How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Fascinating discussion! Newbee, I agree with you 100%. Bryon, thanks for more clarification on your concept. I guess to summarize my objection about the use of the term "neutrality" - every person is going to have a totally different conception of it (to take just one example, someone who only listens to rock is going to have a completely different concept of what is a "coloration" than someone who only listens to small chamber music groups consisting of only acoustic instruments). Let's take Almarg's 50K system example. One could easily assemble several that would all sound really great yet completely and totally different. How could a group of people possibly agree on which one of them was the most "neutral?"

It seems to me that Samhar is on to something here. I believe that what you (Bryon) are describing as "neutrality" is actually your personal "reference point." If I can assume this, then the rest of your argument makes sense (though I do agree with what Newbee said about the false conclusion). In the above example of several 50K systems, though perhaps no one would agree on which one was the most "neutral," each person would have a very definite opinion on how close it was to their own personal "reference point." I personally would never describe my "reference point," or the sound of music, for that matter, as "neutral," so that's another reason I have a problem with that term. Maybe this is only a semantic issue, or "mental masturbation," as someone else put it, but going back to your original question again, I still say that there is no such thing as a system that does not contribute it's own "signature" or "coloration." And since everyone hears differently anyway (and has different sonic priorities), there is not much point to me to search for "neutrality." The "reference point" concept, however, I think has great value in your context for each individual.

Learsfool - I agree with your observation that it would difficult for a group of audiophiles to agree about which high resolution system was the most neutral. But I believe that (1) more agreement exists than has been generally acknowledged in this thread; and (2) more agreement is possible if the term neutral is operationalized (perhaps in the way I have suggested, perhaps not).

Al essentially made point (1) when he wrote:

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.

Al chose this extreme example to make the point, but I believe that agreement among audiophiles concerning neutrality would not be limited to such extremes, particularly if they were to evaluate a variety of high resolution systems in acoustically identical rooms. This is merely a thought experiment used to illustrate my belief that there is more overlap in audiophiles' perception, including the perception of neutrality, than has been generally acknowledged in this thread. Learsfool expressed skepticism about agreement among audiophiles in his last post:

"Let's take Almarg's 50K system example. One could easily assemble several that would all sound really great yet completely and totally different. How could a group of people possibly agree on which one of them was the most "neutral?"

Perhaps these systems would sound "completely and totally different" to some group of audiophiles, because audiophiles are attuned to very subtle differences in audio, and we have very well defined preferences about those differences. But I think it's informative to also consider the perception of non-audiophiles. To them, I doubt these systems would sound "completely and totally different."

Which is more valid in evaluating how different these systems sound: the expert judgment of the audiophile or the naive judgment of the layman? I'm not sure there's an answer to this question. But it's useful to consider because it highlights the possibility that more convergence exists among high resolution systems than is commonly recognized among audiophiles. And if that's true, then perhaps the inability of audiophiles to come to an agreement says more about the audiophiles (myself included) than it does about the systems they listen to.

It would be complicated for non-audiophiles to judge neutrality or any other metric of high quality playback. My wife does well in this regard despite a disinterest in audio, because her ears have been educated through long exposure to the “second-hand smoke” of my audio habit. The general population-- widely exposed to norms of Ipod and boom box listening-- has insurmountable biases against neutrality. Finally, the non-audiophile exposed to live music outside of a controlled studio environment or a cat-bird seat in a concert hall, may have a good sense of realism without having heard sound free of hall and pro audio affects. The best hope is that experienced audiophiles can gravitate to a convergence of opinion—which is unlikely given that most are hunkered down in private listening. Web reviews of RMAF and CES are unreliable, as room sounds at shows tend to morph over the several days of the show. For me the local Audio Club meeting is the only reliable venue to explore a possible convergence of opinion. In this month’s meeting in my area, about 45 members heard a presentation of second-from-top ATC active speakers—which are widely consider “neutral.” I know how I felt about these speakers, but will wait for the club president to compile separate reviews from all members before rejecting the theoretical possibility of consensus in a congress of audiophiles.

Seems to me the discussion is ultimately a dispute about the hierarchy of adjectives used to describe the listening experience. What are the properties(whether described directly in aural terminology, or indirectly by analogy drawn mostly from visual processes) that are most fundamentally descriptive of playback? What other less significant descriptors lie underneath? Does a "better" component reveal the interconnectedness between all the perceived properties of playback, or do the properties just float around independently inside a component like monads or seasonings?

Personally I agree with Bryon that resolving, neutral, and transparent are three of the best audiophile adjectives. But allowing even for wide disagreement among audiophiles regarding the meaning and significance of these descriptors, his three are in the final analysis somewhat static. They fail to account for time-domain factors like microdynamics, macrodynamics, pitch, timbre, and of course timing itself. Of the three static terms, perhaps neutrality is the broadest and most appealing, as it is free of precise visual metaphor and therefore available for a wide range of interpretations and contexts. For me the idea of neutrality refers mostly to flat frequency response.

