How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Learsfool – I appreciate your thanks and I’m grateful for your participation. Though our points of view never converged, I learned a lot from our debate along the way. Your final comments about training the ear, which I think of as training the brain, are well taken. Although we didn’t discuss it much in this thread, the ear/brain is probably the most important “component” in the system.

Cbw – I have given some thought to your suggestions for revising the working definition of ‘inaccuracy.’ Here is what I came up with:

INACCURACY: An alteration to information in a component or system that eliminates, conceals, or corrupts information about the music.

Defining 'inaccuracy' in this way raises the question: How does this new concept of 'inaccuracy' relate to the concepts of 'accuracy,' 'neutrality,' and ‘resolution’? I would like to offer a new proposal about the relations among these concepts. To begin with some definitions:

ACCURACY: 1. The relative amount of information about the music presented by a component or system, comparing output to input. 2. The degree of absence of inaccuracies.

INACCURACY: An alteration to information in a component or system that eliminates, conceals, or corrupts information about the music.

NEUTRALITY: The degree of absence of coloration within a component or system.

COLORATION: An inaccuracy audible as a non-random sonic signature.

RESOLUTION: The absolute limit of information about the music that a component or system can present.

These concepts form some of the basic units of a set of equations that express the relations among accuracy, neutrality, and resolution:

1. CA = (1/L+N+D)
2. CN = (1/DoC)
3. CR = CA + FR
4. SA = SoCA
5. SN = SoCN
6. SR = SA + FR

Where…

CA = Component Accuracy
CN = Component Neutrality
CR = Component Resolution
SA = System Accuracy
SN = System Neutrality
SR = System Resolution
FR = Format Resolution
L = Loss
N = Noise
D = Distortion
So = “Sum of”
Do = “Degree of”

Taking them one at a time…

1. CA = (1/L+N+D). A COMPONENT’S ACCURACY is determined by the amount of loss, noise, and distortion within the component. More specifically, a component's accuracy is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to its loss, noise, and distortion. The other way of saying the same thing: A component's inaccuracy is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to its loss (the elimination of information), noise (the concealment of information), and distortion (the corruption of information).

2. CN = (1/DoC). A COMPONENT’S NEUTRALITY is determined by its degree of coloration. More specifically, a component's neutrality is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to its degree of coloration. This equation was proposed by Cbw in an earlier post.

3. CR = CA + FR. A COMPONENT’S RESOLUTION is determined by the accuracy of the component and the format resolution of the source. Specifically, a component's resolution is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to its accuracy and the format resolution.

4. SA = SoCA. A SYSTEM’S ACCURACY is determined by the sum of its components’ accuracy. Specifically, they are DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL.

5. SN = SoCN. A SYSTEM’S NEUTRALITY is determined by the sum of its components’ neutrality. Specifically, they are DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL.

6. SR = SA + FR. A SYSTEM’S RESOLUTION is determined by the system's accuracy and the format resolution of the source. Specifically, a system's resolution is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to its accuracy and the format resolution.

I'm not really proposing a deep mathematical relationship among these concepts. The equations are more of a mathematical analogy for describing the logical and conceptual relations among these categories.

Hi Bryon - I agree that this has been an interesting debate. I shared this thread with my brother today, who is a sociologist and fellow audiophile, and he had a take on it that I think you and others will find interesting, so I have decided to share it. I should say that he considers himself more in the subjectivist camp, though he did say that Dgarretson's description of an extreme subjectivist sounded about the same as a post-modernist, and post-modernism is "crap," as he put it. He agrees with us that the moderates in both camps differ mostly in method.

He also agrees with me that "neutrality" does not exist, and in fact came up with the term I had been searching for. His opinion is that you are engaging in "reification," which is defined as the treating of an abstract concept as if it has real material existence (I should add that I checked with my uncle, who used to teach philosophy/logic, and he corrected me that this is not actually a logical fallacy, as I had thought).

He also talked about something similar to what Dgarretson did, that objectivists sometimes are forced to make subjective judgements and then try to operationalize their ideas. Many objectivist criteria are in actuality subjective, as the measures they come up with often lack "validity" (is the measure measuring what it is supposed to) or "reliability" (will different people using the same instrument get the same result under the same conditions).

