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, glad you enjoyed my two cents' worth! Actually, there are some speakers that will allow you to hear everything on a recording, good, bad & not so good, without being uber accurate or neutral. Of course, this depends upon everything else in the chain of your audio system. I find the mark of good speakers is those that let you hear a recording as it was intended to be heard. Once reaching that point, one starts paying much more attention to the fine print on album covers and so forth (e.g. sound engineering; mixing; quality of the medium; production; etc.). The only (maybe) unfortunate by-product of this is that one starts replacing some of those less than sterling recordings with better ones.
**** What are the characteristics of a speaker that sounds Musical? ****
Another commonly misused term. “Musical”, or “musicality” is the purview of musicians, not electronic gear. Gear that does the best job of reproducing the musicians’ musicality, including their sound (tone) characteristics can be said to be the most accurate. That is the whole point of using the live acoustic experience as a reference.
As we all hear differently, and as the term neutral begs the question “neutral in relation to what?”, I don’t know that the question can ever be satisfyingly settled.
That said, the anecdotal answer that makes most sense to me is that your system is neutral when it is accurate enough that you can hear the characteristics specific to a recording’s engineering, the decisions that the recording engineer made, the room it was recorded in, the equipment it was recorded on, etc.
I am a cognitive psychologist and have spent most of my professional life measuring consumers'/users' perceptions of products. I use advanced psychometric techniques to measure multiple components of perception and correlate each one with various physical measures of products provided by designers and/or engineers. Such an analysis provides design requirements for perceptual experience. It's stimulus/response psychology at a fairly sophisticated level.
I am also an audio enthusiast and find two aspects of perceptual experience pertinent to issues of sound quality. One is that perceptual experience is not a single thing, but a composite of four underlying factors: a) Valence (negative vs positive), b) Potency (delicate vs strong), c) Arousal (relaxing vs stimulating), and d) Novelty (ordinary vs unique).
Another interesting thing is that each component of perception is bipolar. That is, perceptual experience varies between polar opposite extremes. Hence, perceptual neutrality is literally in the middle of the polar extremes, i.e., the zero cross-over point. Hence, perceptual neutrality is, indeed, bland.
It seems to me that a neutral audio system is not perceptually neutral, but one that passes an input signal through to output without changing it qualitatively. Whiule it is possible measure the perception of the sound coming out of an audio system using methods such as those alluded to above, how do you measure the perception of the input? You would have to have people listen to and rate the live performance as well. As statistical comparison of the two sets of data would then tell you if they were the same or not. I have used methods very much like this to compare products to one another, perceptually. One can get very precise data regarding perceived similarities and differences between systems this way.
The point I wish to make is that it is possible to precisely measure perceptions of multiple stimulus situations and compare them using statistics. The multivariate nature of perception means that the target for any given system will be a profile of perceptual measures that matches that of the stimulus situation one is attempting to reproduce. But, my personal preference might not be a veridical representation of some original stimulus situation. I might like the audio systems sound quality to depart from the original stimulus on one or more of the above perceptual factors. Indeed, only Valence has an obviously negative pole to e avoided. With the other three perceptual factors I am free to gravitate toward either pole even though it might not be an accurate reflection of the original source material. It's sort of like touching up a photograph to accentuate certain visual factors. I don't, personally, have a problem with that. You should just be clear what your goal.
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?
When I hear someone say a speaker is Neutral I'm expecting it to be balanced. That doesn't mean the drivers will always be tonally accurate to the instruments though. I am more interested in a descriptive term I saw in this thread that some use to describe speakers or amps. The term Musical. What are the characteristics of a speaker that sounds Musical?
Earlier ditto? What planet indeed. Some basics: A live show has actual musicians playing, which has a dynamic quality all its own and we all know that. Filmed ballet doesn’t cut it for me, but live does. My damned 50 years of experience has actually been a valuable thing, and I’ve spent my 10,000+ hours performing, working in studios, and mixing many hundreds of live shows learning something every hour. Recorded music is different so it has to strive for another standard which may or may not work...a preference for live music is great of course and keeps musicians making money, but recordings are what this forum is about unless you plan to hire musicians for home use. You can certainly be inspired by live tonal qualities of instruments, and develop a preference for dynamic gear (I have that preference...horn speakers, etc.), but claiming to know what an absolute "standard" is remains simply opinion.
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..
There are aspects of the whole of what a live music performance is that transcend “sound” as usually considered or defined by audiophile jargon. Some of these aspects do, of course, have to do with sound characteristics while others (for some listeners, even more importantly) have to do with the performer’s musical intent. Sure, it is always ideal to hear a performance in the best possible acoustic. However, this is often not the case. So, are we to sit through a fantastic performance by a great artist, the entire time annoyed that the sound of the venue is not great? What a loss! What about the beautiful phrasing, or the gorgeous tone that no venue short of your bathroom might destroy. I have yet to attend a live performance of acoustic music that has caused me to want to run out of the room. A terrible performance may illicit that reaction, but never the sound of the venue with its unique sonic traits, including its problems. I cannot say the same for amplified performances. Of course, the listener needs to be able, or be willing to suspend our usual audiophile expectations. These expectations can be distractions from the music and unfortunately, for some they can be a deal breaker. I like phusis’ qualifier for acceptance of a venue’s sound “for what they are in themselves” when speaking about a venue with acoustics that are less than what any one of us considers ideal.
