2. speakers
  3. 138206-20253

Neutral or Detailed. You can't have both

At least not how I understand the audiophile terms. The problem comes in the mid-treble.

A truly, measurably, objectively neutral speakers doesn’t come alive until the volume is turned up, but will lack the perception of detail, because those details come from exaggerated and often rough treble responses.

B&W however has some of this reputation. They are not objectively neutral speakers.

The Magico S1 Mk II has an uptilt in the treble, but is glass smooth. It is probably what I consider the best example of this combined desire for a neutral but detailed speaker.

Monitor Audio’s top end speakers - Objectively neutral, superbly engineered. Often too laid back for most people, Audiophiles would not consider them "detailed."

As always, you should buy what you like. Maybe you don’t like neutral speakers. Goodness knows some reviewers don’t.
erik_squires
erik_squires OP
16,186 posts
 
Nonoise:

Same. :) What speakers are you talking about? 


prof
3,474 posts
 
erik,

To be clear:  My argument was a sort of "in principle" argument.   My example was using real life sounds as the stand in for "neutrality."   An acoustic guitar played life is, in this sense, experiencing a "perfectly neutral" sound, in the sense no additional artificial distortions are being added by anything.   It's an ideal of what a truly "neutral" system could re-create, which suggests neutrality is not in opposition to experiencing fine detail at low sound levels.   So, in principle, "detailed sound" and "low levels" are not at odds.

I hope that is more clear.

(Though they *are* at odds in some psychoacoustical sense, insofar as our hearing apparently perceives more detail/higher end detail as sound gets louder.  But even granting this, I can still experience a finer sense of detail at low sound volumes from real life sounds, vs through most speakers).

As to real world examples, I'm not sure I would be able to come up with any that satisfy you.   I do remember the Waveform Mach Solo speakers retained a satisfying sense of detail at low volume levels, as do a pair of Waveform Mach MC (egg head unit) monitors I still own.

Some measurements for the Mach Solo here:

http://www.audio-ideas.com/reviews/loudspeakers/waveform_mach_solo.html

My bigger Thiel 3.7s also seemed to retain fine detail at lower levels.

Monitor audio speakers I auditioned a while back, too.

I'm not sure if there are really very many speakers out there that everyone could agree on (even speaker designers/enthusiasts) as being "totally neutral."  It seems there is always some departure from neutral that can be found in measurements, that someone will point to.




michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio
1,019 posts
 

Hi Erik

Can I change the word neutral to natural?

Michael Green

jon_5912
605 posts
 
I've thought about this and I mostly agree.  Most musical instruments are fairly loud and most recordings are made with microphones fairly close.  It makes sense that a speaker that is neutral would have the full detail of the instrument when played at the same volume as the instrument.  If listened to at a much lower volume a lot of the detail will become inaudible.  I definitely think some speakers manage to retain detail at lower volumes better than others.  I don't know what the factors are.  I suspect low mass, stiff drivers are better at making small transients audible.  

I have two systems, one with Thiel 3.7s and another with ATC 110s and I love them both but they're distinctly different in that the Thiels are better at low volume while the ATCs excel when cranked.  The ATCs sound boring at low volume but they are capable of far larger dynamic swings.  
douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 

Neutrality (timbre/coloration) and detail/definition are independently on two axes, and it is a categorical mistake to think that one can dictate the other. Imo, you do not understand the audiophile terms.  :)




More to discover