Mrtennis, I have given up that quest, nor will I trust most who might tell me there is such a speaker.
How do you judge your system's neutrality?
Here’s an answer I’ve been kicking around: Your system is becoming more neutral whenever you change a system element (component, cable, room treatment, etc.) and you get the following results:
(1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique.
(2) Your music collection sounds more diverse.
This theory occurred to me one day when I changed amps and noticed that the timbres of instruments were suddenly more distinct from one another. With the old amp, all instruments seemed to have a common harmonic element (the signature of the amp?!). With the new amp, individual instrument timbres sounded more unique and the range of instrument timbres sounded more diverse. I went on to notice that whole songs (and even whole albums) sounded more unique, and that my music collection, taken as a whole, sounded more diverse.
That led me to the following idea: If, after changing a system element, (1) individual pieces of music sound more unique, and (2) your music collection sounds more diverse, then your system is contributing less of its own signature to the music. And less signature means more neutral.
Thoughts?
P.S. This is only a way of judging the relative neutrality of a system. Judging the absolute neutrality of a system is a philosophical question for another day.
P.P.S. I don’t believe a system’s signature can be reduced to zero. But it doesn’t follow from that that differences in neutrality do not exist.
P.P.P.S. I’m not suggesting that neutrality is the most important goal in building an audio system, but in my experience, the changes that have resulted in greater neutrality (using the standard above) have also been the changes that resulted in more musical enjoyment.
434 responses Add your response
05-12-11: Mrtennis Not a single person on this thread, which is now up to 353 posts, has suggested that there is any such thing as a perfectly neutral component. You should know that as well as anyone, Mrtennis, since you have been one of this thread's regular participants. You are attacking a straw man. For those who have not read this thread, a glance at the OP would reveal my view on the subject... P.P.S. I don’t believe a system’s signature can be reduced to zero. That view was discussed at length in MANY subsequent posts. And no one is suggesting that people should buy speakers on the basis of neutrality or measurements. A glance at the OP would clear that up as well... P.P.P.S. I’m not suggesting that neutrality is the most important goal in building an audio system... Or my post from yesterday... People should choose components according to their own preferences, not someone else's. That is another straw man. Bryon |
You can record the sound over the air with a two channel pro recorded like Nagra and then replay the rerording in your system. Then compare to the original recording. This should help reveal any colorations and distortions if the recording is good and high quality. I think I read this in a magazine once, but never tried it. A person used this to proove to some teenage kids that his high end system was indeed superior to thier cheap stereo and had every bit as much bass. Thier cheap stereo was just distored and skewed towards lots of bass. He recorded the kids stero and then played back the recording on his system. The kids were astonished at how much it then sounded like there system. |
Bryoncunningham , You say, "Or my post from yesterday... People should choose components according to their own preferences, not someone else's. That is another straw man." I must admit it is beyond my comprehension what you are saying here, but as we agreed on the other thread, I am dropping this discussion. |
the question is "how to judge neutrality ?" if neutrality doesn't not exist, you can't judge it ? without perfection there is no neutrality or accuracy. there are ways of judging inaccuracy, or distortion or coloration , but not absolute freedom from errors, since components have flaws. whether you can hear them or not, no human being can achieve perfection, so why try to judge it ? |
05-13-11: Mrtennis Since... Accuracy is a matter of degree. Therefore... Inaccuracies are a matter of degree. Therefore... Neutrality is a matter of degree. Therefore... Neutrality is not like being pregnant. Therefore... "Perfect" neutrality is a red herring. Bryon |
hi byron accuracy is not a matter of degree. something is either accurate or it is not. it is not a relative term. it is absolute. is truth a matter of degree ? no. something is either true or false. there may be degrees of inaccuracy , but accuracy is a condition that one may try to attain therefore it is absolute. if accurate were a relative term how would you know how accurate some thing is unless you had a reference ? you may be confusing degrees of inaccuracy with degrees of accuracy which is illogical. if you get 100 on a test that means as far as the test is concerned, you have answered the test questions accurately. you achieved the hihest score possible. there are no degrees of answering test questions accurately. go to the dictionary and check. |
