Stringreen wrote:

I am a professional violinist. When I play in Avery Fischer Hall my instrument sounds quit different than when I play it at home and again different still when I play it in Carnegie Hall. Instead of neutrality, perhaps one should think of its musicality.

It is absolutely amassing how many audio people misunderstand Audio Neutrality. The Audio Neutrality is one of the most import moments of audio reproduction and still it is misunderstood. Not good!

The very first step to begin understanding of real and the only true meaning of Audio Neutrality is to begin understanding that Live Music and Reproduced Music are absolutely the same music. It is very hard for many people or even imposable for many to “get” it but it is OK – there are a lot of clueless people in audio. Music is not what Sound produces but what awareness consumes and that amplitude of music consumptions for any properly organized listeners is identical during live concert or during playback. (In fact some trains musicians could do it just by reading the notes score)

Hold on: do I say that there is no difference between Live musical event and Reproduced event? Of course not! The difference is huge but the difference is not in Music domain but in Sound. Live Sound and Reproduced Sound are absolutely different animals and even they live according some different principles. So, what in context of above said would be the Audio Neutrality?

Well, to undusted Audio Neutrality it is very imperative to understand that Audio Neutrality does not exist “as is” and the Audio Neutrality might be applied ONLY as Neutrality toward to something. So, the Audio Neutrality is an impartiality of Reproduced (???) relative to (???). By addressing the question marks you will discover what the real Audio Neutrality is. Here are a few further pointers that I would like to drop in order to lead you to the answer.

“Neutrality” might be applied to a whole event or to the collection of the properties. Music, as a subject, is more atomic and none-dissectible entity, in contrary to Sound that most likely in our awareness would be identified by multitude of properties. If you are wiling to approach the Audio Neutrality form a fruitful direction then try to “get” that Neutrality as a reference to “total” auditable experience. A “neutrality does not deal with individuals properties (it is what transparency does) but Audio Neutrality applied only toward an undividable-whole, complex and composite entities…

Well, I have said enough, even slightly more then I intended, and an able person might take his/her own thinking further up…

Romy the Cat wrote:

...Live Music and Reproduced Music are absolutely the same music... [but] ...Live Sound and Reproduced Sound are absolutely different animals... “Neutrality” might be applied to a whole event or to the collection of the properties. Music, as a subject, is more atomic and none-dissectible entity, in contrary to Sound that most likely in our awareness would be identified by multitude of properties. If you are wiling to approach the Audio Neutrality form a fruitful direction then try to “get” that Neutrality as a reference to “total” auditable experience. A “neutrality does not deal with individuals properties (it is what transparency does) but Audio Neutrality applied only toward an undividable-whole, complex and composite entities… Rgs, Romy the Cat

drdna wrote:

It sounds as if you are are relating neutrality to music in a roughly analogous way that people use the term transparency in relation to sound.  In my mind a system can be transparent without being neutral, however, as transparency to small signal details, etc. can bring one further from the music.  It is the certain indefinable things that happen to a system that allow the listener to cease to care about detail, transparency, distortion, etc (to me) that occur as the reproduced sound comes closer to the Music that I would define as absolute neutrality.  The tricky thing is trying to describe what occurs in systems that are not perfectly neutral in this respect?

Yep, a system might be transparent without being neutral. Transparency is fidelity of the quantifiable properties recognized by intellect. Neutrality is fidelity to musically recognized by awareness. Neutrality might or might not be affected by transparency as neutrally reproduced sound might not be necessary a transparent sound. Neutrality it is not what is auditable but rather what is delivered. Neutrality does not operate by the language of the communication channel; in fact it is blind to the language of communication.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Neutrality is fidelity to musically recognized by awareness.  Neutrality it is not what is auditable but rather what is delivered. Neutrality does not operate by the language of the communication channel; in fact it is blind to the language of communication.

drdna wrote:

Yes, we are saying the same thing.  The problem as I have found it is that transparency is easily recognized and so there is a tendency for audiophiles to focus on this when they try to improve their systems, and this can make for very bad sounding results.

