How do you judge your system's neutrality?

I don't. I have no interest in attempting the impossible. Achieving the possible can be tough enough.

As RJA so aptly put it, "neutral is completely hypothetical."

Scvan, I think the distribution around the results suggest both measurement error as well as other factors no covered by ohms law. But I also think the are many areas where we don't even have the counterpart of ohm's law.

Basically, I think much measurement is of invalid variables. And I wish more science focused on circuit design to minimize the influence of wires with signal influencing other wires. Lately, I also wish that I understood the influence of magnetic waves on alternating signal in wires.

Thg, those were two separate ideas expressed in two different sentences. They were not intended to be connected.

I quit EE when in knew from physics that there was a normal distribution around the computations from Ohm's law in the lab.

Are you saying that Ohm's law is wrong, or are you saying that there is tolerance in every measurement?
Just like a scientific instrument our ear's have tolerance from day to day. They are far from perfect.

The propagation of uncertainty is basically thrown out for real world measurements because it is basically insignificant (unless we are doing quantum type things). This level of change is probably less than the dirt on your walls and floor affecting the sound you hear.

Scvan, yes engineering can make things that work with corrections. I quit EE when in knew from physics that there was a normal distribution around the computations from Ohm's law in the lab.

Tubegroover, I have had many instance were reissues of classic recordings sound quite different from earlier originals. Some of this is no doubt the result of magnetic tape deterioration but also the recording engineer has his or her biases.

one main way I insure neutrality is that every recording sounds as different as possible, distortion and coloration tend to homogenize things with that veil of sameness. each recording should be distinct.

another method is visiting the jazz club 5 minutes away from my home at the bottom of the hill. they have live jazz every night at 7pm. I can have dinner there, listen to a little jazz, then be home and listening 10 minutes later. I do it about once a month.

then there is comparing different formats in my system particularly the RTR tape. comparing the low gen source tape to the vinyl and digital is always helpful.

Neutral is completely hypothetical. It ain't gonna happen.

Absolutely, but the range from neutral is measurable.

Neutral is completely hypothetical. It ain't gonna happen.

"If a system is completely neutral it will sound exactly like the real event. I don't think this will ever happen."

I disagree. A recording will only capture what the mics recorded, not necessarily the real event. It really depends on the hearing acuity of the engineer and mic placement. Even then it may just represent the biases of the engineer. There are too many variables regarding taste and listening preferences to assess what is or isn't right or "neutral".

So far as an audio system goes, I agree with the premis of the OP, that a neutral system will reproduce for good or bad all the artifacts of the recording and it will be like a chmeoleon in distinguishing the differences so that it will not have necessarily showcase a specific character or color. Of course this is an ideal, at least for some, that will never be agreed upon by all. Some like specific colorations that make music sound the way they want it too. None of us are imune to our own particular biases so it will always remain a perplexing enigma. It really is all about taste regardless of how we pine on neutrality.

You are right. The page I listed was only referring to RF signals. They are not AC...

Gold is a slightly worse conductor than copper. It is only used because it doesn't corrode as easily as copper.

Silver is slightly better than copper, and if you could afford it a 100% silver stranded would be a better cable than what you are probably using. You may not like the sound but it would do a better job of not messing with the signal.

We can launch a machine into space, have it travel 317 million miles and land on an object 2 miles wide, but we can't understand a 10 foot cable?

There is not enough honest skepticism in hi-fi. We believe what paid of journalist tell us and listen to claims from people that are hawking products to us that will only improve their pocket book.

Scvan, I am talking about what you hear. Some cables have a sharp leading edge and some smear the sound. I always suspect the dielectric materials. We are speaking here of ac signal not constant conduction. If you don't hear how smeared gold wires in speaker wires make the sound, we have little to discuss.

Fast cables? Signals travel at near the speed of light. I don't know how much faster cables can be.

Also dielectrics at low frequency is marketing mumbo jumbo from cable manufacturers. It can be measured in capacitance which is incredibly small on short runs and at low frequencies (audible frequencies).

In a typical PVC 1000ft wire the dielectric will slow a signal down 2 microseconds so in a 10 ft wire that would be 0.02 microseconds. That is a potential blurring of the frequency 0.00000002Hz. That calculation is at RF, not audible. It is even less at lower frequencies. If anyone can honestly say they hear that, please step forward because I suspect you will be able to make some serious cash being a scientific tool.

The above calculations come from:
http://www.nationalwire.com/support_basicintro.asp

National Wire is a company that quotes resources for their information on the bottom of their web page and probably has many more engineers working for it than any audio cable company.

Tostadosunidos, even in a live listening, one doesn't hear what artists "imagined in their heads."

I find most systems are smeared because of not only slow drivers without much of a leading edge, but also because of slowness in cables with the dielectrics being chiefly responsible. I have speaker wires with nothing but air between the leads, not beads with air around them. They are very fast.

Other than live, recording has not been a faithful recapture of a "real event" since multitracking came along. Also, you may not find many artists who are satisfied with the sound that comes of the speakers (from the recording) as opposed to the sound they imagined in their head.

Even if your system is neutral, how do you know the recording is a faithful capture of a real event?