Mr. T, any measurement instrument ever devised, for the purpose of measuring anything, has (or at least should have) what is commonly referred to as an "accuracy" specification associated with it, notwithstanding the fact that the specification arguably would be better referred to as an "inaccuracy" specification. A thermometer, for example, may be "accurate" to within +/- 0.5 degrees. A scale may be "accurate" to within +/- 0.1 pounds. A speedometer may be "accurate" to within +/- 2 mph. 05-14-11: MrtennisAnd from the current thread on accuracy: 05-13-11: MrtennisYour comments strike me as drawing a distinction without there being a meaningful difference. Do the facts that nothing is perfect, and nothing is perfectly accurate, negate the value of either striving for ways in which accuracy might be improved, or striving to identify and characterize inaccuracies, and in the process hopefully making possible better informed tradeoffs between accuracy and subjectively pleasing inaccuracies? And, btw, nothing is perfect, not even in nature. Consider the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But fundamental to the design processes that underlie just about any engineering achievement are error analyses that address and take into account myriad contributors to inaccuracy. IMO the fact that perfect accuracy in an audio component is neither achievable nor even precisely definable is not reason to declare inapplicable to audio the goals of striving to reduce inaccuracy/improve accuracy, and/or striving to better characterize the inaccuracy. I agree with Bryon 100%. Regards, -- Al |
05-14-11: Mrtennis This sounded like helpful advice, so I did just that. From the Oxford Dictionary... "the DEGREE to which the result of a measurement, calculation, or specification conforms to the correct value or a standard" From the American Heritage Dictionary... "the EXTENT to which a given measurement agrees with the standard value for that measurement...the DEGREE of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc." From Ambrose Bierce's Devils Dictionary... "dictionary: A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic." bc |
FWIW, Mr T started out talking about 'neutrality' being an absolute (like the word 'unique' perhaps) and I happen to agree with him. You do not modify an absolute term. It is or it ain't, at least according to my old English teacher who reprimanded me for trying to make something more 'unique' than it already must have been when I chose that word to describe it. But then the word morphed into 'accuracy' and posters felt that was not an absolute term and could be appropriately modified. In common usage I agree. It makes sense to me. But them, if it is not already evident, I'm not an English major. Will the real English major amongst us come forward and explain the proper use of these terms, i.e. neutral and accurate. I think that many of us might benefit and then we can get back to arguing about things audio. |
05-15-11: Newbee This issue is way above an English major's pay grade. It is not a question of diction, but rather a question of lexicography, the philosophy of language, and the science of linguistics. The standard Mrtennis proposed for the meaning of the word 'accurate' was the dictionary. By that standard...well, you saw the result. Having said that, the quotation from Bierce, if it was not self explanatory, was intended to make the following observation... Dictionaries are often INADEQUATE STANDARDS for resolving disputes about the meanings of words. There are a number of reasons for this... Dictionary word meanings are determined by common usage. But the meanings provided by common usage are often too ambiguous or imprecise for conversations requiring a high level of exactitude. There are two common solutions to this problem: (a) technical definitions (b) stipulated definitions RE: (a) Technical definitions are created by communities of experts and are often formal, i.e. standardized across various discussions. RE: (b) Stipulated definitions are created by any group of people trying to have a successful discussion and are almost always informal, i.e. standardized only for a single discussion. This thread has provided STIPULATED DEFINITIONS a number of times. Here are some of the stipulated definitions that consistently appeared: -neutrality: the degree of absence of colorations -colorations: audible inaccuracies -inaccuracy: the degree to which a component's output differs from its input -accuracy: the degree to which a component's output is identical to its input Anyone is free to challenge these stipulated definitions, since no one "owns" the terms, NOT EVEN THE DICTIONARY. Here is the reason why... If two experts disagree about a technical definition, or