How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Learsfool wrote:

…it seems to me that if true "neutrality", "accuracy", and "transparency" could exist in a system, EQ would be completely unnecessary, and I was very surprised to see you mention it in this context.

Learsfool – I did not mention EQ in the context of our ongoing discussion about neutrality, accuracy, or transparency. If you look again at my post, you will see that my mention of EQ was in the context of a reply to Muralman’s suggestion that it is difficult to identify the contribution of each component in an audio system, and that systems that are complex suffer from this more than ones that are simple. Nowhere in Muralman’s posts, or in my reply to him, is there mention of neutrality, accuracy, or transparency. Muralman’s question was not about neutrality, accuracy, or transparency. But I found his question valid and interesting in its own right, and so I took the time to answer it as best I could.

It is worth mentioning that I never suggested that my own system is especially resolving, neutral, accurate, or transparent. I value each of those characteristics, and I would like to believe that I have achieved some measure of each of them. But I have left the specifics of my own system out of the discussion up until my last post, because I didn’t want the conversation to become a comparison of different equipment, which there is an abundance of on Audiogon. I broke my silence about the specifics of my own system only because Muralman brought up my system in his post as an illustration of his concern about complexity. It was in an attempt to answer his concern that I described some of the particulars of my system. But I do not regard my system as a model of any particular sonic characteristic. I mention this because you wrote the following:

Surely if a system is very "neutral," "transparent," or "accurate," it would not need any EQ?

This makes it sound as though I have characterized my system as “very ‘neutral,’ ‘transparent,’ or ‘accurate.’” I have not.

This brings me to your comment about the incompatibility of (1) valuing system neutrality, accuracy, or transparency; and (2) the use of EQ in the context of room correction. You wrote:

It seems to me that by applying EQ, you are not faithful or truthful either to the recording or the musical event that it represents.

I disagree with this. The use of EQ for room correction is usually a matter of using notch filters to suppress room modes. As you no doubt know, room modes are frequencies that result in standing waves, the volume of which can easily be exaggerated by 10dB or more. If left uncorrected, standing waves make music sound bloated, uneven, and slow. Standing waves can be corrected either through room treatments or through EQ. For those who do not have a dedicated room (like me), the use of EQ for room correction can be a very effective option for controlling the destructive effects of room modes.

The use of EQ, in the way just described, is not a move away from system neutrality, accuracy, or transparency. In fact, it is the opposite, as anyone who has heard the effects can testify to. The result of suppressing the room modes in my system made the system more neutral, more accurate, and more transparent. The measure of this is not merely the flatter frequency response achieved under 200Hz. The measure of this is the perception of the listener.

Your comment that “Surely if a system is very ‘neutral,’ ‘transparent,’ or ‘accurate,’ it would not need any EQ?” seems to reveal an assumption that:

THE SYSTEM = THE EQUIPMENT

If we substitute “the equipment” for “system” in your question, then it would read: “Surely if the equipment is very ‘neutral,’ ‘transparent,’ or ‘accurate,’ it would not need any EQ?” I would agree with this rhetorical question IF I believed that the system = the equipment. But I believe that:

THE SYSTEM = THE EQUIPMENT + THE ROOM

That is why, in a previous post, I wrote:

…it is useful to conceptualize accuracy in terms of information, specifically, the information available at the source vs. the information presented at the ear. (I say “at the ear,” rather than “at the speaker,” since the room, and your listening position in it, are ultimately part of the system).

The alteration of the signal for the purposes of room correction seems like a deviation from system neutrality, transparency, and accuracy ONLY IF you believe that the system = the equipment. If the room is part of the audio system, then changes to the signal in the equipment do not necessarily result in less neutrality, transparency, or accuracy AT THE EAR. And that is where it counts.

Bryon: THE SYSTEM = THE EQUIPMENT + THE ROOM

Exactly, at least in the context in which we have been discussing it. I explicitly made the same point in my post yesterday:

Almarg: Perhaps that distinction can be further refined if we say that accuracy pertains exclusively to the system (including the room, of course), while transparency must encompass consideration of the source material as well as the system.

Learsfool: There is also the "flat frequency response" thing we have already discussed in this thread - no concert hall has a flat frequency response - this simply doesn't sound good for the live event, so to try to create it in your system seems pointless (and usually results in a very lifeless/soulless sound, IME).

Ideally the recording should capture the acoustic characteristics of the hall, as they exist at some presumably well chosen location within it. If that recording is then played back on a system that has flat frequency response (and that has good accuracy in other respects) then it will accurately reproduce those hall characteristics, including any deviations from frequency response flatness, as well as ambiance, reverberation, etc.

If a system is truly accurate yet still results in a lifeless/soulless sound, then it seems to me that there is a problem with the recording(s) being listened to. In that case, it seems to me to be perfectly legitimate to introduce some modest degree of inaccuracy into the system, such as non-flat frequency response, to compensate. The price that will be paid is that other recordings which are more accurate and transparent will then no longer be reproduced to their full potential.

That is a classic audiophile conundrum, and each listener must ultimately try to find the balance that is most satisfactory to him or her, between making great recordings sound their best and making average recordings sound as good as possible.

