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

That’s what jarred my thought. Does "neutral" mean tame/flat...

That's what it means to me. I like my system to have a little bounce to it. Not inaccurate playback but something with a little excitement. 

I typically use neutral to refer to the (anechoic) frequency response being flat. And would use additional different words to describe other aspects of how something sounds.

@russ69 @nekoaudio   Perfect responses that make my point.  Thank you.  Both of you, as enthusiasts or audiophiles, speak directly yet eloquently to what you believe 'neutral' to mean.  Yet both of you have a different answer.  One understanding the use of the term 'neutral' to mean it is flat in sound, deliberately not delivering dynamics to the extent the recording calls for.  The other stating 'neutral' means the frequency produced is exactly as the recording intended it, measured in an anechoic chamber to be level to the signal being transmitted into the speaker by the components.  Here in lies what I believe is not just my confusion, but that of discussion amongst many of us on the threads, as we and pro-reviewers use and perceive the meaning of the term neutral differently from one another. 

Thanks for your input.  Very curious to see what else gets contributed on this thought.

You seem to understand, yet you do not accept, that there is no consensus of the meaning, in audio at least, of ’neutral’. This post will not, I suspect, shed any great light on the subject.

Neutral is a word which is absolute. It can only be ’neutral’ (check your dictionary) or its not neutral. There is no such thing, grammar wise, as near neutral. How you perhaps, and others, would define ’neutral’ really is nothing more or less than what you believe/want it to be.

Bottom line, everything is subjective. Interestingly when discussing your experience with some speakers (and some electronics) you address the power supply and the cables as if this was what was determinative of the sound you heard. You did not address the differences that would be brought to this sound by the amp’s (or other components, as well as the location, which would have contributed). Just possibly those Dynaudios might sing to your hearts content if properly set up and the amp used to drive them was appropriately chosen for your desired result.

I think nikoaudio’s opinion of a useful meaning of neutrality is going to be as good as it gets and all that is really needed. We aren’t discussing rocket science and a trip to the moon. :-)

Neutral is a word which is absolute. It can only be ’neutral’ (check your dictionary) or its not neutral.

?  I am pretty sure that something can be almost neutral.

Bottom line, everything is subjective.

But if neutral is absolute?

As some one who has done a lot of measuring, and listening, and comparing to press, I'd say this has no meaning at all.

Neither does transparency.  Everything is relative and no one has a system like the mastering engineer and if they did you might not even like it.

We who? Count me out of caring.

immatthew,

"But if neutral is absolute"

What would you suggest in 'audio' is neutral and to what?

Re 'almost neutral' would that be the same as being an 'almost whore'? Easy to say, tough to define. :-)

@newbee

not to start an argument, but when you typed that

"There is no such thing, grammar wise, as near neutral"

were you referring to in only an audio way? That may be, but as an example of "almost neutral" in other areas would be acid/base. For that example, a solution that had a PH of 7 would be neutral and a solution with a PH of 3 would be quite acidic; but if you had a solution that had a PH of 6.99, it would still be technically acidic, but that PH would make it "almost neutral."

On the other two points, you typed that:

Neutral is a word which is absolute.

but that

Bottom line, everything is subjective.

Those two sentences seem to me to contradict each other.

"But if neutral is absolute"

What would you suggest in ’audio’ is neutral and to what?

I honestly do not know. I have a tough time defining many of these audio terms. I agree with you when you type that everything is subjective, including neutral, which you also said was an absolute. I suppose neutral would be true to the mastering--not warm, not bright. not airy, unless the mastering was such. I guess. Maybe.

Possibly it would mean not adding any of it's own flavor to the mastering that your source was playing back.  If that's even possible. 

immatthewj

Well your illustration of using neutral as a noun with an modifier is certainly correct . My characterizing it otherwise was mistaken. But I do believe that when used as an adjective it becomes more acceptable to expect it be used in an absolute sense. In other words I find it clumsy to say 'the neutrality of xyz component is compromised by the existence or absence of xxxxxx, which renderers it less than neutral, close but no cigar. Ergo it is not in fact not neutral!

We have a spell checker now all we need is a grammar checker! :-)

OP,

I think you got it. Neutral does not actually mean neutral. It means flat and polite.

Just the reality of a very complex and multilayered pursuit. I have found the way to get your arms around this is to read professional reviews and audition these components and listen to lots of acoustical music… to calibrate these three things.

