How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Dgarretson, that is probably the best description of the objectivist/subjectivist perspectives that I have ever seen, and amusingly done, as well! I would add only one thing - you mention the subjectivist must watch his variables carefully and guard against being betrayed by his electronics. This is certainly true. I would add that on the other side, the objectivist must be careful not to be too seduced by the either the technology/equipment or his ideals, thereby losing the forest for the trees. When this happens, the music often becomes secondary, to the point where they don't even enjoy listening to most of their recordings because they are obsessing over a technical issue. They also can fall into the trap/habit of describing anything that doesn't fit their personal preferences/ideals as a coloration, even if it isn't really, one of the main reasons why I try to avoid that term. To put this more humorously, these objectivists sometimes fail to remain objective.

Mrtennis, although I also see no point in either searching for or assessing relative "neutrality" when the goal is musical enjoyment, I do enjoy the philosophical endeavor. As I said in a previous post, I like to understand the perspective of those whom I disagree with, as there is always something to be learned. It helps to clarify one's own thoughts, if nothing else. I like to keep testing/questioning my own beliefs in this fashion. I had a very good history teacher at the Interlochen Arts Academy who constantly played "devil's advocate," arguing from a position we knew she opposed (and that the vast majority of the class opposed as well), to teach us the value of this. Her ability to do this fascinated me, and I have been perhaps too eager to jump into debate just for the sake of it ever since. It drives my friends crazy sometimes. It is also fascinating/instructive for me as a professional performing musician to hear the different perspectives on music that audiophiles have, and I can sometimes be of help to them in return from my own perspective. Other times I start typing very late at night when I shouldn't be and start spouting a bunch of crap.

Since I fear I will start doing so very soon now (I have already begun rambling too far astray, I think), I will put off replying to Bryon until tomorrow. I will just close by again complimenting Dgarretson on this line: "there is a certain tension between art and science that can best be examined through philosophy." I think that's exactly why I am enjoying this thread so much, even though I disagree with it's basic premise. I will also observe that scientists are very supportive of the arts, especially music, in large numbers compared to many other fields, a fact I find very interesting. There is much more common ground between science and art than appears on the surface, despite the obvious tension (just as there is between objectivists and subjectivists). OK, I'll shut up now.

In my last post, I suggested a definition for ‘coloration-independent characteristics’:

A coloration-independent characteristic is sonic characteristics of a component/system that is:

(1) VARIABLE, in the sense that multiple values of the characteristic are possible, and
(2) COLORATION-NEUTRAL, in the sense that, for at least a limited range of values, differences in the value of that variable have either (a) no effects or (b) identical effects on the concealment and corruption of information about the music.

Cbw wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with #2. We've already identified resolution as existing outside of neutrality/coloration, but it would not pass part b of this test, because low resolution would conceal information.

Cbw’s objection to my definition of ‘coloration-independent characteristics’ is implicitly an objection to my definition of ‘coloration’:

COLORATION: Additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music.

The apparent problem identified by Cbw with my definition ‘coloration’ can be expressed in the following argument:

(1) Resolution loss is not a type of coloration.
(2) Resolution loss satisfies my definition of ‘coloration,’ since it is a subtraction in the playback chain that conceals information about the music.
(3) Therefore, my definition of ‘coloration’ is flawed, and by entailment, so is my definition of ‘coloration-independent characteristics.’

My reply to this is that premise (1) is partly true, partly false. That is to say, some resolution loss is a consequence coloration and some is not. What I would like to propose is that resolution loss can be thought of as falling into three types...

THREE TYPES OF RESOLUTION LOSS:

(1) CONCEALMENT of information about the music.
(2) CORRUPTION of information about the music.
(3) ELIMINATION of information about the music.

The loss of information through concealment or corruption is resolution loss BY COLORATION. The loss of information through elimination is RESOLUTION LOSS PROPER.

CONCEALMENT is the kind of loss that results, for example, from comb filtering, where some frequencies are exaggerated, others attenuated, by constructive and destructive interference. CORRUPTION is the kind of loss that results, for example, from intermodulation distortion, where spurious frequencies are added to an amplified signal. And ELIMINATION is the kind of loss that results, for example, from the informational compression of an MP3.

I chose the words “conceal or corrupt,” rather than “eliminate” for my definition of ‘coloration’ precisely because I was hoping to define ‘coloration’ in a way that does not entirely subsume the concept of ‘resolution’ under the concept of ‘neutrality,’ which would not reflect the usage of those concepts by audiophiles, or their usage on this thread. My definition of ‘coloration’ forces me to acknowledge that some resolution loss is a consequence of colorations, but it allows me to preserve a concept of ‘resolution’ that is INDEPENDENT OF the concepts of ‘coloration' and 'neutrality,' thereby addressing Cbw’s concern with the definitions of ‘coloration’ and ‘coloration-independent characteristic.’

Another motivation for differentiating CONCEALMENT from CORRUPTION from ELIMINATION is the idea that these three types of information loss have different (1) TYPICAL LOCALIZATIONS; and (2) TYPICAL DEGREES OF RECOVERABILITY:

TYPE OF LOSS.......LOCALIZATION..........RECOVERABILITY
(1) Concealment........Listening room................Easy
(2) Corruption...........Equipment.......................Difficult
(3) Elimination..........Format............................Impossible

Information loss through CONCEALMENT, as typically happens in the listening room, includes phenomena such as room modes, flutter echo, and comb filtering. The information concealed by each of these phenomena is contained upstream in the system. The information is being CONCEALED by the listening room (Or more accurately, by the physical relations among the listening room, the speakers, and the listener). Because of this, the lost information is relatively EASY TO RECOVER. It can often be achieved with modest room treatments (as in the case of flutter echo) or change of speaker position (as in the case of comb filtering).

Information loss through CORRUPTION, as typically happens in equipment, includes phenomena such as intermodulation distortion, crosstalk, and speaker cabinet resonance. Once again, the information concealed by these phenomena is contained upstream in the system. The information is being CORRUPTED by the equipment. Because of this, the lost information is MORE DIFFICULT TO RECOVER. It can sometimes be accomplished by modifying components.

Information loss through ELIMINATION, as typically happens in the format, includes phenomena such as the informational compression of an MP3. The lost information does not exist upstream in the system. Hence, it is UNRECOVERABLE. The only way to get this information into your system is to change components, and possibly formats.

It is important to point out that I am proposing these three types of information loss as IDEALIZED CATEGORIES, in the sense that the loss of information in any real-world system will merely RESEMBLE these idealizations. Having said that, I believe these categories are valuable to the audiophile, insofar as they help him conceptualize what is wrong, where it went wrong, and how hard it will be to fix it.

Shadrone, You are right. I put 4 of those little blue pills adjacent to some EL84's. After the amp warmed up it sounded like an octet of KT90's. Wonder what a picture of Penelope Cruz would do................Sure would keep my hand out of the blue pill jar!

I used them to keep cables straight.