How do you judge your system's neutrality?

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.

Mrtennis - Absolutely agree. It became academic discussion with a lot of words (193 posts, most few pages long) and no use to anybody.

Which part didn't you like, the Viagra or the sex?

Mrtennis wrote:

...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…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.

These comments puzzle me. You yourself have initiated 88 threads on Audiogon. Here are some of your titles:

-What is good sound?
-Hardware or software: Which is more important?
-Minimize ambiguity when describing audio components
-What is the difference between good and bad sound?
-Neutrality and transparency: What’s the difference?

From your thread, "Neutrality or transparency: What's the difference?", your original post read:

neutral and transparency are often considered the same by some hobbyists.

in fact they are not.

neutrality implies no alteration of the signal, whatsoever.
i have used the term "virtually" neutral to imply no audible coloration. of course this is a subjective term.

transparency is a subset of neutrality. it implies a perfectly clear window on the recording.

let me illustrate. suppose an amplifier has a slight deficiency in bass reproduction, e.g., it cannot reproduce any frequencies below 40 hz. that amplifier would not be considered a neutral component.

if said amp reproduced all "information" on a recroding within its range, i.e., above 40 to whatever, without covering up any detail, it would be a transparent device.

thus transparent includes the pssibility of an error, but also implies the passing of all information within the range or capability of the component.

transparency is a subjective term. often when used it means "virtual" transparency because it is possible a component may be hiding information that one is not aware of, but yet one perceives that no information is missing.

any thoughts ?

Does this passage not bear a striking resemblance to the topics discussed on this thread? Is it not "an analysis of stereo systems"?