How do you judge your system's neutrality?



Here’s an answer I’ve been kicking around: Your system is becoming more neutral whenever you change a system element (component, cable, room treatment, etc.) and you get the following results:

(1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique.
(2) Your music collection sounds more diverse.

This theory occurred to me one day when I changed amps and noticed that the timbres of instruments were suddenly more distinct from one another. With the old amp, all instruments seemed to have a common harmonic element (the signature of the amp?!). With the new amp, individual instrument timbres sounded more unique and the range of instrument timbres sounded more diverse. I went on to notice that whole songs (and even whole albums) sounded more unique, and that my music collection, taken as a whole, sounded more diverse.

That led me to the following idea: If, after changing a system element, (1) individual pieces of music sound more unique, and (2) your music collection sounds more diverse, then your system is contributing less of its own signature to the music. And less signature means more neutral.

Thoughts?

P.S. This is only a way of judging the relative neutrality of a system. Judging the absolute neutrality of a system is a philosophical question for another day.

P.P.S. I don’t believe a system’s signature can be reduced to zero. But it doesn’t follow from that that differences in neutrality do not exist.

P.P.P.S. I’m not suggesting that neutrality is the most important goal in building an audio system, but in my experience, the changes that have resulted in greater neutrality (using the standard above) have also been the changes that resulted in more musical enjoyment.
bryoncunningham
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"?
"Which part didn't you like, the Viagra or the sex?"

I don't remember having sex (very common at my age) but If I had I'm sure I liked it - I think.
Viagra and sex! I thought that Shadrone's comments were the highlights of this thread as it now stands.

Frankly I think I'd rather read 'Atlas Shrugged', 'The Fixer', or 'War and Peace'. Atlas Shrugged because I'm still looking for John Galt, The Fixer because it reminds me that not everything ends well despite all hope, and War and Peace because at least as difficult as it is to remember all those Russian names in the end it is at least an entertaining read.

All hope is lost for those just finding this thread. :-).
hi byron:

some of my previous threads and posts concerned definition of words and not redundancy of analysis.