When you do (this took decades for me), then you understand the real meaning of the words. Honestly, when I hear the word neutral in a review interpreted the word to mean anemic and run the other way. Thirty or forty years ago the word warm would have me run away… but it’s meaning today usually means much more natural than neutral.

Yeah, high end audio is not for those uncomfortable with ambiguity.

Clearly from ghdprentice's post what we need is a new FAQ page titled ’audiophile euphemisms’. Then we could all be on the same page with audio reviewers and others who would seek to describe the sonics of their system. Now if we could just find an objective moderator for such a page. Any volunteers? :-)

I think words are inadequate.

Sounds can accurately define.

I often thought someone should make a CD, file, LP etc that 

demonstrates all the terms audio people use commonly.

My guess is would be very controversial.

Who wants to make one with me?

@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!

My two cents:

 I have always thought in terms of three primary audiophile presentations 

warm/ euphonic

neutral/true to the source

cool/ analytical/ etched

This general scheme has been helpful in guiding me in choices of components to consider and in achieving a system balance that meets my personal standard.

Every profession has jargon and this is one of them in audiophile world. A practical definition of "neutral" imho is "all frequencies are measured in approximately similar sound pressure levels (SPL) within the specified tolerance between the low bass and high treble natural roll-of limits from a transducer in an anechoic setting." It sounds mouthful but several key phrases need be noted. First off, "similar sound pressure level" implies no drivers are perfectly linear and there is no perfect measurement method. As such, the measured SPL will fluctuate and no truely flat response curve exist in reality. Second, "within the specified tolerance" implies one needs to specify the tolerance interval, e.g., +-3dB, in order to render an objective assessment if a transducer is neutral. Third, "between the low bass and high treble natural roll-off limits" implies that we only assess the response curve bet. the natural roll-off limits of the high and low ends, again, within the specified tolerance. For example, we could still call the response curve neutral even there is steep roll off below the natural roll-off limit for bass. Often time, we see the mid-bass is boosted in order to get a better bass extension and the response curve will not be considered neutral if the boosted mid-bass exceeds to the specified tolerance. Lastly, the measurement needs to be conducted in an anechoic setting.

Sorry for being mouthful. Please advise if I mess up something.  There is another jargon for you guys. What does "organic" sound mean?

Hi @newbee . Unfortunately you’ve misinterpreted the vast majority of what I was saying in my post. To bring clarity for all, here follows. I didn’t want to drag on so long that no one wants to read my examples. I’m very familiar with the EAD Powermaster and MIT cables, having heard them both on a variety of speakers. They are both known for a slight lean to warmth. Therefore, I stated that the Dynaudio’s at my brothers, that I hear regularly, may seem warm because of them. You also mentioned that I did not attribute the possibility of the power amp in my perception of the Dynaudios. The EAD Powermaster is the power amp. As for the room,,,yes,,,could be that to a degree. He has a large room carpeted room, with ample leather and upholstery seating, about 15x22, which would all prevent excess sound deflection and diffraction, which can lead to brightness. Yet, with that, I’ve heard a decent number of Dynaudios, and walk away with similar impressions regardless of the source equipment and cables, thus I believed it to be an excellent example to use for this discussion.

While I did mention what I thought the term neutral (in audio) should mean, I also presented 2 general possibilities of its meaning, and asked which is correct, or are we all defining in different ways (option 3). I don’t understand why you seemed to ’get on me’ about my reluctance to accept a different definition. This post, in my mind, makes it clear I am not reluctant to accept a different definition, since I am very open to listening to people throughout the community. I put up this post so we can all realize we all define it differently (in my observation, anyway), thus when we speak to one another or read a review, we are not communicating clearly with one another. Communication = the sender of information + the receiver of information + feedback. We often skip the feedback portion, thus leaving the sender and receiver with two different understandings of what was sent. This post can help clarify to myself and all, if not even guide us, to understand what ’neutral’ means when it is used, or what it should mean.

Thanks for your feedback. For any one person that has a thought which they express, there are likely many others with the same thought. Thus you’ve prompted me to clarify and be more specific about where I’m coming from and my intent. Appreciated.

@ghdprentice Thank you! I’ve done all of what you suggested, also for about 4 decades. I’ve also noticed the change of meaning in terms over those decades, including neutral and warm. I agree with you spot on, about the change of the term ’warm’. Part of my confusion, and my ability to notice different meanings being ascribed to ’neutral’ is that it used to be used in a different way, going back to the 70s and 80s, then it seems to be used in more recent times.

