How do you judge your system's neutrality?

This is correct. A system that makes different recordings sound more distinct from eachother is more neutral than one that imposes its own sugar coated coloration on everything.

Just because I am in a contrary mood tonight, I can't resist pointing out that this goes against any reasonable definition of the word neutral (making things sound more distinct from each other, I mean). I have always thought that this is the silliest of the many silly terms batted around to describe sound. Someone should really come up with a better term for that phenomena.

I don't think it's a silly term when applied in this way. I suppose you could think of alternate silly terms -- clean, unobtrusive, honest, flat. Neutrality in this application isn't referring to making things sound more distinct, but that things sound more distinct because of the lack of signature (neutrality) of the component(s) producing them.

This is an excellent topic to throw around Byron. For me, it is absolutely essential that Neutrality be defined a certain way. How does one know that what they are hearing, is not influenced by any coloration? You have to know what the intended original piece sounds like. The way I started was using equipment that was noted in the industry for representing true unadulterated signals. Studio equipment. Specifically speakers. As my experience increased with time, familiarity with recordings became a standardized way to help interpret any subjective additions to the way these original recordings were engineered to sound. Discerning neutrality takes a while to figure out. There is no formula. It's almost like research, in that you need to learn how to rule out variables that influence the contolled conditions. A lot of study is required in reading, listening, trial and error,and communication with every source available to you to help you achieve this level of realization. Many individuals have only the experiences of others in making their own conclusions as to this and that . And thats OK. But, there has to be a WANTING to understand for oneself how these different equipment, technologies could play a role in defining the original intended source. How an engineer takes "NEUTRALITY" and makes it into wonderful sounding music is THE key to high-end audio. Not by the addition of coloration. Sure, a well extended lower frequency response may sound nice, or a rolled off sugnature may help "tame" the upper frequency curves, but is that what the music is supposed to sound like?

I think the term defines itself. Does a piece add to or subtract from what a particular sound indeed sounds like?

I don’t think even the Swiss are completely neutral.

Bring into the room a guitar, symbols, clarinet, sax or trombone. Play ‘em. Then play your solo music pieces. That should help you determine how neutral your system is…. How close to the actual natural sound of the instrument is another thing. I suppose too you can use tuning forks or similar things with known specific tones… if you have those items on hand in well recorded formats.

But I feel transparency a more apt term when someone aims at trying to convey the influence of a piece of equipment. Often though I feel the two words are interposed…. But shouldn’t be. After all, they’re spelled differently so they should have disassociated indications.

I’ve often wondered too, who wrote the audio terminology dictionary, where’s it at, and just who read it?

I personally don’t believe as is said so often, exact neutrality or absolute transparency exists in audio equipment on the whole, and is rather mere perceptions of those auditioners or previewers who attempt to tell another as to it’s performance in words only.

It’s very much like explaining an orgasm.

How was that for you? Well, It was very nice but I felt it a touch too much towards the cool side of neutral honey.

Usually another response follows, like, ‘What the hell does that mean?’

BTW I’d not recommend articulating such an experience to your significant other as such, if asked. She had no idea what I had just said. I had no idea why I even said it.

Suffice it to say I’ve never had a bad one but some have been better than others.

For my own money, I’ll determine my version of warm, neutral, and transparent as close to what I perceive the popular philosophies on them to be and my own exp with different devices. I really can’t see how one can go about it otherwise as we can’t all hear everything as it ‘was’ heard which promulgated the pursuant articles, notes, threads, or casual conversations like these. So instead of saying I’m neutral on the topic, I’ll say “I’m Swiss.”

Perhaps we should all quantify our mention of those terms too, by saying, a thing is ‘as’ neutral or as transparent as I’ve had the opportunity to experience in this or that regard. Pinning those words down to being absolutes is well intended I’m sure, but off the mark a good bit.

Truth be told, if the aim of a systems sound is to be as natural or as lifelike as one may manage, those words take care of themselves eventually. If it is to be merely satisfying to it’s owner, they remain quite arbitrary terms.