I started this thread with a proposal about how to identify neutrality in an audio system. The thread has become largely a debate about (1) the existence of neutrality; and (2) the value of neutrality. Several of the posters who deny the existence or value of neutrality have contrasted it with the existence and value of resolution and transparency. In light of that, I have a new proposal, one that addresses both the existence and value of neutrality. Here it is:
RESOLUTION + NEUTRALITY = TRANSPARENCY
Let’s define some terms:
RESOLUTION: The amount of information presented by a component or system. In a digital component, for example, resolution is measured by bit depth and sampling rate. But I take it that it is uncontroversial that every major component of an audio system, and the system as a whole, can be evaluated as to its resolution, whether that can be measured or not. Resolution is, of course, a matter of degree.
NEUTRALITY: The degree to which a component or system is free from coloration. Once again, this does NOT refer to coloration in the recording, but only to coloration introduced by the playback system. I have argued above that neutrality, like resolution, is a matter of degree.
TRANSPARENCY: The degree to which a component or system is sonically “invisible.” Transparency is a visual metaphor for something that is not visual. As the metaphor is used by audiophiles, a component or a system is transparent when it allows the listener to “see through” itself and perceive the recording, the event, or the music. Transparency, thus understood, is also a matter of degree.
The current proposal is that, as the resolution and neutrality of a component or system increases, so does its transparency. This can be understood in terms of four prototypical systems:
LOW RESOLUTION, LOW NEUTRALITY:
This system lacks detail and it makes everything sound the same. Think: A boombox.
HIGH RESOLUTION, LOW NEUTRALITY:
This system has lots of detail, but there is a certain “sameness” to everything played through it. It always sounds like THAT system.
LOW RESOLUTION, HIGH NEUTRALITY:
This system lacks a certain amount of information or detail, but it is a chameleon. It’s hard to pin down what the system sounds like, since it sounds different on every recording.
HIGH RESOLUTION, HIGH NEUTRALITY:
This system provides the information missing from the last system, while also being a sonic chameleon. It has a high level of detail within a recording, but also a high level of variety across different recordings. It's easy to get lost in the music when listening to this system, since the system itself never seems to “get in the way.” Of the four systems, this is the most TRANSPARENT.
These hypothetical systems are merely prototypes, in the sense that they describe categories whose members are (1) joined by resemblance, and (2) differentiated by degree.
I hope that this proposal illustrates the value of neutrality, insofar as it links neutrality to other sonic characteristics - resolution and transparency - that are valued by the the detractors of neutrality.
Fire away!