’Neutral’, without a shred of doubt in my mind, used to mean (in the audio world), a highly aspiring lofty, yet unattainable goal, of anechonically perfectly flat between what comes out of the speaker, relative to what is coming out of the audio source (CD, vinyl, radio signal, etc.). Now it does seem to often be used, as you stated, to mean flat in sound, without emphasis, regardless of the signal coming from the source audio component.

Yet to be certain of that, and to bring clarity to myself and all, I created this post. I’m loving the discussion and input going on here, and I think it makes my point, that we all interpret it differently, which means when a pro-reviewer tells us how wonderfully neutral a speaker is, we all are receiving that to mean something different, which impacts our auditioning and buying decisions.

Based on the way this thread is going, I’m finding it unfortunate that @newbee seems to be correct in his assertion that the term ’neutral’, along with many other terms we commonly use, are subjective.  In my mind, they should only be subjective as to what extent we hear things when auditioning, but not subjective to the definition of what those things mean when we speak about them.  Perhaps I wish too much for a perfect world.

If someone with some umpa in the community, like Steve Hoffman, were to publish a pamphlet of subjective definitions, I think the audiophile community might just gulp it up, and it would benefit the hobby on the whole. Oh man...lets please not get into a discussion about whether or not I am right about that. lol.

@erik_squires You are correct ... no one has a sound like the master recording. I chose my wording poorly in that regard. Better stated would have been to say, the source recording of what was being played, ie, SACD, LP, Radio, etc.

@newbee lol...seems we both hit the same exact thought of needing a manual of terminology guidelines from a recognized and commonly acceptable authority in the industry. I nominate Steve Hoffman. Any one here have access to Steve’s ear?  I used too, but was silly enough to let it slip away a long time ago.

@jeffseight   Seems at least 3 of us have the parallel thought that the industry needs an encyclopedia of its own to guide the use of how terms are used, and their intended meaning.  I'd say if 3 of us have voiced that here (inlcuding @newbee ), there are several that have the same thought, here alone, that haven't voiced it, which means it is actually a prevalent thought in the community.  If not a prevalent thought, I'll be bold enough to say it is a prevalent need.  But to have someone with the reach, expertise, and common respect of the community at large, to push such a publications, is the trick. 

Hmmmm ... I wonder ... what if we create something as you suggest, and then push it out on the various forums, and to certain people in the industry, asking them to push it further?  Sounds like work.  Whose in?

I’m not trying to be pedantic, OP, honest. You don’t have to clarify yourself. I’m just not sure that neutral to the recording, or the intentions of the artist is really possible.

Once it leaves the speaker driver it’s all up in the air. :)

The  best I think we can do is create a system that allows us to enjoy as many different types of music as possible without grimacing.

@lanx0003  Loving your input, and seriously laughed out loud at, "There is another jargon for you guys. What does "organic" sound mean?"  Oh man... I am so not going there.  lol.

Fran,

I'm in. I have a friend who is a recording engineer.

What I do not know is the correct music example of any

given term.

@scowler1   You and I have held dear the same definition of 'neutral' ... "true to the source".  Yet, I think this thread is making apparent that the term 'neutral' is used in at least two different ways in the audio community, which means we often misunderstanding what the other person is saying/writing about a component.  Many here are stating they understand 'neutral' to mean an anechoic flat production of sound regardless of what the source is pumping out.  In other words, flat.

@jeffseight   Awesome!  So here's my thought.  Coordinating this will initially be complicated, especially on this forum.  So give me a day or two to throw together a proposal of how we would proceed, which I'll post here.  Then we can all edit thru the proposal before editing through any actual definitions.  I can tell you two audio insiders that might actually read our message if we sent it, who I think would be interested in our pushing our final product (ofcourse they'll revise it, but that's fine), would be Steve Hoffman, and PS Audio's Paul McGowan.  Any studio engineer we can push it too is a great idea as well, for the purposes of mass proliferation.

@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.

Very Cool. I will do some leg work as well.

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.

This is just me but I find neutral to be boring. Give me some warmth and more tonal color.

Also helpful is a glossary of terminology that we can share:

http://www.integracoustics.com/MUG/MUG/bbs/stereophile_audio-glossary.html

If reading definitions made perfect sense to everyone then there

would be little discussion about what a term means. 

Since audiophile types relate to sound well I feel audible

examples are the way to go. 

Actually I would be surprised if this has not already been done.

