, Bryon was informing us that he had discovered by increasing the quality of his components he was hearing far better replications of the recordings he was playing and he could hear differences that had previously lost. No problem there! Most anyone willing to be called an audiophile would agree with that - we've all been there/done that.

Then we argued at great length the meaning(s) of the words 'neutrality', 'transparency', 'resolution', and lastly (thanks to Al) a word, which for me is easier to grasp, 'accurate'. Despite noble attempts, perhaps even Herculean, by Bryon I doubt that any of us really agree on the subtle differences if any (I can tell by deeply gazing into my crystal ball).

Now we have moved on to discussing acceptable synergy, or attempts at synergy, which are consonant with recreating a feeling of being in the presence of live music or in the studio listening to the music over the studio monitors as heard by the recording engineers.

Sort of a fundamental objective of most audiophiles. One group wants to hear a replication of the sounds of live music, the other group wants to hear as closely as possible what is in the pits and grooves. And, I think, we agree that these are for the most part not mutually achievable and most audiophiles make a chose between these goals when setting up or, more likely, enhancing an extant system.

Some folks think you can only get there with tubes. The 'live' group I think.

Some folks think you can only get there thru SS stuff. The fidelity to the recording group I think.

Some folks think you can only get there thru Analog.
Some folks think you can only get there thru HiRes digital. The divergence seems endless. I'm a true heretic. I'm into playing with and fine tuning with tubes! I'm standing in line to be burned at the stake.

Which leads me to ask, assuming that we have discussed adequately all of the philosophical issues, how does the aspiring audiophile utilize anything in this post to help him achieve his goals?

Al, a degree perhaps, but in what. :-)

Hi Bryon - obviously, the room has a big effect on how the system sounds, I am not arguing this at all, in fact I believe I said this in my post, and I also said that I agreed that room correction systems can make a huge difference. My point was that "changes to the signal in the equipment," even assuming they are only via room correction still do not necessarily result in either more or less "neutrality", "transparency", or "accuracy". I have heard "room correction" in an enthusiastic dealer's showroom that resulted in a very dead, lifeless sound as well -it depends on how it is applied, which depends on who is applying it. Unless I am very much mistaken, it is not possible to remove all of the effects of room nodes and other similar acoustic phenomena, no matter how good the room correction system is. These phenomena are a part of what gives all great concert halls their individual character, for instance.

Sorry for misunderstanding that your EQ comment only applied to room correction, by the way. I was also not speaking specifically of your system, the question was meant as a general one. Many audiophiles do use EQ for many other purposes besides room correction (I do not), as has been mentioned in this thread, with posted links about it, and I was asking your opinion on these uses as well. I would think that almost all of these other uses of EQ would be a violation of your "neutrality" principles, if I understand them correctly (for instance, wanting to make a violin's extreme high register sound less harsh), would they not?

Bryon: THE SYSTEM = THE EQUIPMENT + THE ROOM

Exactly, at least in the context in which we have been discussing it. I explicitly made the same point in my post yesterday:

Almarg: Perhaps that distinction can be further refined if we say that accuracy pertains exclusively to the system (including the room, of course), while transparency must encompass consideration of the source material as well as the system.

Learsfool: There is also the "flat frequency response" thing we have already discussed in this thread - no concert hall has a flat frequency response - this simply doesn't sound good for the live event, so to try to create it in your system seems pointless (and usually results in a very lifeless/soulless sound, IME).

Ideally the recording should capture the acoustic characteristics of the hall, as they exist at some presumably well chosen location within it. If that recording is then played back on a system that has flat frequency response (and that has good accuracy in other respects) then it will accurately reproduce those hall characteristics, including any deviations from frequency response flatness, as well as ambiance, reverberation, etc.

If a system is truly accurate yet still results in a lifeless/soulless sound, then it seems to me that there is a problem with the recording(s) being listened to. In that case, it seems to me to be perfectly legitimate to introduce some modest degree of inaccuracy into the system, such as non-flat frequency response, to compensate. The price that will be paid is that other recordings which are more accurate and transparent will then no longer be reproduced to their full potential.

That is a classic audiophile conundrum, and each listener must ultimately try to find the balance that is most satisfactory to him or her, between making great recordings sound their best and making average recordings sound as good as possible.

The "lower noise floor" is also a topic of much division among audiophiles - take my brother's Nottingham turntable, a line which is well known for it's "black background." To my ears, the sacrifice made here to attain this is the removal of too much of what some call "low level information," for example a loss of much of the sense of the sound of the actual musical event/space that was recorded. Live music does not exist in a vacuum, even in a very dead recording studio - the sound of the space is an integral part of the music.

It is pretty well established that low level high frequency hiss creates or enhances the subjective perception of space or hall ambiance. I suspect that is what is behind your observation. In the early days of the cd medium (and perhaps still today, to a lesser extent), that was undoubtedly a contributing factor to the frequent complaints of dry sound, lack of ambiance, etc., because the increase in perceived hall ambiance resulting from low level surface noise on lp's often seemed preferable in comparison. (In the early days of cd the problem was often exacerbated by improper dither or lack of dither in the recording process, and of course the a/d converters that were used in the recording process then were inferior to what is available today).

Can dynamics really be exaggerated above those of the recording by the kind of equipment available to the consumer? If so, how does the exaggeration of dynamics affect, for example, transient information? If you have other ideas and/or experiences of how sacrificing accuracy can sometimes increase transparency, I would love to hear about them.

On the specific question of what kinds of system inaccuracies might lead to an increase in perceived dynamic contrasts, I'm not really certain. Perhaps what is referred to as overshoot in the pulse response of an electronic component or speaker, which can somewhat simplistically be considered as being essentially an overemphasis in the treble region. Perhaps (I'm just speculating here) increases in higher-order harmonic distortion can also lead to a similar subjective perception.

In any event, as I indicated in my post last night, I was speaking more generally:

The inaccuracies I was referring to would not necessarily (or even typically) be "exaggerations." They would be either complementary colorations (a simple illustrative example being a frequency response inaccuracy in the system offsetting a complementary inaccuracy in the recording), or they would be inaccuracies in the system which smooth over, obscure, or homogenize inaccuracies in the recording.

