How do you judge your system's neutrality?

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.

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.

Interesting posts, guys. First, the 50K systems example. I thought I had made it clear that I was also speaking of this level of system in my example. I do indeed maintain that even if heard in exactly the same space (easily done in a large dealer's biggest showroom, for example), that anyone, not just audiophiles, will hear significant differences between several different systems. I think the designers of the equipment in question would be appalled at the idea that someone couldn't. Frankly, I am baffled by the very idea that there should be eventual "convergence" - one of my favorite things to do is hear how different the exact same source material can sound on several different systems. I think the variety out there in high end audio is a good thing, and that it is a bad thing that new stuff coming out sounds more and more the same.

Dgarretson's comment about his vinyl and CD rigs sounding more and more like each other as he improves them (if I am paraphrasing properly) I think actually speaks more to my own point - they sound more the same not necessarily because the technology is "better" (though it certainly could be), but because he is refining his own personal "reference point," and only in this sense might it be considered more "neutral," and even then only for him and others with similar sonic tastes. A different person, audiophile or not, may think it sounds much less like live music, or "neutral," or whatever their reference point is. As I said before, I don't think this is a bad thing at all. Every audiophile has to decide for themselves what their own personal reference point is. Much of what Dgarretson says about auditory memory is true - but what can also be the case, it should be pointed out, is that sometimes in the quest to improve the sound of their systems, many audiophiles completely lose the forest for the trees, and begin thinking that their system sounds "better" than live music. I certainly don't consider my own system the best of all possible worlds. As far as "golden ears" go, I have never heard anyone actually claim to have them. This is usually used as a derogatory term in my experience. The fact is, some people do hear better than others, and there are a great many audiophiles out there who do not actually have very good ears. And among people with very good ears, there can still be big variation in the sorts of things they are good at hearing. Yet another reason why you will never get very many people to agree on which system is the most "neutral." Everyone hears differently, whether their ears are trained well or not.

Please do not take this personally, Bryon, but another comment I can't refrain from making is that I don't see how anyone could consider "correct pitch and timbre" part of "neutrality." I actually flinched when I read that - a musician's carefully crafted tone colors are NOT "neutral," and I personally would never want to listen for long to a system that removed subtle differences in this area (as many very expensive latest greatest systems do). Are you saying you really want us to sound the same every time?? This thought is very depressing to me. If "better technology" becomes more important than the music, to the great detriment of the latter, priorities aren't right.