His opinion is that many measures for audio "colorations" would not be "reliable" in the above sense because of the lack of agreement on terms. He added that even with agreement on criteria for measurements, there is the human ear factor we have discussed. He commented that in disciplines like sociology or psychology it is possible to come up with measures that are valid and reliable in the above senses, but that in music, and I will now quote him directly "taste confounds quality, and people mess those up." He has actually written a fascinating article on this taste/quality issue, entitled "Music as Evil: Deviance and Norm Promotion in Classical Music," in which he applies the sociology of deviance (one of his specialties) to the sociology of high-art, specifically music. I think I could provide a link to anyone interested, with his permission.

His are essentially the same arguments I have been making, though expressed quite a bit differently - he is certainly more scientifically minded than I am. I hope I have represented his ideas adequately. I would love to hear your thoughts!

Learsfool – Although it is hazardous to argue by proxy, I will do my best to respond to your brother’s comments.

To begin with, your brother suggested that I was guilty of the REIFICATION, which you define as “treating an abstract concept as if it had real material existence.” In the absence of more information, I can think of only two possible interpretations of this comment.

The first interpretation is that I have treated concepts IN GENERAL as though they had “real material existence.” In a way, this is true, because I have sometimes treated concepts as MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS of abstract categories. But mental representations have “real material existence,” insofar as they are characteristics of real physical things, namely persons. This use of the word ‘concept’ is not arbitrary or idiosyncratic. It is the prevailing use of the term in the cognitive sciences. However, the ordinary usage of the word ‘concept’ is ambiguous, in that it does not differentiate between concepts as ABSTRACT CATEGORIES and concepts as the MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS of those categories. Because of that, many of the posts in this thread contain that ambiguity, though it doesn’t seem to have affected the discussion much. I myself have used the term ‘concept’ sometimes to refer to abstract categories, and sometimes to refer to the mental representations of those categories, depending on the context. While acknowledging that ambiguity, I suspect you will be hard pressed to find examples of equivocation (i.e. arguments that exploit that ambiguity).

My views on these matters are quite conventional: Categories are abstractions. As such they do not have “real material existence.” Concepts are mental representations of abstract categories. As such, they do have “real material existence” IN HUMAN BRAINS. I would only qualify the last statement with the observation that, for any given category, there are many diverse conceptualizations, as I discussed in my post on 12/10.

The second interpretation of the charge of reification is that I have treated the concept of ‘neutrality’ IN PARTICULAR as though it had “real material existence.” If this is what your brother means, then I assume your brother’s reasoning is similar to your reasoning from an earlier post, when you objected to my definition of neutrality because it was defined in terms of the ABSENCE of coloration. I would ask your brother: Is entropy real? Is a vacuum real? Is biological equilibrium real? All of these scientific concepts are defined BY ABSENCE, as I mentioned in my post on 12/6. I would say that neutrality is as real as entropy, a vaccum, and biological equilibrium. And, in my view, that is real enough to make them valuable concepts, even if they create some metaphysical uneasiness about the existence of things defined by absence. For the scrupulous metaphysician, all of my observations about playback neutrality (which is defined by absence) can be easily converted into observations about playback coloration (which is defined by presence). But I believe that this level of metaphysical parsimony is unnecessary. And if your brother is advocating it, I would add that it is a surprising attitude in a social scientist.

Your brother also raises doubt about the validity and reliability of my operationalization of neutrality. To question its validity is to say that the observable conditions I mentioned to do not correlate with neutrality, but with some other variable, or with nothing. To question its reliability is to say that different observers would come to different conclusions about the observable conditions in my operationalization.

RE: RELIABILITY. You have questioned my operationalization’s reliability throughout this thread, arguing that audiophiles will never be able to agree on whether a particular component or system is more or less neutral. I have been more optimistic. Unfortunately, the answer to the question of reliability is a matter of speculation for both of us. This is where the scientific metaphors break down, because there is not likely to be a scientifically valid experiment testing the reliability of my operationalization any time before, say, the heat death of the universe. So we are limited to our conjectures, hunches, and intuitions.

