How do you judge your system's neutrality?

The distinction between "easy," "difficult," and "impossible" degrees of recoverability was really just a shorthand way of talking about how much the system would have to change in order to recover the missing information.

In the case of concealment, relatively SMALL changes to the system, such as repositioning the speakers, can recover the concealed information. Hence the word 'EASY.'

In the case of corruption, LARGER changes to the system, such as modifying or changing components, are necessary to recover the corrupted information. Hence the word 'DIFFICULT.'

In the case of elimination, NO changes to the system, other than changing formats, will recover the eliminated information. Hence the word 'IMPOSSIBLE.'

Hello Bryon - I have carefully re-read Dgarretson's alternative operationalizations of "neutrality," especially the post from 12/7. I have also read and digested your further posts and Cbw's on your new "coloration" definitions. I have two general thoughts about all of this.

First, the further discussion of "coloration." It is apparent that there is already disagreement even between the three of you on exactly what is a "coloration" and what is not. Though these differences may be minimized some by further discussion, I don't think they can be eliminated. So going back to your definition of "neutrality" as the absence of coloration, if there can be no consensus on "coloration," there cannot be on "neutrality," either. What one person may see as a coloration, another will not, as I have said all along. I feel that despite your valiant attempt to expand into different categories of colorations, the early disagreement illustrates this.

Which brings me to Dgarretson's approach. What is very interesting about this to me is that if we remove the concept of "neutrality" from his post (again I am speaking of the 12/7 post), sticking to the "personal preference" term alone, it seems to me to be very close to what I have been arguing myself; the main difference is his approach is much more methodical - a more scientifically oriented as opposed to my more artistically oriented perspective, if you will. Other than this difference in perspective, it strikes me as basically the same approach. Where I would disagree with him would be that I would not say that "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 (my emphasis) conclude that neutrality is improved." I would say that this "consistency between internal reference points" he is seeking would indeed "merely reflect the bias of preference rather than increased neutrality." Two different audiophiles could listen to the same exact modification to any given system and disagree strongly as to whether the result was an improvement or not, depending on their personal preferences, to use his term again. And who could say which one of them was right, or whether the mod resulted in more "neutrality" or not?

Lastly, if Shadorne is still reading this thread, I had a really good belly laugh over your post, thanks for that!

Learsfool writes:

It is apparent that there is already disagreement even between the three of you on exactly what is a "coloration" and what is not. Though these differences may be minimized some by further discussion, I don't think they can be eliminated. So going back to your definition of "neutrality" as the absence of coloration, if there can be no consensus on "coloration," there cannot be on "neutrality," either. What one person may see as a coloration, another will not, as I have said all along. I feel that despite your valiant attempt to expand into different categories of colorations, the early disagreement illustrates this.

I don't know how Bryon will respond to this, but for my thinking, I don't see that complete agreement is required in order to achieve a better understanding of the processes we are discussing. We are dealing with terminology that, in general usage, is not exact. If we insist on rigid conformance to our personal usage, you are right, agreement will never be reached. And even then, the discussion may be useful.

"Coloration," for instance, is a term for which my usage is considerably narrower than is Bryon's. My understanding of the term is closer to the visual analogy than is his: a coloration is a band-limited (or narrow-band) distortion. I found this definition on line, which is even narrower than my understanding of the term:

Coloration: Change in frequency response caused by resonance peaks.

Things like speaker cabinet resonance and room modes fit my definition (as per the above), but so do descriptions of systems that are "bright," "dark," "warm," "bass-heavy," etc., because these characteristics tend to be the result of excess or insufficiency (relative to the source) within a particular frequency range. I would put things like intermodulation distortion and crosstalk under a broader category of "distortion" or something like that (because, despite possibly being frequency dependent, they tend to wide-band), and put "coloration" as a sub-category within that category. But my understanding may not reflect the general usage within the community. It may be that Bryon's usage is the more normal. In which case "coloration" is the broad category, and "narrow-band coloration" is a sub-category. But in either case, I understand the term "neutrality," as used here, to apply to the broad category. When Bryon talks about playback system coloration, I just substitute "playback system distortion" because I know that is the way he is using the term. If I come to believe that my understanding of the term is non-standard, I'll adjust my thinking accordingly. If I become convinced that I'm right, I'll suggest to Bryon that he adjust his terminology.

