How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Muralman - I know nothing about your system, and so I cannot comment on your claims, though I assume you recognize how provocative they are.

I myself am a digital only person, so I would like to believe the things you are saying about digital playback. However, having listened to a number of high quality analog systems, I have to confess that they have typically sounded wonderful, in all the ways that analog is famous for. My own view is that it is possible to make digital sound almost like analog, but it is a difficult thing to achieve.

Having said that, the relative merits of digital and analog playback is a topic that is very far afield from the substance of this thread, and so I will now return to my system and try to contain my analog envy. :-)

Byroncunningham, I was reacting to comments made by posters above concerning digital vs. analog. Sorry about

Neutrality to me defines a system that provides a sound bereft of self noise, or the large part of it. Frankly, I think that is very tall order.

I have discovered a way to approach that ideal. Every circuit detracts from the very notion of neutrality. That is why I profess ridding the circuit of the worst offenders, and keeping cables simple.

Muralman - I agree that noise, like distortion, diminishes the neutrality of a component or system. As far as neutrality being a "very tall order," it is worth keeping in mind that neutrality is a matter of degree. It is not a binary state. As colorations are decreased in a component/system, neutrality is increased. Hence a component/system may APPROXIMATE neutrality, to a greater or lesser degree. This was discussed at great length in this thread, though I'm not recommending that you go back and read the whole thread, unless you are prepared to sacrifice half a day of your life. :-)

Concerning your view that "every circuit detracts from the very notion of neutrality," you mentioned something similar in your post on this thread from 12/02/09, where you wrote:

It has been my experience less is more. My wires can't be more simple. The DAC lacks a filter chip. The preamp is spartan. Every little change proclaims itself loudly, training me to go simple.

I think this is a valid point of view, though I have not approached system building the same way, as I wrote in reply to you on the same day:

I don’t have a problem with this idea, in theory. In practice, it has not always been my experience. I can give two examples from assembling my system.

Example #1: The use of Room EQ Wizard software in combination with Meridian Room Correction made a dramatic difference in the quality of bass I was able to achieve in my listening room. This is reflected in a much flatter in-room frequency response below 200Hz, as well as the subjective impression, confirmed by other listeners, that my EQ work significantly improved the timing and transparency of my system. Meridian Room Correction involves intensive real time computation. It is not simple.

Example #2: The addition of a reclocker between my transport and my dac improved my system in at least four areas: (1) increased perceived resolution; (2) better imaging focus; (3) less shrillness in high frequencies; and (4) lower noise floor. The reclocker discards the timing data of a digital audio stream and reclocks the audio data using a high precision clock, thereby reducing jitter. Also, not simple.

...While I agree that complexity provides more opportunities to get things wrong, I think in some cases, it provides opportunities to correct things that are already going wrong. Having said that, it is probably significant that the two examples I mentioned are both in the digital domain. If you look at my system from the point at which it becomes analog, you will notice that it is quite simple: The preamp is in the same unit as the dac (the Meridian), followed by 1 meter of analog interconnects, followed by a Pass amp of very simple design, followed by 2 meters of speaker cable to the speakers. This reflects my partial agreement with you about the value of simplicity.

My own view, FWIW, is that simplicity can be a great asset with analog signals, but it is somewhat less essential with digital signals. Here is my reasoning...

You may be right that digital signal processing is always a deviation from neutrality AT THE LEVEL OF THE COMPONENT. But it does not follow, and I believe it is not true, that digital signal processing is always a deviation from neutrality AT THE LEVEL OF THE SYSTEM. That is because digital signal processing can compensate for deviations from neutrality ELSEWHERE IN THE SYSTEM. For example, a reclocker compensates for deviations from neutrality in the transport; room correction compensates for deviations from neutrality in the listening room. Hence, I believe that the added complexity of digital signal processing, if used judiciously, can result in greater neutrality AT THE LISTENING POSITION, which is where it counts.

Having said that, I have heard digital systems with the kind of circuit simplicity you are advocating, and I agree with you that they can sound excellent. So I am not suggesting that one approach is better than the other. I think there are several paths to a rewarding musical experience.

Bryoncunningham- You name two instances where I deem no conflict. Although I rather like the punctuality of the timing in my system, I could see testing that against what you advocate. As far as I know, clocking is a separate entity, and will not flub up the signal.

I also believe that using room correction actually does congeal the bass nicely. I have heard that here. The problem with my dibole/bipole, the poor device saw two different points of origin, and really muffed up the midrange and highs.

Muralman - I agree that the success of room correction depends heavily on the particulars of the system. IME, it also depends heavily on the particulars of implementation. Without naming names, I have heard room correction hardware that ruins the entire signal, just by the addition of the circuit. In other words, even with all room correction values set to unity (i.e. zero), some room correction circuits dramatically degrade sound quality, the way that bad crossovers do. One of the things I like about the Meridian processor I am using is that I cannot hear any degradation in sound quality with the addition of the room correction circuit.

Having said that, in an ideal world, I would not use room correction. I would solve bass problems by treating the room. But my current room is not dedicated, so large bass traps are not feasible for me. Similarly, in an ideal world, I would not use a reclocker. But my transport, Sonos, which I chose primarily for the user interface, is high in jitter. Without the reclocker, it audibly degrades the sound quality of the system. The point is that much of the digital processing in my system is a compromise, brought about by the limitations of my room and the limitations of my transport. But I do dream of a day when I have a dedicated room and a more purist system. I certainly see the appeal in that.

Returning to the subject of neutrality, the point I was trying to make in my last post is that sometimes deviations from neutrality at the component level can result in greater neutrality at the system level, and that neutrality at the system level is more important, since that is what we hear at the listening position. I recognize, however, that this approach must be used judiciously, or the system's neutrality will be largely an illusion created by counterbalancing colorations, which diminishes resolution and makes the system a house of cards.