How do you judge your system's neutrality?

I used them to keep cables straight.

Dgarretson - I have a better understanding of the approach you are proposing. It's a very interesting idea. I have another question about it. You wrote:

The propagation of a desirable coloration is necessarily accompanied by the propagation of undesirable coloration.

I think you are probably right, but how do we know this?

As long as your are pointing a finger at transgressors to good sound, I have my own findings, and the difficulty in changing them was relatively easy.

On my system, I have found the following:

Concealment:- Solid state amplifiers - easy

Corruption -cables - easy

elimination - oversampling DACs - easy.

The distinction between "easy," "difficult," and "impossible" degrees of recoverability was really just a shorthand way of talking about how much the system would have to change in order to recover the missing information.

In the case of concealment, relatively SMALL changes to the system, such as repositioning the speakers, can recover the concealed information. Hence the word 'EASY.'

In the case of corruption, LARGER changes to the system, such as modifying or changing components, are necessary to recover the corrupted information. Hence the word 'DIFFICULT.'

In the case of elimination, NO changes to the system, other than changing formats, will recover the eliminated information. Hence the word 'IMPOSSIBLE.'

Hello Bryon - I have carefully re-read Dgarretson's alternative operationalizations of "neutrality," especially the post from 12/7. I have also read and digested your further posts and Cbw's on your new "coloration" definitions. I have two general thoughts about all of this.

First, the further discussion of "coloration." It is apparent that there is already disagreement even between the three of you on exactly what is a "coloration" and what is not. Though these differences may be minimized some by further discussion, I don't think they can be eliminated. So going back to your definition of "neutrality" as the absence of coloration, if there can be no consensus on "coloration," there cannot be on "neutrality," either. What one person may see as a coloration, another will not, as I have said all along. I feel that despite your valiant attempt to expand into different categories of colorations, the early disagreement illustrates this.

Which brings me to Dgarretson's approach. What is very interesting about this to me is that if we remove the concept of "neutrality" from his post (again I am speaking of the 12/7 post), sticking to the "personal preference" term alone, it seems to me to be very close to what I have been arguing myself; the main difference is his approach is much more methodical - a more scientifically oriented as opposed to my more artistically oriented perspective, if you will. Other than this difference in perspective, it strikes me as basically the same approach. Where I would disagree with him would be that I would not say that "If a system becomes more like that which one prefers in every sense (without a single shortcoming relative to prior iteration), then one may RELIABLY (my emphasis) conclude that neutrality is improved." I would say that this "consistency between internal reference points" he is seeking would indeed "merely reflect the bias of preference rather than increased neutrality." Two different audiophiles could listen to the same exact modification to any given system and disagree strongly as to whether the result was an improvement or not, depending on their personal preferences, to use his term again. And who could say which one of them was right, or whether the mod resulted in more "neutrality" or not?

Lastly, if Shadorne is still reading this thread, I had a really good belly laugh over your post, thanks for that!