two ordinary people disagree about a stipulated definition, then the disagreement about the term can be resolved in one of two ways: (c) The term is given a modifier. (d) A new term is created. The process by which (c) and (d) occur CANNOT BE RESOLVED BY A DICTIONARY, since the dictionary is a catalogue of ordinary usage, and it was the imprecision and/or ambiguity of ordinary usage that led people to create the technical or stipulated definitions in the first place! Hence, the process by which (c) and (d) occur must be resolved BY THE PEOPLE HAVING THE DISCUSSIONS, whether they are experts or ordinary folks like us. If someone wants to propose alternative stipulated definitions for 'neutrality' or 'accuracy' or any other term, they are certainly free to do so. But each person's comments should be understood in terms of how THEY THEMSELVES have stipulated the terms. To facilitate communication, most people are willing to agree upon a COMMON set of stipulated definitions for the purposes of discussion. But as we have seen in recent posts, some people have a problem accepting the stipulated definitions of others, the technical definitions of experts, and even the ordinary definitions of dictionaries. That is a real shame, as it obstructs what would otherwise be constructive conversation. Bryon |
Bryon, Your last post raises an issue I was not expecting. I'm sure I must have missed it somewhere, but can you direct me to the post(s) in which the participants actually stipulated to the meanings and use of the terms you refer to. I must have missed it. FWIW, and it is not an issue I want to reopen, I made my objection to your use of the word neutral or neutrality, with some specificity, on page 1. Your last post is excellent, at least in its creativity if not its totality, and I would agree with the conclusions you reach, provided that you can furnish evidence of the actual existence of an expressed 'stipulation', written or oral, and its acceptance by thread participants. Not to put too fine a point on my post I was really trying to suggest to Mr Tennis that his posts were turning this thread more into a matter of semantics and introduced nothing new except a willingness to be pedantic. Upon reflection perhaps I'm no better. BTW, FWIW, since the proper use of the English language has arisen, I would still like to hear from someone with the appropriate credentials regarding the proper use of these words in ordinary language, written or spoken, absent any 'stipulation'. :-) |
05-15-11: Newbee You missed it? That's strange to me. Here's what I found... 11-06-09 Me: a conceptual definition of 'neutral' for audio might be something like, 'free from coloration.' 11-06-09 Buconero: Neutrality by definition is 'without difference'. 11-06-09 Dgarretson: Neutrality is about balance-- the notion of nothing more and nothing less, nothing added and nothing subtracted. 11-06-09 Cbw723: I think in the real world, Bryon's definition is workable. 11-07-09 Tvad: It seems to be essentially what's been defined as the Absolute Sound. 11-19-09 Almarg: …colorations/lack of transparency/lack of neutrality/whatever you want to call it… 11-20-09 Me: The degree to which a component or system is free from coloration. 11-20-09 Cbw723: I like this definition… 11-20-09 Almarg: when I used the phrase "lack of colorations/transparency/neutrality/whatever you want to call it," I should have added the word "accuracy" as well. Basically all of these terms relate to how accurately what is reproduced by the system (and its room environment), resembles what is sent into it by the recording. 11-22-09 Dgarretson: Personally I agree with Bryon that resolving, neutral, and transparent are three of the best audiophile adjectives…Of the three static terms, perhaps neutrality is the broadest and most appealing… 11-24-09 Me: Yes, every component is colored, just as all water sources are contaminated. But not every component is equally colored, just as not all water sources are equally contaminated. And the recognition that every component is colored does not motivate the conclusion that neutrality is useless concept any more than recognizing that all water sources are contaminated motivates the conclusion that water purity is a useless concept. 11-24-09 Cbw723: …I think the water analogy is pretty apt here. 11-25-09 Dgarretson: Perhaps audio components are analogous to brightness and contrast controls on a TV. With such controls it is possible to vary saturation and to whiten or darken the visual palette. Visual "neutrality" lies near the middle of the range of both controls. 11-26-09 Almarg: one of the things that I tried to express, but perhaps didn't as explicitly as I should have, is that if throughout this thread the word "accuracy" had been substituted for the word "neutrality," the amount of controversy and disagreement might have been significantly less. To me those two terms, in the context of an audio system, mean essentially the same thing. 