2. misc-audio
  3. 180055-96785

What Neutral Means in Reviews & Our Discussions? Are We Confusing Tame/Flat For Neutral?

Does tame or flat = neutral? Shouldn’t "neutral" in describing audio sound mean uncolored and accurate to what the artists sounded like to the naked ear at the time of the master recording? Or is neutral, as used in our community, intended to mean a lack of crescendo, or the like?

I realize this may get controversial, so lets be mindful of other’s experiences and insight. I’m going to use Dynaudio as an example. They’re often touted as being amongst the most neutral of speaker lines. Monitor Audio is another example of such reviews. I’ve listened to several middle of the line Dynaudio’s, including many times at my brother’s house, where he has them mated to an EAD Power Master 1000 thru MIT cables. They do sound beautiful, airy, smooth, and even slightly warm to my ear (though the touch of warmth could easily be the MITs and EAD). His common statement supporting how great they are is, the audio recording industry sound engineers prefer them as their monitors. But I’ve read that the reason audio engineers prefer them is because they are smooth and "flat" or "level", enabling the engineers to hear the difference of the nuances which they create as they manipulate sound during the editing process. Apparently lively or musical monitors, many engineers find to be a distractor, with too much information over riding what they want to focus on as they edit the sound.

I’ve enjoyed watching live bands at small venues for over 3 decades. Anything from a pianist, to cover bands, to original artists of anything from rock, blues, jazz, etc. My personal listening preference for home audio is dynamic sound which brings the live event to me ... soundstage, detail, with air, transparency AND depth. I want it all, as close as it can get for each given $. When I’ve listened to Dynaudios, Ive always come away with one feeling ... they’re very nice to listen too; they’re smooth and pleasing, airy ... and tame.

Recently while reading a pro review of the latest Magico S7 (I’ve never heard them), a speaker commonly referenced as amazingly neutral, the reviewer mentioned how, while capable of genuine dynamics, they seem to deliberately supress dynamics to enough of an extent that they favor a more pleasurable easy going listening experience.

That’s what jarred my thought. Does "neutral" mean tame/flat; does it mean accurate without audible peaks in db of one frequency over another, which is not on the recording; or is it something we’ve minced words about and have lost the genuine meaning of in the name of some audio form of political correctness?

 

 

 

sfcfran

Showing 5 responses by frogman

frogman
7,358 posts
 

phusis, fantastic post!  100% in agreement.

frogman
7,358 posts
 

“Neutral” is up there with “accurate” as the most misused terms in audio. Les McCaan, indeed; compared to what?

Some misuse the two terms to describe a sound that, to me, is lean, too bright and often bleached out. The.terms should be used to describe a component that neither adds nor subtracts anything from the signal as it passes through it on the way to the next component in the system, or, in the case of speakers, to the listener’s ears. As has been pointed out, true neutrality, or accuracy, are very lofty goals and ultimately unattainable since every component alters the signal to some degree. However, some components do an infinitely better job than others of preserving signal integrity.

The sound of live acoustic (not amplified) instruments and voice have a lot of natural color and warmth. Their sound is not colorless (bleached) which is what many think a “neutral” sound is. It is not true that the sound of live acoustic music cannot be used as a reference for judging the sound of a component. The key is to think in terms of degree of electronic signature that the component adds. The sound of live acoustic music has zero electronic signature, The component that adds less electronic signature to the sound can be said be closer to neutral than the component that adds more electronic signature. With recordings of electronic (amplified) instruments all bets are off.

frogman
7,358 posts
 

Right back at you, phusis; great comments.

————

In case anyone is wondering about the significance of the reference to Les MacAnn by my favorite closet audiophile and uncompromising music lover, rok2id and myself:

 

frogman
7,358 posts
 

There are aspects of the whole of what a live music performance is that transcend “sound” as usually considered or defined by audiophile jargon. Some of these aspects do, of course, have to do with sound characteristics while others (for some listeners, even more importantly) have to do with the performer’s musical intent. Sure, it is always ideal to hear a performance in the best possible acoustic. However, this is often not the case. So, are we to sit through a fantastic performance by a great artist, the entire time annoyed that the sound of the venue is not great? What a loss! What about the beautiful phrasing, or the gorgeous tone that no venue short of your bathroom might destroy. I have yet to attend a live performance of acoustic music that has caused me to want to run out of the room. A terrible performance may illicit that reaction, but never the sound of the venue with its unique sonic traits, including its problems. I cannot say the same for amplified performances. Of course, the listener needs to be able, or be willing to suspend our usual audiophile expectations. These expectations can be distractions from the music and unfortunately, for some they can be a deal breaker. I like phusis’ qualifier for acceptance of a venue’s sound “for what they are in themselves” when speaking about a venue with acoustics that are less than what any one of us considers ideal.

There are traits in the sound of acoustic instruments and voice that transcend the venue. They are nuances of timbre, texture and dynamic shading that only are available to be heard in their fullest expression from the live acoustic experience; even accounting for whatever damage the less than ideal acoustic of a venue may cause. These nuances haven’t been distorted by the electronics of the record/reproduce process. I would argue that any reasonably decent venue allows more of these to be heard than even the best audio systems . This is why the sound of live acoustic music can be and is the best “standard”. I can sit at the bar in the back of The Village Vanguard with its poor acoustics and even with the constant din of talking and tinkling of drinking glasses and listen to an acoustic Jazz trio or quartet or….and hear a certain purity of timbral texture and immediacy of musical intent that NO recording can match. Perfect? Of course not, but this why a great musical performance can be very enjoyable no matter the quality of the venue’s sound

What is the alternative, to simply put together a sound system with a sound that we like as the only standard? Sure, why not? That is what many claim is the only way in spite of the fact that, like the varied sound of venues, there are practically endless variations of “sound that we like”. So, then, what is the problem with aiming for a sound that, in at least a particular listener’s world and on balance, sounds as close as possible to that listener’s experience of the sound of live acoustic. Lame? I don’t think so; just the opposite.

 

 

 

frogman
7,358 posts
 

**** What are the characteristics of a speaker that sounds Musical? ****

Another commonly misused term.  “Musical”, or “musicality” is the purview of musicians, not electronic gear.  Gear that does the best job of reproducing the musicians’ musicality, including their sound (tone) characteristics can be said to be the most accurate.  That is the whole point of using the live acoustic experience as a reference.  

More to discover