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
One possibility is that, according to some posters, this thread is "philosophical" and "academic."

This is the part I find most puzzling. I realize that there is a certain anti-intellectualism running rampant in certain circles in the US these days, but I'm surprised to find it in the audiophile world of high-end music, aesthetic appreciation, and outrageously expensive equipment with no other purpose than personal enjoyment. All of which activities are, in a word, elitist. Leaving aside what historically happens in countries that let anti-intellectual demagoguery gain political sway, it would be hard to find a country that has benefited more from academic exercise than this one. From our wealthy, intellectual, elitist founding fathers dabbling in political philosophy and coming up with the Constitution, to a bunch of egghead scientists who for decades pondered quantum mechanical weirdness that had no practical use... until it did, to people like Nelson Pass sitting around trying to figure out which transistor "sounds better," we are the daily beneficiaries of activities that were, or are, largely academic. And that says nothing of the value of purely academic ideas in educating the minds of all the millions of people who, by learning to think rigorously, went on to do something "practical."

Personally, I have found this thread enormously valuable. I have had to think, in detail, about a number of concepts that I only had a vague notion of before, which has helped clarify my thinking and improved my understanding of the role of these concepts (and their interrelationship) in the audio chain. And by discussing them and holding them up to scrutiny, I feel I better understand their limitations.

As for practical use, the thread started with a practical suggestion, and others have been made as the discussion progressed. My own conception of neutrality in terms of entropy (which is probably not original, but I don't know otherwise), has the potential to be a usable technique. Entropy, as discussed, is an actual, measurable quality of information. Were it to be measurable to a degree that would allow the detection of playback colorations (and I think it probably is), and were it to be correlated with listener experience (and I think it could be), it could become a quantity that was reported alongside other component measurements, like THD, channel separation, frequency response, etc., to help people choose the best component for their needs.

Tvad:
This discussion is analogous to juggling water.

Where audiophiles are concerned the analogies that come to my mind have more to do with bringing horses to water, and herding cats. As Bryon points out, there are seventy eight thousand threads on this site alone. Is this one really so dangerous and disruptive?
To whip the horse's eyes with one more water analogy, "You can bring a horticulture but you can't make her think."

Too much abstraction, Dorothy Parker?
Learsfool says:
To grossly summarize, our position would be that although colorations exist, this does not mean that neutrality does. We don't believe that there could ever be a piece of audio equipment, let alone an entire system, that has no coloration, meaning therefore that "neutrality" is an abstract concept, not something that has or could have real material existence.

By this argument, you also believe that pressure exists but vacuum does not because nobody has (or ever will) make one. So all these threads discussing "vacuum tubes" should really be corrected to be about "very low pressure tubes." Good luck with that.
Newbee, Dgarretson, Al, and Cbw – Thank you all for your comments regarding this thread. As is no doubt obvious, it has been a valuable experience for me. It has helped clarify and develop my views on a wide range of ideas that have occupied space in my mind since I renewed my interest in high end audio about two years ago, after a long absence. By expressing my ideas, I also evict them from their residence in my mind, where they would otherwise become unruly. Removing those “squatters” has been a cathartic experience. Unfortunately, there are still a few squatters left, and so without further ado…

Learsfool wrote:
One's taste is going to have a huge influence on how one perceives the quality of a component, for instance. Also on whether something is a coloration or not, the degree of coloration, etc. You said yourself in your second post of today "what is 'valuable' is in the eye of the beholder." One could also easily say that what is a "coloration" is in the ear of the listener.

I completely agree that a person’s taste will influence his judgment about the quality of a component. In fact, it may be the principal determinant of that judgment. Another way of making this point is: No man is an Objectivist with his wallet. I agree with that as an observation about the behavior of audiophiles, and maybe about the behavior of consumers generally. Audiophiles choose the components they want to listen to. That often means choosing components with the kinds of colorations that suit them. There is nothing “wrong” with this, as was asked of me in an earlier post. People should do what makes them happy when it comes to enjoying themselves.

As far as your conclusion that “what is a coloration is in the ear of the listener,” I agree and I disagree. I agree to the extent that it is certainly true that one person may perceive a coloration where another does not. But I disagree that there is no FACT OF THE MATTER about whether a coloration exists. I have recently defined coloration as “an inaccuracy audible as a non-random sonic signature,” or more simply: Colorations are audible inaccuracies. I take it there is little controversy about whether or not inaccuracies are objective. Either information has been eliminated/concealed/corrupted, or it has not been. That information is a characteristic of the software, the hardware, and the room. Its existence, and the existence of inaccuracies, are therefore objective, in the sense that they are INDEPENDENT OF THE OBSERVER.

The challenge for an Objectivist like me is the use of the word 'audible' in my definition of ‘coloration.’ A Subjectivist might argue: If colorations are defined as ‘audible inaccuracies,’ then if they are not audible, they are not colorations. This reasoning is plausible, but it overlooks an important consideration: AUDIBLE TO WHOM?

My view here is that colorations should be considered to exist when they are audible to A SIGNIFICANT FRACTION OF EXPERT OBSERVERS. Otherwise they can be designated “mere” inaccuracies. To put it another way, if a significant fraction of experts do not perceive an inaccuracy, then it is a difference that does not make a difference. Hence it should not be designated a ‘coloration.’ To put it in philosophical terms, I am a Realist about coloration, though the “reality” in question must include both the world and the ears/brains of experts. This will no doubt stir up some controversy, as it begs the question: Who is to say who is an expert? I can say more about my views on that in my next post. For now, I will point out that it may be easier to identify who is NOT an expert. My mother, for example.

I would like to end this post with a few words on the topic of taste and quality, which you raised in your last two posts. As you have pointed out, taste is among the biggest factors in audiophile judgments. Since taste is so variable, you conclude that differences in taste hopelessly confound any effort to arrive at agreement with respect to quality. To this, I respond: Taste is not a static phenomenon. It changes with age, exposure, and training. The last of these - training - is particularly relevant. That is to say, I believe that, as a person develops expert perception, their tastes tend to change. As a classically trained musician, I would imagine that you have had lifelong experiences that confirm that musical tastes change with the development of expert perception. In fact, the stagnation of taste may be a sign that the development of perception has ceased.

Analogously, as a person develops expert perception with respect to the playback of recorded music, I believe that COLORATIONS BECOME MORE AUDIBLE. In fact, I would view this a one of the standards for judging the expertise of the listener.