2. misc-audio
  3. 1257469878

How do you judge your system's neutrality?


Here’s an answer I’ve been kicking around: Your system is becoming more neutral whenever you change a system element (component, cable, room treatment, etc.) and you get the following results:

(1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique.
(2) Your music collection sounds more diverse.

This theory occurred to me one day when I changed amps and noticed that the timbres of instruments were suddenly more distinct from one another. With the old amp, all instruments seemed to have a common harmonic element (the signature of the amp?!). With the new amp, individual instrument timbres sounded more unique and the range of instrument timbres sounded more diverse. I went on to notice that whole songs (and even whole albums) sounded more unique, and that my music collection, taken as a whole, sounded more diverse.

That led me to the following idea: If, after changing a system element, (1) individual pieces of music sound more unique, and (2) your music collection sounds more diverse, then your system is contributing less of its own signature to the music. And less signature means more neutral.

Thoughts?

P.S. This is only a way of judging the relative neutrality of a system. Judging the absolute neutrality of a system is a philosophical question for another day.

P.P.S. I don’t believe a system’s signature can be reduced to zero. But it doesn’t follow from that that differences in neutrality do not exist.

P.P.P.S. I’m not suggesting that neutrality is the most important goal in building an audio system, but in my experience, the changes that have resulted in greater neutrality (using the standard above) have also been the changes that resulted in more musical enjoyment.
bryoncunningham
almarg's avatar
almarg
9,670 posts
 
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
cbw723
89 posts
 
"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."

This is simply no longer true. Traditionalist grammarians didn't like it, but modern usage recognizes and allows qualification of "unique."

But even if it were true, it seems an odd issue to take when the meaning in the original post was clear. What point are you making about the application of the word "neutrality?" Do you want to substitute another word for "unique" in the original post? How would that affect the points being made?

"But then, I listen to the MUSIC in the first place, so would never make these errors."

I don't see any need for this kind of hostility. This is a discussion about defining and applying some terminology. Is there any reason it can't remain civil?
bryoncunningham OP
893 posts
 
Al - You have stated exactly the intention of my original post. And yes, my name is Bryon, not Byron. It's a strange spelling of Bryan.

Cbw723 wrote:
"Couldn't a system have a high degree of both neutrality and resolution, but have fuzzy image focus? "

I doubt this. I think any highly resolving system is also a system that images well.

Newbee - Your last post puzzles me. In it, you wrote:

"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..."

But, in your first post on this thread, you wrote:

"IMHO, a systems resolution, i.e. its ability TO RESOLVE AND PRESENT ALL OF THE INFORMATION IN THE RECORDING in a balanced manner, linear if you will, combined with an overall tone that pleases you is all that counts." [emphasis added]

These two statements appear contradictory. Similarly, in your last post, you wrote:

"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..." [emphasis original]

But in your first post, you wrote:

"There is no recorded performance that will ever sound like a live event...So what are we left with? 'Resolution' so we can hear ALL THAT IS IN THE PITS AND GROOVES' and tonality that pleases our ears and expectations." [emphasis added]

These two statements also appear contradictory.
tholt
552 posts
 
Way cool discussion going on here. Had a feeling this one would grow legs. If Almarg has summarized the OP's proposal succinctly and accurately --

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.

My question is, how is there a necessary correlation between neutrality, as defined herein, and listener satisfaction? I submit part of the love affair with tubes is their added 'warmth' -- hardly neutral. Apologies to all here if this has been brought up or discussed, I didn't have time to read this entire thread -- damn boss keeps coming over.
almarg's avatar
almarg
9,670 posts
 
My question is, how is there a necessary correlation between neutrality, as defined herein, and listener satisfaction? I submit part of the love affair with tubes is their added 'warmth' -- hardly neutral.
Good question, T, and I think that the answer stems from the fact, as I said in my posts, that the correlation is only a partial one. "Correlation," as it might be taught in a statistics class, can be any number between 1.0 (denoting perfect, absolute correlation) and 0 (denoting complete lack of correlation, the two variables being random relative to one another).

In this case, as I noted:
"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."
Euphonic (subjectively pleasing) inaccuracies that can be added by some tube designs would account for part of the difference between "significant degree of correlation" and "perfect correlation."

I think that the validity of the underlying point can be most easily seen by considering a very extreme example. Consider a system purchased at Walmart for a total system price of $300, in comparison with say a $50K system such as some Audiogoner's have. I don't think anyone here will disagree as to which one will provide better and more enjoyable sound, and I don't think that anyone here will disagree as to which one is more neutral/accurate/etc., and I don't think anyone here will disagree that the $50K system is likely to make different recordings sound more different than when those same recordings are played on the $300 system.

But would the $50K system sound completely "neutral," in the sense of recreating what is on the recording with absolute perfection? Obviously not. And would it sound the same as someone else's different $50K system? Also obviously not. But that is beside the point. Both $50K systems, which may sound very different from one another, will be far preferable to the $300 system, and both will make different recordings sound more different than the $300 system.

Which $50K system is preferable, on the other hand, is likely to be subjective, and the decision-making process choosing between them may be an example of one which will not be helped by the test Bryon has proposed. But that does not mean that the test won't be useful to many people, as components are compared, and systems evolve.

Regards,
-- Al
More to discover