How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Learfool 12/24: The bottom line here (going back to the OP) is that many of us feel that just because you change one piece of equipment in the system, making 1) individual pieces of music sound more unique, and 2) your music collection sound more diverse, this does not mean you have operationalized the term neutrality. It just means you have a better sounding system.

I think that this statement gives increased credence to what was implicit in my post in this thread dated 11/26, that perhaps the most fundamental reason for the disagreements we have seen in this thread is simply disagreement about semantics.

I proposed at that time substituting the word "accuracy" for the word "neutrality," meaning that Bryon's proposed methodology be viewed as a tool that can facilitate evolution of the system + room such that they can accurately reproduce what is on the recording. Which of course does not by any means necessarily constitute the end-point in the evolution of any particular system, but narrowing system inaccuracy to some degree is certainly an important part of that process. At least until the tolerance has become small enough to be overshadowed by other factors and preferences, whether subjective or objective.

Bryon then guided that thought to the point where it was agreed by at least some of us that neutrality represents the degree to which coloration is absent. With accuracy referring to the degree to which a component or system is both resolving and neutral, resolution referring to the amount of information presented by a component or system.

There was further discussion of the distinctions between accuracy, which focuses on minimizing differences between what is on the recording and what is presented to the listener's ears, and transparency, which focuses on minimizing differences between what is presented to the listener's ears and the original musical event, thereby encompassing issues with the recording as well as with the system and the room. And in turn it was recognized that inaccuracy in the system + room might in some cases be complementary to inaccuracy in the recording, with the two sets of inaccuracies tending to negate one another.

Given all of this, I would ask those who have opposed Bryon's proposal, as expressed in post 1 of this thread, to consider whether there is any wording change, or any change in their initial interpretation of the existing words, that would allow everyone's position to converge.

My basic feeling about all this is that Bryon has proposed a methodology or tool which can be helpful in working towards the goal of optimizing a system, and by "optimizing" I mean subjectively maximizing the degree of enjoyment that system will provide to its owner. Is there a way that Bryon's proposal/tool can be accepted in that spirit? Learsfool's paragraph that I quoted at the beginning of this post gives me some degree of optimism that it can be, and I think it certainly should be.

Regarding the last sentence in that quoted paragraph, my response is QED!

Regards,
-- Al

Al, I for one, have no reason why I couldn't agree with your proposal as suggested in the 1st sentence of your last paragraph.

Loosly interperted I see that proposal as agreeing that one can improve the quality of his audio system by the addition of components which have better audio characteristics that those that were replaced, without regard to whether it was because of any specific attribute or symply because of better synergy. Bryon attributes the improvements to 'neutrality' and I think that is where we start to go different paths.

Unfortunately I get lost in the symantics, i.e. the differences between transparency, resolution, neutrality and accuracy, as well as their utilization by folks who consider themselves to be either objectivists or subjectivists. I think we all use them differently even though our use may be considered inaccurate or inconsistent.

It appears that Bryon considers himself an 'objectivist' and his goal of 'neutrality' is the correct one, for him at least. And I say good for him! He has a defined a goal.

Unfortunately, there are often underlying issues inherrent in this type of thread which are often decried loudly and crudely. I do not know that this is the case here, but frankly I concluded long ago that this thread was an artful construct to further an unattractive goal. But, that is just me, my cynicism may be misplaced. The poster is relatively new to the forum. Time will tell.

Bryon attributes the improvements to 'neutrality' and I think that is where we start to go different paths.

I think it would be more accurate to characterize Bryon as attributing certain kinds of improvements to neutrality, and that those improvements should be weighed with other system characteristics in tuning playback to maximize listener enjoyment.

Unfortunately, there are often underlying issues inherrent in this type of thread which are often decried loudly and crudely. I do not know that this is the case here, but frankly I concluded long ago that this thread was an artful construct to further an unattractive goal.

What does "artful construct to further an unattractive goal" mean? Is there some nefarious plot going on here of which I was previously unaware? I thought we were discussing ways of identifying the relative impact of a particular system characteristic.

The changes in uniqueness/diversity that I noticed were not limited to timbre. They included nearly every aspect of the recordings. Some of those changes are, no doubt, attributable to improved RESOLUTION, but I believe that others are the result of improved NEUTRALITY.

Which still leaves me with the question about timbre. It’s something I’ve noticed before with my system, and it’s specifically mentioned as the first thing you noticed with your new, more neutral system:

This theory occurred to me one day when I changed amps and noticed that the timbres of instruments were suddenly more distinct from one another. With the old amp, all instruments seemed to have a common harmonic element (the signature of the amp?!). With the new amp, individual instrument timbres sounded more unique and the range of instrument timbres sounded more diverse. I went on to notice that whole songs (and even whole albums) sounded more unique, and that my music collection, taken as a whole, sounded more diverse.

So why isn’t there a rule:

0a) Instrument timbres sound more distinct from one another (or “unique”).
0b) The range of instrument timbres sounds more diverse.

