@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.