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

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.

@ghdprentice Thank you! I’ve done all of what you suggested, also for about 4 decades. I’ve also noticed the change of meaning in terms over those decades, including neutral and warm. I agree with you spot on, about the change of the term ’warm’. Part of my confusion, and my ability to notice different meanings being ascribed to ’neutral’ is that it used to be used in a different way, going back to the 70s and 80s, then it seems to be used in more recent times.

’Neutral’, without a shred of doubt in my mind, used to mean (in the audio world), a highly aspiring lofty, yet unattainable goal, of anechonically perfectly flat between what comes out of the speaker, relative to what is coming out of the audio source (CD, vinyl, radio signal, etc.). Now it does seem to often be used, as you stated, to mean flat in sound, without emphasis, regardless of the signal coming from the source audio component.

Yet to be certain of that, and to bring clarity to myself and all, I created this post. I’m loving the discussion and input going on here, and I think it makes my point, that we all interpret it differently, which means when a pro-reviewer tells us how wonderfully neutral a speaker is, we all are receiving that to mean something different, which impacts our auditioning and buying decisions.

Based on the way this thread is going, I’m finding it unfortunate that @newbee seems to be correct in his assertion that the term ’neutral’, along with many other terms we commonly use, are subjective.  In my mind, they should only be subjective as to what extent we hear things when auditioning, but not subjective to the definition of what those things mean when we speak about them.  Perhaps I wish too much for a perfect world.

If someone with some umpa in the community, like Steve Hoffman, were to publish a pamphlet of subjective definitions, I think the audiophile community might just gulp it up, and it would benefit the hobby on the whole. Oh man...lets please not get into a discussion about whether or not I am right about that. lol.

@erik_squires You are correct ... no one has a sound like the master recording. I chose my wording poorly in that regard. Better stated would have been to say, the source recording of what was being played, ie, SACD, LP, Radio, etc.

@newbee lol...seems we both hit the same exact thought of needing a manual of terminology guidelines from a recognized and commonly acceptable authority in the industry. I nominate Steve Hoffman. Any one here have access to Steve’s ear?  I used too, but was silly enough to let it slip away a long time ago.

@jeffseight   Seems at least 3 of us have the parallel thought that the industry needs an encyclopedia of its own to guide the use of how terms are used, and their intended meaning.  I'd say if 3 of us have voiced that here (inlcuding @newbee ), there are several that have the same thought, here alone, that haven't voiced it, which means it is actually a prevalent thought in the community.  If not a prevalent thought, I'll be bold enough to say it is a prevalent need.  But to have someone with the reach, expertise, and common respect of the community at large, to push such a publications, is the trick. 

Hmmmm ... I wonder ... what if we create something as you suggest, and then push it out on the various forums, and to certain people in the industry, asking them to push it further?  Sounds like work.  Whose in?