How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Bryon wrote: "Admittedly, my operationalization is only a way to judge the RELATIVE level of coloration/neutrality of a system, not its ABSOLUTE level of coloration/neutrality."

Maybe it's possible to move the discussion in a slightly different direction with observations about reference points and relative vs. absolute measures. (On this tack I return to the notion of neutrality in the broad sense.)

Distinctions about coloration may be made relative to an external reference point of live music, or to an internal reference point of a previous or alternate iteration of one's system. Unfortunately fidelity to an external reference point will be debated ad nauseam, owing to endlessly varying opinions about live sound, as well as human frailty in reconstituting performance from memory.

So what internal references points are reliably available? Also, if one is to exclusively adopt internal reference points, any improvement is by definition relative to one’s current system rather than to an absolute. Bryon initially suggested two ideas to operationalize one’s aural judgment of neutrality—ideas about distinction and difference. I suggested that convergence was also a meaningful marker-- particularly the convergence of vinyl and digital sources through independent mod processes. Such convergence at least demonstrates CONSISTENCY between internal reference points. However the question arises as to whether such consistency merely reflects the bias of PREFERENCE rather than increased NEUTRALITY. Since all mods were made as single-variable changes on scientific grounds, I am inclined to view the progress as demonstrative of neutrality rather than personal preference. However others may reasonably disagree.

But more interestingly, can the scientific method be applied generally to the notion of subjective preference? Preference in this sense may be defined as movement toward one's PARTICULAR idea of live music. I believe the answer is yes to science, if the notion of personal preference is operationalized by the test that EVERY vectors of the listening experience must either be subjectively improved or remain unchanged. The basis here is to abandon the notion that colorations are a soup of isolated variables and combinations of inevitable compromises. If a system becomes more like that which one prefers in every sense (without a single shortcoming relative to prior iteration), then one may reliably conclude that neutrality is improved.

In practical terms, neutrality in this sense is the sum of positive vectors such as pitch, timbre, dynamics, frequency extension and control, spatiality, quiet background, and such others as one may consider important. The important thing is to develop an exhaustive list of significant variables and to listen carefully for each one. The test is made with respect to both the sum of variables and their differences. Even though these variables are not like terms, their differences can be measured with respect to the notion of preference, and positive must always be considered better. For the test of improved neutrality to be satisfied, no variable may go negative relative to another. A difficult test that few systems will pass—-but a test that forces the audiophile into a critical and uncompromising analysis of coloration.

Dgarretson - Well stated, summed up, and I agree totally. I think. :-)

The process of incremental modding leads me to the hypothesis that most of the qualitative measures of sound are linked variables depending upon the independent variable of a circuit change. When a circuit is changed in small ways according to rational engineering, all the variables of listening tend to move together in a direction of preference. This is particularly true when frequency response is unaltered, as anomalies of frequency response may confuse the perception of other qualities. Holding frequency response constant is desireable when evaluating other determinants of neutrality.

The experience of hearing disparate variables of listening moving in opposite directions after an incremental internal mod, is the exception rather than the rule. However in a complete system of multiple components the situation can be much more complex, with coloration occuring as the sum of complementary defects as much as a combination of strengths. Nonetheless, this is no reason to rationalize away some perceived zero-sum cul de sac as a preferred coloration.

Learsfool writes:

My position is that there is no such thing as an absence of "coloration" in music and/or music playback and/or an audio component; therefore Bryon's "neutrality" couldn't ever actually exist, even as he defines these terms.

You've asserted this point about a half dozen times in this thread, and each and every time someone (usually Bryon) points out that neutrality, as used here (and in the audio world in general), is a relative term. A component may be either more or less neutral (which is exactly synonymous with saying that it may apply either less or more coloration to the source). It would seem an entirely uncontroversial assertion.

Neither Bryon, nor anyone else on this thread has suggested that absolute neutrality (i.e., zero coloration) either exists or is achievable in a playback system. All that has been suggested is that components may have either more or less coloration, and that it may be possible to distinguish one of those conditions from the other.

Learsfool wrote:

Bryon has yet to propose ANY CONDITION that indicates the presence of a characteristic of "neutrality" at all, let alone "reliably."[Emphasis added]

This strikes me as a strange thing to say, since I have proposed THE SAME TWO CONDITIONS many, many times in this thread:

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

These were the conditions I proposed in the original post. The have been discussed at great length, including by you. You may not AGREE with those conditions, but it is strange to suggest that I have not PROPOSED any.

Learsfool wrote:

Another part of my problem with your terms is that I cannot accept your use of the term "coloration" as a purely negative term, something always to be removed. My previous post spoke at length of the relationship of music and color.

We have also discussed this at length, and we are in complete agreement about the existence and desirability of coloration in music. For the purposes of my operationalization of neutrality, my use of the word ‘coloration’ is strictly about colorations INTRODUCED BY THE PLAYBACK SYSTEM. If you like, we can designate them:

(1) Music Colorations: The sonic signature of the musical event and/or the recording.

(2) Playback Colorations: The sonic signature of the playback system.

While music colorations are VARIABLES, playback colorations are CONSTANTS.

We are in complete agreement about the existence and desirability of MUSIC COLORATIONS. Our disagreement lies in the existence and desirability of PLAYBACK COLORATIONS. This point has been made now many times. Therefore, your objection to my use of the word ‘coloration’ seems unmotivated, since I have already acknowledged that my use is limited to playback. Perhaps you have the view that I should not use the word 'coloration' so narrowly. I have no problem using the phrase ‘playback colorations’ if that will prevent us from having this particular disagreement again.

Learsfool wrote:

A designer of a piece of equipment has a specific sound color he is aiming at, that is different from all other designs/models out there, otherwise why design another piece of equipment? "Neutrality" simply is not a goal of design…

I do not agree with this. Under the terms of the discussion, neutrality is degree of absence of coloration (now: “playback colorations”). Under the terms of this discussion, playback colorations are additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music.

Designers are, without doubt, sensitive to additions or subtraction to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that they are not sensitive to noise, distortion, crosstalk, power isolation, and a host of other considerations, ALL OF WHICH, if left unattended, can result in the concealment or corruption of information about the music. To acknowledge that designers are sensitive to such considerations is to acknowledge that designers are sensitive to PLAYBACK COLORATIONS. And if they are sensitive to playback colorations, then they are sensitive to NEUTRALITY, defined as the degree of absence of playback colorations.

It is important to point out that designers need not EXPLICITY conceptualize their design values in terms of coloration or neutrality, though I suspect some of them do. The vast majority of concepts, audio or otherwise, are IMPLICIT, which is to say, they are concepts about which we are unaware. It is enough for designers to have the concepts like intermodulation distortion, crosstalk, speaker cabinet resonance, etc., and to treat those phenomena as THINGS TO BE MINIMIZED TO IMPROVE THE SOUND OF THE MUSIC. By doing that, they reveal the presence of an IMPLICIT concept of coloration, and an IMPLICIT concept of neutrality, as defined here.

It is also important to point out that I am not suggested that minimizing playback coloration/maximizing neutrality is the PRINCIPAL goal of most, or any, designers. But I believe that it is likely to be ONE GOAL AMONG MANY. The evidence for this belief is the existence of a large number of audiophile components that, in my view, have relatively low levels of playback coloration/high level of neutrality, especially when compared with the low-fi playback systems available on the mass market. It is hard to believe that this is an accident.