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 |
Cbw, I think that the scenarios you have cited pinpoint some important points that underly some of the disagreements which have been rampant in this thread. In my two posts dated 11/20, 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. But I'm not sure that they have been interpreted in the same sense by some of the others. To a first approximation, what goes into the system and what comes out of the system should resemble each other as accurately as possible. Of course, there are then the obvious issues, that have been gone over multiple times in this thread, about not being able to know exactly what is going into the system, about euphonic inaccuracies resulting in sound that is subjectively more pleasing, etc., etc. But as I see it, those issues, while often being highly significant, are second order effects. And if the word "neutrality" were understood to mean the same thing as "accuracy," which is how I and I believe Bryon and some others have been using the term, I think we would have seen a lesser degree of divergence in the viewpoints of many of the protagonists in this thread. And by a similar substitution of terms, I believe that the conundrums which you have cleverly posed in your previous thread would be largely reconciled: Neutrality, as operationalized here, resists the suppression of contrast, it doesn't appear to resist its exaggeration.... So somewhere in the operation of "neutrality" there is a necessary condition that the playback system maintain truthfulness to some reference point or points. How, exactly, one codes that constraint, I don't know. But if it were coded, would it, in and of itself, be a sufficient condition for neutrality? Substitute the word "accuracy" for "neutrality" in this paragraph, and it seems to that, to the extent that it is practicable to judge accuracy, we resist both the suppression and the exaggeration of contrast. And if we impose the constraint of truthfulness to some reference point, presumably the listener's prior exposure to live music, while we by no means obtain any certainty of optimal results (either objectively or subjectively), if we interpret "neutrality" in the sense of "accuracy," then I submit that typically there will be a considerable (and useful) degree of correlation, albeit a partial correlation, between the ability of a system to make different records sound different, and the likelihood of obtaining those optimal results. On another note, happy Thanksgiving to all! -- 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.
(ii) In some cases, sacrificing some accuracy (to the recording) may increase transparency (to the musical event). Bryon, yes that is an excellent restatement of what I was trying to express. I'll try to present further thoughts tomorrow on your reservations concerning the second point. But my quick initial thought is that the inaccuracies I was referring to would not necessarily (or even typically) be "exaggerations." They would be either complementary colorations (a simple illustrative example being a frequency response inaccuracy in the system offsetting a complementary inaccuracy in the recording), or they would be inaccuracies in the system which smooth over, obscure, or homogenize inaccuracies in the recording. Best regards, -- Al |
A thought on the dilemma concerning increasing the degree of contrast between recordings via equalization, which Cbw723 attempted to address with some creative mathematics in his last post.
I believe it is really a non-issue. If the settings of an equalizer are changed from Setting A to Setting B, as I see it that amounts to a change in the system, which should be evaluated similarly to how substitution of one component for another component would be evaluated.
Meaning that Bryon's proposed test, assessing the degree to which a system makes different recordings sound different, would entail assessing whether Setting A makes different recordings sound more or less different than Setting B. The degree of difference or contrast between Setting A and Setting B is in itself irrelevant with respect to Bryon's test.
Obviously direct A vs. B comparisons would also be made on individual recordings, just as would be done if one amplifier were substituted for another, but that is a separate matter which I think is unrelated to Bryon's test, and to which Bryon's test is supplemental.