And speaking still more generally, I must say that this has evolved into one of the more remarkable threads I've ever seen at Audiogon (in a positive sense). It would seem to be verging on forming a good basis for a master's thesis, if not a doctoral dissertation!

Best regards,
-- Al

Learsfool wrote:

…it seems to me that if true "neutrality", "accuracy", and "transparency" could exist in a system, EQ would be completely unnecessary, and I was very surprised to see you mention it in this context.

Learsfool – I did not mention EQ in the context of our ongoing discussion about neutrality, accuracy, or transparency. If you look again at my post, you will see that my mention of EQ was in the context of a reply to Muralman’s suggestion that it is difficult to identify the contribution of each component in an audio system, and that systems that are complex suffer from this more than ones that are simple. Nowhere in Muralman’s posts, or in my reply to him, is there mention of neutrality, accuracy, or transparency. Muralman’s question was not about neutrality, accuracy, or transparency. But I found his question valid and interesting in its own right, and so I took the time to answer it as best I could.

It is worth mentioning that I never suggested that my own system is especially resolving, neutral, accurate, or transparent. I value each of those characteristics, and I would like to believe that I have achieved some measure of each of them. But I have left the specifics of my own system out of the discussion up until my last post, because I didn’t want the conversation to become a comparison of different equipment, which there is an abundance of on Audiogon. I broke my silence about the specifics of my own system only because Muralman brought up my system in his post as an illustration of his concern about complexity. It was in an attempt to answer his concern that I described some of the particulars of my system. But I do not regard my system as a model of any particular sonic characteristic. I mention this because you wrote the following:

Surely if a system is very "neutral," "transparent," or "accurate," it would not need any EQ?

This makes it sound as though I have characterized my system as “very ‘neutral,’ ‘transparent,’ or ‘accurate.’” I have not.

This brings me to your comment about the incompatibility of (1) valuing system neutrality, accuracy, or transparency; and (2) the use of EQ in the context of room correction. You wrote:

It seems to me that by applying EQ, you are not faithful or truthful either to the recording or the musical event that it represents.

I disagree with this. The use of EQ for room correction is usually a matter of using notch filters to suppress room modes. As you no doubt know, room modes are frequencies that result in standing waves, the volume of which can easily be exaggerated by 10dB or more. If left uncorrected, standing waves make music sound bloated, uneven, and slow. Standing waves can be corrected either through room treatments or through EQ. For those who do not have a dedicated room (like me), the use of EQ for room correction can be a very effective option for controlling the destructive effects of room modes.

The use of EQ, in the way just described, is not a move away from system neutrality, accuracy, or transparency. In fact, it is the opposite, as anyone who has heard the effects can testify to. The result of suppressing the room modes in my system made the system more neutral, more accurate, and more transparent. The measure of this is not merely the flatter frequency response achieved under 200Hz. The measure of this is the perception of the listener.

Your comment that “Surely if a system is very ‘neutral,’ ‘transparent,’ or ‘accurate,’ it would not need any EQ?” seems to reveal an assumption that:

THE SYSTEM = THE EQUIPMENT

If we substitute “the equipment” for “system” in your question, then it would read: “Surely if the equipment is very ‘neutral,’ ‘transparent,’ or ‘accurate,’ it would not need any EQ?” I would agree with this rhetorical question IF I believed that the system = the equipment. But I believe that:

THE SYSTEM = THE EQUIPMENT + THE ROOM

That is why, in a previous post, I wrote:

…it is useful to conceptualize accuracy in terms of information, specifically, the information available at the source vs. the information presented at the ear. (I say “at the ear,” rather than “at the speaker,” since the room, and your listening position in it, are ultimately part of the system).

The alteration of the signal for the purposes of room correction seems like a deviation from system neutrality, transparency, and accuracy ONLY IF you believe that the system = the equipment. If the room is part of the audio system, then changes to the signal in the equipment do not necessarily result in less neutrality, transparency, or accuracy AT THE EAR. And that is where it counts.

Wow. Fascinating posts, Bryon. However, ultimately I remain unconvinced by your argument, though it is an impressive statement of your case. Just to take a couple of for instances, first the EQ issue. Surely if a system is very "neutral," "transparent," or "accurate," it would not need any EQ? It seems to me that by applying EQ, you are not faithful or truthful either to the recording or the musical event that it represents. Again, IMO you are merely changing the sound of your system (and the recording, of course) so that it represents your personal sonic priorities. There is also the "flat frequency response" thing we have already discussed in this thread - no concert hall has a flat frequency response - this simply doesn't sound good for the live event, so to try to create it in your system seems pointless (and usually results in a very lifeless/soulless sound, IME). The room correction issue is interesting, too - again, what is the standard that you are trying to correct the room to? I don't think any two audiophiles would perfectly agree on this. To be clear, I am not suggesting that room correction is worthless, indeed these systems can make a big difference; I just wonder - how do you know when it has been corrected? Again, only you can answer that for yourself, and your answer may be very different from any other given audiophile's. The "lower noise floor" is also a topic of much division among audiophiles - take my brother's Nottingham turntable, a line which is well known for it's "black background." To my ears, the sacrifice made here to attain this is the removal of too much of what some call "low level information," for example a loss of much of the sense of the sound of the actual musical event/space that was recorded. Live music does not exist in a vacuum, even in a very dead recording studio - the sound of the space is an integral part of the music. This is particularly noticeable in moments of silence within the music. As John Cage famously demonstrated with his piece 4'30", silence is never really silence in a concert hall.

Sorry about the rambling - I'm under the weather, and never was the clearest writer - your posts are much better than mine in that regard! I just wanted to share the thoughts that came to me as I read your interesting posts. I would be particularly interested in your answer to my first question about the EQ issue, as it seems to me that if true "neutrality", "accuracy", and "transparency" could exist in a system, EQ would be completely unnecessary, and I was very surprised to see you mention it in this context.

(i) The target of the concept of ‘accuracy’ is the RECORDING, whereas the target of the concept of ‘transparency’ is the MUSICAL EVENT that the recording represents.

