How do you judge your system's neutrality?

My question is, how is there a necessary correlation between neutrality, as defined herein, and listener satisfaction? I submit part of the love affair with tubes is their added 'warmth' -- hardly neutral.

Good question, T, and I think that the answer stems from the fact, as I said in my posts, that the correlation is only a partial one. "Correlation," as it might be taught in a statistics class, can be any number between 1.0 (denoting perfect, absolute correlation) and 0 (denoting complete lack of correlation, the two variables being random relative to one another).

In this case, as I noted:

"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."

Euphonic (subjectively pleasing) inaccuracies that can be added by some tube designs would account for part of the difference between "significant degree of correlation" and "perfect correlation."

I think that the validity of the underlying point can be most easily seen by considering a very extreme example. Consider a system purchased at Walmart for a total system price of $300, in comparison with say a $50K system such as some Audiogoner's have. I don't think anyone here will disagree as to which one will provide better and more enjoyable sound, and I don't think that anyone here will disagree as to which one is more neutral/accurate/etc., and I don't think anyone here will disagree that the $50K system is likely to make different recordings sound more different than when those same recordings are played on the $300 system.

But would the $50K system sound completely "neutral," in the sense of recreating what is on the recording with absolute perfection? Obviously not. And would it sound the same as someone else's different $50K system? Also obviously not. But that is beside the point. Both $50K systems, which may sound very different from one another, will be far preferable to the $300 system, and both will make different recordings sound more different than the $300 system.

Which $50K system is preferable, on the other hand, is likely to be subjective, and the decision-making process choosing between them may be an example of one which will not be helped by the test Bryon has proposed. But that does not mean that the test won't be useful to many people, as components are compared, and systems evolve.

Regards,
-- Al

Cbw723, You are right civility is very important and hostility is always out of place. I should have stopped at the end of my second sentence in the last paragraph by which time I had said all that was on my mind regarding the subject at hand.

Fascinating discussion! Newbee, I agree with you 100%. Bryon, thanks for more clarification on your concept. I guess to summarize my objection about the use of the term "neutrality" - every person is going to have a totally different conception of it (to take just one example, someone who only listens to rock is going to have a completely different concept of what is a "coloration" than someone who only listens to small chamber music groups consisting of only acoustic instruments). Let's take Almarg's 50K system example. One could easily assemble several that would all sound really great yet completely and totally different. How could a group of people possibly agree on which one of them was the most "neutral?"

It seems to me that Samhar is on to something here. I believe that what you (Bryon) are describing as "neutrality" is actually your personal "reference point." If I can assume this, then the rest of your argument makes sense (though I do agree with what Newbee said about the false conclusion). In the above example of several 50K systems, though perhaps no one would agree on which one was the most "neutral," each person would have a very definite opinion on how close it was to their own personal "reference point." I personally would never describe my "reference point," or the sound of music, for that matter, as "neutral," so that's another reason I have a problem with that term. Maybe this is only a semantic issue, or "mental masturbation," as someone else put it, but going back to your original question again, I still say that there is no such thing as a system that does not contribute it's own "signature" or "coloration." And since everyone hears differently anyway (and has different sonic priorities), there is not much point to me to search for "neutrality." The "reference point" concept, however, I think has great value in your context for each individual.

Learsfool - I agree with your observation that it would difficult for a group of audiophiles to agree about which high resolution system was the most neutral. But I believe that (1) more agreement exists than has been generally acknowledged in this thread; and (2) more agreement is possible if the term neutral is operationalized (perhaps in the way I have suggested, perhaps not).

Al essentially made point (1) when he wrote:

I think that the validity of the underlying point can be most easily seen by considering a very extreme example. Consider a system purchased at Walmart for a total system price of $300, in comparison with say a $50K system such as some Audiogoner's have. I don't think anyone here will disagree as to which one will provide better and more enjoyable sound, and I don't think that anyone here will disagree as to which one is more neutral/accurate/etc.

Al chose this extreme example to make the point, but I believe that agreement among audiophiles concerning neutrality would not be limited to such extremes, particularly if they were to evaluate a variety of high resolution systems in acoustically identical rooms. This is merely a thought experiment used to illustrate my belief that there is more overlap in audiophiles' perception, including the perception of neutrality, than has been generally acknowledged in this thread. Learsfool expressed skepticism about agreement among audiophiles in his last post:

"Let's take Almarg's 50K system example. One could easily assemble several that would all sound really great yet completely and totally different. How could a group of people possibly agree on which one of them was the most "neutral?"

