2. misc-audio
  3. 1257469878

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
cbw723
89 posts
 
Dgarretson writes:
It would be particularly interesting to hear from designers of boomy cabinets.

Heh.

Relating to continuousness, movement toward neutrality implies a more organized presentation.

This is an interesting notion. If we consider the source as maximally organized information, then each stage in the audio chain has the potential to disorganize some information. The extent to which we don't corrupt the information determines the organization of the final presentation. So for a system, the greater its neutrality, the lower its entropy.

Thanks, I hadn't really thought about it like that. It helps explain why upstream improvements (i.e., toward the source) often seem to have the biggest impact: the reduction in entropy is carried through more components, maximizing the potential gain across the entire system.
bryoncunningham OP
890 posts
 
Dgarretson wrote:
...movement toward neutrality implies a more organized presentation. The notion of ORGANIZATION is not far removed from Bryon’s notion of distinctness...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.

This is a very interesting observation. I have never seen someone point this phenomenon out before, but it is consistent with my own experiences. As things have improved in my own system, I have noticed that dynamics are embodied in instruments rather than being "superimposed" on top of the whole sound field. The result is a more lifelike presentation. It is a very hard thing to describe.

I am not exactly sure how it relates to neutrality, though. I would have been more inclined to think of this change as an improvement imaging or in resolution. Can you say a little more about your view on the link between this phenomenon and neutrality?
cbw723
89 posts
 
Similar to Barnard Malamud's Roy Hobbs in the "The Natural", who tried with futility to hit a hectoring dwarf (troll?) in the grandstands with line drives from his Wonderbat.

Many message boards give you the option to put trolls on ignore. It cuts down the clutter. I think I'll suggest it to the Audiogon folks.
newbee
4,778 posts
 
Dgarretson, YOU are as sharp as a tack! Love your response and sense of humor as well. I have been hectoring a bit (too much) haven't I.

But troll, I don't think so.

I thought the term Troll was reserved for folks who posted threads on controversial subjects in which people are known to have strong diverse opinions and resolution is not possible. A thread that predictably sucks in readers to responding (in good faith) to no good end except for the opportunities it provided the OP.

The appearance of this thread certainly could be evidence of the activity of a troll. One thing is clear, and the OP admitted this somewhere in his posts, he loves to argue and considers himself quite skilled. One could think that his husbanding of the direction of the subject was a little over the top considering the issues involved and that it was more in furtherance of his love of arguing than for anything else. At least I did.

You guys can continue your discussions in peace now. I'll hector no more.
dgarretson
2,608 posts
 
Newbee, Sorry I was inhospitable. Your speculation that the entirety of this thread constitutes trolling is interesting. Even more interesting, the derivation of internet trolling comes from the practice of TROLLING FOR NEWBIES, as popularized by usenet veterans of the early '90s who enjoyed drawing gullible "newbies" into circular discussions. I suppose Bryon could theoretically be a troll, albeit a kind of PHILOSOPHER TROLL. In any case, your choice of the moniker Newbee places you at personal risk of being considered TROLL BAIT.

Bryon, it may be appealing to view neutrality as a phenomenon of both time and frequency domains. I tend to think of imaging and resolution mostly in the frequency category, and dynamics in the time category. However, these are linked characterics, insofar as a well-resolved image frames dynamics within a precise boundary. Taken together these characteristics communicate embodiment. A dislocation of dynamics from imaging in this sense may be considered coloration and therefore a failure of neutrality.

IMO the discussion is ultimately down to an enumeration of the taxonomy of coloration. My last post was about changes in sound that I hear when improvements are made according to generally accepted engineering principals(e.g. Schottky rectification, discrete voltage regulation stages, galvanic separation, low-noise resistors, low-resonance capacitors). Others will likely have different perceptions of coloration.
More to discover