If a system is completely neutral it will sound exactly like the real event.
I don't think this will ever happen.

This thread is too long to re-read, but here's a new addition to the audiophile tool box that will bring one's system closer to "neutrality" (whatever that means): DEQX. Read the various threads on A'gon that speaks to and about DEQX and see why. If interested, look at the DEQX web site too.

IMO and IME, the DEQX PreMATE has squeezed about all there is out of my Paradigm Sig 8 (v3) speakers and achieved a modicum of "neutrality" that was not otherwise possible. Not just because of deficiencies with my speakers, but also because of anomalies caused by room ... an all too often overlooked "component part" of one's system.

Although in the end, one must rely on their ears, FWIW, after correction, my speakers are pretty flat out to 30K HZ and closer to being time coherent. How do I know?? The DEQX set up entailed using a high quality mic which measured my speakers in-room response.

The neighborhood dogs are in doggy heaven.

As Ronald Regan used to say, "trust ... but verify." And that's why I boldly write this post. My system sounds better and measures that what too.

Cheers,

BIF

TBG - it was not my niece that told me about the background ambiance.
It was reading the Regon Audio website page
http://www.regonaudio.com/Stanton881AudioTechnicaATML70.html
you might want to read this first as he develops the point further and better than I have in this thread.
Simply put the bacground ambiance and cues are highlighted and accentuated more than the original mastertape recording. Drawn against the discussion I had with my niece - these little cues and extra ambiance is what I am coining the phrase 'hyper-fi' in the way I explain 3D above.

Who knows what hi-fi/ audiophile mean anymore. There are some crazy claims out there.

Ideally speakers would have superflat response curves from 20-20k, electronics would have no distortion and the noise floor would be at -infinity. That would be a perfect "system", however many things fall into play here.

No passive speaker is perfectly flat. No one's hearing is perfect. No electronics are distortion free. Of course a little bit of "issues" hear and there do not take away from enjoyment for most of us necessarily.

I view modern hi-fi to almost the point of being like ice cream, everyone has their preferred flavor, and there is no best flavor. I feel most audiophiles are not going for a perfect replication of the original signal, instead they are going for their preferred flavor. I imagine if a perfect replication were built many people would prefer more colored solutions. It is human nature, we all have preferences and like different flavors.

A good example is the MM vs MC discussion. If you just look at the SNR of those two options, you would see that MC is much worse. I believe the SNR of MC is similar to a 9 bit recording and MM is 11 bit. If you were given an option to buy a digital player than was 9 bit or 11 bit you wouldn't buy either because they stink, but many people are buying TT's and vinyl. Personally I really like the sound of my MC and it maybe because that high noise floor is like a warm blanket, but whatever it is it is not accurate.

Having said that, there still is a nice engineering pursuit that will never be satisfied in making that perfect "system". The engineering is probably already there that is much more accurate than our ears can detect and better than anyone needs but we all like a little different spice in our food.

Lohanimal ,Your niece says, "The MC's were picking up and amplifying background ambiance. It may well explain our love of MC's that may well deliver that 'hyper-fidelity'." How do MCs amplify? Should ambiance not be reproduced? Also many MCs recommend rolling off the top end.

I find that most high end cabling has little high end extension. So cable manufacturers are pursuing making the sound less like the recording studio and more like row N or O rather than closer.

I have a pair of Murata supertweeters that have little or no response below 15k Hz. But is demonstration the audience requested that they be put back in to enjoy the music. There is a good deal of research suggesting that human can "hear" somehow well above 20k Hz,

Wow that keeps me up all night.

I had a chat to my niece who did a degree in audiology, and she, if anything helped me understand that:
1. what we hope is neutrality in hi-fi may well have been achieved a long time ago
2. psychologically we simply will not accept it
The reasons for this stem from a number of factors.
When we engage in one sense, and that sense over all others we become hyper critical/sensitive to that sense - think of blind people who have astounding hearing. When we then try and reproduce sound we try to repaint a 'hyper' as opposed to high-fidelity. Perhaps the best examples of these are 3D films that have hyper accents on 3D visual cues where depth and width of field are accentuated to make you feel that you are there.
If you have read the Regon Audio website where he tests some MM cartridges he said that the MM's are more accurate and neutral - more like master tape. The MC's were picking up and amplifying background ambiance. It may well explain our love of MC's that may well deliver that 'hyper-fidelity'.
True Hi-Fi was probably reached with components in the 70's and 80's - you know the era of wow and flutter, ruler flat responses. Tubes have never be marketed on the basis of neutrality have they (yes i know some are/maybe more neutral than others) but in terms of accurate reproduction of a recording this was achieved a long time ago. Audio IMHO, and in its current format, in particular the High End is, I believe based on 'hyper-fi'.

Don ... I have heard or read that there are acoustic specialists who do just what you said. But in my anecdotal story, all the fiddling in the world didn't change the outcome. Brand P killed Brand X. And as I said above, I don't know why. The outcome should have been the opposite of what I experienced. But ... that was my reaction and opinion. I acknowledge that other members might have walked away with very different opinions.

