Neutral or Detailed. You can't have both

Neutral and detailed comes together,when you have  both: a neutral amplifier ( like Esoteric f- 03, f-05, datzeel, d’agostino.....) and a good (neutral) pair of speakers ( Audio Monitor PL., Ilumnia Magister,....)If you listen ,to a bad recording,it sounds bad. A good one ,good. Neutral means:”how the sound really is, each instrument on the right place,neutral means also holographic and to the point. If it is neutral, means :it’s also detailed. For me, a lot of speakers like  B&W ,Y.G. ..are not neutral. They overflow the music. There is no right sinergy, between  ,high mid, and low. If you put a bad recording on it,it sounds stil good: this isn’t neutral ,let alone detailed sound. Why? :the Instruments do not sound the way they really should sound. I have now 6000 cd’s,my player is a Luxman sacd-D-06. He is very neutral. From the 6000,they are maybe 1000 that sounds very good. Many others too sharp or deep, and a large number not to hear. In high-end ,both ( neutral and detailed) come together.

It’s like a photo of you. If you take this with a normal camera, you  Will look good, no Winklers....you take one with a sophisticated one, you see all the details: wrinkles,how you really look,you look older ( not as you really want)...that’s the same with music. Enjoy it!!!

There seems to be two definitions of “neutrality” here. Some are saying it’s timber and coloration and others say it’s frequency spectrum, i.e. flat or tilted up lower treble, etc... 
I always though it was freq related and timber/coloration would fall under “natural” or lack there of. 
Cant the “natural” sounding tone, timbre or possible coloration of an reproduced instrument be separate from the even/flat or tilted freq spectrum? 
‘I’ve heard speakers that seem to have a good balanced freq response (neutral), but had a coloration, meaning the instruments did not sound as ‘natural’ to me. 
Am I mistaken? 

I always thought of "natural" as a broader more inclusive term. But, I've seen "neutrality" defined as both the "coloration/timbre" thing and also as the "bright/dark" or "warm/cool" thing. Maybe we do just have to sorta be more careful about what we each mean by it.

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.

...

It’s pretty obvious to me poster @erik_squires is referring to frequency response in the "upper regions" here, and that bringing in "naturalness" in regards to tonality is irrelevant.

From that outset I’m inclined, at least partially, to side with the OP on the matter proposed. From my chair most domestic speakers are dialed "hot" in the treble (and lower frequencies as well), or at least their frequency balance is perceived that way which may also be rooted in the upper bass/lower midrange in particular, where a leanness or lack of energy is not uncommon.

What could be some of the main reasons for what appears to be an intentional trebly focus in audiophile setups? Compared to a live acoustic musical event most home hifi systems don’t come close to replicating the dynamics, their range and overall sheer impact and volume level found here, and so perhaps some compensation for "detail loss" at lower SPL’s in the domestic reproduction is sought to retrieve information or a sense of aliveness, which could translate into a tilted-up treble - and boosted lower frequencies. A loudness effect, if you may.

Or perhaps "detail" as mostly associated with hifi/highend setups is a (bi-)product not really found in the same way in a live acoustic performance, and is instead something that has been cultivated into a desirable trait here. This is also saying that audiophiles at large may not really desire or pursue the imprinting of a live acoustic event as a reference for their home setups, and that High Fidelity has grown into a sonic entity and characteristic of its (closed) own, more or less; indeed, whatever pleases this or that individual (far more than that we really perceive sound differently, which seems like an excuse to justify "subjectivity"). Thinking about it that’s certainly not a far fetched scenario..

Perhaps some food for thought would be thinking about how the very low frequencies affect how we perceive high frequencies. Most home speakers don’t approach 20Hz, let alone forcefully, and yet the frequency area from 20-40Hz, when properly reproduced, affects those upper regions in ways that lend more substance, freedom and authenticity to them. Again, some treble compensation could be at play, but this time around to ameliorate lost LF-reproduction (in typical setups) and its effects mentioned, unbeknownst the link may be.

I’ve found horn speakers to come alive at lower volumes more convincingly than direct radiating speakers, as if their overall presentation is more readily "ignited" and easy-flowing. Although the reasons for this can be speculated into and hotly debated, the effect to my mind is rather obvious still.

I guess what I’m hinting at, and where I may differ in opinion with the OP, is that I find you can have your cake and eat it too - that is: a neutral speaker can come alive at lower SPL’s and be perfectly informative as befits a rather authentic reproduction. Whether that really speaks to the ears of others is another matter, but each to their own (p)reference.