Best regards,
-- Al |
Bryon: THE SYSTEM = THE EQUIPMENT + THE ROOM Exactly, at least in the context in which we have been discussing it. I explicitly made the same point in my post yesterday: Almarg: Perhaps that distinction can be further refined if we say that accuracy pertains exclusively to the system (including the room, of course), while transparency must encompass consideration of the source material as well as the system. Learsfool: There is also the "flat frequency response" thing we have already discussed in this thread - no concert hall has a flat frequency response - this simply doesn't sound good for the live event, so to try to create it in your system seems pointless (and usually results in a very lifeless/soulless sound, IME). Ideally the recording should capture the acoustic characteristics of the hall, as they exist at some presumably well chosen location within it. If that recording is then played back on a system that has flat frequency response (and that has good accuracy in other respects) then it will accurately reproduce those hall characteristics, including any deviations from frequency response flatness, as well as ambiance, reverberation, etc. If a system is truly accurate yet still results in a lifeless/soulless sound, then it seems to me that there is a problem with the recording(s) being listened to. In that case, it seems to me to be perfectly legitimate to introduce some modest degree of inaccuracy into the system, such as non-flat frequency response, to compensate. The price that will be paid is that other recordings which are more accurate and transparent will then no longer be reproduced to their full potential. That is a classic audiophile conundrum, and each listener must ultimately try to find the balance that is most satisfactory to him or her, between making great recordings sound their best and making average recordings sound as good as possible. The "lower noise floor" is also a topic of much division among audiophiles - take my brother's Nottingham turntable, a line which is well known for it's "black background." To my ears, the sacrifice made here to attain this is the removal of too much of what some call "low level information," for example a loss of much of the sense of the sound of the actual musical event/space that was recorded. Live music does not exist in a vacuum, even in a very dead recording studio - the sound of the space is an integral part of the music. It is pretty well established that low level high frequency hiss creates or enhances the subjective perception of space or hall ambiance. I suspect that is what is behind your observation. In the early days of the cd medium (and perhaps still today, to a lesser extent), that was undoubtedly a contributing factor to the frequent complaints of dry sound, lack of ambiance, etc., because the increase in perceived hall ambiance resulting from low level surface noise on lp's often seemed preferable in comparison. (In the early days of cd the problem was often exacerbated by improper dither or lack of dither in the recording process, and of course the a/d converters that were used in the recording process then were inferior to what is available today). Can dynamics really be exaggerated above those of the recording by the kind of equipment available to the consumer? If so, how does the exaggeration of dynamics affect, for example, transient information? If you have other ideas and/or experiences of how sacrificing accuracy can sometimes increase transparency, I would love to hear about them. On the specific question of what kinds of system inaccuracies might lead to an increase in perceived dynamic contrasts, I'm not really certain. Perhaps what is referred to as overshoot in the pulse response of an electronic component or speaker, which can somewhat simplistically be considered as being essentially an overemphasis in the treble region. Perhaps (I'm just speculating here) increases in higher-order harmonic distortion can also lead to a similar subjective perception. In any event, as I indicated in my post last night, I was speaking more generally: The inaccuracies I was referring to would not necessarily (or even typically) be "exaggerations." They would be either complementary colorations (a simple illustrative example being a frequency response inaccuracy in the system offsetting a complementary inaccuracy in the recording), or they would be inaccuracies in the system which smooth over, obscure, or homogenize inaccuracies in the recording. And speaking still more generally, I must say that this has evolved into one of the more remarkable threads I've ever seen at Audiogon (in a positive sense). It would seem to be verging on forming a good basis for a master's thesis, if not a doctoral dissertation! Best regards, -- Al |
The same argument can be made for inter-recording contrast as I've just made here for intra-recording contrast by using recording-specific EQ. That's the point that I'm questioning. Let's say that you have two recordings, and you play them back with eq settings that are different for each of the two recordings. You are trying to judge how much contrast is introduced between the two recordings by "the system," using what amounts to two different systems (one system for one recording, and another system for the other recording). Which takes us out of the realm to which Bryon's test is applicable, as well as being an unhelpful methodology. Best regards, -- Al |
Bryon: My operationalization of neutralty is a method for judging the coloration/neutrality of a system that DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO KNOW WHAT THE RECORDING IS SUPPOSED TO SOUND LIKE. It only requires you to make judgments about changes in CONTRAST or DIFFERENTIATION.
