2. misc-audio
  3. 1257469878

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.
bryoncunningham
dgarretson
2,608 posts
 
"the strange idea of "neutral"

Neutrality is about balance-- the notion of nothing more and nothing less, nothing added and nothing substracted. In this sense neutrality is more descriptive and useful than transparency.

"all components are inaccurate... I must admit I am in the subjective camp..."

This position is at least consistent.

"there is always going to be some designer bias"

Unfortunately the idea of designer bias is more commonly rooted in cost constraints than designer bias.

"a better term to use is a flat frequency response"

Ignores correct pitch & timbre, the hallmark of a high-end system.

"No real performing space is "neutral"...the room's acoustics always have a huge effect on the musician's sounds...The reference point should be what you want the music to sound like."

Does the room in which the playback system resides really affect sonics as much as the original recording space? IMO not true of any high-performance system-- particularly at lower volumes.
bryoncunningham OP
890 posts
 
Learsfool wrote:
"Music is not, and never should be "neutral." As a professional musician, the term has always been hilarious to me when applied in this context. No musician wants to sound "neutral," that's for sure!"

The term 'neutral' is not a description of the music. It is a description of the playback system and its components.

And:
"...no good engineer would start from some strange idea of "neutral," either. One of the reasons recording studios are so dead is because then the engineer can make the recording sound however he wants easier"

I think you are talking here about the engineers who record and rerecord (i.e. mix) music, and I quite agree with you about that. However, there are certainly engineers who think about neutrality, namely, the engineers who built the recording studio! In fact, neutrality is an essential consideration in any recording system. Otherwise, the mixes recorded on that system will not "translate" to other playback environments.

And:
"I agree with blindjim, there is no such thing as 'absolute neutrality'"

Agreed. I said this in my original post. However, it does not follow from the fact that there is no absolute neutrality that there are no differences in neutrality among systems and components.

And:
"I don't believe that "neutrality" should be a reference point. The reference point should be what you want the music to sound like, which for most of us is as close to "live" as we can get."

Isn't the way to make your system sound as close to the "live" event as possible by building a system with the least coloration? In other words, building the most neutral possible system?
cbw723
89 posts
 
While this discussion is interesting, I think it is getting a bit off track. If I may presume to reinterpret Bryon's question, I don't think he cares whether the word is "neutrality" or "transparency" or "coloration" or how, exactly, one defines the terms. Rather, if you replace a component in your system there are three possible outcomes: 1) system-induced coloration is increased, 2) system-induced coloration is decreased, or 3) system-induced coloration doesn't change. I think Bryon's question is: How do you tell which outcome you achieved? (Bryon, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

I think in the real world, Bryon's definition is workable. (There is, obviously, the theoretical possibility of a system that makes instruments and music all sound very different, but is also incredibly, incredibly wrong. But I think we can ignore that possibility in the high-end audio world where we're already within an epsilon of the truth.)

Experience is another good answer. If you know what something really sounds like, you should be able to judge the differences which a fair degree of competence. But that requires a fairly specific kind of experience and a very special recording about which you know a great deal. That's not really practical for most of us. And there's always the possibility that the system works well in one area, and not another.

I don't have a better answer than the OP's, but I'd like to know: if I change a component, I may like the result, but is there a way to know if I'm hearing the music better, or just my system?
newbee
4,778 posts
 
IMHO, a systems resolution, i.e. its ability to resolve and present all of the information in the recording in a balanced manner, linear if you will, combined with an overall tone that pleases you is all that counts.

There is no recorded performance that will ever sound like a live event involving acoustic instruments in an appropriate space. You can't record it the way it would be heard live, which BTW would be totally dependent on your physical location in the room/hall, etc. The music in the front rows, back of the hall, and in the balconies are all totally different in perspective as well as tonal balance. And, even if you could, there is no equipment available which could recreate it accurately. We are severly limited in our ability to recreate the speed and dynamics involved in live performances. That is a given and will be readily apparent to anyone familar with acoustic instruments played in live space.

So what are we left with? 'Resolution' so we can hear all that it in the pits and grooves' and tonality that pleases our ears and expectations. Personally I have a hard time understanding the meaning of 'neutrality' in the context of an audio systems recreation of music' as the term is foreign to the process. No audio system can ever be anymore neutral than we as listeners can ever be truly objective.

I put myself to sleep............:-)
hamburg
69 posts
 
“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.”

Not necessarily!

System Neutrality may not be the cause to it’s improved level of detail and musical uniqueness. Other factors may be involved.

Example:
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 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.

This brings up another important point. If the music through your new system truly sounded better and this fact was agreed upon by fellow Audiophiles (with similar likes and dislikes); why does it matter that it does not sound like the original recording. ‘The absolute Sound –system Neutral.’ We don't even know if the original recording actually sounded like the performer. Was it enhanced by the engineer to compensate for the recording deficiencies or those of the musician?

The end product is for your enjoyment. If rose colored glasses and Woody Allen's Orgasmatron would heighten my experience, then it would and should be part of my listening routine.

Sound Improvement beats Neutrality
More to discover