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

“Neutral” is up there with “accurate” as the most misused terms in audio. Les McCaan, indeed; compared to what?

Some misuse the two terms to describe a sound that, to me, is lean, too bright and often bleached out. The.terms should be used to describe a component that neither adds nor subtracts anything from the signal as it passes through it on the way to the next component in the system, or, in the case of speakers, to the listener’s ears. As has been pointed out, true neutrality, or accuracy, are very lofty goals and ultimately unattainable since every component alters the signal to some degree. However, some components do an infinitely better job than others of preserving signal integrity.

The sound of live acoustic (not amplified) instruments and voice have a lot of natural color and warmth. Their sound is not colorless (bleached) which is what many think a “neutral” sound is. It is not true that the sound of live acoustic music cannot be used as a reference for judging the sound of a component. The key is to think in terms of degree of electronic signature that the component adds. The sound of live acoustic music has zero electronic signature, The component that adds less electronic signature to the sound can be said be closer to neutral than the component that adds more electronic signature. With recordings of electronic (amplified) instruments all bets are off.

Live acoustic music has acoustic signatures and anomalies from myriad reflections and time and phase realities, all interdependent and only becoming a reality at the moment it reaches your ears. 

@wolf_garcia wrote:

Over 5 plus decades I’ve mixed many live concerts, performed both as a solo player and as part of live bands, done studio work for my own stuff and commercial recording gigs, own my own studio...blah blah blah...none of which makes my opinion more valid, but it does indicate where I’m coming from. Note that I prefer non "treated" listening spaces (containing furniture, books, carpets, fake and real plants, hysterical groupies) as I like some "room sound," and I prefer tubes and horn speakers mostly because they sound more like musicians playing for my ears. My relatively new Pass XA-25 (non tube but still...man...) is designed by a guy who likes his designs to be "musical" sounding regardless of specs, leading to that amp being held in very high regard by some picky listeners. Like me. I’ve been to some great concert venues for a wide variety of music and rarely think about the sound unless something’s wrong with it. Then I grumble later, or simply bail out. Great sound engineers I’ve known (like my former neighbor Elliot Scheiner) don’t intentionally produce recordings to a live standard, they go for something better than that. They really do, and guys like Scheiner actually get it.

What’s the nature of those live events mentioned that’re the basis of the "better standard" - amplified? If so then a lot can be up in the air and which "rendering" is preferred here. A live amplified concert - depending on the sound mixer, the specific setup/gear and surroundings - can be anything from downright miserable to ecstatic for what it is.

There are large venues and smaller dittos, and the sheer wallop, energy, physical impact and loudness from a live amplified large venue concert is a vital signature in itself and not something easily replicated (as an approximation, that is) in a typical home setting with a given recorded "interpretation," for a variety of obvious reasons. Maybe because of this any effort of replicating such a live event mayn’t be desirable either, which I find very understandable. Smaller venues would be easier to resemble in their sonic nature in a home setting, but you would still need a seriously capable setup with high efficiency speakers and ample displacement.

Whatever the nature of the recording it would deter somewhat from the live amplified event (even if the event was recorded live and released as such), being a very different sonic expression with a home milieu recipient in mind. Where very well mixed/geared live amplified events go I’d be inclined to favor those over any recording of the same music, just as I would prefer a recording that’s something onto itself rather than any sought replication of a live ditto, or a recording of the same.

Live acoustic music has acoustic signatures and anomalies from myriad reflections and time and phase realities, all interdependent and only becoming a reality at the moment it reaches your ears.

A live acoustic event is formed as such in what’s usually a very dedicated environment, and every aspect of the acoustic influence here, to me, is an intentional/inescapable act of its presentation and wholly engrained in it. One might prefer an orchestra or symphony hall over the over, fair enough, but each and every live acoustic event is more or less "holy" in and of itself, and that’s what I would aspire to replicate in any broadly outlined sonic form or shape. The given acoustic signature of such an event isn’t "anomalies from myriad reflections and time and phase realities," it’s simply the very signature of the event itself for what it is.

@frogman --

Well stated. 

Right back at you, phusis; great comments.

————

In case anyone is wondering about the significance of the reference to Les MacAnn by my favorite closet audiophile and uncompromising music lover, rok2id and myself: