2. misc-audio
  3. 1257469878

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
newbee
4,775 posts
 
Bryon, FWIW, I've never considered the mere collection of common opinions on any subject to be anything more than just that. What these opinions show, for the most part anyway, is that these particular individuals supported the use of 'neutral' as a descriptive term, and some of them were willing to modify the term in a gradient manner to illustrate the deviation from neutrality that they felt existed. So be it. They are very much entitled to this opinion both to hold and express. And to the extent that this facilitates the flow of a discussion as well as a resolution of the issues, that is a good thing too. However, to me, this does not constitute a stipulated agreement as I have come to know such.

But, assuming for the sake of argument that a 'stipulated agreement' does exist, even then it would only bind on the participants who have expressly agreed. So if I believe that 'neutral' is an absolute term, or if Mr T believes that 'accuracy' is a similar absolute term, we have the right to hold and express our opinions on the subject.

BTW, FWIW, I believe that 'English majors', especially those who have gone on to teach in our schools, are perfectly qualified to offer advise of the proper use of words. Certainly at least such common ones as we are discussing. Contrary to your statement I think their expertise is hardly restricted to 'diction' nor that they would need to be semanticists, as you imply, to assist us in such a simple tasks.

But all of this is really of little consequence. Time to move on..................

bryoncunningham OP
890 posts
 
I would still like to hear from someone with the appropriate credentials regarding the proper use of these words in ordinary language...

I believe that 'English majors', especially those who have gone on to teach in our schools, are perfectly qualified to offer advise of the proper use of words.

Your repeated calls for someone to definitively answer the question of how to define the terms 'neutrality' and 'accuracy' is odd to me. Who do you think is going to answer? If it is "those who have gone on to teach in our schools," why would their answer have any special authority to you?

I have taught at the university level. Are those "appropriate credentials"? I am a writer by occupation. Does that make me more qualified? I studied the philosophy of language in the course of my Ph.D.. Does that make my opinion more valid to you? I suspect the answer to these questions is no. Because I suspect that your appeal to authority is not really in earnest.

And if it is in earnest, and you really are looking for an "authoritative" answer to the common usage of the term 'accuracy', then look no further than a dictionary, as Mrtennis suggested. There you will find multiple definitions that confirm that the use of the word 'accuracy' in terms of degree is a FACT of the English language. People are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

bc
learsfool
1,215 posts
 
The latest part of this thread reminds me of one of my favorite Peter Schickele quotes, in his PDQ Bach stuff: "Truth is truth. You can't have opinions about truth."
orpheus10
8,668 posts
 
Truth is truth is a good place to start. I will attempt to communicate that truth. All measurements must have a standard; that means some components must be designated as neutral. Since I can't think of a scientific method of doing this, these components would be determined by a panel of distinguished audiophiles. Those components would communicate the truth we know in our minds.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Orpheus10, I can only imagine trying to determine the "panel of distinguished audiophiles!" I guess I think this effort would be innocuous and irrelevant. I, of course, entirely agree that science cannot contribute here. I think all the following adjective might apply-neutral, real, transparent, dynamic, like being in the recording venue, not smeared, involving, detailed, having pace, having ease, etc.
More to discover