How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Learsfool wrote:

It most certainly does NOT follow that just because I don't believe in neutrality, that therefore I don't believe in coloration! (The same goes for the "neutral room"/ "room coloration" thing). The only way this could possibly be true is within the context of your own personal definition, which is precisely what is under debate here.

To which Cbw replied:

If you believe that playback systems can add more or less coloration to a system, then you implicitly believe that a system can be more or less neutral, as defined here, whether you believe you believe that or not. You can't believe in speed (distance/time) and not believe in slowness (time/distance) and remain logically consistent.

I agree with Cbw that it is logically inconsistent to believe in coloration and not believe in neutrality, AS COLORATION AND NEUTRALITY HAVE BEEN DEFINED IN THIS THREAD, namely:

‘Coloration’: Additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music.

‘Neutrality’: The degree of absence of coloration.

Although this definition of ‘neutrality’ is defined by its RELATION TO coloration, that does not make my reasoning, which employs those concepts, circular.

Learsfool - Our current disagreement seems to be that you object to my definition of 'neutrality.' But I agree with Cbw that my definition of neutrality is NOT “precisely what is under debate,” as you suggested. The focus of the debate, and my original post, is not the DEFINITION of 'neutrality,' but the OPERATIONALIZATION of 'neutrality', that is, the identification of a set of observable conditions that indicate the presence of neutrality. In your post dated 11/25, you seemed to agree with this characterization of the debate:

Thanks for the clarification, Bryon. I guess where we really disagree, then, is on whether you have in fact proposed "conditions that reliably indicate the presence of a characteristic," emphasis on reliably.

Here you seem to acknowledge that the central question of the thread, and the central focus of our disagreement, is the validity of my OPERATIONALIZATION of 'neutrality,' not the validity of my DEFINITION of 'neutrality.'

Of course, you are perfectly entitled to question the validity of my definition of neutrality as well. But it is inaccurate to treat my arguments for the OPERATIONALIZATION of neutrality as though they were arguments for the DEFINITION of neutrality. Doing so does create the appearance of circularity, but it is not a fair characterization of my arguments or my views.

Moving on to one of your concerns with my DEFINITION of neutrality:

So far, the only way you have defined your "neutrality" characteristic is by saying that it is an absence of some other characteristic, which you are calling "coloration." Frankly, I am not certain that this would pass muster as a scientific definition in the first place - I don't think it is accepted to define one thing solely as an absence of some other thing?

You are right I define neutrality in RELATION TO coloration. I don’t see the problem in this. To begin with, I never suggested that my definition was “scientific,” though I suppose my efforts to operationalize the concept could be considered an attempt to make it scientific. Acknowledging that, you are mistaken to suggest that a scientific concept cannot be defined by ABSENCE, as I have done with the definition of ‘neutrality.’ Here are some scientific concepts defined by absence:

Entropy: The ABSENCE of order in a thermodynamic system.
Vacuum: The ASBENCE of matter in a volume of space.
Absolute Zero: The ABSENCE of molecular activity.
Equilibrium: The ABSENCE of global system-level activity resulting from the balance of component-level forces.

In light of this, I do not see why defining ‘neutrality’ in terms of the ABSENCE of coloration is a problem, even if the standard of conceptual validity is a “scientific” concept.

Learsfool wrote:

Kijanki and I keep asking, how do you know what anything is "supposed" to sound like? There is no one answer to that question, and your assertion that there is is dumbfounding. A great many audiophiles calling themselves "objectivists" would stop far short of such an assertion. I fail to see how anyone could think of music or it's reproduction in such black and white terms.

This is a mischaracterization of my view. You are running two different things together:

(1) Is there a FACT OF THE MATTER about whether a system contains colorations (i.e. deviations from neutrality)?
(2) Is there a SINGLE way that a playback system is SUPPOSED TO sound?

