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

@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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

it means the ability to show easily any change (not matter how small) before that.

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).

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

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.

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?

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? :-)

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.

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

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. 

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. :-)

We who? Count me out of caring.

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.

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?

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. :-)

@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.

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.

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.