How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Very interesting posts, indeed. Cbw, I did not mean to suggest that complete agreement on terms is necessary - certainly all of these terms are inexact. And you are correct that the vast majority of musicians are very comfortable with shades of grey and non-absolutist thinking. Almost none would call themselves "objectivists" as Dgarrestson has so well defined the perspective (however, very few would also say that they would be completely "subjectivists", either, though they would lean much more in that direction). This is a large part of the reason that the concept of "neutrality" does not have any appeal even as an idea to me and many others. I was speaking more of agreement on colorations when listening to a system, not when defining types of colorations. As you say, there is room for general agreement in defining certain types - I think the disagreement could come even over whether you were hearing them or not, and certainly over whether they were desirable or not.

Dgarretson, hilarious opening of your post! And we are in agreement about subjectivists and objectivists using much of each other's methods. As I said, your approach is very close to the one I suggested. And they do indeed share the same hubris/foibles. I also think you are correct on any desirable colorations also being accompanied by undesirable ones. There are always trade-offs, I think.

I would like to point out a connection to something Dgarretson said, and something Bryon said in their latest posts. Dgarretson speaks of "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." Bryon speaks in his last paragraph of stipulating definitions, and calls this "heuristic." I had not encountered that term in long time, and will admit having to look it up. Bryon is using it in the sense of the first definition in my unabridged dictionary, which reads very close to his explanation in his post. I was struck by the second definition, however, which is "encouraging a person to learn, discover, understand, or solve problems ON HIS OR HER OWN, as by experimenting, evaluating possible answers or solutions, or by trial and error." My emphasis, and I would also emphasize the plurals - answers and solutions.

It seems to me that Dgarretson's comment implies that there is more than one valid "neutrality." Perhaps this was not your intention, but it seems to me that here you are really talking about a "personal reference point," a phrase I used earlier on in this discussion. Likewise, Bryon, I think that although it may be possible to come up with a very lengthy list of different categories of colorations that many audiophiles could agree upon IN THEORY, I doubt that there would ever be much consensus on this IN PRACTICE, the result being that very few audiophiles would end up coming up with the same sense of "neutrality." Everyone's hearing is different, and their sonic priorities will be different as well. I think your approach ultimately is only useful for each individual on his or her own, to come up with his or her own "personal reference point." I don't think there could ever be a generally accepted sense of "neutrality," even as you have refined it with the different types of colorations.

I think your approach ultimately is only useful for each individual on his or her own, to come up with his or her own "personal reference point." I don't think there could ever be a generally accepted sense of "neutrality," even as you have refined it with the different types of colorations.

I'd like to point out that the title of this thread is "How do YOU judge YOUR SYSTEM'S neutrality?" [Emphasis mine.] It is not, "I'm going to compel you to make your system conform to my idea of neutrality." It seems an obvious point, but it appears to have been lost in much of the discussion throughout this thread.

Likewise, Bryon, I think that although it may be possible to come up with a very lengthy list of different categories of colorations that many audiophiles could agree upon IN THEORY, I doubt that there would ever be much consensus on this IN PRACTICE, the result being that very few audiophiles would end up coming up with the same sense of "neutrality."

I disagree. My own experience with my system leads me to believe that if you could A/B the various types of coloration in an otherwise constant system, almost all audiophiles would prefer the more neutral system. Maybe Dgarretson or Almarg could tell us if such a test is possible on some of the forms of coloration (for instance, is there a way you could introduce and remove intermodulation distortion, harmonic distortion, crosstalk, etc.?), but how many audiophiles are going to prefer a boomy speaker cabinet, room modes, comb filtering, etc.? I had the opportunity to listen to reduced jitter in my system in two stages (first my adding a Monarchy box between my computer and DAC, then going with a DAC with asynchronous USB), and with each improvement, there we significant improvements in sound quality that I can't imagine any audiophile not preferring. I liked my sound before, but after reducing this form of coloration, I can not imagine going back.

I think personal preference plays its strongest role when tradeoffs are required. For instance, if one has to choose between an excess of speaker cabinet resonance, or having poorer resolution, it is likely that audiophiles would be split. But the choice between more or less cabinet resonance is simple, and I think most audiophiles would choose less.

Cbw723 wrote: "But the choice between more or less cabinet resonance is simple, and I think most audiophiles would choose less."

I'm not so sure. Cabinet might resonate with the floor at the lowest bass notes that otherwise would not be audible. I know myself people who like it. Some people like "punch" in the midbass that again cabinet resonance might bring.