The "lower noise floor" is also a topic of much division among audiophiles - take my brother's Nottingham turntable, a line which is well known for it's "black background." To my ears, the sacrifice made here to attain this is the removal of too much of what some call "low level information," for example a loss of much of the sense of the sound of the actual musical event/space that was recorded. Live music does not exist in a vacuum, even in a very dead recording studio - the sound of the space is an integral part of the music.

It is pretty well established that low level high frequency hiss creates or enhances the subjective perception of space or hall ambiance. I suspect that is what is behind your observation. In the early days of the cd medium (and perhaps still today, to a lesser extent), that was undoubtedly a contributing factor to the frequent complaints of dry sound, lack of ambiance, etc., because the increase in perceived hall ambiance resulting from low level surface noise on lp's often seemed preferable in comparison. (In the early days of cd the problem was often exacerbated by improper dither or lack of dither in the recording process, and of course the a/d converters that were used in the recording process then were inferior to what is available today).

Can dynamics really be exaggerated above those of the recording by the kind of equipment available to the consumer? If so, how does the exaggeration of dynamics affect, for example, transient information? If you have other ideas and/or experiences of how sacrificing accuracy can sometimes increase transparency, I would love to hear about them.

On the specific question of what kinds of system inaccuracies might lead to an increase in perceived dynamic contrasts, I'm not really certain. Perhaps what is referred to as overshoot in the pulse response of an electronic component or speaker, which can somewhat simplistically be considered as being essentially an overemphasis in the treble region. Perhaps (I'm just speculating here) increases in higher-order harmonic distortion can also lead to a similar subjective perception.

In any event, as I indicated in my post last night, I was speaking more generally:

The inaccuracies I was referring to would not necessarily (or even typically) be "exaggerations." They would be either complementary colorations (a simple illustrative example being a frequency response inaccuracy in the system offsetting a complementary inaccuracy in the recording), or they would be inaccuracies in the system which smooth over, obscure, or homogenize inaccuracies in the recording.

And speaking still more generally, I must say that this has evolved into one of the more remarkable threads I've ever seen at Audiogon (in a positive sense). It would seem to be verging on forming a good basis for a master's thesis, if not a doctoral dissertation!

Best regards,
-- Al

Hi Bryon - obviously, the room has a big effect on how the system sounds, I am not arguing this at all, in fact I believe I said this in my post, and I also said that I agreed that room correction systems can make a huge difference. My point was that "changes to the signal in the equipment," even assuming they are only via room correction still do not necessarily result in either more or less "neutrality", "transparency", or "accuracy". I have heard "room correction" in an enthusiastic dealer's showroom that resulted in a very dead, lifeless sound as well -it depends on how it is applied, which depends on who is applying it. Unless I am very much mistaken, it is not possible to remove all of the effects of room nodes and other similar acoustic phenomena, no matter how good the room correction system is. These phenomena are a part of what gives all great concert halls their individual character, for instance.

Sorry for misunderstanding that your EQ comment only applied to room correction, by the way. I was also not speaking specifically of your system, the question was meant as a general one. Many audiophiles do use EQ for many other purposes besides room correction (I do not), as has been mentioned in this thread, with posted links about it, and I was asking your opinion on these uses as well. I would think that almost all of these other uses of EQ would be a violation of your "neutrality" principles, if I understand them correctly (for instance, wanting to make a violin's extreme high register sound less harsh), would they not?

Gee, I was only gone for a week or so and I come back to find this thread still active. But it does seem to have morf'd into something completely different from the original post where in, as I interpreted it, Bryon was informing us that he had discovered by increasing the quality of his components he was hearing far better replications of the recordings he was playing and he could hear differences that had previously lost. No problem there! Most anyone willing to be called an audiophile would agree with that - we've all been there/done that.

Then we argued at great length the meaning(s) of the words 'neutrality', 'transparency', 'resolution', and lastly (thanks to Al) a word, which for me is easier to grasp, 'accurate'. Despite noble attempts, perhaps even Herculean, by Bryon I doubt that any of us really agree on the subtle differences if any (I can tell by deeply gazing into my crystal ball).

Now we have moved on to discussing acceptable synergy, or attempts at synergy, which are consonant with recreating a feeling of being in the presence of live music or in the studio listening to the music over the studio monitors as heard by the recording engineers.

Sort of a fundamental objective of most audiophiles. One group wants to hear a replication of the sounds of live music, the other group wants to hear as closely as possible what is in the pits and grooves. And, I think, we agree that these are for the most part not mutually achievable and most audiophiles make a chose between these goals when setting up or, more likely, enhancing an extant system.

Some folks think you can only get there with tubes. The 'live' group I think.

Some folks think you can only get there thru SS stuff. The fidelity to the recording group I think.

Some folks think you can only get there thru Analog.
Some folks think you can only get there thru HiRes digital. The divergence seems endless. I'm a true heretic. I'm into playing with and fine tuning with tubes! I'm standing in line to be burned at the stake.

Which leads me to ask, assuming that we have discussed adequately all of the philosophical issues, how does the aspiring audiophile utilize anything in this post to help him achieve his goals?

Al, a degree perhaps, but in what. :-)

FWIW, amoungst my failings, please include a total lack of editing skills. Total! :-)