As to the question of whether one kind of resolution loss should be assigned to one category or another, I don't see it as being enough to derail the general progress toward a clearer understanding of the topic. In my own classification scheme, I'm not even sure where I'd put harmonic distortion. But I can live with that. As a musician, you must be comfortable with shades of gray and non-absolutist thinking, even though the notes are set down in ink on a piece of paper by the guy who wrote the music.

The little blue pill may be a case in point regarding preference choices relating to neutrality and coloration. Of course there are more Subjectivists than Objectivists in this particular coloratura, so consensus tends to move in an upward bias toward the contention that the more color the better. But if this argument is to stand up to the close analysis, we must consider whether the pill adds coloration or removes it, in the sense of removing the corrupting veil that separates us from faithful reproduction of the “original performance”? But by removing this veil, have we achieved a realistic performance that is neutral in the manner of real life, or something more colored and larger than life? Before answering too quickly, consider that too many pills make one literally “see blue” as a side effect—and btw she is not fooled and may possibly even become uncomfortable by the stilted & exaggerated performance of TOO MUCH BLUE. But short of choking on this extremity, all vectors of experience tend to move together in the direction of preference, and for both sexes. However if after the deed is done a woman has been satisfied, then we may reasonable conclude that the analogy to high end audio has in the end gone limp.

Somewhat more seriously, Learsfool, granting your point, general agreement on a definition of neutrality is pinned to agreement about coloration—which is why I’m starting to think of neutrality in the broadest terms as “absence of coloration.” Also as you suggest, the Objectivist may fall into traps as easily as the Subjectivist. But if at an extreme the Objectivist emphasizes analysis over aesthetics, the Objectivist is guilty more of intellectual hubris than demonstrative of a failure of aesthetic appreciation. Similarly the Subjectivist may believe that by emphasizing taste and appreciation over analysis he has a monopoly on aesthetics—which in turn evidences his own kind of intellectual hubris. The two see the same phenomena from opposite directions but with similar human foibles. But make no mistake about it, in selecting his component according to preference, a cultivated Subjectivist has analyzed (even if selectively or subliminally) many listening variables, just as a cultivated Objectivist makes choices that are aesthetic as well analytical. That is why I began to explore preference choices as common ground for both parties, and to look at the dichotomous viewpoints of these observers on coloration as a possible basis for a deeper convergence.

Bryon questioned why I feel “The propagation of a desirable coloration is necessarily accompanied by the propagation of undesirable coloration.” The thought is simply the obverse of practice in modding of making a single-variable change inside of a component based on solid technical grounds. After making such a change I generally observe that all variables of the listening experience tended to move in the direction of preference—which as an Objectivist I consider a less colored presentation closer to neutrality. Had the same mod been done in reverse, varying kinds of coloration would have emerged. I think I could demonstrate to any experienced audiophile of either persuasion that some of these emergent colorations were undesirable to all, while other colorations might be considered by some as benign or even preferable—were they not accompanied by the collateral damage in other areas. So in view of this last point, my operationalization of conditions required for movement toward neutrality requires the absence of retreat of any listening variables from preference. Admittedly this requires that the Subjectivist become more objective in terms of exhaustive definition and analysis of listening variables. Admittedly the experiment is harder to operationalize in the context of a complex system involving whole component swaps. The approach may have particular appeal to DIYers, and also to owners of designs like Merlin and Atma-Sphere, which have been refined in small steps over many years. IMO practicing slow incremental change trains the ear to connect the art to the engineering differently than swapping through a succession of so-called “break-through” products.

