AudiogoN
Search Buy Sell Learn MyPage
 Learn > Forums > Misc Audio > 1257469878  Start New Thread | Log In | Bookmark This
  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  (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers | This Thread)

11-05-09
  Responses (51-100 of 396)
Click title to read one, or click date to read all below it.

11-18-09   Kijanki wrote: "well - i'm my own playback engineer and ...   Cbw723

11-18-09   Byron, imho we simply disagreed on the use of the term neutr ...   Newbee

11-18-09   Cbw723 - no i would not adjust sound for individual songs bu ...   Kijanki

11-18-09   Nothing creates as much discord among audiophiles as the top ...   Tvad

11-18-09   Tvad - you forgot "analog vs. digital" and "t ...   Kijanki

11-18-09   isn't that what part of what these talented people do? they ...   Shadorne

11-18-09   I had a girlfriend once, who was quite neutral looking, neut ...   Gawdbless

11-18-09   Shadorne - i don't question existence of better recordings o ...   Kijanki

11-19-09   Great posts - byron, i guess what myself, newbee, kijanki, s ...   Learsfool

11-19-09   Learsfool wrote: "i can tell you that no two of us woul ...   Bryoncunningham

11-19-09   "i am actually somewhat agnostic." - don't worry, ...   Kijanki

11-19-09: Almarg
So, for the fourth time: In my view, neutrality is one virtue AMONG MANY in an audio system. My intention in starting this thread was to propose a way to develop that particular virtue, not to suggest that it is the virtue to be valued above all others.

Well, after 61 posts so far in this thread, I'll throw in my own brief $0.02. Upon careful reading and re-reading of Byron's well written initial post, it seems to me that it makes perfect sense, and that it proposes an evaluation criterion that will often be useful.

It seems obvious to me that there will be a significant DEGREE of correlation (although certainly not a perfect correlation) between colorations/lack of transparency/lack of neutrality/whatever you want to call it, that may be introduced by a component or system, and the degree of enjoyment that system will provide to the average discriminating listener when averaged across a wide range of recordings. An inverse partial correlation, to be perfectly precise.

Byron has proposed a means of facilitating assessment of that coloration/lack of transparency/lack of neutrality/whatever you want to call it that, while perhaps not commonly recognized, seems to me to be both valuable and self-evident on its face. It's as simple as that.

Regards,
-- Al

Almarg  (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread)


11-19-09   Kijanki wrote: "no i would not adjust sound for individ ...   Cbw723

11-19-09   Cbw723 - don't you have any financial limitations? if not ...   Kijanki

11-20-09   I've been doing critical listening lately from 12-24" a ...   Cdc

11-20-09   you may have an issue with room acoustics (extremely common ...   Shadorne

11-20-09   al, we agree (as usual) - see the first posted reply in thi ...   Shadorne

11-20-09   I started this thread with a proposal about how to identify ...   Bryoncunningham

11-20-09   I like this definition, but what about imaging? couldn't a ...   Cbw723

11-20-09   I think the original two point are valid but a third point i ...   Samhar

11-20-09   Byron, it's hard to argue with your new, or restated, positi ...   Newbee

11-20-09   Excellent last several posts, most definitely including newb ...   Almarg

11-20-09   "the word 'unique' as you have used in your original po ...   Cbw723

11-20-09   Al - you have stated exactly the intention of my original po ...   Bryoncunningham

11-20-09   Way cool discussion going on here. had a feeling this one wo ...   Tholt

11-20-09   good question, t, and i think that the answer stems from the ...   Almarg

11-20-09   Cbw723, you are right civility is very important and hostili ...   Newbee

11-21-09   Fascinating discussion! newbee, i agree with you 100%. bry ...   Learsfool

11-22-09   Learsfool - i agree with your observation that it would diff ...   Bryoncunningham

11-22-09   It would be complicated for non-audiophiles to judge neutral ...   Dgarretson

11-22-09   Dgarretson - great post. some thoughts... i agree with thi ...   Bryoncunningham

11-23-09   Bryon, so much of this is about convergence. interesting sp ...   Dgarretson

11-23-09   Interesting posts, guys. first, the 50k systems example. i ...   Learsfool

11-23-09   Learsfool wrote: i am not saying that a musician's "t ...   Bryoncunningham

11-23-09   Learsfool, there is a remote possibility that the gradual co ...   Dgarretson

11-24-09   Hi bryon - i am once again thankful i became a musician, and ...   Learsfool

11-24-09   Learsfool, all good points. regarding whether "converge ...   Dgarretson

11-24-09   Incidently, in forums & industry market-speak the notion of ...   Dgarretson

11-24-09   Learsfool - your last post contains many interesting and val ...   Bryoncunningham

11-24-09   this idea is fascinating. you mentioned it in your first p ...   Cbw723

11-24-09   Interesting points, guys. dgarretson, in general i agree wi ...   Learsfool

11-24-09   actually, i think the water analogy is pretty apt here. sc ...   Cbw723

11-24-09   Cbw723, i can't extend my experience of close convergence be ...   Dgarretson

11-24-09   Learsfool wrote: i disagree that we cannot identify definit ...   Bryoncunningham

11-25-09   Very interesting thoughts, bryon, points on the water analog ...   Learsfool

11-25-09   You all realize, just changing the volume knob up or down a ...   Tonywinsc

11-25-09   Learsfool - i agree that this has been a thought-provoking d ...   Bryoncunningham

11-25-09   This simile of a filtering ski goggle is interesting, as is ...   Dgarretson

11-25-09   If you really are looking for neutrality then get a frequenc ...   Tonywinsc

11-25-09   Tonywinse wrote: this test of the value of neutrality is no ...   Bryoncunningham


< Prev 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next >

  Post your response
Subject


Your response

No html, but you may use markup tags


Username
Members only

Password