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

If reading definitions made perfect sense to everyone then there

would be little discussion about what a term means. 

Since audiophile types relate to sound well I feel audible

examples are the way to go. 

Actually I would be surprised if this has not already been done.

If it has please tell me the title, etc.

Thanks

I've been using the same amps in my main system since 2006-7- a pair of Lamm ML2 SETs. They make magic with my Avantgarde Duos. I have no idea if the amp is colored. It makes music. I've maintained it and I don't think about other amps. The high power/low efficiency thing is popular in the high end and I've heard some great systems using speakers like Rockports.  Different strokes. 

I'm good. (Though any other speaker would have to be very efficient to use with the Lamm ML2- it's biggest limitation is output at around 18 watts). 

Neutral means not in gear. Or non combative. Colorless? In any case, if reproduced music in a system sounds good to YOU it means something about the system (and the recording) is working properly and you're free from wondering what neutral means. You're welcome.

@sfcfran wrote:

[...]

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.

A live reference, seemingly both acoustic and amplified in your case, is vital in any attempted effort to assess a reproduced facsimile - certainly as something that aspires to a degree of authenticity in a range of core aspects as held against its live counterpart. One may think 'neutrality' should encompass or be applied to most every aspect of sound reproduction compared to a clearly outlined live reference and whether that reproduction refrains from any "editorialization" here, though per Mr. Holt's definition as supplied by @ghdprentice above it simply refers to a sound being "free from coloration." What does that entail, however?

From a more strict (limited?) reading of that definition a lot can be left out in a sonic presentation without obstructing the term's thought or assessed meaning, but it also goes to show that to others 'neutrality' as a term is more encompassing and could very well entail a much broader range of aspects in reproduction that, when fairly faithfully reproduced to a live reference (/its recorded source material), validates the stamp (more or less) "neutral" as that which doesn't severely hinder or "subverts" this or that material from a source in its reproduced form. In that light at least I wouldn't necessarily see the term at odds with a sound that closely emulates a live reference, but to some that may be taking the definition of "neutrality" a bit too far, if it even applies to them here. 

Maybe for that reason I don't see myself really using the term as a descriptive means, but rather "honest," "natural," "unhindered," "effortless," "authentic" and so forth - any terms that by their lesser fulfillment would indicate a sound that deviated noticeably, in certain aspects at least, from its deemed un-editorialized state, even though that could very well be setting the bar unrealistically high. 

With regard to your impressions of the Dynaudio's and (importantly) holding them against your live reference experience: if you perceive their sound as being ultimately tame, they're tame. They may be fairly "neutral" in some limited respects, perhaps adhering here more closely to the definition (depending of one's reading of it) supplied by Mr. Holt, but I wouldn't let some reading of a term determine my being at odds with my judgement of a given speakers' sonics. As they say: when map and terrain don't match, follow the terrain.

[...]

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?

I'd say the term needs a differentiated approach to make sense. In any case let your ears decide and take precedent, and with your elaborate experience of witnessing live concert events you have the better outset to assess whether that reference is really met in reproduced form, hereby effectively challenging at least your own take on neutrality.