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
About 2 months ago or so, I auditioned 2 speakers (call them Brand P and Brand X) at a dealer. Many members would probably say that Brand X was the better speaker hands down, and I respect personal opinions.

But here's what I found bizarre. The Brand X manufacturer must have had OCD because the dealer had to use a tape measure to measure off precise distances between the speakers, some kind of protractor to measure toe in, and back to the tape measure to place the listening chair just the right distance back from the speaker fronts.

Not done yet, the dealer had to use a bubble level to ensure the Brand X speakers were perfectly vertical. Why?? I have no idea. I suppose I could make a joke by saying that I had to place my head in a vice contraption to make sure I was facing the speakers just so and also use a bubble level to make sure my head was horizontally flat.

Well ... after all that, I listened to the Brand P speakers. This time no tape measures, bubble levels, head vices and so forth. Brand P was the better sounding speaker .... to my ears.

The point -- if my poor dealer friend had to go through this much trouble to get Brand X to sound just right, yet Brand P wiped the floor up with Brand X with no advance prep, what does this say about neutrality. I think a lot.

IMO, most equipment "presents" sound in a way that hopefully one will find musically enjoyable. I mean we're not listening to our rigs inside an anechoic chamber. So why can't we just accept the fact that we're listening to gear that has its own unique acoustic presentation in a room that colors the sound too. Isn't it enough that we can enjoy the musical experience. And if it sounds like the live thing ... great.

Just my opinion here.
I don't think anyone will disagree with you. But if we really want to be honest, there is a level at which objectivity trumps the mainstay of this forum. Namely the politically charged subjective forces that protect the party line. I think if someone here declares that they prefer the sound of an old pair of B&W 801/802 over a pair of Magico Q7's, we can safely declare they are full of shit. As far as brand P vs. brand X goes, from your experience, I would say my statement is a reasonable facsimile.
Byfwyyne, that's not uncommon at all. These people that set up speakers in this manner have a particular training. The difference is huge. Some dealers pay for outside sources to do this.
Don ... I have heard or read that there are acoustic specialists who do just what you said. But in my anecdotal story, all the fiddling in the world didn't change the outcome. Brand P killed Brand X. And as I said above, I don't know why. The outcome should have been the opposite of what I experienced. But ... that was my reaction and opinion. I acknowledge that other members might have walked away with very different opinions.
I had a chat to my niece who did a degree in audiology, and she, if anything helped me understand that:
1. what we hope is neutrality in hi-fi may well have been achieved a long time ago
2. psychologically we simply will not accept it
The reasons for this stem from a number of factors.
When we engage in one sense, and that sense over all others we become hyper critical/sensitive to that sense - think of blind people who have astounding hearing. When we then try and reproduce sound we try to repaint a 'hyper' as opposed to high-fidelity. Perhaps the best examples of these are 3D films that have hyper accents on 3D visual cues where depth and width of field are accentuated to make you feel that you are there.
If you have read the Regon Audio website where he tests some MM cartridges he said that the MM's are more accurate and neutral - more like master tape. The MC's were picking up and amplifying background ambiance. It may well explain our love of MC's that may well deliver that 'hyper-fidelity'.
True Hi-Fi was probably reached with components in the 70's and 80's - you know the era of wow and flutter, ruler flat responses. Tubes have never be marketed on the basis of neutrality have they (yes i know some are/maybe more neutral than others) but in terms of accurate reproduction of a recording this was achieved a long time ago. Audio IMHO, and in its current format, in particular the High End is, I believe based on 'hyper-fi'.