As a modifier, in the course of making small changes inside a component I can hold control variables constant and listen to the effect of a single variable change such as a low-noise resistor or an improved power supply rectifier. Some of the biggest surprises occur around one's perception of neutrality in the sense of flat frequency response. For example, one of the most difficult things to eliminate in a tube system is loose bass. You can be absolutely convinced that your tube component is resolving and transparent and has realistic tonality in the midrange and treble, while rationalizing away a lack of bass control as warmth, embodiment, involvement, whatever. Now make a single improvement to PS, and bass control and perceived neutrality markedly improve. But note as well that dynamics have improved, and midrange & treble pitch, timbre, etc. have all improved. The funny thing is that with the vast majority of circuit changes made on solid technical grounds, all the descriptors of listening are dragged upward. Solving the most stubborn & obvious problem like sloppy bass usually ameliorates a range of lesser, even unrecognized deficiencies. In the rare case where something goes wrong when something else goes right, some further incremental change will usually redress the situation.

Assuming one accepts the possibility of continuous improvement (and what restless audiophile does not), as remarked several times in the thread, we still need an external reference point. For most this reference point is live music as recalled from memory. My experience is that this conviction that one has “golden ears” is mostly a conceit about the power of auditory memory. Auditory memory for most of us (and probably most pro reviewers as well) is problematic and more flawed than we understand. Hence I argue that the reference point needs to be present in the room. For me the side-by-side comparison of source formats—vinyl & RBCD— provides the best cues about neutrality and other metrics. I’ve had the same CDP and vinyl rig for many years. In stock form they were respectable but sounded very different. The more technical improvements poured into each down unrelated analog & digital paths, the closer they converge on the same sound. And this convergence may be as good a demonstration of neutrality as any other.

It's not for nothing that philosophy has been fascinated by the close relationship between music and mathematics. If there is anything to this view of music, it is reasonable to hope for consensus regarding terminology in audio.

Dgarretson - Great post. Some thoughts...

It would be complicated for non-audiophiles to judge neutrality or any other metric of high quality playback...The general population-- widely exposed to norms of Ipod and boom box listening-- has insurmountable biases against neutrality.

I agree with this. I wasn't trying to suggest that a laymen's naive judgment about neutrality would be valuable. It would not be. I was trying to suggest that a layman's naive judgment about how different high resolution systems sound from one another would be valuable. I think the laymen would hear fewer differences than the audiophile, and as a result, judge those systems to be more similar than the audiophile does. This was a way of making the point that perhaps audiophiles exaggerate the differences among high resolution systems, as, for example, when they describe them as "completely and totally different." No doubt differences exist, and they are something audiophiles are passionate about. But my (admittedly optimistic) view is that there is more potential for common ground than some audiophiles suggest. I quite agree with you, though, that "consensus" is not often achieved.

Personally I agree with Bryon that resolving, neutral, and transparent are three of the best audiophile adjectives. But allowing even for wide disagreement among audiophiles regarding the meaning and significance of these descriptors, his three are in the final analysis somewhat static. They fail to account for time-domain factors like microdynamics, macrodynamics, pitch, timbre, and of course timing itself.

I agree completely that any concept of transparency must include time domain characteristics. I am inclined to think of time domain characteristics, like micro- and macrodynamics, as part of resolution. And I am inclined to think of correct pitch and timbre as part of neutrality. But now I really am being semantic. So on to more important matters...

The more technical improvements poured into each down unrelated analog & digital paths, the closer they converge on the same sound. And this convergence may be as good a demonstration of neutrality as any other.

This idea is fascinating. You mentioned it in your first post in this thread and, although no one ran with it, it stuck with me. I wonder how other posters feel about it...

Bryon, so much of this is about convergence. Interesting speculation that as we move up the food chain of components, instead of arriving at a convergence of opinion, distinctions continue regarding nuances. This is understandable, as once the worst of common coloration is removed, the more small differences are revealed for scrutiny.

In the past few years we increasingly read magazine editors & reviewers remark upon the accelerating pace of sonic improvement. The context for these remarks is usually highly-engineered solutions that stand out from previous designs. I'm inclined to agree with some of this-- particularly in the area of loudspeakers and piece parts. As a generalization, the best equipment is beginning to sound more alike, and the few remaining differences between the best components are more challenging to articulate. Yet even as a rising tide lifts all boats, small differences still tend to jump out at you. Reviewers continue to make distinctions using the same words, but the words describe a changed reality closer to convergence. Does this arise merely because of the all too human need to make distinctions(and to sell magazines), even without meaningful differences? If the pace of change continues, at some point ALL components will join Stereophile Class A Recommended Components, even as the magazine's reviewers continue to try to communicate uniqueness in the full reviews.

The aging of the high end consumer has also brought nostalgia into tastes and purchases. Vinyl takes us back, MM/MI takes us back, under-engineered SET amps takes us back. In the context of aging, coloration becomes a virtue.

Finally, through the economic bubble there has been a huge accumulation of high-end inventory in the marketplace-- much of it falling into the bland middle ground of the bell curve of performance. During this period boutique manufacturers and costly components proliferated all out of bounds, and with this the challenge to review and compare equipment. In some instances subjective opinions about the advantages of certain colorations may be used to advance hidden agendas or retroactively to justify unwise purchases.