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
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?
hi cbw:

aural memory is very short. when judging the diffference between live and recordeded sound it is likely that one will be able to do so.

however, when comparing two recordings as to which is closer to a live sound, there will be disagreements among serious listeneres, as the number of variables governing such a judgment is large.

regarding neutrality, without a reference it is impossible to judge neutrality, accuracy or transparency.

when a recording is considered a reference for assessing the neutrality of a stereo system, the reference, either a live sound or recording is not knowable. hence it is best to use other terms than the aforementioned when trying to describe the sound of a stereo sytem.