How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Dgarretson – Very interesting post. As I understand it:

(1) You advocate a METHODOLOGICAL INTERNALISM for evaluating coloration/neutrality...

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.

(2) You acknowledge that, because of your Methodological Internalism, ABSOLUTE judgments about coloration/neutrality are impossible. However, you believe that RELATIVE judgments about coloration/neutrality are possible...

...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.

(3) You propose an ALTERNATIVE OPERATIONALIZATION of ‘neutrality,’ namely:

DGARRETSON'S OPERATIONALIZATION: Neutrality can be judged to be increasing when, after a change to a system, all sonic characteristics are improved...

An advance in engineering and neutrality has been indicated when all variables of the listening experience are carried in the direction of preference.

I have mixed feelings about (1). I completely agree with (2). And I am still mulling over (3). I have a few questions to help me understand (3) better:

(i) What about situations where you change a component and you get the result that SOME characteristics have improved and SOME have stayed constant. Is that an improvement in neutrality?

(ii) Can you say more about the phrase “carried in the direction of preference”? That seems like a Subjectivist thing to say, but you are an avowed Objectivist with respect to neutrality. I am not “holding you to” your previous posts. It’s that I get the sense that you are STILL an Objectivist, and so I am confused by the distinctly Subjectivist wording of your operationalization. Maybe you can elaborate. Thanks!

Cbw723, Bryon has indeed stated, in his post of 12/5, that he believes that there is ultimately one way that music reproduction should sound, and went on to comment that that is what it means to be an Objectivist. So yes, he is therefore arguing that there is an absolute neutrality, though he of course is not arguing that he has actually achieved it.

Bryon, your reconstruction of my argument is incorrect. I would never state the first premise you give at all (I also agree with you that in the context of your operationalization, it would be false), since my position is that neutrality does not and cannot exist, and that there is no one correct way that music or it's reproduction or any piece of audio equipment is "supposed" to sound.

I will repeat that Bryon's two premises do not prove the existence of "neutrality." (In fact, they assume it's existence, which is why I originally called it a question-begging argument.) One can make relative judgements about contrast and differentiation without any need for an operationalization of "neutrality." This concept/operationalization is an artful theoretical construct; but in the end it has very little, if any, PRACTICAL use to ALL audiophiles (any usefulness being limited to each individual set of sonic tastes/priorities, or reference point, or whatever you want to call it). Even within the context of Bryon's operationalization, there are far too many variables, both in music and in audio equipment, and also in human hearing, for there to be any convergence of opinion on, let alone RELIABLE ways of measurement of even relative "neutrality". I gave an alternative way of thinking about the improvement of one's system, as did Newbee and Dgarretson, each of which is of good practical use for all audiophiles, which was the goal of the original post. It has certainly been a fascinating discussion.

Learsfool wrote:

Bryon has indeed stated, in his post of 12/5, that he believes that there is ultimately one way that music reproduction should sound, and went on to comment that that is what it means to be an Objectivist. So yes, he is therefore arguing that there is an absolute neutrality, though he of course is not arguing that he has actually achieved it.

NO! You are, once again, running two things together:

(1) Objectivism about neutrality.
(2) Absolutism about neutrality.

Being an OBJECTIVIST about neutrality means that you believe that there is a FACT OF THE MATTER about the existence and degree of coloration in a system. Being an ABSOLUTIST about neutrality means that you believe that ZERO COLORATION IS POSSIBLE. I am an Objectivist about neutrality. I am NOT an Absolutist. I have said that MANY times.

In addition, you are running the following two things together:

(1) Objectivism about neutrality.
(3) Objectivism about ALL sonic characteristics.

(1) is an accurate characterization of my arguments and my views. (2) is NOT. As I have said MANY times, including in the original post, I believe that there are many sonic characteristics other than neutrality that are important, and for at least some of the them, I am a Subjectivist. In other words:

I HAVE COMMITED MYSELF TO BEING AN OBJECTIVIST ABOUT NEUTRALITY ONLY!

As far my post on 12/5, which you cite as evidence that I am an Absolutist about neutrality and an Objectivist about all sonic characteristics, WE HAVE ALREADY RESOLVED THAT MISUNDERSTANDING:

On 12/6, you wrote:

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.

