How do you judge your system's neutrality?

If the settings of an equalizer are changed from Setting A to Setting B, as I see it that amounts to a change in the system, which should be evaluated similarly to how substitution of one component for another component would be evaluated.

I agree with this. But I was mixing two points. My main point was more about the use of equalization (or some other process) to enhance contrast beyond what actually exists in the source or even the live performance. If we assume that neutrality is a characteristic to be maximized, and increasing contrast increases neutrality then, barring some counterbalancing force, we will always work to increase contrast. So, for instance, if I'm listening to a violin concerto, and I happen to know that the timbre of violins is controlled within a certain range of frequencies, I could cleverly EQ the recording to make the different violins sound more different from one another than they actually do. (The same argument can be made for inter-recording contrast as I've just made here for intra-recording contrast by using recording-specific EQ.) By the rules introduced in this thread, I've achieved greater neutrality, which is something we're trying to maximize. But the result is not desirable. So, assuming that excess contrast is possible, what can we introduce to counterbalance the drive toward always increasing contrast?

The same argument can be made for inter-recording contrast as I've just made here for intra-recording contrast by using recording-specific EQ.

That's the point that I'm questioning. Let's say that you have two recordings, and you play them back with eq settings that are different for each of the two recordings. You are trying to judge how much contrast is introduced between the two recordings by "the system," using what amounts to two different systems (one system for one recording, and another system for the other recording). Which takes us out of the realm to which Bryon's test is applicable, as well as being an unhelpful methodology.

Best regards,
-- Al

Cbw’s EQ challenge to my operationalization of ‘neutrality’ is a good one. Here is my understanding of it:

If you were to give a unique EQ to every track in your music collection, then you would meet the conditions of my operationalization, namely:

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

By meeting the conditions of my operationalization, we would have to conclude that the system was moving in the direction of greater neutrality, in the sense of freedom from coloration. However, there is reason to doubt that, since the use of EQ can easily change recordings so that they are MORE colored (what Cbw is calling “excess contrast”). And MORE colored means LESS neutral. Hence the use of track-specific EQ seems like it defeats my operationalization, since it meets conditions (1) and (2) while resulting is less neutrality.

I think Al’s solution to Cbw’s EQ challenge is valid. My operationalization is not defeated by the EQ challenge IF you interpret the use of track-specific EQ as resulting in many different “virtual” systems. That is because my operationalization is a method for evaluating neutrality WITHIN A SINGLE SYSTEM, not across multiple systems. If this feels like my operationalization is being saved by a technicality, then I agree with you. To make matters worse for me, I think the following is a valid reply to Al’s solution…

The use of track-specific EQ results in NEW RECORDINGS, not MANY DIFFERENT "VIRTUAL" SYSTEMS.

An EQ setting A, when applied to all the tracks played through a system, is obviously a characteristic of THE SYSTEM. But if you have a unique EQ setting (A, B, C…n) for every track played back through the system, it is less clear what whether the EQ settings are characteristics of THE SYSTEM or characteristics of NEW RECORDINGS YOU HAVE CREATED. Here are the two interpretations of the use of track-specific EQ:

(1) Original recordings with many different “virtual” systems.
(2) New recordings with a single, constant system.

Under interpretation (1), my operationalization of neutrality is saved from Cbw’s EQ challenge by Al’s solution. Under interpretation (2), what happens to my operationalization?

It is saved by another technicality. Under interpretation (2), the coloration is part of the RECORDING, not of the SYSTEM. And coloration in the recording does not impugn the neutrality of the SYSTEM, however undesirable the resulting sound might be.

So, in my view, Cbw’s EQ challenge fails to defeat my operationalization of 'neutrality.' The problem is: I keep thinking there is something in the spirit of his challenge that remains valid, something having to do with the need for a LIMITING CONDITION in the operationalization. Now I will have to do more mulling…

Bryon - I'm under impression that you discuss mostly frequency response of the system hence word EQ is repeated often. What about whole bunch of other things like macro and micro dynamics? how do you measure "sweet sound" or "relaxed sound". It is difficult to discuss something that cannot be measured and is very subjective. How do you know how it supposed to sound? Sitar from Northern India sounds completely different than Sitar from southern India. How do you know. From the tone of discussion I got even impression that neutrality is considered a virtue. I'm not so sure of that.

Bryon - I'm under impression that you discuss mostly frequency response of the system hence word EQ is repeated often. What about whole bunch of other things like macro and micro dynamics?

Frequency response has been mentioned a few times on this thread, but not much by me. One or two posters have suggested that neutrality was reducible to frequency response. I do not agree with that idea, since, as Shadorne and Audioengr pointed out, FREQUENCY response does not include TRANSIENT response. And I quite agree with you that dynamics are an important consideration when evaluating an audio system.

As far as the phrase "EQ," its first appearance on this thread was just a few posts ago in the context of discussing room correction. Then it reappeared in Cbw's EQ challenge. So far as I can tell, it has not been a particular focus of mine or anyone else.

It is difficult to discuss something that cannot be measured and is very subjective.

This may be true, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to try. Art "cannot be measured and is very subjective," but people have found endless ways to talk about it, and some of them are useful.

How do you know how it supposed to sound? Sitar from Northern India sounds completely different than Sitar from southern India. How do you know?

By having heard one.

From the tone of discussion I got even impression that neutrality is considered a virtue. I'm not so sure of that.

Some of the posters seem to believe neutrality is a virtue, others clearly not. My own view is that it is a virtue, but not the only one.