First, is there a difference between “neutral” speaker, and one that is considered “transparent”?
Yes neutral one is more of tonality (frequency response).
The later can be more of a time domain thing. Or it can be something that is different between speakers.
To me, "neutral" means flat in FR and with very low distortion. A component with nonflat frequency response I'd call "colored."
Agree… and well put in general.
"Transparent" implies low noise and distortion. A transparent component is not necessarily neutral.
Agree in general… but:
Speakers that have cabinet resonances or port noise, or other driver anomalies reveal themselves more easily.
If the distortion is solely harmonic distortion, and when it the same in both channels, then to me it is more like a colouration than anything else… and not always lacking in transparency.
We either hear the speaker or we do not. However some hard panned music is not easy to listen to if one is accustomed to not hearing the speaker when on better recorded music.
"Warm" implies a little boost in the lower midrange, say the two octaves from 100 Hz to 400 Hz. A warm component is colored, but it could be transparent.
Agree.
(If bright is the opposite of warm, then it makes it easy for me to step backwards.)
Let’s confine ourselves to floor standing speakers costing up to $3000. New or used. Give me one or two examples that in your opinion epitomizes “Transparent”, one or two that are good examples of “neutral”, and a couple that are usually described as being “warm”. Thanks.
My experience (in the extensive sense) is mainly limited to Vandersteens, and in particular the 2C.
There are probably others in the used category that are sub 3k$.
And maybe some in the new category.
If the music plays and you hear the speaker, then it make it quick for me to walk away.
The old Spika was pretty good and cheaper.
The old Magnapaners can be transparent.
The old Duntech/Dunlavy can also be amazing on all those fronts.