Neutral or warm? Which do you prefer?

On a good recording, if the performance sounds "accurate and natural", I find it usually means that the system has a "neutral" tonal balance, that is, it does not emphasize one frequency over another.

05-29-13: Rsimms
Neither. Warm can sound muddy and neutral can sound weak and thin.

05-29-13: Peterayer
On a good recording, if the performance sounds "accurate and natural", I find it usually means that the system has a "neutral" tonal balance, that is, it does not emphasize one frequency over another.

You see....that is the problem with the word neutral, it is often misused. In this case, Peterayer has used the word neutral correctly, while Rsimms has used the same word incorrectly. If it sounds weak and thin, it has tilted up high frequency response, and is therefore, NOT neutral.

However, this is not uncommon on these forums. In fact, I find that more folks use the term neutral to mean tilted up highs that highlight the treble region for the sake of detail, than use it to describe a natural sounding system which emphasizes neither the highs or the lows.

I always thought the opposite of warm was cool.
What is wrong with a system being balanced or unbalanced ?
If it is unbalanced, that can mean either upward or downward.

You see....that is the problem with the word neutral, it is often misused. In this case, Peterayer has used the word neutral correctly, while Rsimms has used the same word incorrectly.

I use that term because when I listen to live acoustic music, it can sometimes sound weak and thin. If using neutral to say that speakers sound like live music is wrong then I don't understand.

Bob

"What is wrong with a system being balanced or unbalanced ?
If it is unbalanced, that can mean either upward or downward."

I agree, the word balanced is less open to interpertation.

So BALANCED is added to the list of words to be used insted of neutral.