Perhaps these systems would sound "completely and totally different" to some group of audiophiles, because audiophiles are attuned to very subtle differences in audio, and we have very well defined preferences about those differences. But I think it's informative to also consider the perception of non-audiophiles. To them, I doubt these systems would sound "completely and totally different."

Which is more valid in evaluating how different these systems sound: the expert judgment of the audiophile or the naive judgment of the layman? I'm not sure there's an answer to this question. But it's useful to consider because it highlights the possibility that more convergence exists among high resolution systems than is commonly recognized among audiophiles. And if that's true, then perhaps the inability of audiophiles to come to an agreement says more about the audiophiles (myself included) than it does about the systems they listen to.

It would be complicated for non-audiophiles to judge neutrality or any other metric of high quality playback. My wife does well in this regard despite a disinterest in audio, because her ears have been educated through long exposure to the “second-hand smoke” of my audio habit. The general population-- widely exposed to norms of Ipod and boom box listening-- has insurmountable biases against neutrality. Finally, the non-audiophile exposed to live music outside of a controlled studio environment or a cat-bird seat in a concert hall, may have a good sense of realism without having heard sound free of hall and pro audio affects. The best hope is that experienced audiophiles can gravitate to a convergence of opinion—which is unlikely given that most are hunkered down in private listening. Web reviews of RMAF and CES are unreliable, as room sounds at shows tend to morph over the several days of the show. For me the local Audio Club meeting is the only reliable venue to explore a possible convergence of opinion. In this month’s meeting in my area, about 45 members heard a presentation of second-from-top ATC active speakers—which are widely consider “neutral.” I know how I felt about these speakers, but will wait for the club president to compile separate reviews from all members before rejecting the theoretical possibility of consensus in a congress of audiophiles.

Seems to me the discussion is ultimately a dispute about the hierarchy of adjectives used to describe the listening experience. What are the properties(whether described directly in aural terminology, or indirectly by analogy drawn mostly from visual processes) that are most fundamentally descriptive of playback? What other less significant descriptors lie underneath? Does a "better" component reveal the interconnectedness between all the perceived properties of playback, or do the properties just float around independently inside a component like monads or seasonings?

Personally I agree with Bryon that resolving, neutral, and transparent are three of the best audiophile adjectives. But allowing even for wide disagreement among audiophiles regarding the meaning and significance of these descriptors, his three are in the final analysis somewhat static. They fail to account for time-domain factors like microdynamics, macrodynamics, pitch, timbre, and of course timing itself. Of the three static terms, perhaps neutrality is the broadest and most appealing, as it is free of precise visual metaphor and therefore available for a wide range of interpretations and contexts. For me the idea of neutrality refers mostly to flat frequency response.

As a modifier, in the course of making small changes inside a component I can hold control variables constant and listen to the effect of a single variable change such as a low-noise resistor or an improved power supply rectifier. Some of the biggest surprises occur around one's perception of neutrality in the sense of flat frequency response. For example, one of the most difficult things to eliminate in a tube system is loose bass. You can be absolutely convinced that your tube component is resolving and transparent and has realistic tonality in the midrange and treble, while rationalizing away a lack of bass control as warmth, embodiment, involvement, whatever. Now make a single improvement to PS, and bass control and perceived neutrality markedly improve. But note as well that dynamics have improved, and midrange & treble pitch, timbre, etc. have all improved. The funny thing is that with the vast majority of circuit changes made on solid technical grounds, all the descriptors of listening are dragged upward. Solving the most stubborn & obvious problem like sloppy bass usually ameliorates a range of lesser, even unrecognized deficiencies. In the rare case where something goes wrong when something else goes right, some further incremental change will usually redress the situation.

Assuming one accepts the possibility of continuous improvement (and what restless audiophile does not), as remarked several times in the thread, we still need an external reference point. For most this reference point is live music as recalled from memory. My experience is that this conviction that one has “golden ears” is mostly a conceit about the power of auditory memory. Auditory memory for most of us (and probably most pro reviewers as well) is problematic and more flawed than we understand. Hence I argue that the reference point needs to be present in the room. For me the side-by-side comparison of source formats—vinyl & RBCD— provides the best cues about neutrality and other metrics. I’ve had the same CDP and vinyl rig for many years. In stock form they were respectable but sounded very different. The more technical improvements poured into each down unrelated analog & digital paths, the closer they converge on the same sound. And this convergence may be as good a demonstration of neutrality as any other.

It's not for nothing that philosophy has been fascinated by the close relationship between music and mathematics. If there is anything to this view of music, it is reasonable to hope for consensus regarding terminology in audio.