RE: VALIDITY. There has been somewhat less debate on this thread about the validity of my operationalization. The empirical evidence offered is both anecdotal and controversial. Personally I have had a number of experiences that are consistent with the operationalization. But for those who have not, the only evidence possible is theoretical. One kind of theoretical evidence presented on this thread was the concept of ‘neutrality’ that emerges from looking at the playback system from the point of view of information. That is to say, by comparing the information available at the source vs. the information available at the ear, it is inevitable that some information will be eliminated, concealed, or corrupted. When that is audible and non-random, components and systems have sonic signatures, which I have called colorations, in keeping with widespread audiophile usage. And as I have argued, if differences in coloration exist, then differences in neutrality “exist” (with the necessary qualifications to avoid reification). Having said that, I believe that the controversy over the “existence” of neutrality is a distraction from the more essential issue: The existence of colorations. If colorations exist, they constitute some theoretical evidence for the validity of my operationalization. The whole issue of the "existence" of neutrality can be avoided with one simple change to the operationalization: Instead of it being a method for identifying GREATER NEUTRALITY, it is a method for identifying LESS COLORATION. And that is really the heart of the matter.

As far as your brother’s observation that "taste confounds quality, and people mess those up,” I guess I’m a little unclear what that means. Specifically, what does ‘quality’ mean here? Is he talking about the qualitative characteristics of music, or the virtues of a playback system?

I would like to say a few words, not the detractors of neutrality, but to the detractors of this thread. A number of posters have questioned the value of these discussions. Some have expressed their doubts with arguments, others with jokes, and a few with hostility. In many of my posts, I have made a point of trying to explain the value of these discussions, as I see them. A few other posters have done likewise. But this has not silenced the steady stream of skeptics. In response, I would like say a few things. I generally cringe at the conversation becoming about itself. Others who feel the same can skip this post.

Some posters have expressed doubts about the value of conceptual analysis.
This thread began with a question about neutrality, but quickly became about the concepts closely linked with it – coloration, accuracy, resolution, transparency. It seems to me that these concepts are employed daily by posters on Audiogon. Most of the time they remain undefined elements in the discussion. When they become a point of contention, it is often obvious that a great deal of the original disagreement is attributable to disparities in how people understand the terms of the discussion. That fact highlights the need for conceptual analysis.

However, some posters seem to believe that conceptual analysis is mere “semantics.” I think that that is a retreat from the challenge of being clear about the basic units of thought and communication, and a premature resignation to deadlocking. In other words, I have the (admittedly) optimistic view that, through the analysis of the terms of the discussion, a great deal of disagreement can be avoided or resolved. I am not so naïve as to believe that this will make audiophiles regularly agree. But I believe that, without this kind of effort, they will NEVER agree.

One last comment on the value of conceptual analysis. As I mentioned in a previous post, the refinement of concepts is crucial for the refinement of percepts. There is a great deal of scientific evidence for the view that perception is “cognitively penetrable.” That is to say, by improving the way you think about things, you improve the way you perceive things. This is an essential element in most “expert perception.” A symphony composer’s expert perception is developed not only through the refinement of his senses but also through the refinement of his mind.

Moving on, some posters have expressed doubts about the relevance of this thread to audiophiles. To begin with, it is certainly more germane to the interests of audiophiles than such threads as “Cars: What does the typical audiophile drive?” which is now up to 779 posts, without a chorus of detractors questioning its value. This begs the question: Why has this thread come under recurring criticism for its relevance when threads like the one above have not? One possibility is that, according to some posters, this thread is "philosophical" and "academic."

To criticize something as “philosophical” is usually to say that it is “excessively abstract.” My reaction to this is that “excessively abstract” is in the eye of the beholder. I think some people are more comfortable with abstractions than others. There are those who enjoy abstractions, which I think is difficult for some people to identify with. And there is often an assumption that those who enjoy abstraction could not possibly enjoy music, an assumption which is patently false to those, like myself, who enjoy both. And for those for whom this thread has been excessively abstract, I would ask: As of last count, there are 78,328 threads on Audiogon – What is the risk in having one that is “philosophical”?

To criticize something is “academic” is usually to say that it is “of no practical value.” In my view, what is “practical” is also largely in the eye of the beholder. What is perceived as practical depends upon the interests and ingenuity of the perceiver, and those vary widely. And finally, what is “valuable” is in the eye of the beholder. I find it ironic that the detractors of this thread, who are almost uniformly Subjectivist with respect to neutrality, appear uniformly OBJECTIVIST WITH RESPECT TO WHAT IS VALUABLE. That is to say, they seem to believe that, if something is not valuable to them, then it is not valuable to anyone. And they seem to believe this in spite of evidence to the contrary, namely, the continued participation of several posters on this thread, including an outspoken opponent of neutrality. In my view, that participation is unambiguous evidence that at least some people do not share their beliefs about what is valuable.