There are traits in the sound of acoustic instruments and voice that transcend the venue. They are nuances of timbre, texture and dynamic shading that only are available to be heard in their fullest expression from the live acoustic experience; even accounting for whatever damage the less than ideal acoustic of a venue may cause. These nuances haven’t been distorted by the electronics of the record/reproduce process. I would argue that any reasonably decent venue allows more of these to be heard than even the best audio systems . This is why the sound of live acoustic music can be and is the best “standard”. I can sit at the bar in the back of The Village Vanguard with its poor acoustics and even with the constant din of talking and tinkling of drinking glasses and listen to an acoustic Jazz trio or quartet or….and hear a certain purity of timbral texture and immediacy of musical intent that NO recording can match. Perfect? Of course not, but this why a great musical performance can be very enjoyable no matter the quality of the venue’s sound
What is the alternative, to simply put together a sound system with a sound that we like as the only standard? Sure, why not? That is what many claim is the only way in spite of the fact that, like the varied sound of venues, there are practically endless variations of “sound that we like”. So, then, what is the problem with aiming for a sound that, in at least a particular listener’s world and on balance, sounds as close as possible to that listener’s experience of the sound of live acoustic. Lame? I don’t think so; just the opposite.
"It appears you just don't dig live acoustic performances." It appears you don't comprehend much of what I've said, including the fact that live acoustic performances have been my life for decades. Why would I "not dig" Vijay Iyer's performance? I raved about it for months and I consider it a highlight of my lifetime of attending live shows. 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. 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.
"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.
"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. 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. 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. The recent Tyshawn Sorrey, Linda Han Oh, Vijay Iyer album makes my point, a point possibly lost on some here. Recordings that could take into account the disparate listening experiences of everyone are unobtainium, and that's fine with me.
In case anyone is wondering about the significance of the reference to Les MacAnn by my favorite closet audiophile and uncompromising music lover, rok2id and myself:
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.
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.
“Neutral” is up there with “accurate” as the most misused terms in audio. Les McCaan, indeed; compared to what?
Some misuse the two terms to describe a sound that, to me, is lean, too bright and often bleached out. The.terms should be used to describe a component that neither adds nor subtracts anything from the signal as it passes through it on the way to the next component in the system, or, in the case of speakers, to the listener’s ears. As has been pointed out, true neutrality, or accuracy, are very lofty goals and ultimately unattainable since every component alters the signal to some degree. However, some components do an infinitely better job than others of preserving signal integrity.
The sound of live acoustic (not amplified) instruments and voice have a lot of natural color and warmth. Their sound is not colorless (bleached) which is what many think a “neutral” sound is. It is not true that the sound of live acoustic music cannot be used as a reference for judging the sound of a component. The key is to think in terms of degree of electronic signature that the component adds. The sound of live acoustic music has zero electronic signature, The component that adds less electronic signature to the sound can be said be closer to neutral than the component that adds more electronic signature. With recordings of electronic (amplified) instruments all bets are off.
As is said language is a living thing. I remember being perplexed on a problem at a meeting not that long ago an said, “I’d have to noodle on it”. This was followed by shrieks of laughter by the 20/30 year olds. Well, us old farts use the term as an expression to “think about”… the new definition is a flaccid sex act… terminology changes.
In one of my previous lives I was doing some home nursing for a college age kid, & he & one of his friends were talking about the new color scheme for some college team’s football uniforms, & his friend said that they "were sick."
For the longest time I thought that meant he didn’t like them.
Your post made me think of that. How right you are.
We know that no system sounds 'live', and since we have no idea what the live event sounded like while being recorded, and we were not in the control room during the 'messing with'......???
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I am happy that we share observations over time.
As is said language is a living thing. I remember being perplexed on a problem at a meeting not that long ago an said, “I’d have to noodle on it”. This was followed by shrieks of laughter by the 20/30 year olds. Well, us old farts use the term as an expression to “think about”… the new definition is a flaccid sex act… terminology changes.
But honestly. This is a very multifaceted issue.
One driver of the problem is education and experience. Audiogon has a collection of people with a vastly diverse background in audio… from knowing virtually nothing to fifty year dedicated hobbiests.
Another is that technology has truly changed… tube stuff converged on neutral as did solid state from opposite sides of the tonal spectrum. So, old terms stuck and got conflated.
If you go to the Audio Afficianado forum where, in general, the average user is very serious and has +35 years of experience and probably an average cost of system is over $100K, the definitions much more closely conform to the general accepted terminology of Bob Harley’s book The Complete Guide to High End Audio or the Stereophile Glossary I shared. Why? More homogeneous and highly experienced user group.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
@newbeeYep, 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.
@oldaudiophileWonderfully 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.
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.
@erik_squiresIf 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.
@jeffseightAwesome! 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.
@scowler1You 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.
@lanx0003Loving 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.
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.
@jeffseightSeems 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?
@newbeelol...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.
@erik_squiresYou 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.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