(ii) In some cases, sacrificing some accuracy (to the recording) may increase transparency (to the musical event).

Bryon, yes that is an excellent restatement of what I was trying to express.

I'll try to present further thoughts tomorrow on your reservations concerning the second point. But my quick initial thought is that the inaccuracies I was referring to would not necessarily (or even typically) be "exaggerations." They would be either complementary colorations (a simple illustrative example being a frequency response inaccuracy in the system offsetting a complementary inaccuracy in the recording), or they would be inaccuracies in the system which smooth over, obscure, or homogenize inaccuracies in the recording.

Best regards,
-- Al

Almarg wrote:

Since the source material will essentially always deviate to some degree and in some manner from being precisely accurate relative to the original event, then it can be expected that some deviation from accuracy in the system may in many cases be complementary to the inaccuracies of the recording (at least subjectively), resulting in a greater transparency into the music than a more precisely accurate system would provide.

Al - This is a fascinating idea. If I understand you correctly, you are saying two things:

(i) The target of the concept of ‘accuracy’ is the RECORDING, whereas the target of the concept of ‘transparency’ is the MUSICAL EVENT that the recording represents.

(ii) In some cases, sacrificing some accuracy (to the recording) may increase transparency (to the musical event).

Regarding (i), I am in complete agreement. I think your observation about the differences between the respective targets of the concepts of ‘accuracy’ and ‘transparency’ captures both the usage of the terms among audiophiles as well as the underlying metaphors that those terms invoke.

Regarding (ii), I am in agreement, but in a more tentative way. I have actually been giving this topic some thought over the last few days, in the context of mulling over Cbw’s Rube Goldberg machine, viz., an audio system that exaggerates contrasts. Cbw raised it as a possible challenge to my operationalization of ‘neutrality’ presented in the original post, but I’ve been thinking more about whether an audio system that exaggerates certain contrasts, while not being truthful to the recording, might be more truthful to the musical event that the recording represents. Or, to use your observation, the question is whether an audio system that exaggerates certain contrasts might sacrifice some accuracy for the sake of greater transparency.

The sonic characteristic I’ve been thinking about in particular is dynamics. In light of the fact that so much compression is used in music recording, a playback system that exaggerated dynamics swings, while not being strictly truthful to the recording, might be more truthful to the musical event that was recorded (prior to the use of compression). That idea makes complete sense to me.

Yet my agreement with (ii) above is tentative, for two reasons. The first is that there are other sonic characteristics, like timbre, that do not seem like they would benefit from exaggeration. The second is that my technical understanding of how exaggerations in contrast might be achieved is limited. For example, can dynamics really be exaggerated above those of the recording by the kind of equipment available to the consumer? If so, how does the exaggeration of dynamics affect, for example, transient information? If you have other ideas and/or experiences of how sacrificing accuracy can sometimes increase transparency, I would love to hear about them.

Muralman wrote:

How, with all the layers of components can one know if one component addition or change makes a difference on it's own or is it a lost in complex relationships with the other components.

I said a few things about this subject in an earlier post on this thread. Here is what I wrote:

It is, of course, impossible to hear a component individually. We can only hear it in the context of a system. Because of this inescapable fact, there is always a potential fallacy when we hear a characteristic of an audio system and then attribute that characteristic to an individual component. A system might sound bright. Is it the speakers? Is it the cd player? Is it an impedance matching issue? If we get this wrong, we’ve made the Fallacy of Division, i.e., the misattribution of a system characteristic to one of the system’s components.

Muralman – I quite agree with you that audio systems are HOLISTIC, in the sense that the system-level characteristics are a result of the complex interaction of all of the system’s components. But it seems to me that our understanding of audio systems is almost always MECHANISTIC, in the sense that we try to reduce system-level characteristics to component-level characteristics. That is, I believe, more of an artifact of our minds than of the audio systems we are trying to understand. Hence I also wrote:

… the attempt to reduce system characteristics to component characteristics is unavoidable. It is fallible. But it is what we have.

Muralman - I believe you are saying that, the more complex a system gets, the more difficult it will be to attribute system-level characteristics to individual components. I agree with this. I do not completely agree, however, with your conclusion:

It has been my experience less is more. My wires can't be more simple. The DAC lacks a filter chip. The preamp is spartan. Every little change proclaims itself loudly, training me to go simple.

I don’t have a problem with this idea, in theory. In practice, it has not always been my experience. I can give two examples from assembling my system.

Example #1: The use of Room EQ Wizard software in combination with Meridian Room Correction made a dramatic difference in the quality of bass I was able to achieve in my listening room. This is reflected in a much flatter in-room frequency response below 200Hz, as well as the subjective impression, confirmed by other listeners, that my EQ work significantly improved the timing and transparency of my system. Meridian Room Correction involves intensive real time computation. It is not simple.

Example #2: The addition of a reclocker between my transport and my dac improved my system in at least four areas: (1) increased perceived resolution; (2) better imaging focus; (3) less shrillness in high frequencies; and (4) lower noise floor. The reclocker discards the timing data of a digital audio stream and reclocks the audio data using a high precision clock, thereby reducing jitter. Also, not simple.

Muralman - You mentioned my system in your post, so I assume your comments about the drawbacks of system complexity were triggered by the relative complexity of my system. While I agree that complexity provides more opportunities to get things wrong, I think in some cases, it provides opportunities to correct things that are already going wrong. Having said that, it is probably significant that the two examples I mentioned are both in the digital domain. If you look at my system from the point at which it becomes analog, you will notice that it is quite simple: The preamp is in the same unit as the dac (the Meridian), followed by 1 meter of analog interconnects, followed by a Pass amp of very simple design, followed by 2 meters of speaker cable to the speakers. This reflects my partial agreement with you about the value of simplicity.

Good link Shadorne, thanks.