And on 12/6, I wrote:

This is a mischaracterization of my view. You are running two different things together:

(1) Is there a FACT OF THE MATTER about whether a system contains colorations (i.e. deviations from neutrality)?
(2) Is there a SINGLE way that a playback system is SUPPOSED TO sound?

My answer to (1) is Yes. That is what makes me an Objectivist about neutrality. But being an Objectivist about neutrality does not make me an Objectivist about ALL CHARACTERISTICS of musical playback. As it turns out, I am NOT an Objectivist about all characteristics of musical playback. Because of that, my answer to (2) above is No – there is not a single way that a playback system is supposed to sound. I hope you will see that my thinking on these topics is not as black and white as you have stated.

If you do not accept my characterization of my position on 12/5, then please accept this as my characterization of my position now:

I AM NOT AN ABSOLUTIST ABOUT NEUTRALITY.

I AM NOT AN OBJECTIVIST ABOUT ALL SONIC CHARACTERISTICS.

THEREFORE, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A SINGLE WAY THAT A PLAYBACK SYSTEM IS "SUPPOSED TO" SOUND.

I have said this many times in this thread.

In your post from today, you wrote:

I will repeat that Bryon's two premises do not prove the existence of "neutrality." (In fact, they assume it's existence, which is why I originally called it a question-begging argument.)

WE HAVE ALREADY HAD, AND RESOLVED, THAT DISCUSSION...

On 11/25, you wrote:

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.

And on 11/25, I responded:

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.'

To which, on 11/25, you responded:

Thanks for the clarification, Bryon. I guess where we really disagree, then, is on whether you have in fact proposed "conditions that reliably indicate the presence of a characteristic”…

This reply led me to believe that this misunderstanding was behind us, but it appears again in your post from today. So do you mischaracterizations of me as an Absolutist about neutrality and an Objectivist about all sonic characteristics, mischaracterizations that I believed we had previously resolved.

This is not an issue of clarity of expression. I do not know whether you are merely skimming my posts, or if you have difficulty remembering them, but the momentum of this thread is being impeded by these repetitions. You have been an excellent opponent, and I don't mean to discourage you from continuing to post on this thread. I do mean to encourage you to take our previous discussions into consideration when posting.

OK Bryon - I think we both have some misunderstandings about these other posts. I am truly sorry for my mischaracterizations. You have made yourself very clear, and I envy your superior ability to do so. Let me try once more to be equally clear - I feel that you are refusing to consider the possibility that "neutrality" does not exist. This is what I was trying to get at by saying in that previous post that where we differ is on whether or not you have proposed conditions that reliably indicate the presence of a condition. I still feel that you have not presented any conditions that NECESSARILY indicate the presence of "neutrality." This is my fundamental objection to your operationalization - IMO, you are attempting to operationalize something that does not exist. This is our basic disagreement, as I see it.

That said, even if hypothetically I did accept the possibility that "neutrality" could exist, I still stand by my statement at the end of my previous post, that there are far too many variables involved for all audiophiles to ever agree even on the RELATIVE "neutrality" of any given system. You have brought up some types of distortion that can be measured, and certainly I agree that a designer of a piece of equipment can guard against these types of what you call "colorations." However, you seem to be ignoring other ways in which pieces of equipment can sound different from each other that have been brought up, for instance my two preamps in the same exact system where one was warmer sounding than the other (and yes, the term "warmer" is vague as well, but does I think have more meaning to most audiophiles than "neutral"). Still unanswered is my question, how can you know which preamp is more relatively "neutral"? I feel the inability to answer this question makes the operationalization at best not very useful in actual practice, no matter how attractive it may be in theory. I was trying very hard to keep this from turning into another subjectivist/objectivist type debate (I think I only used the term objectivist when responding to someone else who used it - I dislike such labels). I agree with Newbee that this would be far less interesting. Unfortunately, it seems that perhaps that is what our disagreement really is, as you seem to be ignoring almost all of the subjective elements of the posters who have disagreed with you, Kijanki's in particular.