If it has please tell me the title, etc.

Thanks

I've been using the same amps in my main system since 2006-7- a pair of Lamm ML2 SETs. They make magic with my Avantgarde Duos. I have no idea if the amp is colored. It makes music. I've maintained it and I don't think about other amps. The high power/low efficiency thing is popular in the high end and I've heard some great systems using speakers like Rockports.  Different strokes. 

I'm good. (Though any other speaker would have to be very efficient to use with the Lamm ML2- it's biggest limitation is output at around 18 watts). 

Neutral means not in gear. Or non combative. Colorless? In any case, if reproduced music in a system sounds good to YOU it means something about the system (and the recording) is working properly and you're free from wondering what neutral means. You're welcome.

@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. 

Are all audio components manufactured in Switzerland neutral?

I would think that Swiss made components are probably on the cold side.

I often wonder what the deal is with the live sound reference as the benchmark for high quality in audio. Do live things always sound right? If I play an acoustic guitar which clearly sounds different to the player than somebody sitting near the player (!), which is the reference? As a live sound tech I can take the blame (or more likely rabid or rampant praise) for some things, and do. Great recordings take into account that it's not supposed to sound "live," it's supposed to sound like somebody knows it's being made for home audio. If you can sit in the sweet spot at acoustic concerts you still get room tainted sound, which is unnatural and a form of amplification. You have to be outside in an utterly dead quiet environment hovering above the musicians...which could mean you've recently died. There's yer reference.

Well said Wolf, your statement makes total sense to me, esp. from a musicians point of view.

@wolf_garcia wrote:

I often wonder what the deal is with the live sound reference as the benchmark for high quality in audio. Do live things always sound right? If I play an acoustic guitar which clearly sounds different to the player than somebody sitting near the player (!), which is the reference? As a live sound tech I can take the blame (or more likely rabid or rampant praise) for some things, and do. Great recordings take into account that it’s not supposed to sound "live," it’s supposed to sound like somebody knows it’s being made for home audio. If you can sit in the sweet spot at acoustic concerts you still get room tainted sound, which is unnatural and a form of amplification. You have to be outside in an utterly dead quiet environment hovering above the musicians...which could mean you’ve recently died. There’s yer reference.

For one, it’s not nonsense to speak of a live feel of sound. In very broad terms some speakers manage to bring the performance into the listening room more effectively and uninhibited than others, and this way the listener can relate to the experience with a more live-like sensation. The OP stresses dynamics as a parameter here, and to that individual’s ears it’s a link to years of being exposed to small venue live bands. I’d certainly agree it’s at least one of the core parameters.

With regard to whether live things always "sound right" and the specifics of a given performance/venue, it doesn’t change that the experience and its general characteristics as such is in fact a live reference. The overall scale, tonality, fluidity, feel of the space and dynamic swings of a live symphony orchestra is apparent whether the acoustics of the place are compromised; indeed, these "compromises" are part of what distinguishes and solidifies a live qua live performance - I really wouldn’t be without them. I don’t operate with some platonic ideal of a "live" performance as "an utterly dead quiet environment hovering above the musicians," because it wouldn’t be a (a)live performance! A guess to each their own here..

Pragmatically I can say that to me it makes sense speaking of a live reference as something to aspire to, because while most every aspect of it is compromised to some degree from the recording to the speakers/acoustics, it can still bear the mark of a more close resemblance to a live performance compared to other approaches of setting up one’s stereo.

phusis

+1

Over 5 plus decades I've mixed many live concerts, performed both as a solo player and as part of live bands, done studio work for my own stuff and commercial recording gigs, own my own studio...blah blah blah...none of which makes my opinion more valid, but it does indicate where I'm coming from. Note that I prefer non "treated" listening spaces (containing furniture, books, carpets, fake and real plants, hysterical groupies) as I like some "room sound," and I prefer tubes and horn speakers mostly because they sound more like musicians playing for my ears. My relatively new Pass XA-25 (non tube but still...man...) is designed by a guy who likes his designs to be "musical" sounding regardless of specs, leading to that amp being held in very high regard by some picky listeners. Like me. I've been to some great concert venues for a wide variety of music and rarely think about the sound unless something's wrong with it. Then I grumble later, or simply bail out. Great sound engineers I've known (like my former neighbor Elliot Scheiner) don't intentionally produce recordings to a live standard, they go for something better than that. They really do, and guys like Scheiner actually get it.

phusis, fantastic post!  100% in agreement.