Muralman - Absolutely agree - less is more. 0.5m IC is much better than 1m IC and every addition takes away from clarity. I keep cables as short as possible and use DACs volume control to avoid using preamp. Some people claim that adding preamp improves sound. It can happen if you have impedance mismatch (driving problems) but extra component in the chain cannot improve anything. This component might add even harmonics that many people like or add a little THD to make sound less sterile but cannot improve clarity. In certain cases we trade one thing for another like getting upsampling DAC (and therefore filtering) to defeat jitter but in general less is more IMHO

I need to add something. It has been my experience less is more. My wires can't be more simple. The DAC lacks a filter chip. The preamp is spartan. Every little change proclaims itself loudly, training me to go simple. The end result spotlights the depth of material gathered onto the lowly CD.

Thus my question. How, with all the layers of components can one know if one component addition or change makes a difference on it's own or is it a lost in complex relationships with the other components.

Bryon, that all strikes me as brilliantly conceived and brilliantly expressed!

And I agree just about completely.

The one thing I would add concerns the discussion at the end of your post about the relationship between transparency and accuracy. I agree that "accuracy invokes our understanding of truthfulness ..." while "transparency invokes the metaphor of seeing through a medium (the audio system) to something behind it (the music)."

Perhaps that distinction can be further refined if we say that accuracy pertains exclusively to the system (including the room, of course), while transparency must encompass consideration of the source material as well as the system.

A perfectly accurate system, referring to your equation 2, would be one that resolves everything that is fed into it, and reproduces what it resolves with complete neutrality. Another way of saying that is perhaps that what is reproduced at the listener's ears corresponds precisely to what is fed into the system.

Which does not necessarily make that system optimal in terms of transparency. Since the source material will essentially always deviate to some degree and in some manner from being precisely accurate relative to the original event, then it can be expected that some deviation from accuracy in the system may in many cases be complementary to the inaccuracies of the recording (at least subjectively), resulting in a greater transparency into the music than a more precisely accurate system would provide.

Which does not mean that the goals of accuracy and transparency are necessarily inconsistent or in conflict. It simply means, as I see it, that the correlation between them, although substantial, is less than perfect.

Best regards,
-- Al

Hello Bryon,

I love your read. Since I was impressed with your thoughts on system attributes, I took the liberty to check out your system. There I noticed you have every base covered with laudable name brand audio gear. Positive feedback can be found on each component in your system.

I believe you have spent a lot of time and money building your system. Given that each addition is only as strong as the whole, how do you know the real worth of each element old or new?

Almarg wrote:

...if throughout this thread the word "accuracy" had been substituted for the word "neutrality," the amount of controversy and disagreement might have been significantly less.

And I replied:

...the concept of ‘neutrality’ fails to reduce to the concept of ‘accuracy’ without an undesirable consequence, namely, the diminishment of conceptual precision for situations that audiophiles commonly face.

Although I disagreed with Al’s substitution of ‘accuracy’ for ‘neutrality,’ his suggestion stuck with me, because something about it seemed to be essentially correct. This morning I got around to mulling it over, and I came up with a new proposal, one that I believe captures the spirit of Al’s suggestion while also preserving as much conceptual precision as possible. The proposal is:

'Accuracy' is a SECOND-ORDER CONCEPT that includes both 'resolution' and 'neutrality.'

A second-order concept is a concept that subsumes other concepts. In biology, for example, ‘genus’ is a second-order concept relative to the first-order concept ‘species.’ The relation between second-order and first-order concepts in science is analogous to the relation between sets and subsets in mathematics and logic. That is to say, first-order concepts are members of second-order concepts the way that subsets are members of sets.

To say that ‘accuracy’ is a second-order concept, then, is to say that ‘accuracy’ is a concept that includes, as its members, the concepts of ‘resolution’ and ‘neutrality.’ We can add this definition of 'accuracy' to our expanding lexicon on this thread:

RESOLUTION: The amount of information presented by a component or system.

NEUTRALITY: The degree to which a component or system is free from coloration.

TRANSPARENCY: The degree to which a component or system is sonically “invisible.”

And now…

ACCURACY: The degree to which a component or system is both resolving and neutral.

In my last post, I suggested that it is useful to think of a system’s accuracy in terms of information, specifically the information available on the recording vs. the information presented “at the ear.” Under that conceptualization, a system is accurate to the extent that it does not add, subtract, or alter information. My new proposal that ‘accuracy’ is a second-order concept that includes ‘resolution’ and ‘neutrality’ is implicit in the conceptualization of ‘accuracy’ in terms of information, since the diminishment of resolution or neutrality by the addition, subtraction, or alteration of information is NECESSARILY a diminishment of accuracy.

In my last post, I offered an example that I believe illustrated (1) that ‘neutrality’ and ‘accuracy’ are not identical concepts; and (2) that the concept of ‘neutrality’ does not reduce to the concept of ‘accuracy’ without the unwanted diminishment of conceptual precision. Al’s suggestion that we should substitute the word ‘accuracy’ for the word ‘neutrality’ contained an important insight, however, which is that the concepts of ‘neutrality’ and ‘accuracy’ are INTRINSICALLY RELATED. The current proposal is about exactly how they are related. My view is that the concepts of 'resolution' and 'neutrality' are first-order concepts that can be subsumed under the second-order concept of 'accuracy.' In other words, the concepts of 'resolution' and 'neutrality' CONSTITUTE the concept of 'accuracy' in audio. Because of this, the concept of 'accuracy' can be REDUCED TO the concepts of ‘resolution’ and ‘neutrality.’ Or:

‘ACCURACY’ = ‘RESOLUTION’ + ‘NEUTRALITY’

A note on the “reduction” of concepts: A concept A is reducible to a concept B to the extent that B has the same explanatory and predictive power in A’s theoretic domains. Like everything else in life, reduction is imperfect. But like many imperfect things, it is also valuable.

At the heart of Al’s suggestion that we substitute the term ‘accuracy’ for the term ‘neutrality’ is, I believe, the recognition that the use of the two concepts often amounts to the same thing. My new proposal is intended to be a refinement of that important insight.

A few words, by way of footnote, on how this discussion dovetails with earlier ones. In a previous post, I offered the following equation:

EQUATION #1
RESOLUTION + NEUTRALITY = TRANSPARENCY

This was meant to suggest that systems that were both highly resolving and highly neutral would also be highly transparent, NOT that the concept of ‘transparency’ is reducible to the concepts of ‘resolution’ and ‘neutrality.’