Bryon, I like this idea of coloration-independent characteristics and loosely connect it to my idea of professed subjectivists and objectivists whose different aesthetics may each progress toward separate but valid senses of neutrality defined in the broadest sense. In the end this approach allows each to settle on a different sound that is in its own way close to colored, or colored with the minimal number of undesirable colorations. However my mod experience suggests it is very challenging to separate desirable from undesirable colorations, in the sense that a single engineering change does not affect everything through linked variables.

Reading a recent audio club review of a speaker that was demoed to around forty educated listeners, I was struck how the generally negative reviewers accentuated a wide array of perceived defects, while positive reviewers focused on the few strengths that they considered paramount in a component. Maybe Objectivists & Subjectivists divide along these lines when thinking about audio.

Dgarretson – Hilarious post. And informative.

Learsfool wrote:

It is apparent that there is already disagreement even between the three of you on exactly what is a "coloration" and what is not. Though these differences may be minimized some by further discussion, I don't think they can be eliminated. So going back to your definition of "neutrality" as the absence of coloration, if there can be no consensus on "coloration," there cannot be on "neutrality," either.

This is the issue of CATEGORY MEMBERSHIP, in that it raises the question: Just what things fall into the category of ‘coloration’ and what do not? It is a valid question, and any effort to refine our understanding of neutrality must address it. I have proposed a definition of 'coloration' that gives some minimal guidance as to its category members:

(1) They are additions or subtractions to the playback chain.

I should probably have included ‘alterations,’ so I will include it now:

(1b) They are additions, subtractions, or alterations to the playback chain.

And:

(2) They conceal or corrupt (as opposed to eliminate) information about the music.

Admittedly, this is a very broad category. I do not think that its broadness diminishes its validity, however, so long as we find STRUCTURE within the category, in the form of SUBSETS, i.e., TYPES of coloration (or, using the language of a previous post, LOWER-ORDER categories). The more structure we find within the category of ‘coloration,’ the more useful it becomes, and the more guidance we will have to make judgments about CATEGORY MEMBERSHIP. I tried to begin the process of finding structure within the category in my first post on 12/9.

It is worth pointing out that many, many categories have ambiguity and/or disagreement about category membership, including some scientific categories like ‘life’ (Is a virus alive?) and ‘planet’ (Is Pluto a planet?).

It is also worth pointing out that concepts, in the sense of mental representations of categories, are never identical from person to person. There is abundant evidence from cognitive psychology that shows that significant differences exist across individuals’ conceptualizations of all categories. For example, my conceptualization of the category ‘dog’ is similar but not identical to yours, because each of our conceptualizations is shaped by our experience with specific breeds (exposure effects), what dogs we’ve seen recently (recency effects), and a host of other variables. What this means is that there is NO SINGLE CONCEPT of ‘dog.’ There are many overlapping conceptualizations of ‘dog.’ Two things follow from this.

The first is that the disagreement among me, Cbw, and Dgarretson about the conceptualization of ‘coloration’ is to be expected, because IT IS TRUE OF ALL CONCEPTS. But that does not make the category 'coloration' useless any more than diverse conceptualizations of ‘dog’ make that category useless. Whether or not the differences among our various conceptualizations of 'coloration' can be minimized through discussion and debate is yet to be seen. In the meantime, I think Cbw's approach is the right one:

When Bryon talks about playback system coloration, I just substitute "playback system distortion" because I know that is the way he is using the term. If I come to believe that my understanding of the term is non-standard, I'll adjust my thinking accordingly. If I become convinced that I'm right, I'll suggest to Bryon that he adjust his terminology.

Second, the existence of diverse conceptualizations of ‘coloration’ highlights the need to STIPULATE a definition for the purposes of conversation. The stipulated definition is subject to error, ambiguity, vagueness, debate, and revision, but it is a necessary step in the discussion and development of ideas. The value of a stipulated definition should be judged by its ability to further investigation. In that sense, it is a HEURISTIC. Heuristics are sometimes messy, confusing, and frustrating, but they are the mainstay of the exploration of ideas.