Neutral electronics are a farce...


Unless you're a rich recording engineer who record and listen to your own stuff on high end equipment, I doubt anyone can claim their stuff is neutral.  I get the feeling, if I were this guy, I'd be disappointed in the result. May be I'm wrong.
dracule1
Roger wrote,

"Everything is relative."

+1


Discretely,

geoff kait
machina dynamica
masters of time and space 


The very cool Hedy Lamarr story needs a movie as it's simply one of the great opportunities for a biopic…an absolutely amazing woman.
I meant "Deadliest Catch." "Most dangerous catch" would more likely be about hard hit ground balls. 
A lack of overemphasis in any one frequency domain and an ability to remain truthful to the timbre and tone of instruments!  That is neutrality and can only be had by a systems approach to playback...including power and room acoustic parameters.
I've hosted concerts in my listening room…the room remains "untreated" as furniture does the job, so are the live shows not "neutral?" This is a rhetorical question.
Wolf, maybe you miss my point?  It's all relative as are concert hall sounds.  What you can do is put together a system that does the least harm to the signal and have a listening environment that allows for a balanced output.  I use natural furnishings as well.
Dave_b..Maybe you missed the "rhetorical question" part of my rhetorical question.  I find that I can pick and choose which aspects of the signal I want to harm, and then harm the living crap out of them. Pesky upper mids? I duct tape 1,247 small pieces of 2 day old rye bread to my ceiling and suddenly my system sounds EXACTLY like a concert in the Filmore West in 1972 heard while my girlfriend Shirley was attempting to braid my hair while surrounded by a "tribe" of hippies wearing feathers…just feathers...or to get the sound of Richie Haven's turquoise jewelry banging against the back of my Guild guitar I leant to him at an after concert party in 1970 Honolulu…I sat right in front of him on acid (me, not him…I assume) and to get THAT sound you have to lead a flock of quiet ducks (!) into your listening room and then gently tap your output tubes with a length of sterilized wax coated plumber's snake. Utterly worth it.
Wolf,  I love the bread thing, especially useful at our Thanksgiving jamboree. Do you think 1247 pieces of rye (can I mix in some white?) would adequately stuff the turkey? Perhaps you know of another way to attach them to the ceiling...... I'm fearful of the affect the duct tape residue may have on the dressing. Cheers
Wolf, you managed to scare the crap out of me...the images you painted sound absolutely frightening!  Not sure if it was the acid or the braiding...I'd prefer 10th row at the BSO;)
JMCgrogan2... i agree with everything you wrote. "Neutral" in audiophile circles is a term that has been twisted to mean something different than balanced and uncolored. As a result, it misleads many people to expect it to mean one thing, when it is being used to mean treble-tilted and midrange sucked out, giving the impression of treble clarity and "clean" midrange. This is something i avoid at all costs, and my experience is that these days "neutral" is used in the latter sense 90 percent of the time.
Jmcgrogan does have a point...as he indicated, natural is vague as well.  How about realistic, as having the full envelope of frequencies and tones expressed with complete dynamic freedom and clarity!  That should eliminate about 90% of systems:). Of course one can only really assess an entire system.  That's why reviews are quite meaningless really, except for the very obvious features and characteristics.
Have words lost their meaning? Words and terms like smooth, refined, detailed, wide soundstage, organized soundstage, bass shy, microdynamics, de-interleaved, irritating, tortuous, threadbare, innocuous, harsh, whimpy, congealed, boomy, honky, musical, open, metallic, electronic, wet, liquid, anemic, bland and so forth attempt to describe the sound. But the usual audiophile words have become meaningless or trite. Maybe we need a new lexicon.
geoffkait

Maybe we need a new lexicon.
How about real or not real?
Believable or not believable?


geoffkait: "Maybe we need a new lexicon."

To which Roger responded,

"How about real or not real?
Believable or not believable?"

Not bad, but I prefer Hyper Real, Surreal and More Real than Real.  Oh, and Unbelievable! or perhaps Un-freaking-believable!