How do you judge your system's neutrality?

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.

Bryoncunningham - we have two problems here:

First - you believe that more neutral sound will be a joy to most of the people - not true. People like particular sound of their system (coloring, attack, decay reverberation etc.) even it it is not exactly real.

Second: music on neutral system will sound more unique and diverse. Not true, IMHO, since certain aspects of music will still keep its proportion no matter how system plays it. Somehow you imply that system looses resolution and therefore ablility to present differences. It is not true since most of the tube amps do some coloring keeping high resolution and proportions at the same time.

As for your comment "What is [sic] suppose" I hope you realize it was a typo (but even if it wasn't it was not a pleasant thing to print - I'm perhaps one of those foreign guys, you mentioned, that cannot appreciate good discussion)

Mrtennis and Kijanki - I have said many, many times on this thread that I believe that neutrality is only one virtue AMONG MANY. Perhaps I should begin several new threads, "How do you judge your system's resolution? ...musicality? ...beauty?" Each of those would be interesting topics, and it might help convince you that my statements about the finite value of neutrality are sincere.

Kijanki - I did not intend to offend you by my use of "sic." It is an old habit from years of writing. I apologize.

Mrtennis - You asked: "why is there such an interest in trying to determine a stereo systems neutrality"? I would ask in return: Why is there such an interest in diminishing the value of these discussions?

Bryoncunningham - You're a nice guy and I like reading your posts very much. Merry Christmas to you and all Audiogonners.