How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Learsfool – I apologize for the frustration I expressed in my last post. This has been one of the most rewarding discussions I’ve had in a long time, and you are a big part of the reason for that. I completely agree with the sentiment you expressed in the final paragraph of your last post, that we learn more from people we disagree with than the people we agree with. This is particularly true when your opponents are thoughtful and intellectually honest. You have been both.

Ironically, you said something in your last post that may have affected our deadlock, if only by a little:

You have brought up some types of distortion that can be measured, and certainly I agree that a designer of a piece of equipment can guard against these types of what you call "colorations." However, you seem to be ignoring other ways in which pieces of equipment can sound different from each other that have been brought up, for instance my two preamps in the same exact system where one was warmer sounding than the other…

I think this is accurate, insofar as I have been ignoring ways that systems can sound different that are NOT attributable to differences in playback colorations. I will call those differences COLORATION-INDEPENDENT CHARACTERISTICS. A coloration-independent characteristic is sonic characteristics of a component/system that is:

(1) VARIABLE, in the sense that multiple values of the characteristic are possible, and
(2) COLORATION-NEUTRAL, in the sense that, for at least a limited range of values, differences in the value of that variable have either (a) no effects or (b) identical effects on the concealment and corruption of information about the music.

Here are two candidates for coloration-independent characteristics of systems that I can think of:

(1) Maximum undistorted SPL.
(2) Listening room reverberation time.

There may be many more. I would be interested to hear from you, Learsfool, or others, about candidates for coloration-independent characteristics.

It is worth pointing out that this topic relates to Dgarretson’s first of two operationalizations of 'neutrality':

DGARRETSON’S OPERATIONALIZATION #1: Neutrality can be judged to be increasing when, after a change to a system, the sonic characteristics of two or more formats move toward CONVERGENCE.

The SMALLER the number of coloration-independent characteristics that exist, the MORE convergence between formats will occur as playback colorations are removed. The LARGER the number of coloration-independent characteristics that exist, the LESS convergence between formats will occur as playback colorations are removed. Therefore, if a large number of coloration-independent characteristics exist, then even if we were to, hypothetically, achieve perfect system neutrality, THERE WOULD STILL BE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES in how formats sound.

This issue can be extended, analogically, to whole systems: The SMALLER the number of coloration-independent characteristics that exist, the MORE systems will converge as playback colorations are removed. The LARGER the number of coloration-independent characteristics exist, the LESS systems will converge as playback colorations are removed. In light of this, it would be useful to know: Just how many coloration-independent characteristics are there?

what is the purpose of assessing neutrality, if the goal of listening is musical enjoyment?

is this a philosophical endeavor or is there another reason for this question ?

Mrtennis, For me the interesting aspect is deconstruction of the notion of coloration, which is often left unexamined by subjectivists focused purely on aesthetic enjoyment. Unlike a live acoustic performance, audio playback is at the intersection of art and engineering, and as such may deserve its own vocabulary to translate between art and science as precisely as possible. In addition, there is a certain tension between art and science that may be best examined through philosophy.

Bryon writes:

I think this is accurate, insofar as I have been ignoring ways that systems can sound different that are NOT attributable to differences in playback colorations. I will call those differences COLORATION-INDEPENDENT CHARACTERISTICS. A coloration-independent characteristic is sonic characteristics of a component/system that is:

(1) VARIABLE, in the sense that multiple values of the characteristic are possible, and
(2) COLORATION-NEUTRAL, in the sense that, for at least a limited range of values, differences in the value of that variable have either (a) no effects or (b) identical effects on the concealment and corruption of information about the music.

I'm not sure I agree with #2. We've already identified resolution as existing outside of neutrality/coloration, but it would not pass part b of this test, because low resolution would conceal information.

Coloration-neutral characteristics would seem to demand a definition that speaks in some way to their frequency independence, and could then include things like dynamic range (headroom?), scale, and microdynamics. Although, honestly, there is very little in audio that is frequency independent, so the definition will have to be a matter of degree.

Dgarretson, that is probably the best description of the objectivist/subjectivist perspectives that I have ever seen, and amusingly done, as well! I would add only one thing - you mention the subjectivist must watch his variables carefully and guard against being betrayed by his electronics. This is certainly true. I would add that on the other side, the objectivist must be careful not to be too seduced by the either the technology/equipment or his ideals, thereby losing the forest for the trees. When this happens, the music often becomes secondary, to the point where they don't even enjoy listening to most of their recordings because they are obsessing over a technical issue. They also can fall into the trap/habit of describing anything that doesn't fit their personal preferences/ideals as a coloration, even if it isn't really, one of the main reasons why I try to avoid that term. To put this more humorously, these objectivists sometimes fail to remain objective.

Mrtennis, although I also see no point in either searching for or assessing relative "neutrality" when the goal is musical enjoyment, I do enjoy the philosophical endeavor. As I said in a previous post, I like to understand the perspective of those whom I disagree with, as there is always something to be learned. It helps to clarify one's own thoughts, if nothing else. I like to keep testing/questioning my own beliefs in this fashion. I had a very good history teacher at the Interlochen Arts Academy who constantly played "devil's advocate," arguing from a position we knew she opposed (and that the vast majority of the class opposed as well), to teach us the value of this. Her ability to do this fascinated me, and I have been perhaps too eager to jump into debate just for the sake of it ever since. It drives my friends crazy sometimes. It is also fascinating/instructive for me as a professional performing musician to hear the different perspectives on music that audiophiles have, and I can sometimes be of help to them in return from my own perspective. Other times I start typing very late at night when I shouldn't be and start spouting a bunch of crap.

Since I fear I will start doing so very soon now (I have already begun rambling too far astray, I think), I will put off replying to Bryon until tomorrow. I will just close by again complimenting Dgarretson on this line: "there is a certain tension between art and science that can best be examined through philosophy." I think that's exactly why I am enjoying this thread so much, even though I disagree with it's basic premise. I will also observe that scientists are very supportive of the arts, especially music, in large numbers compared to many other fields, a fact I find very interesting. There is much more common ground between science and art than appears on the surface, despite the obvious tension (just as there is between objectivists and subjectivists). OK, I'll shut up now.