How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Cbw723, I can't extend my experience of close convergence between modded analog & digital sources to downstream components. I can only report that mods to downstream components were IMO technically sound and moved the system closer to neutrality as I sense neutrality. The leap of faith necessary to believe this is whether you accept that piece parts made by Duelund, Mundorf, ClarityCap, V-Cap, VSE Superregulators, etc., result in superior performance or merely alternative colorations. However dropping some of these exotic pieces into standard commercial designs is if nothing else an interesting test of the subjectivist viewpoint.

Learsfool wrote:

With water, although all sources are indeed contaminated, we can identify the definite impurities, and there is no debate on the subject, because science call tell us what truly pure water would be like...This is certainly not the case with a piece of audio equipment.

I disagree that we cannot identify definite colorations in audio components (the analogue of the "definite impurities" in the water analogy). I believe there are uncontroversial examples of coloration in audio equipment. I mentioned one earlier in this thread: Intermodulation distortion. As you no doubt know, when two frequencies are fed into the input of an amplifier, the sum and the difference of those two signals will appear at the amplifier's output. So if a 1K and a 10K signal are fed into the input, an 11K (the sum) and a 9K (the difference) signal will appear at the output. That is a coloration of the original signal. And since intermodulation distortion is harmonically unrelated to the input frequencies, it is not a euphonic coloration.

The art of identifying and removing colorations from audio equipment may not be as advanced as the science of removing contaminants from water supplies, but the idea that colorations in audio components are unobservable and unmeasurable is, I believe, an exaggeration of the limitations of audio design.

Learsfool wrote:

There is no way to know what this "neutrality" would be/sound like, since there is no single "absolute sound" to measure your "neutrality" with/against.

I agree that there is no "absolute sound" against which we can evaluate a system’s neutrality. But that does not mean we are left with nothing with which to evaluate neutrality. What we are left with are INDICES OF NEUTRALITY, i.e., characteristics that covary with neutrality. These indices might include measurements of variables we know to be colorations, like intermodulation distortion. (BTW, I do NOT have the view that you can judge a component by its specs alone). Other indices of neutrality might include one or more of the attempts to operationalize neutrality contained in this thread.

Incidentally, the inaccessibility of the “absolute sound” in audio is precisely analogous to the inaccessibility of “absolute reality” in science. There is no "absolute reality," accessible to human beings, against which we can evaluate the truth of theories. But that does not mean we must abandon the concept of ‘truth,’ since theories can be evaluated by INDICES OF TRUTH like coherence, explanatory and predictive power, and intertheoretic corroboration. These characteristics covary with truth, and so they are the measure of the truthfulness of scientific theories.

In my view, the case is almost exactly the same with judging neutrality. There is no "absolute sound," accessible to the audiophile, against which we can evaluate the neutrality of a system. But that does not mean we must abandon the concept of ‘neutrality,’ since systems can be evaluated by INDICES OF NEUTRALITY. My original post is a proposal about one possible index of neutrality.

Very interesting thoughts, Bryon, points on the water analogy well taken. By the way, I did not mean to suggest that science or truth should be thrown out, and I am not quite sure what exactly about my post suggested that, though clearly it must have to more than one person. I also don't mean to suggest that you are left with nothing to evaluate your system with. Speaking of distortions, by the way, I should point out that there are many types of distortions that audiophiles greatly disagree on. Distortions are not necessarily bad - some of them occur quite naturally in live acoustic music, and the attempt to remove them digitally results in some very unnatural sounding timbres sometimes. Yet some would claim that the sound produced in this way is more "transparent," which someone else earlier in this thread suggested was another term for "neutral." I have heard many a dealer or audiophile brag about a digital system that they thought was so "transparent" or "neutral," and it turned out to be an extremely "analytical" and lifeless sounding system indeed. I realize that this is almost certainly not what you are talking about in your post, I just bring it up to point out another reason why I don't think you will ever have widespread agreement on a concept of neutrality - distortions are a whole other can of worms. I just carefully re-read your original post, and the subsequent one where you defined "neutrality" and I still don't think that just because 1) individual pieces sound more unique, and 2) your music collection sounds more diverse, that this necessarily leads to the conclusion that your system is more "neutral". IMO you are presenting a "begging the question" type argument. At least I think that is the logic term I mean, I would have to look it up to be sure. Anyway, it has been an interesting discussion, very thought-provoking.