12-02-09 Me: 'Accuracy' is a SECOND-ORDER CONCEPT that includes both 'resolution' and neutrality.' …NEUTRALITY: The degree to which a component or system is free from coloration. 12-02-09 Almarg: Bryon, that all strikes me as brilliantly conceived and brilliantly expressed! 12-02-09 Me (summarizing Al) (i) The target of the concept of ‘accuracy’ is the RECORDING, whereas the target of the concept of ‘transparency’ is the MUSICAL EVENT that the recording represents…In some cases, sacrificing some accuracy (to the recording) may increase transparency (to the musical event). 12-02-09 Almarg: Bryon, yes that is an excellent restatement of what I was trying to express. 12-05-09 Me: Colorations are additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music…Do these phenomena exist? If they do, then neutrality exists, as it has been defined on this thread, namely, THE (DEGREE OF) ABSENCE OF COLORATION. 12-05-09 Almarg: …neutrality represents the degree to which coloration is absent. 12-06-09 Cbw723: …the thing being debated is how one judges the relative neutrality of one's playback system. The neutrality of a playback system has been defined as the degree of the absence of coloration added by that playback system. If "DoN" is the degree of neutrality of a playback system, and "DoC" is the degree of coloration of a playback system, then (DoN = 1 / DoC) is the assumption of this thread as stated by Bryon. If you believe that playback systems can add more or less coloration to a system, then you implicitly believe that a system can be more or less neutral, as defined here, whether you believe you believe that or not. 12-06-09 Almarg: It has been said numerous times in numerous ways that the less colored (or more accurate or more neutral or more whatever comparable term you prefer) that the system is (including the room), the greater the likelihood that the presumably desirable colorations that were present in the original performance will be reproduced accurately… 12-06-09 Me: I agree with Cbw that it is logically inconsistent to believe in coloration and not believe in neutrality, AS COLORATION AND NEUTRALITY HAVE BEEN DEFINED IN THIS THREAD, namely: ‘Coloration’: Additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music. ‘Neutrality’: The degree of absence of coloration. 12-07-09 Cbw723: …neutrality, as used here (and in the audio world in general), is a relative term. A component may be either more or less neutral (which is exactly synonymous with saying that it may apply either less or more coloration to the source). It would seem an entirely uncontroversial assertion. 12-08-09 Dgarretson: The Objectivist defines neutrality as an absence of coloration… 12-11-09 Dgarretson: Eliminating an undesirable coloration is always progress toward neutrality. 12-12-09 Me: INNACCURACY: Alterations to the playback chain that eliminate, conceal, or corrupt information about the music.* …COLORATION: Inaccuracies audible as a non-random** sonic signature. 12-13-09 Dgarretson (quoting G. Holt) Neutral: Free from coloration. 12-14-09 Me: ACCURACY: 1. The relative amount of information about the music presented by a component or system, comparing output to input. 2. The degree of absence of inaccuracies …INACCURACY: An alteration to information in a component or system that eliminates, conceals, or corrupts information about the music. …NEUTRALITY: The degree of absence of coloration within a component or system….COLORATION: An inaccuracy audible as a non-random sonic signature. 12-27-09 Dgarretson: …my view is that analytic & sterile err at the opposite extreme of unresolving warmth. Both kinds of extremes are colorations and as such, represent deviations from neutrality. bc |
Bryon, FWIW, I've never considered the mere collection of common opinions on any subject to be anything more than just that. What these opinions show, for the most part anyway, is that these particular individuals supported the use of 'neutral' as a descriptive term, and some of them were willing to modify the term in a gradient manner to illustrate the deviation from neutrality that they felt existed. So be it. They are very much entitled to this opinion both to hold and express. And to the extent that this facilitates the flow of a discussion as well as a resolution of the issues, that is a good thing too. However, to me, this does not constitute a stipulated agreement as I have come to know such. But, assuming for the sake of argument that a 'stipulated agreement' does exist, even then it would only bind on the participants who have expressly agreed. So if I believe that 'neutral' is an absolute term, or if Mr T believes that 'accuracy' is a similar absolute term, we have the right to hold and express our opinions on the subject. BTW, FWIW, I believe that 'English majors', especially those who have gone on to teach in our schools, are perfectly qualified to offer advise of the proper use of words. Certainly at least such common ones as we are discussing. Contrary to your statement I think their expertise is hardly restricted to 'diction' nor that they would need to be semanticists, as you imply, to assist us in such a simple tasks. But all of this is really of little consequence. Time to move on.................. |