My answer to (1) is Yes. That is what makes me an Objectivist about neutrality. But being an Objectivist about neutrality does not make me an Objectivist about ALL CHARACTERISTICS of musical playback. As it turns out, I am NOT an Objectivist about all characteristics of musical playback. Because of that, my answer to (2) above is No – there is not a single way that a playback system is supposed to sound. I hope you will see that my thinking on these topics is not as black and white as you have stated.

Al, I doubt you are dying to hear from me again, but what the hell.

It might be helpful if Bryon didn't include the word 'music' as being "more unique". He is actually talking about sound and the quality thereof, not music. Consider that some audio enthusiasts used to demo their systems with recording of jets taking off or the sounds made by trains on a track or their whistles.

It might be helpful if he didn't referring to one's 'music collection' becoming more diverse. The music itself, nor the number of extant recordings in one's collection, doesn't become more 'diverse', only the ability to discern the differences in the sound being delivered by the system can be enhanced by refining the quality of a systems components. The music collection doesn't become more diverse, only the ability to discern the amount of information in the pits and grooves becomes more acute. Perhaps that would increase his appreciation of some of the records in his collection - and that would be a good thing. Conversely one could discover that the more you could hear on some of your recordings the less you might appreciate listening to them ergo your usable collection might actually diminish.

I have always found it interesting, and inexplicable, why someone with the experience with audio, education, attention to detail, and command of the English language, would come up with such lame descriptions (IMHO of course - I realize others are willing to infer meanings that I will not) of what the effects of 'neutrality' are (as he uses the term) as if his observations related to 'music' when in fact they relate only to sound from an audio system, which IMHO, is better described when you relate how your system improves when you eliminate/reduce/alter 'colors' (a term far too inclusive for my tastes). He could talk about the effects of diminishing distortion's (kinda broad too), the effects of rise times and decays, the effect of tonal deviations from 'flat', the effect of different components synergy with any given speaker system, speaker system set up, room issues, ad infinitum, all of which add to or detract from some concept of neutrality/transparency/accuracy or sense of resolution.

I think the post/conversation might have been far more interesting to some of us if we were to discuss what an optimum system (on paper) might be and why, starting with the most important selection of your speakers system. Dynamic/cones. Electrostats. Horns. Planers. Line source, ribbon, cone, or electrostats. And working back to the amp and sources.

Obviously each speaker design and implementation produces different results. And that is where we will get into problems when we try to (assuming that we even do, although I think most experienced audiophiles do) recreate a home system which even begins to approach a sense of faithfulness to the recorded signal.

So, for me, I think it is not possible to change a few words in his post that would make it something I could agree with. If it were reduced to something like "As I improved the quality of my system's components, I found the sound became more clear, the sound was usually more enjoyable. In fact it sounds to me just as I would imagine it was recorded and I have found myself listening to more of my recordings, previously rejected for sonic reasons. I think my system is achieving a sense of reality that I can relate to."

Sorry I cannot be more accommodating. I'd like to be. :-)

Bryon wrote: "Is there a SINGLE way that a playback system is SUPPOSED TO sound?"

I was talking not about system sound but original performance sound. Did I miss this original performance? Neutral (or close) system exists - I don't question that (still no virtue to me). The problem I have is comparing its sound to, mentioned few times "original performance". How I can test for neutrality without knowing how it supposed to sound. To go to concert and wait for CD from this concert (assuming that recording engineer didn't touch it)? What Learsfool is trying to explain is that any instrument will sound differently in different halls on different days. My guitar sounds completely different in the summer (humid) and in the winter (dry). It sounds different with different picks and strings. It sounds completely different with new strings than with old strings. If I have Aural memory of guitar - is it my guitar or different guitar. There are hundreds of different guitars with different presence, projection, separation, sustain and tone. What Aural memory? What original performance?

Cbw723, if you go back and reread the entire thread, you will see that not just myself but at least three others are indeed questioning the very concept and/or definition and/or operationalization of the term "neutrality", with reference not just to live music, but also within the context of an audio system. We have not all questioned the same aspects exactly, but all of this has indeed been under debate at some point in the thread. My position is/has been that this "neutrality" does not and cannot exist, and I have spoken of it at length.

