How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Hi Bryon - I think there is still some misunderstanding here. I am not disputing that there is a fact of the matter about whether there is coloration or not; as I have said before, I believe that colorations are ALWAYS present, and that an absence of them is not possible in music reproduction. When I made the analogy about coloration being in the ear of the listener, I meant that each listener will perceive these colorations differently, and that this is ultimately subjective no matter how much agreement can be made on terms. Taste comes into play here as well - which trade offs does one want to make, etc.

I also did not mean to imply that there is no such thing as an inaudible coloration. One obvious example is a digital processor designed to remove all frequencies above the range of human hearing, as many still are - this is clearly information that has been eliminated (it has also been proven that although the ear does not hear these frequencies, the brain does sense them and does perceive their absence).

Another clarification - I did not mean to imply that variety of tastes make it impossible to come to an agreement on quality. As you say, taste is not a static phenomenon at all. That is one of the main points of my brother's paper, in fact. That said, it still can be very easy to confuse taste with quality. For example, an audiophile who will refuse to own a tube amp, no matter how well made and how good it sounds because they consider them too "colored," a bias very often expressed here on this forum - insert your own favorite bias in place of this example. Almost none of us are as open minded as we would like to think we are.

Learsfool wrote:

I believe that colorations are ALWAYS present, and that an absence of them is not possible in music reproduction.

Learsfool - I understand that you believe that colorations are always present in music reproduction. About this point we are in agreement. I have a four questions for you:

(1) Do you believe that colorations can be either increased or decreased?

(2) Do you believe that colorations can be evaluated as to their euphony or “dysphony” by individual listeners?

(3) Do you believe that judgments about euphony/dysphony have ANY consistency across multiple listeners?

Learsfool wrote:

When I made the analogy about coloration being in the ear of the listener, I meant that each listener will perceive these colorations differently, and that this is ultimately subjective…

In introductory philosophy classes, a thought experiment is often discussed called “spectral inversion.” It asks students to consider the logical possibility that what I see as red, for example, you see as blue. Many people wonder about this possibility outside the context of philosophy classes. But unlike most of them, philosophers take the problem quite seriously.

The possibility of spectral inversion is just one example of a whole class of thought experiments designed to highlight the PRIVACY OF SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES and the INACCESSIBILITY OF OTHER MINDS. Your suggestion that “each listener will perceive colorations differently” strikes me as a version of this attitude, except that, rather than being agnostic about the percepts of other minds, you believe that the percepts of other minds are sufficiently different from person to person to make agreement about colorations impossible. In a way, you are saying: What I hear as “red,” you hear as “blue.” So, my last question for you is:

(4) Is this your view?

Hi Bryon - interesting questions, and I am sorry I can't take more time to answer them at the moment. The very short answer to the first one would be that that of course would depend on the specific coloration in question. The second question is a little puzzling to me, as I am not sure why anyone would answer that in the negative. Surely we all are always evaluating the euphony of our systems, even including Dgarretson's extreme objectivist?

As for the third question, sure, multiple audiophiles with similar tastes will often agree completely on that sort of judgement. I think there would rarely be complete agreement among a large number however, except perhaps in extreme cases, such as Al's $50,000 system vs. a Wal-mart boom box. Some colorations bother certain people much more/less than others. The digital distortions vs. analog distortions debate is a classic example.

As for the fourth question, I must admit I am completely unfamiliar with the "spectral inversion" thing, so I really can't say. Using your color analogy, perhaps a better example of what I meant than red/blue might be light purple/dark violet? Or perhaps back to my two high-end preamps in the otherwise same exact system example? One person might say that they prefer preamp A's warmer sound, where another will insist that it is too "colored." This would be a subjective judgement, EVEN IF THEY WERE IN AGREEMENT. Another example - one of the oldest types of audio component that has been in continuous production is the horn speaker. Many would say that clearly the longevity alone means that there is something fundamentally correct about the design. But of course there are a HUGE number of audiophiles who can't stand them, and completely write them off as an outdated, hopelessly "colored" design. Both opinions are frequently expressed on audio forums. This is a subjective judgement. I don't know if these brief answers help or not, but there they are.

in the english language , better is a subjective term, unless it is tied to a reference. since there is no known reference in audio as the sound of a recording is completely unknown and the memory of the sound of an instrument heard at a concert is unreliable , better is completely subjective.

thus, two audiophiles will disagree as to which audio system is closer to "neutrality".

Mrtennis writes:

...better is a subjective term...

Yes, it is. But it also isn't the subject of this thread. We're talking about neutrality.

...since there is no known reference in audio as the sound of a recording is completely unknown...

If you truly believe that, a few posts ago I proposed a hypothetical system (now referred to as the "Rube Goldberg machine") with which you could replace your current system. Given that the sound of a recording is "completely unknown," I assume you wouldn't notice the difference. You should, in fact, be satisfied with the sound of pounding on your recordings with a hammer because, arguably, that's what they really sound like.

thus, two audiophiles will disagree as to which audio system is closer to "neutrality".

Ignoring the non sequitur (see my first point), that point would only be valid if judging neutrality required an absolute reference. The OP proposed a means that required only a relative reference. In my experience, most audio reviews and personal judgments are made on the basis of the relative merits of components and systems, and don't require an absolute reference. But also in my experience is a lifetime of hearing things, human voices and musical instruments included, and I can tell live/real from recorded/reproduced, and I can tell a better reproduction from a poorer one. Can't you?