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

@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. 

@wolf_garcia wrote:

"each and every live acoustic event is more or less "holy" in and of itself"...even when they sound bad? I’m not a religious person but maybe I should be to understand the "Holliness" of events, but some sound better than others, and to use them as a standard reference is silly

Seems to me you're missing the point. I mean, what's the alternative? By "holy" I meant to say that each venue/performance is what it is, and uniquely so; if there's a venue one doesn't like and it's a general tendency, don't go there, but that's not to say there aren't great live performances and experiences to be had, nor that one mayn't be inspired by them fiddling with the home stereo. 

My primary live ref. is the acoustic one, and I don't attend concerts with shitty acoustics and/or musicians/orchestras. The local venues in my area provide excellent reference points if nothing else for what they are in themselves and the experience they offer, rather than necessarily being a reference to emulate via one's home stereo. That is, listening to a live symphony orchestra or choir/organ church concert can be an overwhelming experience without its - by miles - domestically reproduced equal.

Still, going by the fact that a reproduced approximation can be had of a live acoustic event - and not least that it can be approached more readily and effectively in scale, scope and overall authenticity with the right choices of gear and acoustics - it's not a project in vain. It's just setting out to do so and be ready to accommodate what's required (and it's less a monetary factor than others), which also involves having the dedicated (oftentimes larger) space and being willing to adhere to physics and the large and more efficient speakers it requires. If on the other hand it's not important or feasible to you (for a variety of reasons, perhaps) or your experience is different in this regard, cool, to each their own. I for example need an even bigger space to get closer to a live acoustic goal in particular, but hopefully that's to be realized down the road. 

I don’t think anybody really wants to "replicate small venues" as much as simply enjoy well recorded things such as those engineered by old mister Scheiner. Some musicians really shine in live performances and simply cannot get the mojo from a live show onto their recordings. Very common in the "unpopular music business" that I’m very familiar with so there’s that.

This ties into what I wrote above, and I partially agree, except that with the proper gear one can certainly instill the feel of a live amplified (or acoustic for that matter) performance from smaller venues.  

I saw a fave, Brad Mehldau, doing an unamplified show of his Bach-like stuff in Cambridge someplace and although he played brilliantly, you couldn’t really hear it well from our seats, and those seats weren't bad...bummer...a poorly attended unamplified Vijay Iyer show later at a more acoustically vibrant theater was astonishing good and I could hear every note...which is the reference? Neither. For the most part Vijay's recordings are free from the aforementioned "acoustic signatures and anomalies from myriad reflections and time and phase realities" and generally sound fabulous.

It appears you just don't dig live acoustic performances, even the ones you deem "astonishing good." Look, what you perceive as imperfections of even a great live acoustic concert with its "acoustic signatures and anomalies from myriad reflections and time and phase realities" (our go-to quote as is), I simply hold as the very signature and inherent traits of the same. Essentially, you seem to want to turn an acoustic performance into something else than what it is, to what is more akin to a studio recording - at least that's my assessment. 

@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.

@wolf_garcia wrote:

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.

What’s the nature of those live events mentioned that’re the basis of the "better standard" - amplified? If so then a lot can be up in the air and which "rendering" is preferred here. A live amplified concert - depending on the sound mixer, the specific setup/gear and surroundings - can be anything from downright miserable to ecstatic for what it is.

There are large venues and smaller dittos, and the sheer wallop, energy, physical impact and loudness from a live amplified large venue concert is a vital signature in itself and not something easily replicated (as an approximation, that is) in a typical home setting with a given recorded "interpretation," for a variety of obvious reasons. Maybe because of this any effort of replicating such a live event mayn’t be desirable either, which I find very understandable. Smaller venues would be easier to resemble in their sonic nature in a home setting, but you would still need a seriously capable setup with high efficiency speakers and ample displacement.

Whatever the nature of the recording it would deter somewhat from the live amplified event (even if the event was recorded live and released as such), being a very different sonic expression with a home milieu recipient in mind. Where very well mixed/geared live amplified events go I’d be inclined to favor those over any recording of the same music, just as I would prefer a recording that’s something onto itself rather than any sought replication of a live ditto, or a recording of the same.

Live acoustic music has acoustic signatures and anomalies from myriad reflections and time and phase realities, all interdependent and only becoming a reality at the moment it reaches your ears.

A live acoustic event is formed as such in what’s usually a very dedicated environment, and every aspect of the acoustic influence here, to me, is an intentional/inescapable act of its presentation and wholly engrained in it. One might prefer an orchestra or symphony hall over the over, fair enough, but each and every live acoustic event is more or less "holy" in and of itself, and that’s what I would aspire to replicate in any broadly outlined sonic form or shape. The given acoustic signature of such an event isn’t "anomalies from myriad reflections and time and phase realities," it’s simply the very signature of the event itself for what it is.

@frogman --

Well stated. 

@wolf_garcia --

I don’t know what planet you’re on, but you don’t seem to comprehend the very basic premise of what I’m trying to explain here with regard to "reference" - your 50 years of experience be damned. Emulating the live amplified sound feel of a performance from a smaller venue, even with a recording that hasn’t sought to "replicate" it as such, is perfectly viable with the proper range of speakers in particular. Holding the live event as a reference here is what referring to "live feel" is about; in seeking to attain the dynamic wallop, in-room presence and overall tonality of the instruments/voices at hand. It doesn’t mean replicating the event to detail, but simply that aspects of what makes a live event live in its sound are fairly authentically realized.

As to live acoustic concerts, here is what you wrote earlier:

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.

Why do you refer to an acoustic concert with "room tainted sound, which is unnatural and a form of amplification"? How is it unnatural? Seems to me you’re speaking of imperfections here. And why then do you go on with this in your latest post:

There’s a marked difference between thinking things are imperfections and knowing they’re realities. "acoustic signatures and anomalies from myriad reflections and time and phase realities" are simply what happens in live events...they don’t bother me in the least as it’s part of the charm of live music.

So now the live acoustic event is one of reality? Which is it? I agree with your quoted paragraph just above, but it certainly doesn’t comply with your earlier ditto which I based my earlier posts on.

The "reference" issue is what seems lame to me because it’s so utterly varied, as it should be. I don’t require that shows sound like recordings as that’s simply ridiculous, I simply will continue to wonder about the endless claims of references to the "Absolute Sound" of live as being the goal of recordings...recording arts are simply attempting to make things sound great. An example is the brilliant Bach Trios album by Yo Yo Ma, Edgar Meyer, and Chris Thile...recorded at James Taylor’s home studio, this likely would kill as a live performance, but by carefully recording these guys with modern recording techniques you get a sound unavailable as a live event...not better than being at a live event, but as good as it gets for recording music which is sort of what one wants.

Sometimes it’s easier sitting face to face and getting an understanding of one another. I do see where you going at, but generally I hold live performances in higher esteem than a reproduced counterpart - certainly acoustic live concerts. And I believe I’ve now made myself clear in regards to a live reference..

@frogman --

Well put!