Admittedly, my operationalization is only a way to judge the RELATIVE level of coloration/neutrality of a system, not its ABSOLUTE level of coloration/neutrality. But this is still valuable to the average audiophile, since he must make relative judgments all the time, such as, when changing components. Grant (Tvad), Newbee, Learsfool, Kijanki, this is exactly what I was getting at when I asked "why does the fact that it is difficult, in general, to precisely know what anything is supposed to sound like have any relevance in THIS DISCUSSION?" (emphasis added). As I see it, Bryon has simply proposed a methodology or tool (I prefer those terms to "operationalization of neutrality" because they are easier for me to understand :)), which can be a useful addition to the arsenal of other methodologies (both subjective and objective) that we use to work toward the goal of more enjoyable listening. As I see it, it's as simple as that. Best regards, -- Al |
Learfool 12/24: The bottom line here (going back to the OP) is that many of us feel that just because you change one piece of equipment in the system, making 1) individual pieces of music sound more unique, and 2) your music collection sound more diverse, this does not mean you have operationalized the term neutrality. It just means you have a better sounding system. I think that this statement gives increased credence to what was implicit in my post in this thread dated 11/26, that perhaps the most fundamental reason for the disagreements we have seen in this thread is simply disagreement about semantics. I proposed at that time substituting the word "accuracy" for the word "neutrality," meaning that Bryon's proposed methodology be viewed as a tool that can facilitate evolution of the system + room such that they can accurately reproduce what is on the recording. Which of course does not by any means necessarily constitute the end-point in the evolution of any particular system, but narrowing system inaccuracy to some degree is certainly an important part of that process. At least until the tolerance has become small enough to be overshadowed by other factors and preferences, whether subjective or objective. Bryon then guided that thought to the point where it was agreed by at least some of us that neutrality represents the degree to which coloration is absent. With accuracy referring to the degree to which a component or system is both resolving and neutral, resolution referring to the amount of information presented by a component or system. There was further discussion of the distinctions between accuracy, which focuses on minimizing differences between what is on the recording and what is presented to the listener's ears, and transparency, which focuses on minimizing differences between what is presented to the listener's ears and the original musical event, thereby encompassing issues with the recording as well as with the system and the room. And in turn it was recognized that inaccuracy in the system + room might in some cases be complementary to inaccuracy in the recording, with the two sets of inaccuracies tending to negate one another. Given all of this, I would ask those who have opposed Bryon's proposal, as expressed in post 1 of this thread, to consider whether there is any wording change, or any change in their initial interpretation of the existing words, that would allow everyone's position to converge. My basic feeling about all this is that Bryon has proposed a methodology or tool which can be helpful in working towards the goal of optimizing a system, and by "optimizing" I mean subjectively maximizing the degree of enjoyment that system will provide to its owner. Is there a way that Bryon's proposal/tool can be accepted in that spirit? Learsfool's paragraph that I quoted at the beginning of this post gives me some degree of optimism that it can be, and I think it certainly should be. Regarding the last sentence in that quoted paragraph, my response is QED! Regards, -- Al |
There is no such thing as the absence of color in sound (and therefore, it logically follows, in sound reproduction). Otherwise music could not exist. The things you are specifically describing as "colorations" (intermodulation distortion, etc.) of course exist. But they are not the only "colorations" that exist in sound or it's reproduction; their absence does not prove the existence of "neutrality." Again, as Kijanki and I keep asking, how do you know what anything is "supposed" to sound like? There is no one answer to that question, and your assertion that there is is dumbfounding. With great respect, Learsfool, I must say that I am similarly dumbfounded, but in the opposite direction. 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, when averaged across a wide selection of well done recordings. Bryon has proposed a methodology (assessing the degree to which the system makes different recordings sound different) that seems self-evident (to me and several others who have posted) as having a substantial degree of correlation with the likelihood that a given component or system will help achieve that end. Your own post of 12/4 seemed to recognize that, thereby recognizing the usefulness, or at least potential usefulness, of the methodology ("The bottom line here does not mean you have operationalized the term neutrality. It just means you have a better sounding system"). So why does the fact that it is difficult, in general, to precisely know what anything is supposed to sound like have any relevance in this discussion? And I repeat my challenge of yesterday: Is there any rewording of Bryon's original proposal, including perhaps substitution of some other word or words for "neutrality," that would allow everyone to converge? Regards, -- Al |
Newbee: This thread has been a valuable learning experience for a lot of folks IMHO.
