@erik_squires If I knew how to post a big thumb up on this forum, you'd be seeing a big thumb up instead of reading my jibberish. LOL. Thanks for your reply. Again...appreciated.
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?
- ...
- 73 posts total
sfcfran, Good luck finding an unbiased lexicographer or one that the majority would accept. I think ghdprentice is correct when he sez that high end audio is not for those uncomfortable with ambiguity. So far as I know Diogenes is still looking, albeit that his lamp has probably grown more dim as time has passed. :-) BTW I was not aware that the EAD Powermaster was an amp. Sorry ’bout that. However I’m not quite ready to accept that one could not voice Dynaudios to their liking by amp selection, or if your really competent by a cross over mod, and that your experience with them is definitive. FWIW |
@oldaudiophile Wonderfully stated. I'm one of those that fits your quote of "The ultimate objective of an ideal system, which everyone claims to want but nobody likes when he hears it", by being that person that actually wants to hear it.. the errors, the old bad recordings, and the brilliance of everything that was decently to well recorded. We refer to ourselves as "Purists". It's always been my euphoria to hear whatever is there. However, I'll concede that as I age, I'm finding the notion of hearing things with just a touch of softening to the purity of recording shortcomings to be an appealing notion. I got a bit of that with my recent change to Bob Carver tubes for my front mains. Perhaps in my next set of speakers I'll consider going further with it. For now I'm still left ecstatic with the great reveal most don't want. |
@newbee Yep, I don't doubt the resistance, or that you are correct in your assessment of what people want to be told to know or accept. On my assessment of equipment in the OP, you are correct in that my experience with them (EAD or Dynaudio) is not definitive. Outside of a dealer or corporate employee, whose really is? Yet, my experience is reasonably well exposed over a period of 20 years. No telling who knows more than another on any particular one subject, or specific area of a subject. That's why we all come here...to share what we've learned, and to learn from what others share. I'm pretty comfortable with what I know or don't know, and try not to be pretentious, though I don't think any of us are perfect about that no matter how hard we try. I've been an enthusiast or audiophile since the age of 12, and been reading stereo mags and auditioning hi end stereo since that age (1978). My oldest brother came home from the Navy with a pair of ESS AMT 1Ds, and a Panasanic Quadraphonic Receiver. For fun he used to take me auditioning new equipment every few months, and every few years he upgraded something. By the time I could drive I was going to audition audio equipment by myself for fun. Hi end shops were in local towns all over the place back then. Within a bicycle ride of me were 3, where I could and did critically listen to, and discuss with management, B&W, Kefs, Polk SDS (the rage back then), DBX Soundfields, Infinities (when they really were something special), etc. It spoiled me, developed my ear, and I've been wired to love music & explore audio equipment ever since. We've all got a story...that one's mine. |
- 73 posts total