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

@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.

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.

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).

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

Interesting! The first thing or component I immediately thought of when reading the headline of this post was Dynaudio speakers. Now, don't get me wrong here! These are damn fine speakers! They have always impressed the hell out of me in critical listening auditions when I've been in the market for an upgrade. However, for whatever reason(s), my ears always chose to buy something else that pleased a tad more. I always thought the Dynaudios were a little too accurate, too neutral or too flat, but flat in a very, very good way (i.e.  accurate rendition of the instruments & voice(s), with virtually no coloration). I know this sounds paradoxical because this is what well designed speakers are supposed to do... right? Maybe too much of a good thing? Hell if I know!

There's a quote that I think succinctly explains this paradox. It's from Stereophile founder J. Gordon Holt's book, "The Audio Glossary". He defines accuracy, which I equate with neutral, as:  "(1) The degree to which the output signal from an active device is perceived as replicating all the sonic qualities of its input signal and (2) The ultimate objective of an ideal system, which everyone claims to want but nobody likes when he hears it." He defines "euphonic", on the other hand, as:  "Pleasing to the ear." and goes on to say that "In audio, 'euphonic' has a connotation of exaggerated sweetness, rather than literal accuracy."

So, I guess my ears gravitate to a little sweetness? Not too much! Just a little, to bring out the excitement.

I think one needs to keep in mind that most performances nowadays, with the exception of symphony orchestras and other acoustic venues like jazz ensembles and folk music artists in small, intimate clubs using no amplification or microphones, are heard or experienced through some degree of electronic amplification. The choices for the electronics involved have to color what you hear, I would think, just as the choices recording engineers make to record live musical performances do.

Having been somewhat of a hack acoustic guitar player, over the years, one of the sounds I particularly hone in on during critical listening sessions is acoustic guitar. I tend to like speakers capable of reproducing that sound as accurately as possible. Can Dynaudito speakers do that? Of course they can! So why do my ears gravitate to other speakers? Long story!