I would still like to hear from someone with the appropriate credentials regarding the proper use of these words in ordinary language... Your repeated calls for someone to definitively answer the question of how to define the terms 'neutrality' and 'accuracy' is odd to me. Who do you think is going to answer? If it is "those who have gone on to teach in our schools," why would their answer have any special authority to you? I have taught at the university level. Are those "appropriate credentials"? I am a writer by occupation. Does that make me more qualified? I studied the philosophy of language in the course of my Ph.D.. Does that make my opinion more valid to you? I suspect the answer to these questions is no. Because I suspect that your appeal to authority is not really in earnest. And if it is in earnest, and you really are looking for an "authoritative" answer to the common usage of the term 'accuracy', then look no further than a dictionary, as Mrtennis suggested. There you will find multiple definitions that confirm that the use of the word 'accuracy' in terms of degree is a FACT of the English language. People are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. bc |
Truth is truth is a good place to start. I will attempt to communicate that truth. All measurements must have a standard; that means some components must be designated as neutral. Since I can't think of a scientific method of doing this, these components would be determined by a panel of distinguished audiophiles. Those components would communicate the truth we know in our minds. |
Orpheus10, I can only imagine trying to determine the "panel of distinguished audiophiles!" I guess I think this effort would be innocuous and irrelevant. I, of course, entirely agree that science cannot contribute here. I think all the following adjective might apply-neutral, real, transparent, dynamic, like being in the recording venue, not smeared, involving, detailed, having pace, having ease, etc. |
Well without being at the recording venue all is moot. The only way to tell is to hear a song live in your listening room record it and play it back. Know a guitar or violin player? Have him or her sit inbetween your speakers and play. Then record it and play it back. It will be closer than you think. No recording processing, no stamping of such or digital transfers. Nada. Just a pure recording. You can try, digital or analog recording methods and discern the benifits of both formats. |
Pipedream is right. I will say that some recordings resemble what I hear live enough to think them to be pretty neutral, but in general different recordings are recorded differently and will sound different. They is what they is. Attempts to make them into something else will usually have undesirable consequences. Realizing this is one way to get off the high end audio merry go round. Seeking perfection continuously with all or even most recordings is the best way to stay on. |
Mapman, I know all too well that your stance is just giving up. Once you have heard the thrill of realism, you will persist. I only regret that I didn't have this forty years ago with my audio. I would agree that people's tastes differ, some like what I think is a cop out that their system sound musical. I want a holographic image and brass to sound brassy. Otherwise I might as well listen to an Ipod and MP3 or better get just walk in the woods with no music. |
Tbg, I have not given up on anything. In fact, it took a lot of time and some money to get to a good place. I have just learned to focus on the things i can control, not waste time with what i cannot, like how recordings are made. They is what they is. It does not pay to try to make them something they are not. |
Mapman, I had an experience last night that suggests we have not gotten everything we can out of recordings. Involved was the Sinatra and Basie at the Sands recording. I had gotten it to be very satisfying with improvements in my system over the years, but not to the level of my vinyl. I got in a prototype of a dac by Exemplar Audio. After two days of break in, last night, I had a very great improvement in what I seek always, realism. I could hear Sinatra moving around, could hear individual instruments in Basie's band, and could hear the audience's presence even when they were quiet. I was thrilled to say the least. I cannot say yet much about this dac, but I will not be really expensive and it uses tubes in the output. |
TBG, That's a recording I am not familiar with but has appeal to me. Maybe I'll pick it up and see what I can hear. I see there are multiple CD versions/masterings on amazon. Which CD version specifically are you referring to? I do have this CD (one of my favorite recordings on CD) in which I hear some of the kinds of recording elements you refer to. |
