@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.
|
@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?
|
@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 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.
|
@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.
|
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.
|
@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.
|
@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.
|
@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.
|
@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.
|
@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.
|