The term "coloration," on the other hand, I don't have quite as much of a problem with, though Newbee is probably correct that I am using the term too broadly (as opposed to Bryon's too narrow usage). My position is that there is no such thing as an absence of "coloration" in music and/or music playback and/or an audio component; therefore Bryon's "neutrality" couldn't ever actually exist, even as he defines these terms. Hence, his operationalization of the term is of no real practical value (especially since no one has yet been able to describe what it would sound like, despite this one ultimate sound goal being "what it means to be an objectivist," according to Bryon).

I fully realize, Al, that the term "neutrality" (and the substitutes you mention) is in wide use more or less as Bryon uses it. That fact doesn't make the usage correct, though, and many of us obviously get along fine without it - in a different thread some time ago it was my nomination for the most useless term in audio, where it got the most early agreement, if I remember correctly, but I haven't looked back at that thread in a long time. I agree with Newbee that there is no way one could reword the proposal "to allow convergence," and I like what he had to say in closing. If Bryon or anyone else changes a piece of equipment in his system, and he likes the resulting change in sound better, that's great! That is a goal of all of us audiophiles. I submit that "neutrality" does not have anything to do with it. In my view, Bryon has yet to propose any condition that indicates the presence of a characteristic of "neutrality" at all, let alone "reliably." He has mentioned a few different types of distortion, all of which have a technical explanation not requiring the existence of "neutrality," and he has spoken of absence of "coloration," which I have already spoken of at length.

Bryon, those are good examples of definition in relation to absence, thanks! However, I am compelled to point out that all of those things you list have been proven to exist - your "neutrality" is much more elusive. Another part of my problem with your terms is that I cannot accept your use of the term "coloration" as a purely negative term, something always to be removed. My previous post spoke at length of the relationship of music and color. A designer of a piece of equipment has a specific sound color he is aiming at, that is different from all other designs/models out there, otherwise why design another piece of equipment? "Neutrality" simply is not a goal of design (for a start, that would require knowing what "neutrality" sounded like). Let me refer again to my two high-end preamps within the same exact system example. How could you tell which of them was more "neutral?" I submit you couldn't, and therefore, your operationalization of the term does not have any real practical value for audiophiles, as Kijanki keeps pointing out.

What does have value in this example is to try to figure out why YOU like the sound of one better than the sound of the other - for example perhaps you conclude that preamp B has a very slightly warmer midrange, and your favorite female jazz vocalist recordings are more enjoyable in consequence. You may even discover a technical reason for this specific sonic color difference from preamp A. This could be a real help/guide to improving the sound of your system overall. But how could you tell if it was therefore more or less "neutral?" You couldn't. Nor would there necessarily be agreement among any given group of people that this difference was an improvement. But if you think it was, then you can use that information to improve the sound of your system to your ears, and that is a good thing - that has real value. But only you can really make that call, and therefore determine that value, for yourself, according to your own personal sonic tastes, or "reference point"; I submit that this is what your "neutrality" concept really amounts to, as someone else said near the very beginning of this thread, sorry I don't remember who. To sum up, even given your definition of the terms, a) you could never know what "neutrality" would sound like, because there is no one single "correct," "perfect," "absolute," "neutral" sound; and b) there will never be "convergence" on exactly what is a "coloration," either. I submit that both a) and b) are good things, not bad; that is why we have so much great variety in high end audio reproduction. Just continue your search for components that improve the sound of your system and your music collection to your ears - it really is that simple. The harder thing is to work on improving your ear - that takes constant and diligent work and practice, but I guarantee it would (hopefully will) lead to much greater enjoyment of your music and your system (including your ability to judge differences between pieces of equipment) then your search for "neutrality" ever has or will. Whatever path you choose, I wish you continued success in improving your enjoyment of the music! That is what really matters to all of us!