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

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

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!

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.

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?

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.