In this post, I have proposed that the concept of ‘accuracy’ can be reduced to the concepts of ‘resolution’ and ‘neutrality,’ represented by the equation:

EQUATION #2
‘ACCURACY’ = ‘RESOLUTION’ + ‘NEUTRALITY’

Unlike Equation #1, Equation #2 is a first and foremost a statement about concepts, though it entails that systems that are highly accurate are precisely the same systems that are highly resolving and highly neutral.

As you have probably noticed, resolution and neutrality are equated with TRANSPARENCY in Equation #1, whereas they are equated with ACCURACY in Equation #2. This raises the question: What is the relation between transparency and accuracy? My answer:

EQUATION #3
TRANSPARENCY = ACCURACY

Like Equation #1, Equation #3 is about characteristics of components and systems, NOT about the concepts that represent those characteristics. Equation #3 is meant to suggest that systems that are highly accurate are the same systems that are highly transparent. The concepts of ‘accuracy’ and ‘transparency,’ however, may not be reducible to one another, in light of the fact that they invoke different kinds of understanding and different metaphors. ‘Accuracy’ invokes our understanding of truthfulness (e.g., an accurate description) and perhaps measurement (e.g., an accurate scientific instrument). ‘Transparency’ invokes the metaphor of seeing through a medium (the audio system) to something behind it (the music). For this reason, the concept of ‘accuracy’ and the concept of ‘transparency’ may not be interchangeable, but I believe that those two concepts refer to the very same virtue in an audio system.

When you limit a driver in the frequency domain, you also limit it in the time domain. I've heard it often, especially in bass drivers. When the bass driver is cut off over "X" frequency vs. running full range, bass becomes slow and lacks punch, timing, impact and rhythm.

This might be because the attack of the bass drum or toms is around 5 Khz. Slap of bass guitar is around 3 to 5 KHz.

See this explanation of how to achieve desired sounds.

When you limit a driver in the frequency domain, you also limit it in the time domain. I've heard it often, especially in bass drivers. When the bass driver is cut off over "X" frequency vs. running full range, bass becomes slow and lacks punch, timing, impact and rhythm.

Not all ATC's are neutral. The SCM 11 is described by John Marks as having a "smiley face" F-R. Although the 2nd order x-over could have be one reason they sound good.

Narrow dispersion such as Snell with +/-15 degree dispersion could reduce room effects and increase "neutrality".

Loss of transparency can come from a lot of things. Driver distortion, crossover distortion, delayed sounds that come from a heavy, underdamped, cabinet; heavy drivers that resonate, time delays between drivers. Flat F-R is only one component.

I disagree that a $50,000 system will always sound more enjoyable than a $300 system. Throwing a lot of money at audio doesn't guarantee good sound. I have found that while an expensive system can have more detail, bass, volume, on and on for the most part, I simply don't like how they sound. Maybe it's because they expose TOO much - the bad as well as the good. And that goes for the systems shwoing off its own arts as well. While I can appreciate all their audiophile traits, I simply don't like how most high end systems sound. Meaning if you just kick back and listen without being critical of every nit (how audiophile's are trained to listen) do you enjoy the experience.

Bryoncunningham, to expand further on your discussion about accuracy and neutrality: The perception of coloration is going to occur mainly in the midrange. This is due to our sensitivity to voices and instruments in the voice range, ie. 200-1000 Hz. And as discussed before, the overtones and undertones add the finishing touches to both the perception of neutrality and accuracy.

You mention the differences of systems missing the sub 30Hz information vs. systems that have it. We can hear those differences everyday comparing either a car stereo or TV to our hifi system. And everyone can notice the "fullness" of sound as I like to call it from our hifi's that is missing from lessor sound reproduction systems. And that is what we pay for in terms of cost and size of both our system and dedicated listening space. The ability to reproduce the entire audio spectrum faithfully requires not only transducers of significant size but also significant power and speed (speed requires power too).

Take for example the ability to reproduce the cannons in T's 1812 overture. I can imagine very few systems exist in homes that can leave one feeling a cannon was just fired in their living rooms. It takes tremendous power to reproduce that impulse of a cannon shot. One, if so inclined to play this song, is likely better off firing a real cannon in their living room at the appropriate times and resigning themselves to replacing a few windows. While this may seem like a shortcut or "giving up" as it were, it will avoid a lot of time, money and frustration in trying to build a hifi system that can meet all parameters of music- including cannon fire. Maybe for the sake of our neighbors and windows, save the real cannon fire for special occasions.

Fortunately, most of us audiophiles mature past playing the 1812 overture (I did so by my mid-20's) and move on to the more pragmatic issues of building a satisfying hifi system that lets us put aside all the technical hurdles in our minds and just enjoy the music.

Almarg wrote:

...if throughout this thread the word "accuracy" had been substituted for the word "neutrality," the amount of controversy and disagreement might have been significantly less.

Al – I think you are probably correct that, if we were to substitute the term ‘accuracy’ for the term ‘neutrality,’ there would be less disagreement in these discussions. But the cost of that substitution, in my view, is the loss of a small but significant degree of conceptual precision. That is because there are circumstances that an audiophile commonly faces where the concept of ‘neutrality’ does not fully reduce to the concept of ‘accuracy.’

To see this, it is useful to conceptualize accuracy in terms of information, specifically, the information available at the source vs. the information presented at the ear. (I say “at the ear,” rather than “at the speaker,” since the room, and your listening position in it, are ultimately part of the system). If we think of accuracy in terms of information, there are three kinds of deviation from accuracy:

(1) The ADDITION of information.
(2) The SUBTRACTION of information.
(3) The ALTERATION of information.

Examples of each of these might be:

(1) ADDITION: Intermodulation distortion.
(2) SUBTRACTION: Loss of frequency extremes.
(3) ALTERATION: Phase inversion.

My view is that the ADDITION of information is often (perhaps always) a deviation from neutrality. I have used the example of intermodulation distortion throughout this thread, because it seems to me an uncontroversial example of a how the addition of information can be a deviation from neutrality, in the sense of adding COLORATION.

