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
well, after 61 posts so far in this thread, i'll throw in m ... Almarg
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: Bryoncunningham
I started this thread with a proposal about how to identify neutrality in an audio system. The thread has become largely a debate about (1) the existence of neutrality; and (2) the value of neutrality. Several of the posters who deny the existence or value of neutrality have contrasted it with the existence and value of resolution and transparency. In light of that, I have a new proposal, one that addresses both the existence and value of neutrality. Here it is:
RESOLUTION + NEUTRALITY = TRANSPARENCY
Let’s define some terms:
RESOLUTION: The amount of information presented by a component or system. In a digital component, for example, resolution is measured by bit depth and sampling rate. But I take it that it is uncontroversial that every major component of an audio system, and the system as a whole, can be evaluated as to its resolution, whether that can be measured or not. Resolution is, of course, a matter of degree.
NEUTRALITY: The degree to which a component or system is free from coloration. Once again, this does NOT refer to coloration in the recording, but only to coloration introduced by the playback system. I have argued above that neutrality, like resolution, is a matter of degree.
TRANSPARENCY: The degree to which a component or system is sonically “invisible.” Transparency is a visual metaphor for something that is not visual. As the metaphor is used by audiophiles, a component or a system is transparent when it allows the listener to “see through” itself and perceive the recording, the event, or the music. Transparency, thus understood, is also a matter of degree.
The current proposal is that, as the resolution and neutrality of a component or system increases, so does its transparency. This can be understood in terms of four prototypical systems:
LOW RESOLUTION, LOW NEUTRALITY:
This system lacks detail and it makes everything sound the same. Think: A boombox.
HIGH RESOLUTION, LOW NEUTRALITY:
This system has lots of detail, but there is a certain “sameness” to everything played through it. It always sounds like THAT system.
LOW RESOLUTION, HIGH NEUTRALITY:
This system lacks a certain amount of information or detail, but it is a chameleon. It’s hard to pin down what the system sounds like, since it sounds different on every recording.
HIGH RESOLUTION, HIGH NEUTRALITY:
This system provides the information missing from the last system, while also being a sonic chameleon. It has a high level of detail within a recording, but also a high level of variety across different recordings. It's easy to get lost in the music when listening to this system, since the system itself never seems to “get in the way.” Of the four systems, this is the most TRANSPARENT.
These hypothetical systems are merely prototypes, in the sense that they describe categories whose members are (1) joined by resemblance, and (2) differentiated by degree.
I hope that this proposal illustrates the value of neutrality, insofar as it links neutrality to other sonic characteristics - resolution and transparency - that are valued by the the detractors of neutrality.
Fire away!
Bryoncunningham (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers | This Thread)
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
|
|