Many reviews of Benchmark DAC1 mentioned that sound might appear lifeless (too clean) without all the jitter introduced noise and that was exactly my first impression. Many people call Benchmark lifeless, analytical or sterile. When you add a little THD it becomes "lively" (like fuzz guitar compare to clean jazz guitar).

Personal preference is what it is - personal and very subjective and there is also no reference point/baseline. In addition all colorations affect each other.

i have many things to say. first, many of the preceding comments seem rather academic and superfluous. one of the purposes of listening to music is to enjoy it. thus it may not be necessary to analyze it (a stereo system to the extent indicated)in any way.

secondly, one cannot assume what forms of coloration are prefereable or not orefereable. i may prefer a boomy cabinet and be in the minority of serious listeners.

in the third case the term "audiophile" has been used many times but has not been defined. i suspect that i am not an audiophile and am not subject to the aforementioned stipulations. i may be the exception to the "rule".

finally, KISS. some of the analysis seems unnecessary and perhaps the term "serious listener" should substitute for "audiophile". after all, without defining the term the conclusions are obvious.

although the theme has generated many posts, it would seem that points have been made and that further discusssion may not add value to what has already been said.

i am not and never will consider myself an audiophile, as my pursuit is the enjoyment of music , rather than an analysis of stereo systems.

the neutrality of stereo systems theme should be the basis for a debate in an academic institution.

Without disgorging the entire critical vocabulary, it may be worth exploring several aspects of coloration that relate to one listener's perception of neutrality. Anyone who prefers a boomy cabinet may go at it. It would be particularly interesting to hear from designers of boomy cabinets.

Movement in the direction of neutrality implies flatter frequency response.

Neutrality implies CONTINUOUSNESS, in the sense of consistency of musical expression throughout the frequency range. A COLORIST may argue that continuousness demonstrates little more than seamlessness of coloration. To this I reply that coloration necessarily manifests itself discontinuously across the frequency range, and necessarily through a distribution of undesirable colorations in addition to desirable colorations. Eliminating an undesirable coloration is always progress toward neutrality. Even avowed colorists will express this preference. More on this further down. For the moment consider continuousness a virtue.

Relating to continuousness, movement toward neutrality implies a more organized presentation. The notion of ORGANIZATION is not far removed from Bryon’s notion of distinctness. Improved organization of sound is likely the consequence of small corrections to pitch and timbre, improved transients and decay against a quieter background-- that may result from reduced distortions and interstitial resonance peaks in frequency response as identified by Cbw723. However, in terms of how one hears a better organized presentation qua neutrality, the overall gestalt is that the system “settles down” and sounds more balanced and unforced. The example that Cbw723 cites of adding an aftermarket clock falls nicely into this category.

One aspect of an organized presentation is that dynamics are more precisely expressed through instrument bodies. Absent this natural sense of embodiment, dynamics tend to travel on their own envelop apart from instruments. This seeming dislocation of dynamics from instruments can be a bumpy & disorganized ride. In contrast, with NATURAL EMBODIMENT there is a sense of heightened control and containment of dynamics within the three dimensional boundaries of instruments. Neutrality in this sense is to be distinguished from imaging, insofar as the precise embodiment of dynamics adds characteristics from the time domain to imaging. Neutrality is also indicated by good downward dynamic range, by which I mean that the sense of natural balance and organization is preserved with low-level information or as the volume is lowered.

There is linguistic austerity in notions of continuousness, organization, balance, and control, that may be germane to popular usage of the word “neutrality”. I have intentionally omitted visual metaphors, the absence of which helps differentiate neutrality from aspects of sound best described in static terms.

Add the requirements of CLARITY and high frequency extension, which provide framing for dynamics within resolving detail, while also contributing to neutrality in the frequency domain. Conventional wisdom considers “warm” and “analytical” to be mutually exclusive; this is where the majority of colorists make their compromise. Anyone who has experienced treble edge is naturally inclined toward a padded treble in the service of euphonic warmth. However, many such problems stem from disagreeable colorations that are the unintended consequences of more agreeable colorations. IME there is really no such thing as too much resolution(with the possible exception of digital processes such as upsampling), provided that careful attention is given to engineering and quality piece parts. Resolving problems in this way invariably improves both resolution and musicality. Finally, clarity and HF extension are critical to clearing a transparent soundstage through which instruments emerge fully delineated and in correct proportions. The rock solid STABILITY of delineated images across the time domain may also signify neutrality, as this reinforces the sense of continuity, organization, and control discussed above.