Dgarretson: This thread evidenced clear articulation of at least several new constructs. It was a refreshing change from the repetitiveness of many subjects posted to forum. The vocabulary of audio was expanded a bit, and perhaps as a result, some will think about about their systems and biases more clearly than before. I second these thoughts, and share these feelings in my own case. I want to particularly thank Bryon, Learsfool, Dgarretson, and Cbw723 for what I consider to be an exceptionally high caliber, intellectually stimulating, and thought provoking thread. A goodly number of years ago, when I was a first year law student taking a course in contracts (I have a law degree although my career and other degrees were in electrical engineering), the professor posed some question to the class. During the next hour or so a lot of students took turns proposing answers, each of which he then methodically, in Socratic style, tore to shreds with questions that revealed fallacies in the answers. As this went on there was an increasing feeling of actual suspense among many of us wondering what on earth the answer could possibly be, with just about every conceivable answer having been reduced to rubble. Then, abruptly and anti-climactically, he declared that we had pretty much covered that subject, and went on to something else. I later came to understand that there was no one correct answer, and the point was to improve the thinking skills that are brought into play when dealing with issues that are subtle and ambiguous. That seems relevant here as well. Best regards, -- Al |
04-19-12: Bryoncunningham
Dog reaction is an amusing test of a system's realism. Brings to mind the most famous canine audiophile, Nipper listening to "His Master's Voice". Best, -- Al |
I'm sufficiently out of it that I didn't get Shadorne's clever comment, especially in the light of references earlier in this thread to an unrelated type of blue pill. But a few seconds with Google and this Wikipedia article clarified it for me. Bryon, thank you for an uncommonly thought-provoking and intellectually stimulating thread, which in my opinion is brought to a neat conclusion in your last post. Best regards, -- Al |
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 |
Excellent last several posts, most definitely including Newbee's despite (and perhaps because of) it's non-emulation of a particular lesser light around here :)
I still feel, though, that the main thrust of the op has been diverted throughout most of this thread by unnecessary focus on semantic nuances, as well as on matters which (although well reasoned, and about which reasonable people can differ) are essentially extraneous to the issue at hand.
After I submitted my previous post, it occurred to me that 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.
And my restatement of what I believe to be Byron's (Bryon's?) initial basic point, which which I agree, consists of two elements:
1)A significant degree of correlation (although certainly not a perfect correlation) can be expected between listener satisfaction and lack of coloration/increased transparency/neutrality/accuracy or whatever such term may be preferred. And,
2)If a component change, or a change to the entire system, results in consistently increased differentiation of the sounds of different recordings, there is a good likelihood that "lack of coloration/increased transparency/neutrality/accuracy or whatever such term may be preferred" has been improved. Meaning, per item 1, that listener satisfaction stands a good chance of having been improved as well.
Regards,
-- Al |
My question is, how is there a necessary correlation between neutrality, as defined herein, and listener satisfaction? I submit part of the love affair with tubes is their added 'warmth' -- hardly neutral. Good question, T, and I think that the answer stems from the fact, as I said in my posts, that the correlation is only a partial one. "Correlation," as it might be taught in a statistics class, can be any number between 1.0 (denoting perfect, absolute correlation) and 0 (denoting complete lack of correlation, the two variables being random relative to one another). In this case, as I noted: "A significant degree of correlation (although certainly not a perfect correlation) can be expected between listener satisfaction and lack of coloration/increased transparency/neutrality/accuracy or whatever such term may be preferred." Euphonic (subjectively pleasing) inaccuracies that can be added by some tube designs would account for part of the difference between "significant degree of correlation" and "perfect correlation." I think that the validity of the underlying point can be most easily seen by considering a very extreme example. Consider a system purchased at Walmart for a total system price of $300, in comparison with say a $50K system such as some Audiogoner's have. I don't think anyone here will disagree as to which one will provide better and more enjoyable sound, and I don't think that anyone here will disagree as to which one is more neutral/accurate/etc., and I don't think anyone here will disagree that the $50K system is likely to make different recordings sound more different than when those same recordings are played on the $300 system. But would the $50K system sound completely "neutral," in the sense of recreating what is on the recording with absolute perfection? Obviously not. And would it sound the same as someone else's different $50K system? Also obviously not. But that is beside the point. Both $50K systems, which may sound very different from one another, will be far preferable to the $300 system, and both will make different recordings sound more different than the $300 system. Which $50K system is preferable, on the other hand, is likely to be subjective, and the decision-making process choosing between them may be an example of one which will not be helped by the test Bryon has proposed. But that does not mean that the test won't be useful to many people, as components are compared, and systems evolve. Regards, -- Al |
Bryon, that all strikes me as brilliantly conceived and brilliantly expressed!
