How do you judge your system's neutrality?

I think the original two point are valid but a third point is needed.

Dgarretson nailed it at the start.
"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.

A "reference point" is necessary and should be #3 on the list. For me that point is acoustic nylon stringed guitar something I played.
Without a "reference point" it just all seems like mental masturbation. Very interesting but....

Byron, It's hard to argue with your new, or restated, position. Not many nits, for me anyway, that are worth picking or restating. But you lost me with your conclusion that getting to your optimum combiniation of resolution, transparancy, and neutrality, allowed one to get lost in the music. It may allow YOU to get lost, but consider that this is a very personal experience and might well not be shared by many others.

You have stated, under the caption High Resolution, High Neutrality "Its easy to get lost in the music when listening to this system........".

IMHO listening to MUSIC is easily distinguished from listening to the sonic character of audio components by playing recordings of music. And I think this is worth restating, especially for those who might be inclined to adopt your conclusion about the value of a highly resolved, transparen/neutral system.

When you have an audio system that is highly resolved and highly neutral/transparent etc, as you describe, you will hear all of the warts in the recording process including mic placement, edits, mixing, instrument highlighting, etc. None of which is natural to a live performance in any sense but which is a construct for the purpose of reducing the music to a recording format in a manner that will reproduce a sense of space when played back at home.

Of course the more successful the recording process the more successful the illusion when played back at home. The perfect recording played back over a perfect system in a perfect room would be a wonderful experience (I must assume I'm afraid - I've never heard it). Not live, but one you could certainly get lost in listening to the music. Maybe that proves your point, but........

Very few recordings come even remotely close to recording a performance in a natural style that comes accross as such when played back at home. If your interest is in sound and audio recording practices your optomized system is fine. You will hear all that is in the pits and grooves. But that does not cause ME to become absorbed in the MUSIC unless and until I have to trained my ears/mind to listen thru all of the artifice that the recording process adds to the performance or my recordings are, or close to, perfect replications of the live event.

I must conclude that if one is inclined to prize neutrality to the source more than some of us music enthusiasts, who are comfortible in seeking systems that manage to combine both resolution and tonality which may not be up to the sound enthusiasts level of approval, but which allow us to get lost in the MUSIC without the constant reminders that we are just listening to a RECORDING of music, that it is a perfectly valid audio goal, but it is not exclusive of other goals.

Before you consider posting and reminding me of all of your qualifying statements, as you have previously done, consider that this post would not have occurred if you had not made the statement about what conditions allowed you to get lost in the music. That statement, to me nullifies most of your qualifying statements and reflects your real priorities, which many of us do not share, no matter how artfully you try to present them. But since you want to enlighten us, let me share the spirit. The word 'unique' as you have used in your original post, is absolute, it cannot be (should not be) modified further by using terms like less or more as is so commonly done. And, FWIW, my musical collection is very diverse - I fail to understand how changing the quality of my audio system will ever make my collection more diverse. But then, I listen to the MUSIC in the first place, so would never make these errors.

Almarg, I tried but I just can't emulate you. Damm......:-)

Excellent last several posts, most definitely including Newbee's despite (and perhaps because of) it's non-emulation of a particular lesser light around here :)

I still feel, though, that the main thrust of the op has been diverted throughout most of this thread by unnecessary focus on semantic nuances, as well as on matters which (although well reasoned, and about which reasonable people can differ) are essentially extraneous to the issue at hand.

After I submitted my previous post, it occurred to me that 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.

And my restatement of what I believe to be Byron's (Bryon's?) initial basic point, which which I agree, consists of two elements:

1)A significant degree of correlation (although certainly not a perfect correlation) can be expected between listener satisfaction and lack of coloration/increased transparency/neutrality/accuracy or whatever such term may be preferred. And,

2)If a component change, or a change to the entire system, results in consistently increased differentiation of the sounds of different recordings, there is a good likelihood that "lack of coloration/increased transparency/neutrality/accuracy or whatever such term may be preferred" has been improved. Meaning, per item 1, that listener satisfaction stands a good chance of having been improved as well.

Regards,
-- Al

"The word 'unique' as you have used in your original post, is absolute, it cannot be (should not be) modified further by using terms like less or more as is so commonly done."

This is simply no longer true. Traditionalist grammarians didn't like it, but modern usage recognizes and allows qualification of "unique."

But even if it were true, it seems an odd issue to take when the meaning in the original post was clear. What point are you making about the application of the word "neutrality?" Do you want to substitute another word for "unique" in the original post? How would that affect the points being made?

"But then, I listen to the MUSIC in the first place, so would never make these errors."

I don't see any need for this kind of hostility. This is a discussion about defining and applying some terminology. Is there any reason it can't remain civil?

Al - You have stated exactly the intention of my original post. And yes, my name is Bryon, not Byron. It's a strange spelling of Bryan.

Cbw723 wrote:
"Couldn't a system have a high degree of both neutrality and resolution, but have fuzzy image focus? "

I doubt this. I think any highly resolving system is also a system that images well.

Newbee - Your last post puzzles me. In it, you wrote:

"When you have an audio system that is highly resolved and highly neutral/transparent etc, as you describe, you will hear all of the warts in the recording process including mic placement, edits, mixing, instrument highlighting, etc. None of which is natural to a live performance..."

But, in your first post on this thread, you wrote:

"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." [emphasis added]

These two statements appear contradictory. Similarly, in your last post, you wrote:

"If your interest is in sound and audio recording practices your optomized system is fine. You will hear all that is in the pits and grooves. But that does not cause ME to become absorbed in the MUSIC..." [emphasis original]

But in your first post, you wrote:

"There is no recorded performance that will ever sound like a live event...So what are we left with? 'Resolution' so we can hear ALL THAT IS IN THE PITS AND GROOVES' and tonality that pleases our ears and expectations." [emphasis added]

These two statements also appear contradictory.