However, the SUBTRACTION of information, while a deviation from ACCURACY, does not always seem to be a deviation from NEUTRALITY. Consider the example of loss of frequency extremes. I don’t think most audiophiles would be inclined to think of a system that failed to present the bottom 30Hz of information as not neutral, in the sense of COLORED, but they might be inclined to think of it as somewhat less accurate than an identical system that did present the bottom 30Hz of information.

To my mind, this illustrates (a) that ‘neutrality’ and ‘accuracy’ are not identical concepts; and (b) that the concept of ‘neutrality’ fails to reduce to the concept of ‘accuracy’ without an undesirable consequence, namely, the diminishment of conceptual precision for situations that audiophiles commonly face.

Cbw723 wrote:

While neutrality, as operationalized here, resists the suppression of contrast, it doesn't appear to resist its exaggeration.

Cbw – I think you are correct that my proposal for the operationalization of ‘neutrality’ is not exhaustive because it would fail to identify as colored (i.e. not neutral) systems that exaggerate contrast. I agree with Al that, if we were to substitute the term ‘accuracy’ for ‘neutrality,’ then maybe my operationalization could be rescued from that criticism. But since I disagree with Al’s substitution, I cannot avail myself of his solution.

As you are of course aware, the hypothetical system you described, while conceptually possible, does not reflect how real audio components are actually designed and built. I understand that your hypothetical system is a thought experiment designed to highlight a theoretical shortcoming in my operationalization of ‘neutrality.’ While I acknowledge the THEORETICAL shortcoming, I wonder whether it is really a PRACTICAL shortcoming. It seems to me that the Rube Goldberg lengths your thought experiment had to go to meet the conditions of my operationalization reflects the fact that this is not likely to be a practical concern for the real world audiophile.

Cbw, loved your post! Almarg, I have always enjoyed your interesting and informative posts as well. In this case, however, although I see what you are driving at, I am not sure that the substitution of "accuracy" for "neutrality" really changes anything. Those who buy into the concept of neutrality will naturally make this equation of terms; however, those who do not would just as naturally not equate accuracy with it.

A designer of a piece of audio equipment I think certainly would attempt to be truthful to his reference point of live music (and actually, I would not consider that a "constraint" - that's an interesting choice of word - I prefer to think of it as the designer being "free" to try to create the sound he wants, and I am pretty sure the vast majority of designers would feel that way - many of them I think correctly consider themselves artists), but this reference point will still be different for every designer and for every listener. What sounds accurate to one will not to another. I usually ignore the term "accuracy" when encountering it in reviews, etc., unless it refers specifically to pitch accuracy, for example in reference to a turntable's speed accuracy.

Cbw, I think that the scenarios you have cited pinpoint some important points that underly some of the disagreements which have been rampant in this thread.

In my two posts dated 11/20, one of the things that I tried to express, but perhaps didn't as explicitly as I should have, is that if throughout this thread the word "accuracy" had been substituted for the word "neutrality," the amount of controversy and disagreement might have been significantly less.

To me those two terms, in the context of an audio system, mean essentially the same thing. But I'm not sure that they have been interpreted in the same sense by some of the others.

To a first approximation, what goes into the system and what comes out of the system should resemble each other as accurately as possible. Of course, there are then the obvious issues, that have been gone over multiple times in this thread, about not being able to know exactly what is going into the system, about euphonic inaccuracies resulting in sound that is subjectively more pleasing, etc., etc.

But as I see it, those issues, while often being highly significant, are second order effects. And if the word "neutrality" were understood to mean the same thing as "accuracy," which is how I and I believe Bryon and some others have been using the term, I think we would have seen a lesser degree of divergence in the viewpoints of many of the protagonists in this thread.

And by a similar substitution of terms, I believe that the conundrums which you have cleverly posed in your previous thread would be largely reconciled:

Neutrality, as operationalized here, resists the suppression of contrast, it doesn't appear to resist its exaggeration.... So somewhere in the operation of "neutrality" there is a necessary condition that the playback system maintain truthfulness to some reference point or points. How, exactly, one codes that constraint, I don't know. But if it were coded, would it, in and of itself, be a sufficient condition for neutrality?

Substitute the word "accuracy" for "neutrality" in this paragraph, and it seems to that, to the extent that it is practicable to judge accuracy, we resist both the suppression and the exaggeration of contrast.

And if we impose the constraint of truthfulness to some reference point, presumably the listener's prior exposure to live music, while we by no means obtain any certainty of optimal results (either objectively or subjectively), if we interpret "neutrality" in the sense of "accuracy," then I submit that typically there will be a considerable (and useful) degree of correlation, albeit a partial correlation, between the ability of a system to make different records sound different, and the likelihood of obtaining those optimal results.

On another note, happy Thanksgiving to all!

-- Al

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

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

I think he has a point, and that point raises an existential question.

Let's look at the continuum of neutrality as defined in this thread:

At one end of the spectrum, you have a system that plays back, say, a 1kHz tone, no matter what the source. This is the anti-neutral system: everything sounds exactly the same.

At the other end of the spectrum, consider a hypothetical system that processes the source, and through the use of pattern recognition, seeded pseudo-random number generators, and large variety of sampled sounds, effectively replaces the source with something else. One violin might sound like a subway train, another, slightly different violin might sound like a jackhammer, a cello sounds like a babbling brook shifted one octave up and slowed down by 20%. So we satisfy criterion #1: different instruments sound more different. (They just sound nothing like what they really are.)

Similarly, using the same system, we look at the first n bits of any recording (where n is large enough to insure uniqueness over the body of recorded music) and use those bits to seed our random numbers to insure that each recording sounds completely different from all of the others. So now we've satisfied criterion #2 of neutrality: any music collection sounds more diverse.

This absurd system would be, by our operation of the term, more neutral than anything any of us currently has. But I don't think it would lead to improved musical enjoyment. So clearly, within the idea of neutrality we are making assumptions about truthfulness to the source, and consistency of playback.

Which brings me back to Hamburg's point.

