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
jeffseight's avatar
jeffseight
574 posts
 

I think words are inadequate.

Sounds can accurately define.

 

I often thought someone should make a CD, file, LP etc that 

demonstrates all the terms audio people use commonly.

 

My guess is would be very controversial.

 

Who wants to make one with me?

 

 

immatthewj
1,045 posts
 

@newbee

do you (or does anyone) know what the opposite of "neutral" is, in an audio sense?("Colored," perhaps?)

In a non-audio sense (and also in an audio sense, I suppose), I guess the opposite of cold (which is an absolute?) would be hot, so almost cold would probably be cool and almost hot might be warm).

So if there was a term that defined the opposite of "neutral" (in the audio sense of the word), maybe there is a term that would work for "almost neutral." In a non-audio sense, I suppose "biased" or "predudiced" would be the opposite of "neutral," and for all I know, maybe they would also work in audio terminology. I don’t know -- it’s been about twenty years since I’ve sat down & read a Stereophile.

newbee
4,751 posts
 

immattewj

I think colored is commonly used to mean something other than neutral. Unfortunately it is non specific and always requires amplification to be meaningful. It usually implies that there is a deficiency not just a deviation. Unlike ’neutral’ which speaks for itself (or should anyway) in the sense that it is the faithful reproduction of the source.

Some other angst loaded words (i.e. you don’t really know what the user means) which give me problems are ’revealing’ and ’transparent’. Do they mean the opposite of ’muddy’, an excess of energy in certain frequencies, a lack of distortions, etc. Who knows - it always depends on the expertise/experience of the user and/or their ability, or willingness, to express themselves which is in itself not transparent . When I see ’neutral’ I think linear’, when I see ’natural’ I think of something closer to a live unamplified sound. And I’m probably not up to speed as I haven’t been reading reviews for a long time.

tk21
237 posts
 

To me, "neutral" refers to a flat frequency response.

If you start with neutral equipment in a good room, but want to emphasize certain features (like bass), chances are you can do it with DSP, an equalizer, or a subwoofer. The opposite (taming a bright/boomy system) may be a lot harder without introducing undesirable side-effects.  Then again, there's no accounting for taste.  If you consistently prefer loud music with a whole lotta bass,  you may not want a neutral system at all.  

It's like preferring gauzy, highly-saturated portrait photography.  If that's what you want, it's easy enough to make a camera produce it.  Or you can start with a highly accurate photo and add effects with software.  It may be lot harder (or impossible) to do the opposite (e.g. to remove bokeh effects and reveal a perfectly focused background).

petg60
1,486 posts
 

it means the ability to show easily any change (not matter how small) before that.

More to discover