How do you judge your system's neutrality?

I would like to say a few words, not the detractors of neutrality, but to the detractors of this thread. A number of posters have questioned the value of these discussions. Some have expressed their doubts with arguments, others with jokes, and a few with hostility. In many of my posts, I have made a point of trying to explain the value of these discussions, as I see them. A few other posters have done likewise. But this has not silenced the steady stream of skeptics. In response, I would like say a few things. I generally cringe at the conversation becoming about itself. Others who feel the same can skip this post.

Some posters have expressed doubts about the value of conceptual analysis.
This thread began with a question about neutrality, but quickly became about the concepts closely linked with it – coloration, accuracy, resolution, transparency. It seems to me that these concepts are employed daily by posters on Audiogon. Most of the time they remain undefined elements in the discussion. When they become a point of contention, it is often obvious that a great deal of the original disagreement is attributable to disparities in how people understand the terms of the discussion. That fact highlights the need for conceptual analysis.

However, some posters seem to believe that conceptual analysis is mere “semantics.” I think that that is a retreat from the challenge of being clear about the basic units of thought and communication, and a premature resignation to deadlocking. In other words, I have the (admittedly) optimistic view that, through the analysis of the terms of the discussion, a great deal of disagreement can be avoided or resolved. I am not so naïve as to believe that this will make audiophiles regularly agree. But I believe that, without this kind of effort, they will NEVER agree.

One last comment on the value of conceptual analysis. As I mentioned in a previous post, the refinement of concepts is crucial for the refinement of percepts. There is a great deal of scientific evidence for the view that perception is “cognitively penetrable.” That is to say, by improving the way you think about things, you improve the way you perceive things. This is an essential element in most “expert perception.” A symphony composer’s expert perception is developed not only through the refinement of his senses but also through the refinement of his mind.

Moving on, some posters have expressed doubts about the relevance of this thread to audiophiles. To begin with, it is certainly more germane to the interests of audiophiles than such threads as “Cars: What does the typical audiophile drive?” which is now up to 779 posts, without a chorus of detractors questioning its value. This begs the question: Why has this thread come under recurring criticism for its relevance when threads like the one above have not? One possibility is that, according to some posters, this thread is "philosophical" and "academic."

To criticize something as “philosophical” is usually to say that it is “excessively abstract.” My reaction to this is that “excessively abstract” is in the eye of the beholder. I think some people are more comfortable with abstractions than others. There are those who enjoy abstractions, which I think is difficult for some people to identify with. And there is often an assumption that those who enjoy abstraction could not possibly enjoy music, an assumption which is patently false to those, like myself, who enjoy both. And for those for whom this thread has been excessively abstract, I would ask: As of last count, there are 78,328 threads on Audiogon – What is the risk in having one that is “philosophical”?

To criticize something is “academic” is usually to say that it is “of no practical value.” In my view, what is “practical” is also largely in the eye of the beholder. What is perceived as practical depends upon the interests and ingenuity of the perceiver, and those vary widely. And finally, what is “valuable” is in the eye of the beholder. I find it ironic that the detractors of this thread, who are almost uniformly Subjectivist with respect to neutrality, appear uniformly OBJECTIVIST WITH RESPECT TO WHAT IS VALUABLE. That is to say, they seem to believe that, if something is not valuable to them, then it is not valuable to anyone. And they seem to believe this in spite of evidence to the contrary, namely, the continued participation of several posters on this thread, including an outspoken opponent of neutrality. In my view, that participation is unambiguous evidence that at least some people do not share their beliefs about what is valuable.

Bryon, I would like to apologize to you for my acts of hostility, in what ever form they appeared. For the most part my hostile remarks were the result of a premature conclusion that you were a Troll, not just an audiophile wanting to revive and discuss an old controversy from a different prospective. Clearly you are NOT a Troll.

You are RIGHT, I think, when you observe that some subjectivists can be objectivists. I'm certainly an objectivist when it comes to pratical resolution of tangible issues. Finding and taking the shortest path to a goal is a fundamental goal for me. I can see that I should, and will, try to avoid participating in philosophical discussions and stick to those threads where a resolution of more practical issues are possible and are subject to a summing up easily understood by posters who are trying to understand this hobby in simple terms.

This thread has been a valuable learning experience for a lot of folks IMHO.

Bryon wrote, "by improving the way you think about things, you improve the way you perceive things."

Similarly, as an English teacher once told me, if you can't communicate clearly in words, you are not thinking clearly. This thread evidenced clear articulation of at least several new constructs. It was a refreshing change from the repetitiveness of many subjects posted to forum. The vocabulary of audio was expanded a bit, and perhaps as a result, some will think about about their systems and biases more clearly than before.

Newbee: This thread has been a valuable learning experience for a lot of folks IMHO.

Dgarretson: This thread evidenced clear articulation of at least several new constructs. It was a refreshing change from the repetitiveness of many subjects posted to forum. The vocabulary of audio was expanded a bit, and perhaps as a result, some will think about about their systems and biases more clearly than before.

I second these thoughts, and share these feelings in my own case. I want to particularly thank Bryon, Learsfool, Dgarretson, and Cbw723 for what I consider to be an exceptionally high caliber, intellectually stimulating, and thought provoking thread.

A goodly number of years ago, when I was a first year law student taking a course in contracts (I have a law degree although my career and other degrees were in electrical engineering), the professor posed some question to the class. During the next hour or so a lot of students took turns proposing answers, each of which he then methodically, in Socratic style, tore to shreds with questions that revealed fallacies in the answers.

As this went on there was an increasing feeling of actual suspense among many of us wondering what on earth the answer could possibly be, with just about every conceivable answer having been reduced to rubble. Then, abruptly and anti-climactically, he declared that we had pretty much covered that subject, and went on to something else.

I later came to understand that there was no one correct answer, and the point was to improve the thinking skills that are brought into play when dealing with issues that are subtle and ambiguous.

That seems relevant here as well.

Best regards,
-- Al

Hi Bryon - nice posts! Your second interpretation of the "reification" comment is the one meant - it is specifically in reference to the concept of "neutrality." However, I don't think it has necessarily to do with your definition by absence, as you assumed. To grossly summarize, our position would be that although colorations exist, this does not mean that neutrality does. We don't believe that there could ever be a piece of audio equipment, let alone an entire system, that has no coloration, meaning therefore that "neutrality" is an abstract concept, not something that has or could have real material existence.

As far as the validity/reliability, this is actually what was the more interesting/important part of all of this to him. To me, it is not so much the validity but the reliability of the operationalization as a whole that is definitely in question. The validity may or may not be, depending on what specific measures we happen to be speaking of (for various different types of colorations, for example - would we really be measuring what we are trying to or not). I hope this makes sense?

The taste/quality thing is complex. Taste and quality are often confused, as it is hard to separate the two sometimes. In the context of his paper I mentioned, audio is not involved; that was a discussion of music criticism (critics being the arbiters of taste), and the perceived meaning and value of musical works, and it looks at critics who failed to see the value of works at their premieres which are now considered masterpieces, and discusses the sociology of it all. It is very entertaining.

However, taste vs. quality is also applicable to our discussion here. One's taste is going to have a huge influence on how one perceives the quality of a component, for instance. Also on whether something is a coloration or not, the degree of coloration, etc. You said yourself in your second post of today "what is 'valuable' is in the eye of the beholder." One could also easily say that what is a "coloration" is in the ear of the listener.