How do you judge your system's neutrality?

I started this thread with a proposal about how to identify neutrality in an audio system. The thread has become largely a debate about (1) the existence of neutrality; and (2) the value of neutrality. Several of the posters who deny the existence or value of neutrality have contrasted it with the existence and value of resolution and transparency. In light of that, I have a new proposal, one that addresses both the existence and value of neutrality. Here it is:

RESOLUTION + NEUTRALITY = TRANSPARENCY

Let’s define some terms:

RESOLUTION: The amount of information presented by a component or system. In a digital component, for example, resolution is measured by bit depth and sampling rate. But I take it that it is uncontroversial that every major component of an audio system, and the system as a whole, can be evaluated as to its resolution, whether that can be measured or not. Resolution is, of course, a matter of degree.

NEUTRALITY: The degree to which a component or system is free from coloration. Once again, this does NOT refer to coloration in the recording, but only to coloration introduced by the playback system. I have argued above that neutrality, like resolution, is a matter of degree.

TRANSPARENCY: The degree to which a component or system is sonically “invisible.” Transparency is a visual metaphor for something that is not visual. As the metaphor is used by audiophiles, a component or a system is transparent when it allows the listener to “see through” itself and perceive the recording, the event, or the music. Transparency, thus understood, is also a matter of degree.

The current proposal is that, as the resolution and neutrality of a component or system increases, so does its transparency. This can be understood in terms of four prototypical systems:

LOW RESOLUTION, LOW NEUTRALITY:
This system lacks detail and it makes everything sound the same. Think: A boombox.

HIGH RESOLUTION, LOW NEUTRALITY:
This system has lots of detail, but there is a certain “sameness” to everything played through it. It always sounds like THAT system.

LOW RESOLUTION, HIGH NEUTRALITY:
This system lacks a certain amount of information or detail, but it is a chameleon. It’s hard to pin down what the system sounds like, since it sounds different on every recording.

HIGH RESOLUTION, HIGH NEUTRALITY:
This system provides the information missing from the last system, while also being a sonic chameleon. It has a high level of detail within a recording, but also a high level of variety across different recordings. It's easy to get lost in the music when listening to this system, since the system itself never seems to “get in the way.” Of the four systems, this is the most TRANSPARENT.

These hypothetical systems are merely prototypes, in the sense that they describe categories whose members are (1) joined by resemblance, and (2) differentiated by degree.

I hope that this proposal illustrates the value of neutrality, insofar as it links neutrality to other sonic characteristics - resolution and transparency - that are valued by the the detractors of neutrality.

Fire away!

I like this definition, but what about imaging? Couldn't a system have a high degree of both neutrality and resolution, but have fuzzy image focus? That would tend to disrupt the impression of a live event or a well-integrated studio recording, and make the system fail to disappear as required by transparency. Or does resolution (in stereo) necessarily require imaging?

I think the original two point are valid but a third point is needed.

Dgarretson nailed it at the start.
"a better term to use is a flat frequency response"
Ignores correct pitch & timbre, the hallmark of a high-end system.
"No real performing space is "neutral"...the room's acoustics always have a huge effect on the musician's sounds...The reference point should be what you want the music to sound like."
Does the room in which the playback system resides really affect sonics as much as the original recording space? IMO not true of any high-performance system-- particularly at lower volumes.

A "reference point" is necessary and should be #3 on the list. For me that point is acoustic nylon stringed guitar something I played.
Without a "reference point" it just all seems like mental masturbation. Very interesting but....

Byron, It's hard to argue with your new, or restated, position. Not many nits, for me anyway, that are worth picking or restating. But you lost me with your conclusion that getting to your optimum combiniation of resolution, transparancy, and neutrality, allowed one to get lost in the music. It may allow YOU to get lost, but consider that this is a very personal experience and might well not be shared by many others.

You have stated, under the caption High Resolution, High Neutrality "Its easy to get lost in the music when listening to this system........".

IMHO listening to MUSIC is easily distinguished from listening to the sonic character of audio components by playing recordings of music. And I think this is worth restating, especially for those who might be inclined to adopt your conclusion about the value of a highly resolved, transparen/neutral system.

When you have an audio system that is highly resolved and highly neutral/transparent etc, as you describe, you will hear all of the warts in the recording process including mic placement, edits, mixing, instrument highlighting, etc. None of which is natural to a live performance in any sense but which is a construct for the purpose of reducing the music to a recording format in a manner that will reproduce a sense of space when played back at home.

Of course the more successful the recording process the more successful the illusion when played back at home. The perfect recording played back over a perfect system in a perfect room would be a wonderful experience (I must assume I'm afraid - I've never heard it). Not live, but one you could certainly get lost in listening to the music. Maybe that proves your point, but........

Very few recordings come even remotely close to recording a performance in a natural style that comes accross as such when played back at home. If your interest is in sound and audio recording practices your optomized system is fine. You will hear all that is in the pits and grooves. But that does not cause ME to become absorbed in the MUSIC unless and until I have to trained my ears/mind to listen thru all of the artifice that the recording process adds to the performance or my recordings are, or close to, perfect replications of the live event.

I must conclude that if one is inclined to prize neutrality to the source more than some of us music enthusiasts, who are comfortible in seeking systems that manage to combine both resolution and tonality which may not be up to the sound enthusiasts level of approval, but which allow us to get lost in the MUSIC without the constant reminders that we are just listening to a RECORDING of music, that it is a perfectly valid audio goal, but it is not exclusive of other goals.

Before you consider posting and reminding me of all of your qualifying statements, as you have previously done, consider that this post would not have occurred if you had not made the statement about what conditions allowed you to get lost in the music. That statement, to me nullifies most of your qualifying statements and reflects your real priorities, which many of us do not share, no matter how artfully you try to present them. But since you want to enlighten us, let me share the spirit. The word 'unique' as you have used in your original post, is absolute, it cannot be (should not be) modified further by using terms like less or more as is so commonly done. And, FWIW, my musical collection is very diverse - I fail to understand how changing the quality of my audio system will ever make my collection more diverse. But then, I listen to the MUSIC in the first place, so would never make these errors.

Almarg, I tried but I just can't emulate you. Damm......:-)

Excellent last several posts, most definitely including Newbee's despite (and perhaps because of) it's non-emulation of a particular lesser light around here :)

I still feel, though, that the main thrust of the op has been diverted throughout most of this thread by unnecessary focus on semantic nuances, as well as on matters which (although well reasoned, and about which reasonable people can differ) are essentially extraneous to the issue at hand.

After I submitted my previous post, it occurred to me that when I used the phrase "lack of colorations/transparency/neutrality/whatever you want to call it," I should have added the word "accuracy" as well.

Basically all of these terms relate to how accurately what is reproduced by the system (and its room environment), resembles what is sent into it by the recording.

And my restatement of what I believe to be Byron's (Bryon's?) initial basic point, which which I agree, consists of two elements:

1)A significant degree of correlation (although certainly not a perfect correlation) can be expected between listener satisfaction and lack of coloration/increased transparency/neutrality/accuracy or whatever such term may be preferred. And,

2)If a component change, or a change to the entire system, results in consistently increased differentiation of the sounds of different recordings, there is a good likelihood that "lack of coloration/increased transparency/neutrality/accuracy or whatever such term may be preferred" has been improved. Meaning, per item 1, that listener satisfaction stands a good chance of having been improved as well.

Regards,
-- Al