Vince - Yes, I can recognize piano when I hear one (I think), but we're talking about subtle differences and perfect aural memory (mine is far from it). When Learsfool, musician by trade, says that remembering exact sound is difficult (if "reference" sound even exists) for me it will be very difficult or impossible (there are reasons I'm not a musician!). I can tell if I like the sound but to tell if it's accurate is beyond me.
Let assume this: I go to concert and 2 days later they make CD from this particular concert (they are very very fast), while my poor aural memory is still fresh. I play it at home and discover that piano has different tone and its dynamics are much smaller than what I remember. What is suppose to think? Is it my system coloring or is it recording engineer plus recording equipment coloring? Well - there is remedy for that. Let listen to many recordings of the piano to take "average" sound and verify how good my recording is. It happens that all recordings have low dynamics and different tone. Hmm - is it my system or recording engineer? He wouldn't be so ruthless to kill dynamics - it has to be my system then or I remember wrong.
That was one possibility. Imagine now that my speakers resonate with the floor at low frequency extending speaker's response. Some love it while others hate bass with poor definition. What is closer to neutral sound? It depends whom you ask.
I like sound of my system and don't really care how true it is to reality especially if there isn't one that can be defined. I also realize that you might hate sound of my system and that's the beauty of audio experience. Lets leave categorizing and testing to academics - scientists, psychologists etc. |
Observations:
There are some really intelligent people in this forum.
Should this thread really be called or directed toward "acceptable system colorations"?
After slogging through the final page of this thread I realized it was an hour I would never get back that I could have spent listening to my "system colorations."
I will waive all fees associated with use of my user name in describing auditory phenomena. |
Learsfool - Sorry for the late reply. I've been traveling for the holiday.
To share with you the reasons for the questions I asked you in my previous post:
RE: (1) Do you believe that colorations can be either increased or decreased?
This was a way of asking whether you believe in (a) variability in the degree of coloration for components and systems, and (b) variability in their degree of neutrality, defined as the degree of absence of coloration. As I understand your view, you believe in (a) but not (b).
RE: (2) Do you believe that colorations can be evaluated as to their euphony or "dysphony" by individual listeners?
This was a way of asking whether you believe in individual preferences regarding colorations. I agree with you that no one is likely to answer this question in the negative. It was really a preface to my third question...
RE: (3) Do you believe that judgments about euphony/dysphony have any consistency across multiple listeners?
This was a way of asking your view on the existence and extent of agreement about PREFERENCE. As I understand your view, you believe that agreement about preference exists but its extent is limited to small groups of audiophiles with similar tastes.
RE: (4) Do you believe that what I hear as "red," you hear as "blue"?
This was a way of asking your view on the existence and extent of agreement about PERCEPTION. As I understand your view, you believe that perception across individual listeners is similar but not identical.
Learsfool - These four questions are linked by their mutual relevance to a recurring issue on this thread: How much can audiophiles agree in their judgments about coloration/neutrality? I have expressed the optimistic view that audiophiles often can, and do, agree about these judgments. Other posters, including you, have been more skeptical about the extent of actual or possible agreement.
My current point is that a valid estimation of the amount of agreement requires differentiating agreement about PERCEPTION from agreement about PREFERENCE. That is because, in my view, the amount of agreement about perception is GREATER than the amount of agreement about preference. In addition, I think that perception and preference have sometimes been conflated on this thread, with the result that THE AMOUNT OF DISAGREEMENT AMONG AUDIOPHILES HAS BEEN OVERESTIMATED. To elaborate...
I believe the following about LISTENER PERCEPTION:
1. As expertise increases, variability in listener perception decreases.
2. As variability in listener perception decreases, agreement about perception increases.
.....Therefore.....
3. As expertise increases, agreement about perception increases.
In my view, there are many expert listeners* among audiophiles. Because of this, I believe that THE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL AGREEMENT ABOUT PERCEPTION IS FAIRLY HIGH AMONG AUDIOPHILES.
As I stated in a previous post, in my view, listener expertise can be developed. Because of this, I believe that THE AMOUNT OF POSSIBLE AGREEMENT ABOUT PERCEPTION IS EVEN HIGHER.
*An "expert listener" could be contrasted with a "naive listener." This is not really a binary state. Like all expertise, listening expertise is a matter of degree. But, for certain purposes, it is useful to designate some arbitrary level of expertise as a threshold for being an "expert listener."
Regarding LISTENER PREFERENCE, I believe that:
1. As expertise increases, variability in listener preference decreases, but at a much slower and less linear rate than listener perception.
2. As variability in listener preference decreases, agreement about preferences increases.
.....Therefore.....
3. As expertise increases, agreement about preferences increases, but at a much slower and less linear rate than agreement about perception.