In other words, is relative timbre distinctness a sufficient criterion for judging relative neutrality? If not, why not? Your argument, as presented above, almost makes it seem as if song/album uniqueness and collection diversity were the consequences of timbre distinctness, though I think that was not your intent. But it does lead me to wonder whether relative timbre distinctness might also be a necessary criterion.

But that brings me to:

…wouldn't criteria #1 and #2 be consequences of increased neutrality rather than standards by which we identify it?

This is a false contrast.

True, when taken out of context. But what I wrote was:

If [detecting the degree of neutrality] is reducible to timbre, then wouldn't the operationalization of neutrality be, "Instrument timbres sound more distinct?" And then wouldn't criteria #1 and #2 be consequences of increased neutrality rather than standards by which we identify it?

In which case it is the distinction between the primary observable and the byproducts of that observable. You could, for example, study the solar spectrum by observing its reflection from the moon but, when direct observation is available, simpler, and more accurate, why would you? Now, you have suggested that there are other aspects, besides timbre, that contribute to uniqueness/diversity, so there may be reasons to consider the other criteria. And you may argue above that timbre distinctness is not sufficient for detecting any degree of neutrality, so then #1 and #2 would be back to being the primary observables.

But I hope they don’t turn out to be because they are harder to apply and therefore inferior to rule #0. Generating absolute uniqueness in a complex system is easier than doing so in a simple system because it requires only a single change in a larger number of characteristics. But judging relative uniqueness becomes harder with a complex system because you must consider, and weigh, all of characteristics, many of which may be different. Judging (relative) timbre uniqueness is easier than judging (relative) song uniqueness, which is easier than judging collection (relative) diversity.

Is criterion #2 a consequence of, in whole or in part, criterion #1?

No, criterion #2 is not a “consequence” of criterion #1, because the relation between criterion #1 and criterion #2 is not CAUSAL.

I don’t understand how increasing the uniqueness of the songs in a collection would not automatically increase the diversity of that collection. That is not to say that there are not other ways of increasing collection diversity, but increased song uniqueness certainly seems like one. Can you elaborate?

Bryon, for the first time, I am truly puzzled by your reasoning. You posed two questions about Al's example, "Do you not believe a 50K system is more neutral than a $300 Walmart system," and "do you not believe the $300 system has more coloration," and then proceeded to state "It is important to note that the two questions MUST be answered in the same way." My emphasis. Huh? It most certainly does NOT follow that just because I don't believe in neutrality, that therefore I don't believe in coloration! (The same goes for the "neutral room"/ "room coloration" thing). The only way this could possibly be true is within the context of your own personal definition, which is precisely what is under debate here. This is certainly a fallacy, as I said I think it is a form of question begging - I will have to ask my uncle, who used to teach philosophy/logic (and is also an audiophile, by the way). By the way, please do not take this as a personal criticism - I am often disappointed by my own arguments, and I am sure they also contain some fallacies. So far, the only way you have defined your "neutrality" characteristic is by saying that it is an absence of some other characteristic, which you are calling "coloration." Frankly, I am not certain that this would pass muster as a scientific definition in the first place - I don't think it is accepted to define one thing solely as an absence of some other thing?

I have spoken at length on the "neutrality" part of this. As for the "coloration" part: you are using this term in an extremely narrow sense. One could argue that everything is a coloration. Just as painting is the art of visual coloring, music is the art of aural coloring, if we can accept this crude analogy. There is certainly no such thing as a "neutral" violin. A Strad, which costs millions, is not more "neutral" than a $500 school instrument, though of course all would agree it sounds far better, and has a very different "coloration." Just so, just about all would agree the $50K system will sound far better than the $300 Walmart one - again with a very different "coloration." One Strad is not more neutral than another, either, though all sound different. Same with the two preamps in my example in my previous post - both may sound very different, but this does not mean one is either "better" (as Bryon correctly pointed out, even if chosen by a majority), or that it is more "neutral." They are "colored" differently, and deliberately, by their designers, according to the designer's artistic ideal of sound coloration. There is no such thing as the absence of color in sound (and therefore, it logically follows, in sound reproduction). Otherwise music could not exist. The things you are specifically describing as "colorations" (intermodulation distortion, etc.) of course exist. But they are not the only "colorations" that exist in sound or it's reproduction; their absence does not prove the existence of "neutrality." Again, as Kijanki and I keep asking, how do you know what anything is "supposed" to sound like? There is no one answer to that question, and your assertion that there is is dumbfounding. A great many audiophiles calling themselves "objectivists" would stop far short of such an assertion. I fail to see how anyone could think of music or it's reproduction in such black and white terms. It reminded Kijanki of a discussion of "good taste." It reminds me more of a devout and very learned theologian attempting to argue the existence of God (the textbook question begging argument, by the way), though I do not say that this is analogous, and I hope no one takes offense. I have greatly enjoyed the discussion, as I said. Cbw723, I think Newbee's description is very apt - "an artful construct to further an unattractive goal." Seeing the art of musical reproduction as black and white as this is certainly unattractive IMO, though there is no doubt that Bryon's argument in general is artfully done. Much more artfully done than mine, LOL! It's a darn good thing I make my living as a musician, not a writer!