How do you judge your system's neutrality?

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'.

:-)

05-15-11: Newbee
...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...

You missed it? That's strange to me. Here's what I found...

11-06-09 Me: a conceptual definition of 'neutral' for audio might be something like, 'free from coloration.'

11-06-09 Buconero: Neutrality by definition is 'without difference'.

11-06-09 Dgarretson: Neutrality is about balance-- the notion of nothing more and nothing less, nothing added and nothing subtracted.

11-06-09 Cbw723: I think in the real world, Bryon's definition is workable.

11-07-09 Tvad: It seems to be essentially what's been defined as the Absolute Sound.

11-19-09 Almarg: …colorations/lack of transparency/lack of neutrality/whatever you want to call it…

11-20-09 Me: The degree to which a component or system is free from coloration.

11-20-09 Cbw723: I like this definition…

11-20-09 Almarg: when I used the phrase "lack of colorations/transparency/neutrality/whatever you want to call it," I should have added the word "accuracy" as well. Basically all of these terms relate to how accurately what is reproduced by the system (and its room environment), resembles what is sent into it by the recording.

11-22-09 Dgarretson: Personally I agree with Bryon that resolving, neutral, and transparent are three of the best audiophile adjectives…Of the three static terms, perhaps neutrality is the broadest and most appealing…

11-24-09 Me: Yes, every component is colored, just as all water sources are contaminated. But not every component is equally colored, just as not all water sources are equally contaminated. And the recognition that every component is colored does not motivate the conclusion that neutrality is useless concept any more than recognizing that all water sources are contaminated motivates the conclusion that water purity is a useless concept.

11-24-09 Cbw723: …I think the water analogy is pretty apt here.

11-25-09 Dgarretson: Perhaps audio components are analogous to brightness and contrast controls on a TV. With such controls it is possible to vary saturation and to whiten or darken the visual palette. Visual "neutrality" lies near the middle of the range of both controls.

11-26-09 Almarg: one of the things that I tried to express, but perhaps didn't as explicitly as I should have, is that if throughout this thread the word "accuracy" had been substituted for the word "neutrality," the amount of controversy and disagreement might have been significantly less. To me those two terms, in the context of an audio system, mean essentially the same thing.

12-02-09 Me: 'Accuracy' is a SECOND-ORDER CONCEPT that includes both 'resolution' and neutrality.' …NEUTRALITY: The degree to which a component or system is free from coloration.

12-02-09 Almarg: Bryon, that all strikes me as brilliantly conceived and brilliantly expressed!

12-02-09 Me (summarizing Al) (i) The target of the concept of ‘accuracy’ is the RECORDING, whereas the target of the concept of ‘transparency’ is the MUSICAL EVENT that the recording represents…In some cases, sacrificing some accuracy (to the recording) may increase transparency (to the musical event).

12-02-09 Almarg: Bryon, yes that is an excellent restatement of what I was trying to express.

12-05-09 Me: Colorations are additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music…Do these phenomena exist? If they do, then neutrality exists, as it has been defined on this thread, namely, THE (DEGREE OF) ABSENCE OF COLORATION.

12-05-09 Almarg: …neutrality represents the degree to which coloration is absent.

12-06-09 Cbw723: …the thing being debated is how one judges the relative neutrality of one's playback system. The neutrality of a playback system has been defined as the degree of the absence of coloration added by that playback system. If "DoN" is the degree of neutrality of a playback system, and "DoC" is the degree of coloration of a playback system, then (DoN = 1 / DoC) is the assumption of this thread as stated by Bryon. If you believe that playback systems can add more or less coloration to a system, then you implicitly believe that a system can be more or less neutral, as defined here, whether you believe you believe that or not.

12-06-09 Almarg: It has been said numerous times in numerous ways that the less colored (or more accurate or more neutral or more whatever comparable term you prefer) that the system is (including the room), the greater the likelihood that the presumably desirable colorations that were present in the original performance will be reproduced accurately…

12-06-09 Me: I agree with Cbw that it is logically inconsistent to believe in coloration and not believe in neutrality, AS COLORATION AND NEUTRALITY HAVE BEEN DEFINED IN THIS THREAD, namely: ‘Coloration’: Additions or subtractions to the playback chain that conceal or corrupt information about the music. ‘Neutrality’: The degree of absence of coloration.

12-07-09 Cbw723: …neutrality, as used here (and in the audio world in general), is a relative term. A component may be either more or less neutral (which is exactly synonymous with saying that it may apply either less or more coloration to the source). It would seem an entirely uncontroversial assertion.

12-08-09 Dgarretson: The Objectivist defines neutrality as an absence of coloration…

12-11-09 Dgarretson: Eliminating an undesirable coloration is always progress toward neutrality.

12-12-09 Me: INNACCURACY: Alterations to the playback chain that eliminate, conceal, or corrupt information about the music.* …COLORATION: Inaccuracies audible as a non-random** sonic signature.

12-13-09 Dgarretson (quoting G. Holt) Neutral: Free from coloration.

12-14-09 Me: ACCURACY: 1. The relative amount of information about the music presented by a component or system, comparing output to input. 2. The degree of absence of inaccuracies …INACCURACY: An alteration to information in a component or system that eliminates, conceals, or corrupts information about the music. …NEUTRALITY: The degree of absence of coloration within a component or system….COLORATION: An inaccuracy audible as a non-random sonic signature.

12-27-09 Dgarretson: …my view is that analytic & sterile err at the opposite extreme of unresolving warmth. Both kinds of extremes are colorations and as such, represent deviations from neutrality.

bc