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

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.

@wolf_garcia --

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..

@frogman --

Well put!

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.

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?