In my view, the loose relation between listener expertise and listener preference results in ONLY A MODERATE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL AND POSSIBLE AGREEMENT ABOUT PREFERENCE. I also believe that variability in listener preference can never be reduced to zero, and therefore agreement about preference can never be complete.
As I hope this shows, differentiating listener perception from listener preference is essential for a valid estimation of how much agreement, actual or possible, exists among audiophiles. I believe that, while preferences are often diverse and sometimes incommensurable, perception is usually comparable and sometimes identical, particularly with the development of expertise. |
Mrtennis wrote: 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 system. And Kijanki wrote: Let assume this: I go to concert and 2 days later they make CD from this particular concert (they are very very fast), while my poor aural memory is still fresh. I play it at home and discover that piano has different tone and its dynamics are much smaller than what I remember. What is [sic] suppose to think? Is it my system coloring or is it recording engineer plus recording equipment coloring? These comments have an underlying assumption in common, namely, that any valid method for judging coloration/neutrality requires and EXTERNAL STANDARD against which the coloration/neutrality of a system is compared. That external standard could be (a) the "absolute sound" of the recording, if it exists; (b) the musical event that the recording captured, if it exists; or (c) an aural memory of a similar or identical musical event, if it exists. All of these standards involve states or events that are EXTERNAL to the playback system. Hence any method that employed one or more of them would be a kind of METHODOLOGICAL EXTERNALISM. I agree with Mrtennis and Kijanki that Methodological Externalism has problems, perhaps even insuperable ones. But I disagree with their conclusion that it is therefore impossible to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system. That is because there is another approach to judging the coloration/neutrality of a system, namely, METHODOLOGICAL INTERNALISM. That is to say, the coloration/neutrality of a system can be judged by COMPARING IT TO ITSELF. Or more precisely, to a slightly different version of itself. I made this point in my first post on 12/7, where I wrote: Tvad is taking up the contention, made by Learsfool and Kijanki, that in order to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system, you must know what the recording is “supposed to sound like." Learsfool and Kijanki have used that contention as the first premise of the following argument:
(i) If you are to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system, you must know what the recording is supposed to sound like.
(ii) You cannot know what the recording is supposed to sound like.
(iii) Therefore, you cannot judge the coloration/neutrality of a system.
The reasoning of this argument is valid. But, in my view, the argument is unsound, because it contains a FALSE PREMISE, namely, premise (i), that the ONLY way to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system is to know what the recording is "supposed to sound like." That premise is false, I believe, because there is ANOTHER way to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system, namely:
(1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique.
(2) Your music collection sounds more diverse.
In other words, my operationalization of neutralty is a method for judging the coloration/neutrality of a system that DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO KNOW WHAT THE RECORDING IS SUPPOSED TO SOUND LIKE. It only requires you to make judgments about changes in CONTRAST or DIFFERENTIATION.
Admittedly, my operationalization is only a way to judge the RELATIVE level of coloration/neutrality of a system, not its ABSOLUTE level of coloration/neutrality. But this is still valuable to the average audiophile, since he must make relative judgments all the time, such as, when changing components. And the fact that my operationalization of neutrality enables the audiophile to make (relative) judgments about coloration/neutrality without knowing what the recording is "supposed to sound like" is what makes the operationalization so actionable. The method for judging coloration/neutrality that I proposed in the OP was an example of Methodological Internalism, in the sense that it does not require a standard external to the playback system to make judgments about coloration/neutrality. As a result, it does not suffer the drawbacks of Methodological Externalism, such as those described by Mrtennis and Kijanki. It is worth pointing out that Dgarretson proposed an alternative method of judging the coloration/neutrality of a system and that his method is also Methodologically Internalist. Moving on... Mrtennis wrote: ...neutrality is such an abstract concept that it may be irrelevant as far as configuring a stereo system. And Kijanki wrote: Lets leave categorizing and testing to academics - scientists, psychologists etc. Here we have more resistance to abstraction, categorization, and testing. My second post on 12/15 expressed my thoughts about this kind of resistance, and repeating myself on this issue would be tedious. Suffice to say that, in my view, resisting abstraction, categorization, and testing is tantamount to resisting thinking, reasoning, and observing. |
does anyone posit that in order to enjoy the fruits of listening to music it is necessary or ssufficient to have a method of assessing a systems' neutrality ?
if , as i suspect it is not necessary or sufficient to be concenrened with the coloroations or lack thereof to enjoy music, why is there such an interest in trying to determine a stereo systems neutrality or the lack thereof, regardless of methodology.
there seems to be an implicit sense in the desirability of pursuing some algorithm for "measuring" neutrality which, unfortunately may be uncorrelated to the results of listening to music. |
