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
Very interesting, Bryon, thanks very much for that very informative post. I have not yet really studied philosophy, though I intend to, and was not aware that there was such a big difference between the normal/philosophical definitions of those terms. This does make what you have said lately make much more sense to me now. I have really enjoyed this whole thread, and have learned a great deal from you. I also greatly envy your ability to express yourself so clearly with words. You are definitely a great asset to this community, sir!
Learsfool - Thanks for those kind words. I'm glad we understand each other's point of view better, and perhaps we are even a step or two closer to agreement. But even if we still disagree, it has been an interesting and rewarding discussion. You have been an excellent adversary. I very much doubt that I would have had the impulse to explore these ideas so thoroughly had it not been for your thoughtful opposition.

BTW, if you are interested in a very concise and accessible introduction to philosophy, try Thomas Nagel's WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?, available on Amazon.
Thanks for the recommendation, Bryon. My uncle, who taught philosophy, has given me a couple of books as well, I just haven't gotten around to it yet. I think I am going to tackle mythology first, actually. I have read a few logic books, and I took a logic course in college, but that is the extent of the philosophy background I have.
Has there ever been the assumption that a photo or painting could be mistaken for the real thing? Does that make it any less beautiful? Why should audio be any different?

Sometimes they all bring our a beauty that was hidden even when we saw the real thing.
@ Cdc, short answer, no and no. But who has ever mistaken a photo or a painting as the real thing? The goal of stereo reproduction is fundamentally different in that regard.