Actually, it is not exactly accurate. Most audiophiles do not focus on transparency but rather they preoccupied how make up this playback to be in compliance with artificial sonic template that was given to them. This is what the entire stupid audio hi-fi industry is built upon – inventing and selling bogus sonic templates and then to facilitate products that satisfies the demands of those templates.

drdna wrote:

I strive to make a neutral system instead, which sometimes means ignoring transparency.  The most recent example was the difference between the old London Decca Jubilee and the new London Decca Reference, which is easily the most transparent cartridge I have heard, but it loses some sense of neutrality, and I just don't connect to the music in the same way.

Well, I do understand what you mean when you said “sometimes ignoring transparency”. However, if to dig deeper then there is more to it. Transparency has own hierarchy: static transparency and dynamic transparency. The dynamic (active or vibrant) transparency is quite complicated subject that has a lot connection with Audio Neutrality. I am sure what when you propose to undermine the transparency then you meant the static transparency.

drdna wrote:

The problem I have is finding ways to guide how to make a system neutral since it is described not fully or well by language or intellectual parameters.  How can something so important be so difficult to manage?  Perhaps Romy and others have some suggestions?

Adrian, they are complicated things. The Audio Neutrality is not only the subject of audio but also a subject of general artistic evolvement of a listener. Audio Neutrality is associated with depth of musical messages and with adequacy of musical “consumption” via playback. Better music (better painting, better stage acting, better literature as so on) are filled with micro-rendering of human intentions in a language of the given art-form. In music those human intentions manifest themselves as very minute deviations of pace, tiny accents, micro-offset of tone and many other things that better musicians have at their disposal. A good actor can say a simple phase “It is my Cat” with a dozens different intonations and the meaning of that phase would be wary very considerable upon that way it which it was expressed. In music, since Sound is interpretive messenger, the capacities for “shadowing of the intentions” are the most powerful among many other art forms. In a good, intentions and expressions loaded musical piece, in hands of a capable and artistically advanced musician with a musical instilment, being interrupted but the musician consciousness the piece might become a very complex communicative bridge; the piece filled with many “pregnant” messages and with many potential sensations. Under better listening and social conditions a listener, being ethically, culturally and spiritually developed to the level where she or he is able to consume the sensations, might participate on the harvesting of those sensations….

So, we have expressed intentions and we have consumed intentions and this communication is built upon the equity and unanimity of human reactions to sonic irritations and equity and unanimity of human experiences. While there is not playback in the picture everything is fine but then when playback begins to reproduce Sound then playback modifies or even rearranges those in music imbedded “pregnant” messages as a result alters the content and value of the messages. There is nothing wrong with rearrangement of the messages if it was done by human awareness as human awareness would demonstrate own reasoning for the intrusion. However, a playback, being a machine has no reasoning but has only algorithms of exchange …

So, what in context of the said above what lay the Audio Neutrality? The Audio Neutrality is value responsible for perceptional transparency of the original messages and for the preservation of the messages’ potency

Well, the next question would be “how to make a system audio neutral”. There is no direct answer known to me as least in a format that I am wiling to share. However, I might drop some tips that might be useful for someone who is in a search for Audio Neutrality.

Well Paul,

I want to thank you very much for your comments.  I appreciate what you mentioned about Occam's Razor, but I do feel that here I am not trying to make a new theory of electronics necessarily.  Rather I am just trying to develop the vocabulary to describe what I observe when I listen to music.  Nevertheless, your commentary is very comforting to me because hearing your comments about different resistors and circuitry designs helps me to understand better where you are coming from and then I feel less concerned about the possibility that I may be missing out on something fundamental with the whole transformer attenuator craze.

Happy listening!
Adrian

Romy the Cat wrote:

I do not think that my “resistance” to transformer preamplifiers” has to do with audio neutrality and particularly in context of “improved audio neutrality” as I do not think that neutrality might be “improved” (though it might be “conditionally” reinstated)... then in regard to the new mini Hi-Fi:  I relay do not recognize music with this unit – it makes everything to sound absolutely different and very muchwrong. It hard to explain: the notes are there but they have absolutely wrong meaning ... Even when the Denon plays the BBC announcements then it is clearly audible that this unit does something incorrect with sound. Not in term of Hi-Fi but rather in tern of meaning… the meaning and… pleasure. The phrases and sentences with Denon are the same and it looks like nothing else is requires (for news programs) … but substituting the Denon with Melquiades/Reds it is clearly auditable that suddenly the regular BBC newscast might sound pleasant and elegant and those BBS folks with their magnificent Brits’ accent sound more like music.. With Denon is it juts radio.