I hope that the above is clear. Though I disagree with your operationalization, I do admire the thought behind it, and your ability to express it, and I really have enjoyed this discussion, and I am truly sorry for any misrepresentations I have made. Ever since I joined this site, I find I have actually learned quite a bit more from those I disagree with, and I have definitely learned some things from you in the course of this thread. This type of conversation/debate is always thought-provoking and helps to clarify one's own ideas/perceptions. It reminds me of what one of my horn teachers used to say - you should always learn SOMETHING anytime you hear someone else play, even if it is only one more way not to do it.

Byron replied to my last post with questions:

(i) What about situations where you change a component and you get the result that SOME characteristics have improved and SOME have stayed constant. Is that an improvement in neutrality?

(ii) Can you say more about the phrase “carried in the direction of preference”? That seems like a Subjectivist thing to say, but you are an avowed Objectivist with respect to neutrality. I am not “holding you to” your previous posts. It’s that I get the sense that you are STILL an Objectivist, and so I am confused by the distinctly Subjectivist wording of your operationalization.

The answer below includes consideration of some ideas from the last few posts. To address question (ii) first:

The Objectivist defines neutrality as an absence of coloration, yet may refrain from absolutism by observing that neutrality is in practice an incremental process toward an unattainable goal. Perhaps we should call the Objectivist who is also an Absolutist with respect to believing that it is feasible to arrive finally at the goal of neutrality(wire with gain, absolute sound, etc.) an EXTREME OBJECTIVIST. In the opposing corner, the Subjectivist takes on more diverse incarnations. His principal certainty is that colorations are inevitable. He believes that there are good and bad colorations. While he knows what he likes, he may believe that making a fine distinction between good and bad that is generally acceptable to others, is difficult or irrelevant in view of varying listener tastes & priorities and the overwhelming complexity of systems variables. Finally, he may adopt a wholly relativistic POV by asserting that even a basic distinction between good and bad is impossible-- in which case he is an EXTREME SUBJECTIVIST. At such an extreme he may become hopelessly vague about distinctions and mystical about equipment. Such Extreme Subjectivism may reasonably be banished from this forum with a boom box and Ipod as a parting gift, if not a 100 lb. solid copper chassis with a foot tall KR tube...

A close analysis of preference behaviors may be used to escape the irreconcilable differences of objectivism and subjectivism. For the Subjectivist, any choice of preferred coloration, if examined critically, is by definition a compromise that accepts both appealing and unappealing colorations. The truth of this assertion follows from the inevitable limitations of electronics. The propagation of a desirable coloration is necessarily accompanied by the propagation of undesirable coloration. Objectivists and subjectivists can agree on this point, as both experience restless compromise in the selection of audio components. On the other hand, for the Objectivist it becomes apparent that a choice reflecting one's preference for a relatively less colored component by definition includes fewer factors that war against preference. The two view the same problem from different perspectives. The Objectivist seeks to eliminate coloration, the Subjectivist seeks to increase desirable coloration without adding undesirable coloration, and both choose components that move them in the direction of preference. However both have the burden of careful reflection upon compromises made at particular stopping points along the continuum of coloration. The subjectivist may bear an additional intellectual burden to avoid dismissing or rationalizing away some undesirable coloration in order to justify a preferred coloration.

Assuming that the many variables of the listening experience are numbered and accounted for, an answer is suggested to Bryon’s question (i): All that is necessary to signify increased neutrality is for one variable of the listening experience to advance toward one’s preference without the retreat of another other variable. If this condition is met, for the Subjectivist no coloration has been compromised by any other, and for the Objectivist a coloration has been reduced or eliminated. This UNITY of improvement evidences an ADVANCE in engineering. It is not important for the Subjectivist and the Objectivist to agree, provided that the Subjectivist is careful to watch all his variables carefully and notice when he is being betrayed by his electronics. The Objectivist is en garde to colorations by definition.

From a practical point of view, it may be argued that this condition can never be met. However my own experience in making single-variable changes inside components suggests otherwise. In practice the majority of single-variable mods made on the grounds of solid engineering practice tend to move all variables of listening in a positive direction. This reinforces the idea of LINKED VARIABLES. Admittedly however, it is difficult (though not impossible) to extend this idea to a complex system of multiple components with a greater number of engineering variables.