If we consider a system that smooths out recording artifacts, we also risk smoothing out sounds that are real features of the music, making the system less truthful (i.e., it suppresses real contrast). In Hamburg's example, the divergence from the truth is the unwarranted exaggeration of contrast. While neutrality, as operationalized here, resists the suppression of contrast, it doesn't appear to resist its exaggeration.

So somewhere in the operation of "neutrality" there is a necessary condition that the playback system maintain truthfulness to some reference point or points. How, exactly, one codes that constraint, I don't know. But if it were coded, would it, in and of itself, be a sufficient condition for neutrality?

I saw that in the posts- as independent researchers many of us come to similar conclusions. Perhaps we are on to something.

Tonywinsc - No, you didn't say anything to spoil the party. You have made several valuable observations, though some of your objections to neutrality have been discussed at length earlier in this thread. For example, you wrote:

Music is coloration- ie. a blend of sounds and overtones and the nuances of tonal responses. Every instrument, violin, piano, ect. has its own unique coloration as it were.

There has been much discussion on this thread about the distinction between coloration in music and recording, on the one hand, and coloration in playback systems, on the other. The consensus among Objectivists and Subjectivists alike is that coloration is an essential part of music and recording. The disagreement lies in whether coloration can be reduced in a playback system, whether it is desirable to do so, and if so, how. You may find reading the rest of the thread of use, and hopefully fun as well.

I, for one, welcome your contributions.

Bryon

Hey what happened? I hope I didn't say something to spoil the party. When I got into this hobby I had a modest system that I thought sounded pretty good until I befriended some audiophiles. That lead me to purchase an ARC SP-6b pre-amp in the late 80's. That pre-amp sounded wonderful but had coloration. It had a nice sound but was a bit too warm and veiled until my buddy upgraded the capacitors, resistors, rca jacks and wiring for me. I enjoyed that pre-amp for many years. And that lead me to upgrading components inside my speakers, amplifiers and turntable.

Breaking out the soldering iron is a satisfying side of this hobby but I finally began to step up into the higher cost, high end pieces. And I must say that while a lot of snake oil is out there, in general, you do get what you pay for in audio. I enjoyed maximizing my sound per dollar in the past and I still do tweaks here and there, but most of the expensive equipment out there sounds really good.

Someone said in an earlier post that we must remain objective in this hobby. I agree. It is good and healthy to hear other systems and realize someone may have something better than what we have. That helps give us direction to making improvements. Only once have I come home from a listening session and was ready to throw out my whole system. A friend at work had the most amazing stereo at the time that I had ever heard. I didn't know where to even start. But many years and $$$ later I think I am close. It wasn't jealousy, I just wanted to enjoy music like I did with his system.

I also wanted to say it is good to hear live music of various types to calibrate ourselves. Even listening to musicians on a street corner can provide insight into areas for improvement.

Lastly, recordings are all over the place. I have a few special recordings that are definitely key to hear on other systems for reference.

Music is coloration- ie. a blend of sounds and overtones and the nuances of tonal responses. Every instrument, violin, piano, ect. has its own unique coloration as it were. If your system can resolve the differences of one violin to another, for example, then I would think that is a very good stereo.

Trying to reproduce exactly what the recording engineer heard is an exercise in futility. Even if the recording engineer came to your house, he will not remember every nuance of tone and detail from the original recording session.

In the end your system will have the imprint of your sonic signature on it just as someone else's system will have their sonic signature. When I lived close to some hifi buddies in South Bend, In and Niles, Mi, we would come around and listen to our respective stereos and we all eventually agreed that we had some nice systems, each one being unique with their own +'s and -'s. We concluded that all systems will have their own unique sound and could enjoy any one of them. Additionally, the set-ups varied depending on our listening tastes as well. One friend was big into classical and did not like brightness one bit.

My system has changed over the years- I hope for the better, as my tastes have changed and as influenced by hearing other systems.

I was at a recital at my son's University a few weekends ago. An intmate, acoustic setting with a Grand Piano, flute and vocalist. (The vocalist did not use a microphone.) I was fortunate to sit 2nd row center seat. During the performance I closed my eyes and I could have been sitting in front of my stereo. The music was very satisfying and I was pleased to hear strong similarity to my stereo system in terms of tone, imaging and resolution. Would someone else that sat in that room and then in my living room come to the same conclusion? Perhaps but maybe not.

Flat frequency response in your listening room achieves nothing- that was my point.

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. I must have missed Hamburg's post - he is challenging on basically the same grounds, as you say. Dgarretson is probably correct that we should stick to describable aural phenomena, but that is indeed what makes discussion difficult. One person may not be able to hear what the other does, or one person may be fooling themselves into hearing something that isn't there, or they may disagree on what they do both hear, or be unable to describe it. That is why many objectivists decide to go only by the numbers - though I agree with Tony that that route will certainly lead to a dead end, whether in searching for neutrality or anything else. All one can do is trust one's own ears in the end, and try to develop a better sense of hearing, which can be done.

Tonywinse wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TO OPERATIONALIZE THE CONCEPT OF 'NEUTRALITY.'

In an earlier post, I wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very interesting thoughts, Bryon, points on the water analogy well taken. By the way, I did not mean to suggest that science or truth should be thrown out, and I am not quite sure what exactly about my post suggested that, though clearly it must have to more than one person. I also don't mean to suggest that you are left with nothing to evaluate your system with. Speaking of distortions, by the way, I should point out that there are many types of distortions that audiophiles greatly disagree on. Distortions are not necessarily bad - some of them occur quite naturally in live acoustic music, and the attempt to remove them digitally results in some very unnatural sounding timbres sometimes. Yet some would claim that the sound produced in this way is more "transparent," which someone else earlier in this thread suggested was another term for "neutral." I have heard many a dealer or audiophile brag about a digital system that they thought was so "transparent" or "neutral," and it turned out to be an extremely "analytical" and lifeless sounding system indeed. I realize that this is almost certainly not what you are talking about in your post, I just bring it up to point out another reason why I don't think you will ever have widespread agreement on a concept of neutrality - distortions are a whole other can of worms. I just carefully re-read your original post, and the subsequent one where you defined "neutrality" and I still don't think that just because 1) individual pieces sound more unique, and 2) your music collection sounds more diverse, that this necessarily leads to the conclusion that your system is more "neutral". IMO you are presenting a "begging the question" type argument. At least I think that is the logic term I mean, I would have to look it up to be sure. Anyway, it has been an interesting discussion, very thought-provoking.

