How do you judge your system's neutrality?

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.

CB723 - My Vacuum Cleaner IS very low pressure cleaner. Hope it helps.

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.

A while ago Bryon produced some equations. Among them:

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.

Just a nit pick here: operator precedence being what it is, the equation as written would be evaluated as CA = (1/L) + N + D. But your intent to have all component accuracy be inversely proportional to all three of loss, noise, and distortion would be better written as CA = 1/(L+N+D).

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.

I've been wrestling with this one because I don't think of a component's resolution as limited by the resolution of the source -- that is, the output at any given moment may be limited by the source, but that is not be the component's inherent resolution limit. It is only when the source resolution exceeds the component resolution that you can know anything about the component resolution, at which point the source resolution ceases to be a factor. Or maybe I'm missing your point.

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.

I have a couple of thoughts on these "sum of" relationships. 1) Some types of errors may not be simply propagated through downstream components, but may actually be reinforced by them. This kind of error may result in an exponential relationship, rather than a simple additive one. This would be an example of bad synergy among components. 2) In some cases, the entire chain may be limited by a single component. Resolution, for instance, may well be a function of the least resolving component in the chain, rather than the sum of small losses in several components. Neutrality, on the other hand, is likely the sum of the components contribution.

I realize that you did not intend these to be strict mathematical relationships, but these are some ideas that occurred to me about other types of relationships among components.

Cbw – Those are excellent observations. Taking them one at a time…

(1) RE: Component Accuracy, expressed as CA = 1/L+N=D,* Cbw wrote:

...your intent to have all component accuracy be inversely proportional to all three of loss, noise, and distortion would be better written as CA = 1/(L+N+D).

*Where…
CA = Component Accuracy
L = Loss
N = Noise
D = Distortion

You are absolutely correct that the equation should be CA = 1/(L+N+D). It was an oversight on my part.

(2) RE: Component Resolution, expressed as CR = CA + FR,* Cbw wrote:

I don't think of a component's resolution as limited by the resolution of the source -- that is, the output at any given moment may be limited by the source, but that is not be the component's inherent resolution limit.

*Where…
CR = Component Resolution
CA = Component Accuracy
FR = Format Resolution

I should have distinguished two different types of Component Resolution, namely, LATENT Resolution and OCCURRENT Resolution.

LATENT RESOLUTION: The amount of information about the music that a component can POTENTIALLY produce.

OCCURRENT RESOLUTION: The amount of information about the music that a component ACTUALLY does produce.

My equation for Component Resolution, CR = CA + FR, was intended to express the OCCURRENT resolution of a component. Occurrent Component Resolution is limited by Format Resolution, because a component cannot produce more actual resolution than it receives at its input. You are quite correct, however, that LATENT resolution is not limited by Format Resolution, as is illustrated in cases where a low resolution source is fed into high resolution downstream components.

I think you are also correct in that, when audiophiles talk about the resolution of an individual component, they are usually referring to its LATENT resolution, that is, how much resolution the component IS CAPABLE OF. The exception to this is when audiophiles talk about the resolution of the SOURCE component. In that case, resolution seems to refer to OCCURRENT resolution.

Also, when audiophiles talk about the resolution of a whole system, I believe that they are usually talking about its OCCURRENT resolution, that is, how much resolution the system ACTUALLY PRODUCES. Hence the inclusion of Format Resolution in my equation for System Resolution, expressed as: SR = SA + FR.

The value of distinguishing Latent Resolution from Occurrent Resolution is that it highlights the difference between System Accuracy and System Resolution, which I believe are two distinct virtues in an audio system. A highly accurate system passes the signal from software to ear with very little alteration to the musical information. But it need not be highly resolving, if the format resolution is low. Think: A $100K system playing MP3’s, and you have the idea of a highly accurate but not highly resolving system. A highly resolving system, on the other hand, presents a large amount of information about the music to the listener. To do this, it must start with a large amount of information about the music (high format resolution) and preserve that information through the playback chain (high system accuracy). Think: The same system playing a well recorded SACD.

(3) RE: System Accuracy, expressed as SA = SoCA,* Cbw wrote:

Some types of errors may not be simply propagated through downstream components, but may actually be reinforced by them. This kind of error may result in an exponential relationship, rather than a simple additive one.

*Where…
SA = System Accuracy
So = “sum of”
CA = Component Accuracy

I agree that the “sum of” relationship expressed here is, in many cases, unlikely to be a simple sum. It may be multiplicative or exponential, depending on the type of inaccuracy in question. That is what I meant when I said that these were merely mathematical “analogies.” Having said that, it would nice to improve this equation so that it reflected the various types of inaccuracies that collectively determine System Accuracy. Do you have any ideas?