You all realize, just changing the volume knob up or down a notch changes everything. True neutrality means you have to play it back at the same volume, or loudness as it was recorded. That information is missing from the album so it is anybody's guess. But when my wife tells me to turn it down, I tell her that I must listen to it at the original sound level because any difference in sound level is distortion. She makes me turn it down anyway.

I know, why not hire your favorite band to play in your living room? Then you can A/B them with your stereo.

Learsfool - I agree that this has been a thought-provoking discussion. I also agree that distortions are not necessarily bad. Reading papers by Nelson Pass, listening to his amplifiers, and owning two of them, I am convinced by his view that whether or not distortion is bad depends upon the KIND of distortion it is. While I'm on the subject of things we agree about, let me add: I too think that the term 'neutral' can be misused as a euphemism for systems that are analytical and lifeless. I, like you, am not moved by those systems. I try to listen with my heart, not my brain (though this is a struggle for any audiophile).

As far as begging the question in my original post: A question-begging argument is one in which the conclusion (the proposition to be proved) is assumed, implicitly or explicitly, in one of the premises (the propositions allegedly doing the proving). It's also known as circular reasoning.

The charge of question begging applies to 'arguments' in the strict sense of the word, namely: An argument is a set of propositions, containing a conclusion and one or premises, in which the premises ENTAIL the conclusion. Entailment is a logical relation between two propositions A and B, such that, if A is true, B must also be true. Arguments are judged by the standard of soundness, where soundness is both a matter of (a) validity, i.e. logic; and (b) truth. Hence, to criticize an argument is to say that either (a) the reasoning is invalid, or (b) one or more of the premises are untrue. If you criticize an argument as question begging, then you are saying that its reasoning is circular, and therefore invalid.

In light of this, I can see why you might think my original post was question begging, if you interpret the following three claims as an argument, in the sense above:

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

But it was NOT my intention for those claims to be interpreted as an argument, in the sense above. Items (1) and (2) were NOT intended to be the premises of an argument, nor was item (3) intended to be the conclusion of an argument. In addition, I do NOT believe that items (1) and (2) entail item (3). A formal argument is only one possible relation among a set of propositions, and it was not my goal in the original post. So what was my goal?

TO OPERATIONALIZE THE CONCEPT OF 'NEUTRALITY.'

In an earlier post, I wrote:

Operationalizing a term is a matter of identifying some observable conditions that reliably indicate the presence of a characteristic and determine its value (i.e. how much of it is there is)...I proposed a more actionable way to operationalize the term 'neutral,' in terms of (1) the sonic uniqueness of individual pieces of music; and (2) the sonic diversity your collection of music.

From this, I hope it is clear what my intentions were in the original post - Not to create a formal argument in which items (1) and (2) entailed item (3), but rather to propose a way to operationalize the concept of 'neutrality.' Or to put it in the language of my last post, to identify two INDICES OF NEUTRALITY. That is how I view items (1) and (2) - they are indices of neutrality, i.e., characteristics that covary with neutrality. Identifying the indices of neutrality and operationalizing the concept of 'neutrality,' are therefore, two ways of saying the same thing.

Of course, you are free to challenge my proposal that items (1) and (2) are indices of neutrality. One poster did so earlier in this thread when he wrote:

If one were to wear yellow glasses while skiing during an overcast day, visual improvement in the snow's light and dark shadow detail would be apparent. Those same glasses on a bright day would not be beneficial...
The improvements in your system may have actually increased the level of contrast above and beyond the original instruments of the musician.

Here, Hamburg is challenging the idea that items (1) and (2) are indices of neutrality. I thought this to be one of the more effective and relevant challenges to my original post, but no one seemed to run with it.

In any case, I hope this helps with the ongoing effort to clarify my views on what has turned out to be a complex set of issues.