And I agree just about completely.
The one thing I would add concerns the discussion at the end of your post about the relationship between transparency and accuracy. I agree that "accuracy invokes our understanding of truthfulness ..." while "transparency invokes the metaphor of seeing through a medium (the audio system) to something behind it (the music)."
Perhaps that distinction can be further refined if we say that accuracy pertains exclusively to the system (including the room, of course), while transparency must encompass consideration of the source material as well as the system.
A perfectly accurate system, referring to your equation 2, would be one that resolves everything that is fed into it, and reproduces what it resolves with complete neutrality. Another way of saying that is perhaps that what is reproduced at the listener's ears corresponds precisely to what is fed into the system.
Which does not necessarily make that system optimal in terms of transparency. Since the source material will essentially always deviate to some degree and in some manner from being precisely accurate relative to the original event, then it can be expected that some deviation from accuracy in the system may in many cases be complementary to the inaccuracies of the recording (at least subjectively), resulting in a greater transparency into the music than a more precisely accurate system would provide.
Which does not mean that the goals of accuracy and transparency are necessarily inconsistent or in conflict. It simply means, as I see it, that the correlation between them, although substantial, is less than perfect.
Best regards,
-- Al |
Mr. T, any measurement instrument ever devised, for the purpose of measuring anything, has (or at least should have) what is commonly referred to as an "accuracy" specification associated with it, notwithstanding the fact that the specification arguably would be better referred to as an "inaccuracy" specification. A thermometer, for example, may be "accurate" to within +/- 0.5 degrees. A scale may be "accurate" to within +/- 0.1 pounds. A speedometer may be "accurate" to within +/- 2 mph. 05-14-11: Mrtennis
You may be confusing degrees of inaccuracy with degrees of accuracy which is illogical. And from the current thread on accuracy: 05-13-11: Mrtennis
You guys are forgetting about a basic fact. accuracy means perfection.
for example one inch is exactly one inch. in audio, all components have flaws. they are imperfect. therefore accuracy cannot exist .
it has nothing to do with listening. its the fact that all components are designed with flaws. you might be able to find components which produce a sound which provides sufficient resolution , a balanced frequency response, and other attributes that appeal to audiophiles. if a stereo system performs that way , where most recordings sound different and there is no noticeable consistent sonic signature, the condition may be "virtual accuracy", but a stereo system can never be accurate (perfect) since the components that make up the stereo sytem are not accurate. Your comments strike me as drawing a distinction without there being a meaningful difference. Do the facts that nothing is perfect, and nothing is perfectly accurate, negate the value of either striving for ways in which accuracy might be improved, or striving to identify and characterize inaccuracies, and in the process hopefully making possible better informed tradeoffs between accuracy and subjectively pleasing inaccuracies? And, btw, nothing is perfect, not even in nature. Consider the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But fundamental to the design processes that underlie just about any engineering achievement are error analyses that address and take into account myriad contributors to inaccuracy. IMO the fact that perfect accuracy in an audio component is neither achievable nor even precisely definable is not reason to declare inapplicable to audio the goals of striving to reduce inaccuracy/improve accuracy, and/or striving to better characterize the inaccuracy. I agree with Bryon 100%. Regards, -- Al |