Learsfool wrote:

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

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

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

Learsfool wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

With water, although all sources are indeed contaminated, we can identify the definite impurities, and there is no debate on the subject, because science call tell us what truly pure water would be like.

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

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

Interesting points, guys. Dgarretson, in general I agree with you - certainly a designer of a piece of audio equipment is not thinking of every timbre of every instrument when he "voices" his equipment. Though I do remember reading an interview with a very prominent current designer of an extremely high-end speaker where he said that he started out by trying to design one that made his guitar sound right, which was interesting, and it grew from there. I am sure that each individual designer does have a definite idea about how he wants the equipment to sound, however, and it is in this sense that I was speaking of (actually, I don't think I used the term - when I referred to the negatives of digital processing, I was referring to unintended effects that the designers are still trying to solve). This is part of the reason I argue that there can be no such thing as true "neutrality" in a piece of audio equipment - each is "colored" in this way by it's designer.

Bryon, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I will point out a flaw in your water analogy, though. With water, although all sources are indeed contaminated, we can identify the definite impurities, and there is no debate on the subject, because science call tell us what truly pure water would be like. We just don't have the technology to remove all of the impurities yet, as you said. This is certainly not the case with a piece of audio equipment. In high end audio, there will always be debate over what is a "coloration" and what is not. There is no way to know what this "neutrality" would be/sound like, since there is no single "absolute sound" to measure your "neutrality" with/against. All anyone can do is use their ears to decide whether the piece of equipment is an improvement towards our own individual ideal sound or not. Of course, there are those who don't listen and only go by the specs, but such a person wouldn't be following this particular thread anyway, I wouldn't think....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Bryon - I am once again thankful I became a musician, and not a writer. I tend to ramble and obscure the very points I am most trying to make. The answer I would make to your question in your last post is that I believe there is no such thing as a neutral audio system, nor could there be. Every piece of audio equipment is "colored," to use the popular phrase, very deliberately by its designer (otherwise why bother with another design?), just as every recording engineer very deliberately "colors" each recording, just as live music is "colored" by all sorts of variables. Hence, why I think that "neutrality" is a useless concept. I of course agree that a good audio system will make every recording sound different. I just don't think that has anything to do with "neutrality." Many audiophiles oppose the terms "colored" and "neutrality" in the way you do, but if no one can agree on what "neutrality" is, to me it logically follows that no one will completely agree on what "colored" is, either. Even if the "reference point" or "neutrality" is live, acoustic music, as it is for many of us, one can ask where? Which hall? How far back are you seated in said hall? Many audiophiles can't stand horn speakers, or electrostats. Many others won't listen to anything else. Some think vinyl still comes far closer to resolving acoustic instrumental and vocal tone color than anything digital sound has yet produced, others can't stand vinyl. To pick just two very basic, common examples. I think if there were such a thing as a definable, true "neutrality," we wouldn't have the variety in high end audio that we do. With all the great variety of great equipment out there, I think worrying about this elusive "neutrality" is pointless. Just decide what your sonic priorities are for your system, and build it/refine it accordingly. If you like the sound better, than that equipment is better for you - it really is that simple. I think of all of these audiophile terms as guides, not goals in themselves. They are ways in which we can communicate with each other about what we are hearing, since none of us hear the same. When I first started reading the audio mags and sites like this one in preparation for purchasing my system with my very limited funds, my approach in using them was to read them over a long period of time, so I could determine the reviewers/posters sonic preferences and how closely they accorded with my own (and often I learned the most from people I clearly disagreed with - this is very often much more instructive than people you usually agree with, IMO). This helped greatly in narrowing my equipment choices for serious auditioning (I generally listened at least briefly to pretty much anything I could get a chance to hear). But even after careful reading for over a year and a half, I was still sometimes quite surprised by what I heard. Then I would go back and re-read the reviews/posts in question to learn more about what these other people's preferences were, and how they thought about sound (again, I found this much more instructive in cases where I did not agree with the reviewer). I always found the term "neutral" to be the least helpful term out there, as I have heard pretty much every single piece of audio equipment described that way by somebody. In the end, my actual choices of course came down to what I thought sounded best within the parameters of budget, availability, etc. And of course since that time I have continued reading and talking with other audiophiles and musicians in preparation for the time when I can audition new equipment. I have of course also listened to a whole lot more equipment, and there are many other things I want to hear.

Dgarretson, I agree with much of your last post, I would just argue (or perhaps restate would be a better word) that you have not rendered coloration almost undetectable - you have just built/refined your system closer to your personal reference point of live music. I think that is a much more workable concept that can apply to all audiophiles, regardless of their tastes/preferences/biases. Any designer will be very quick to tell you why his/her equipment sounds different and better and why (whether it actually does or not), often offering up a great deal of cloudy techno-babble by way of explanation (particularly when it doesn't really sound that different). There are many dealers out there who avoid sonic description entirely, and judge the equipment they carry on specs alone. I don't need to tell you that there are always very audible sonic differences between say, two different speaker pairs both purporting to have flat frequency responses. Or that some of the most widely respected speakers in existence don't have anywhere close to a flat frequency response, including many deemed "neutral."

By the way, I agree that most systems fall short in dynamics, however I think most fall far shorter in the area of timbral reproduction, and also in what many audiophiles call "imaging" and "soundstaging." Digital systems in particular tend to have a hard time with those three issues - even the latest greatest processing still tends to remove much of the overtones in instrumental and vocal timbres. However, many audiophiles don't consider these issues a big deal, since they listen to mostly electronically produced music anyway, which doesn't make nearly as much demands on an audio system. And as you said in a previous post, many people have never heard an analog recording nowadays, or even good digital sound - only MP3's, etc. I am happy you and Bryon and everyone else are getting closer and closer to your goal in your own system, whatever you choose to call it. I just don't think it truly helps anyone else to call it "neutral." OK, once again I have rambled far too long, so I'll sign off now.

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