2. misc-audio
  3. 180055-96785

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?

 

 

 

sfcfran

Showing 7 responses by newbee

newbee
4,751 posts
 

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
4,751 posts
 

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. :-)

 

newbee
4,751 posts
 

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! :-)

newbee
4,751 posts
 

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? :-)

 

newbee
4,751 posts
 

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.

newbee
4,751 posts
 

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

newbee
4,751 posts
 

FWIW mattw73, the musicality must exist in the source. Then, if the audio set up is neutral, it should sound 'musical'.

I find the discussion between wolfe_garcia and phusis interesting. IMHO you can optomize live performances and you can optomize audio reproduction in the home but no matter the effort or expenditure you can't create a 'live performance' with audio equipment in your home. I'm not sure if you can really get close. Not even with solo acoustic instruments let alone large groups. Perhaps especially with small groups or solo instruments - my reference for live vs home was Sharon Isbin in a medium sized, purpose built, recital hall playing (obviously) an acoustic guitar. The size of the sound was incredible! Nothing you could ever get at home. Great clarity even with soft notes. One off? 

More to discover