How do you judge your system's neutrality?

FWIW, Mr T started out talking about 'neutrality' being an absolute (like the word 'unique' perhaps) and I happen to agree with him.

You do not modify an absolute term. It is or it ain't, at least according to my old English teacher who reprimanded me for trying to make something more 'unique' than it already must have been when I chose that word to describe it. But then the word morphed into 'accuracy' and posters felt that was not an absolute term and could be appropriately modified. In common usage I agree. It makes sense to me. But them, if it is not already evident, I'm not an English major.

Will the real English major amongst us come forward and explain the proper use of these terms, i.e. neutral and accurate. I think that many of us might benefit and then we can get back to arguing about things audio.

here is what i found from the site:

merriamwebster.com/dictionary/accuracy

freedom from mistake or error, correctness, conformity to truth or to a standard or model, exactness.

if accuracy is axactness, something is either exact or it isn't. freedom from error is absolute.

05-15-11: Newbee
Will the real English major amongst us come forward and explain the proper use of these terms, i.e. neutral and accurate.

This issue is way above an English major's pay grade. It is not a question of diction, but rather a question of lexicography, the philosophy of language, and the science of linguistics.

The standard Mrtennis proposed for the meaning of the word 'accurate' was the dictionary. By that standard...well, you saw the result. Having said that, the quotation from Bierce, if it was not self explanatory, was intended to make the following observation...

Dictionaries are often INADEQUATE STANDARDS for resolving disputes about the meanings of words.

There are a number of reasons for this...

Dictionary word meanings are determined by common usage. But the meanings provided by common usage are often too ambiguous or imprecise for conversations requiring a high level of exactitude. There are two common solutions to this problem:

(a) technical definitions
(b) stipulated definitions

RE: (a) Technical definitions are created by communities of experts and are often formal, i.e. standardized across various discussions.

RE: (b) Stipulated definitions are created by any group of people trying to have a successful discussion and are almost always informal, i.e. standardized only for a single discussion.

This thread has provided STIPULATED DEFINITIONS a number of times. Here are some of the stipulated definitions that consistently appeared:

-neutrality: the degree of absence of colorations

-colorations: audible inaccuracies

-inaccuracy: the degree to which a component's output differs from its input

-accuracy: the degree to which a component's output is identical to its input

Anyone is free to challenge these stipulated definitions, since no one "owns" the terms, NOT EVEN THE DICTIONARY. Here is the reason why...

If two experts disagree about a technical definition, or two ordinary people disagree about a stipulated definition, then the disagreement about the term can be resolved in one of two ways:

(c) The term is given a modifier.
(d) A new term is created.

The process by which (c) and (d) occur CANNOT BE RESOLVED BY A DICTIONARY, since the dictionary is a catalogue of ordinary usage, and it was the imprecision and/or ambiguity of ordinary usage that led people to create the technical or stipulated definitions in the first place!

Hence, the process by which (c) and (d) occur must be resolved BY THE PEOPLE HAVING THE DISCUSSIONS, whether they are experts or ordinary folks like us.

If someone wants to propose alternative stipulated definitions for 'neutrality' or 'accuracy' or any other term, they are certainly free to do so. But each person's comments should be understood in terms of how THEY THEMSELVES have stipulated the terms.

To facilitate communication, most people are willing to agree upon a COMMON set of stipulated definitions for the purposes of discussion. But as we have seen in recent posts, some people have a problem accepting the stipulated definitions of others, the technical definitions of experts, and even the ordinary definitions of dictionaries. That is a real shame, as it obstructs what would otherwise be constructive conversation.

Bryon

Once again I am in complete agreement with Bryon, despite the fact that his latest post perhaps negates my earlier claim that nothing is perfect :-)

Regards,
-- Al

Bryon, Your last post raises an issue I was not expecting. I'm sure I must have missed it somewhere, but can you direct me to the post(s) in which the participants actually stipulated to the meanings and use of the terms you refer to. I must have missed it. FWIW, and it is not an issue I want to reopen, I made my objection to your use of the word neutral or neutrality, with some specificity, on page 1.

Your last post is excellent, at least in its creativity if not its totality, and I would agree with the conclusions you reach, provided that you can furnish evidence of the actual existence of an expressed 'stipulation', written or oral, and its acceptance by thread participants.

Not to put too fine a point on my post I was really trying to suggest to Mr Tennis that his posts were turning this thread more into a matter of semantics and introduced nothing new except a willingness to be pedantic. Upon reflection perhaps I'm no better.

BTW, FWIW, since the proper use of the English language has arisen, I would still like to hear from someone with the appropriate credentials regarding the proper use of these words in ordinary language, written or spoken, absent any 'stipulation'.

:-)