Byfwyyne, that's not uncommon at all. These people that set up speakers in this manner have a particular training. The difference is huge. Some dealers pay for outside sources to do this.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you. But if we really want to be honest, there is a level at which objectivity trumps the mainstay of this forum. Namely the politically charged subjective forces that protect the party line. I think if someone here declares that they prefer the sound of an old pair of B&W 801/802 over a pair of Magico Q7's, we can safely declare they are full of shit. As far as brand P vs. brand X goes, from your experience, I would say my statement is a reasonable facsimile.

About 2 months ago or so, I auditioned 2 speakers (call them Brand P and Brand X) at a dealer. Many members would probably say that Brand X was the better speaker hands down, and I respect personal opinions.

But here's what I found bizarre. The Brand X manufacturer must have had OCD because the dealer had to use a tape measure to measure off precise distances between the speakers, some kind of protractor to measure toe in, and back to the tape measure to place the listening chair just the right distance back from the speaker fronts.

Not done yet, the dealer had to use a bubble level to ensure the Brand X speakers were perfectly vertical. Why?? I have no idea. I suppose I could make a joke by saying that I had to place my head in a vice contraption to make sure I was facing the speakers just so and also use a bubble level to make sure my head was horizontally flat.

Well ... after all that, I listened to the Brand P speakers. This time no tape measures, bubble levels, head vices and so forth. Brand P was the better sounding speaker .... to my ears.

The point -- if my poor dealer friend had to go through this much trouble to get Brand X to sound just right, yet Brand P wiped the floor up with Brand X with no advance prep, what does this say about neutrality. I think a lot.

IMO, most equipment "presents" sound in a way that hopefully one will find musically enjoyable. I mean we're not listening to our rigs inside an anechoic chamber. So why can't we just accept the fact that we're listening to gear that has its own unique acoustic presentation in a room that colors the sound too. Isn't it enough that we can enjoy the musical experience. And if it sounds like the live thing ... great.

Just my opinion here.

With all due respect, it is a ridiculous exercise imo since none of the gear is voiced in that manner while being designed. He's discovered a novelty all his own. My experience has been that however wide, deep, or high the sound stage is, the better the gear gets, the smaller the sweet spot is. But, the bigger the ballpark gets.

Soundsbeyondspecs, I think that speakers and electronics cause great variation in how limited the "sweet spot" is. My quest is a very wide, deep, and high the sound stage is as well as how precise. Doing what you need to do would mean that I have failed. Electrostats I have found have tiny sweet spots and mainly sound like you are not in the recording studio but rather in the control room listening through two windows to the recording studio.

Easy. Soundsbeyondspecs is a dog!

Soundsbeyondspecs. You just made me realize I'll never be an audiophile.

P.S. How do you rotate your ears?

I think we’ve found the next big audio tweak - The adjustable, micro calibrated head clamp.

While sitting in the best sweet spot, I use a analog sound level meter to set the source listening volume around 80 dB's with 86-92 dB peaks. (I have 15" drivers in each front and L/R surround channel, and two 12's in the center - 80dB's is very adequate for me in my listening room as a comfortable baseline).

This SLM method provides a consistent, reproducible, measurable reference standard. As I'm listening, I move my head (ears) around to search for the most lush, open air and balanced tones. It changes with slight head movements to compensate for my ears - should they be completely clear or a bit stopped-up. Tilted forward or slightly downward, slightly more bass and mid-bass is captured. Tilted up towards the ceiling, the trebles and mids open up. In between, it's pure musical neutrality. I usually find tilting my head back to about 45 degrees towards the ceiling, and slowly rotating my ears from left to right (while exploring through a performances tonal balances), the best immersed listening experience. This is true for all modes - 2-channel, L/R Surround and mulit-channel SACD/DVD-Audio. It likely resembles a blind listener/musician.

Hey, if you end up replicating the performance, all the better. I think it's everyone's goal whether we know it or not.

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.

Exactly. The goal is to fool your ears into thinking it's real. Original performance doesn't mean squat.

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.

the room acoustics,
is a least as important as a component.
But your thoughts on diversity getting greater with quality increase is brilliant.

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.

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.

"for a split-second I thought someone was knocking on my front door"

That's price you have to pay for having natural sounding gear. It happens to me all the time, answering door, answering phone. Once, by mistake, I even answered an iron (I hate when it happens)

"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.

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.

"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.

04-19-12: Bryoncunningham
Dog reaction is an amusing test of a system's realism.

Brings to mind the most famous canine audiophile, Nipper listening to "His Master's Voice".

Best,
-- Al

Dog reaction is an amusing test of a system's realism. After a significant system improvement, my dog reacts the same way I do... "What was that?!" After a few days, it wears off, and she doesn't react again until the next major upgrade. I guess that makes her an audiophile.

Bryon

My dog seems to think a lot of what he hears me play is real, especially animal sound effects, which he reacts to the same way as if real.

A good omen.

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.

Mapman, it is Sinatra and Basie’s Sinatra At The Sands [Vicy 94366 Japan SHM]. I think I got it directly from Japan. Supper High Materials cds use the plastic used for dvds.

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.