I have a carefully assembled system but also one that due to its cost (around $9k) I wouldn't presume to be capable of the realism of super-expensive systems. Last weekend, I was listening to an opera and at one point a character unexpectedly knocks on a door - for a split-second I thought someone was knocking on my front door before I realized it was the recording. That was surprising and pleasing to me - it indicated I was getting close enough to neutrality to realistically evoke a far-away sound. |
04-19-12: BryoncunninghamBrings to mind the most famous canine audiophile, Nipper listening to "His Master's Voice". Best, -- Al |
"That led me to the following idea: If, after changing a system element, (1) individual pieces of music sound more unique, and (2) your music collection sounds more diverse, then your system is contributing less of its own signature to the music. And less signature means more neutral." I agree with the principle that there is a positive relationship between diverse sound and neutrality. There is a point at which though I think practically our ability to detect this becomes questionable. Its in that twilight zone we often discuss where science and measurements cannot detect and confirm what we hear. ANd beyond that is the point where we as humans and our ears fail. For example, we cannot hear radio frequencies nor can we see infrared light. But science says they exist. The question then becomes: when does it matter to which the easy answer is: it depends. |
But we, or our brains are aware of harmonics and even notes well above 20kHz. This is why 44.1 sampling is totally inadequate. I have several 192/24 albums were I also have 44.1/16. They sound like different recordings. Mankind probably would not still be around save for our hearing capability to warn us of threats approaching and from where. |
"But we, or our brains are aware of harmonics and even notes well above 20kHz. This is why 44.1 sampling is totally inadequate." Well, I guess when things sound bad to me for some unclear reason, and all else fails, I will consider that and then become depressed that it is something I have no control over and just have to live with. So I will probably then end up punting and trying something else. By the way tbg, I read you are/were a professor. In what field might I ask? Thanks. |
Sound effects of things that you are familiar with in real life make good tests. We may never know exactly how the beatles sounded in the studio for reference but there are many sounds of nature and society we might know when we hear. Logitech squeeze system provides several well recorded sound effects. Try some and see. |
I put out a recent post having not noticed this thread. In any event this is the great question for me. When I ntalk of a system that is 'musical' I say it may well be warm, or particularly dynamic/leading edge - they are each a type of musical. That said I am no longer convinced that this is not 'neutral'. True neutrality ought to be the accurate replication of a live performance. The problem starts with the phrase replication - this is of itself an alteration/change - so the notion of there being a classic concert, or a stadium in your lounge is impossible. What we deem neutral may just simply be the closest copy to the real event. However, most musicians that I know, and some people i know that work in the music industry say that what they aim for is to convey the musical message, and if a system achieves this, then they are satisfied. That being the case a system that is more 'musical' achieves the ultimate goal does it not? One of the real problems of neutrality replicating the illusion is that I cannot recall last attending an un-amplified live performance in music, and trust me, I have tried very hard to do this, so I for one and truly denied that point of reference. |
Lohanimal, you said, "One of the real problems of neutrality replicating the illusion is that I cannot recall last attending an un-amplified live performance in music, and trust me, I have tried very hard to do this, so I for one and truly denied that point of reference." I agree. Last weekend I sat in on five live performances at THE Show in Newport, CA. All were very enjoyable with Tierney Sutton and Nneena Freelon. All were heavily amplified and too loud, but I was very impressed. I came home and listened to the same cuts from both singers on their albums. It was quite the equal to being there, especially volume wise, but I was thrilled at the realism. I really don't think neutrality is our quest, it is realism. |
Csontos, well it is great to be able to hear stellar performances from the past with great realism. I just heard Nnenna Freelon from about ten feet away from her. The performance was heavily amplified, however. She was great, but so was her Live recording with the same songs was also equally outstanding. That is always my goal in 45 years of being an audiophile. |
