How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Learsfool writes:

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.

You've asserted this point about a half dozen times in this thread, and each and every time someone (usually Bryon) points out that neutrality, as used here (and in the audio world in general), is a relative term. A component may be either more or less neutral (which is exactly synonymous with saying that it may apply either less or more coloration to the source). It would seem an entirely uncontroversial assertion.

Neither Bryon, nor anyone else on this thread has suggested that absolute neutrality (i.e., zero coloration) either exists or is achievable in a playback system. All that has been suggested is that components may have either more or less coloration, and that it may be possible to distinguish one of those conditions from the other.

Learsfool wrote:

Bryon has yet to propose ANY CONDITION that indicates the presence of a characteristic of "neutrality" at all, let alone "reliably."[Emphasis added]

This strikes me as a strange thing to say, since I have proposed THE SAME TWO CONDITIONS many, many times in this thread:

(1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique.
(2) Your music collection sounds more diverse.

These were the conditions I proposed in the original post. The have been discussed at great length, including by you. You may not AGREE with those conditions, but it is strange to suggest that I have not PROPOSED any.

Learsfool wrote:

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.

We have also discussed this at length, and we are in complete agreement about the existence and desirability of coloration in music. For the purposes of my operationalization of neutrality, my use of the word ‘coloration’ is strictly about colorations INTRODUCED BY THE PLAYBACK SYSTEM. If you like, we can designate them:

(1) Music Colorations: The sonic signature of the musical event and/or the recording.

(2) Playback Colorations: The sonic signature of the playback system.

While music colorations are VARIABLES, playback colorations are CONSTANTS.

We are in complete agreement about the existence and desirability of MUSIC COLORATIONS. Our disagreement lies in the existence and desirability of PLAYBACK COLORATIONS. This point has been made now many times. Therefore, your objection to my use of the word ‘coloration’ seems unmotivated, since I have already acknowledged that my use is limited to playback. Perhaps you have the view that I should not use the word 'coloration' so narrowly. I have no problem using the phrase ‘playback colorations’ if that will prevent us from having this particular disagreement again.

Learsfool wrote:

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…

I do not agree with this. Under the terms of the discussion, neutrality is degree of absence of coloration (now: “playback colorations”). Under the terms of this discussion, playback colorations are additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music.

Designers are, without doubt, sensitive to additions or subtraction to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that they are not sensitive to noise, distortion, crosstalk, power isolation, and a host of other considerations, ALL OF WHICH, if left unattended, can result in the concealment or corruption of information about the music. To acknowledge that designers are sensitive to such considerations is to acknowledge that designers are sensitive to PLAYBACK COLORATIONS. And if they are sensitive to playback colorations, then they are sensitive to NEUTRALITY, defined as the degree of absence of playback colorations.

It is important to point out that designers need not EXPLICITY conceptualize their design values in terms of coloration or neutrality, though I suspect some of them do. The vast majority of concepts, audio or otherwise, are IMPLICIT, which is to say, they are concepts about which we are unaware. It is enough for designers to have the concepts like intermodulation distortion, crosstalk, speaker cabinet resonance, etc., and to treat those phenomena as THINGS TO BE MINIMIZED TO IMPROVE THE SOUND OF THE MUSIC. By doing that, they reveal the presence of an IMPLICIT concept of coloration, and an IMPLICIT concept of neutrality, as defined here.

It is also important to point out that I am not suggested that minimizing playback coloration/maximizing neutrality is the PRINCIPAL goal of most, or any, designers. But I believe that it is likely to be ONE GOAL AMONG MANY. The evidence for this belief is the existence of a large number of audiophile components that, in my view, have relatively low levels of playback coloration/high level of neutrality, especially when compared with the low-fi playback systems available on the mass market. It is hard to believe that this is an accident.

Cbw723 wrote, "All that has been suggested is that components may have either more or less coloration, and that it may be possible to distinguish one of those conditions from the other."

My point is not too different from yours. Movement along a continuum toward a relative lack of coloration is possible. An advance in engineering and neutrality has been indicated when all variables of the listening experience are carried in the direction of preference. But if after making a change in your system you find that some of the variables of listening have moved opposite to preference, this indicates a lack of advance toward neutrality. Whether or not you prefer to stop along the way and accept a relatively colored presentation is your business. But given the way electronics function, the chances are good that a preferred coloration is accompanied by an unpreferred coloration, and one must make grudging compromise between the two. What colored system is without defect recognized even by its owner...

Dgarretson – Very interesting post. As I understand it:

(1) You advocate a METHODOLOGICAL INTERNALISM for evaluating coloration/neutrality...

Distinctions about coloration may be made relative to an external reference point of live music, or to an internal reference point of a previous or alternate iteration of one's system. Unfortunately fidelity to an external reference point will be debated ad nauseam, owing to endlessly varying opinions about live sound, as well as human frailty in reconstituting performance from memory.

(2) You acknowledge that, because of your Methodological Internalism, ABSOLUTE judgments about coloration/neutrality are impossible. However, you believe that RELATIVE judgments about coloration/neutrality are possible...

...if one is to exclusively adopt internal reference points, any improvement is by definition relative to one’s current system rather than to an absolute.

(3) You propose an ALTERNATIVE OPERATIONALIZATION of ‘neutrality,’ namely:

DGARRETSON'S OPERATIONALIZATION: Neutrality can be judged to be increasing when, after a change to a system, all sonic characteristics are improved...

An advance in engineering and neutrality has been indicated when all variables of the listening experience are carried in the direction of preference.

I have mixed feelings about (1). I completely agree with (2). And I am still mulling over (3). I have a few questions to help me understand (3) better:

(i) What about situations where you change a component and you get the result that SOME characteristics have improved and SOME have stayed constant. Is that an improvement in neutrality?

(ii) Can you say more about the phrase “carried in the direction of preference”? That seems like a Subjectivist thing to say, but you are an avowed Objectivist with respect to neutrality. I am not “holding you to” your previous posts. It’s that I get the sense that you are STILL an Objectivist, and so I am confused by the distinctly Subjectivist wording of your operationalization. Maybe you can elaborate. Thanks!

Cbw723, Bryon has indeed stated, in his post of 12/5, that he believes that there is ultimately one way that music reproduction should sound, and went on to comment that that is what it means to be an Objectivist. So yes, he is therefore arguing that there is an absolute neutrality, though he of course is not arguing that he has actually achieved it.

Bryon, your reconstruction of my argument is incorrect. I would never state the first premise you give at all (I also agree with you that in the context of your operationalization, it would be false), since my position is that neutrality does not and cannot exist, and that there is no one correct way that music or it's reproduction or any piece of audio equipment is "supposed" to sound.

I will repeat that Bryon's two premises do not prove the existence of "neutrality." (In fact, they assume it's existence, which is why I originally called it a question-begging argument.) One can make relative judgements about contrast and differentiation without any need for an operationalization of "neutrality." This concept/operationalization is an artful theoretical construct; but in the end it has very little, if any, PRACTICAL use to ALL audiophiles (any usefulness being limited to each individual set of sonic tastes/priorities, or reference point, or whatever you want to call it). Even within the context of Bryon's operationalization, there are far too many variables, both in music and in audio equipment, and also in human hearing, for there to be any convergence of opinion on, let alone RELIABLE ways of measurement of even relative "neutrality". I gave an alternative way of thinking about the improvement of one's system, as did Newbee and Dgarretson, each of which is of good practical use for all audiophiles, which was the goal of the original post. It has certainly been a fascinating discussion.