This is an interesting discussion. It seems like there are two camps: the folks who believe that greater neutrality enhances naturalness, and those who believe that greater neutrality diminishes naturalness.
I take it that neutrality means something like the degree of absence of audible colorations. I take it that naturalness means something like what the real event sounded like. In other words, a system that is natural is one that reproduces, in the listening space, what things sounded like in the recording space. It seems to me that this meaning of naturalness is more or less what audiophiles mean by transparency. With that in mind, the difference of opinion on this thread can be understood as different answers to the following question:
Does greater neutrality result in greater transparency (i.e. "naturalness")?
I am one of the people who thinks that the answer to this question is Yes, but I recognize that there are good arguments on the other side. Many of those arguments were discussed at length in this thread.
I agree with Mapman here. IME, a system that is relatively free of audible colorations is often the one that is more likely to create, in the listening space, what things sounded like in the recording space. In other words, I believe that the more neutral a system sounds (all other things being equal), the more transparent (i.e. "natural") it will sound on the widest range of recordings.
And I agree with Mapman that the use of complementary" colorations to achieve a desired sound makes the system "recording-specific," since colorations that enhance one type of recording often detract from other types of recordings. Finally, I agree with Mapman that the use of complementary colorations increases the risk of getting on the equipment merry-go-round. To use another metaphor, the use of complementary colorations makes the system a house of cards, in that, when you change any element of the system, you can easily disrupt the delicate balance of colorations, making the system less resilient to component changes. IMO.
I agree with Onhwy61 here. I doubt the OPs system is particularly neutral, as a consequence of likelihood that his speakers, in their current position, are creating a presentation that is tonally unbalanced. If this is true, then that audible coloration (i.e. deviation from neutrality) could easily be the reason why the system does not sound transparent, i.e. "natural."
Bryon
I take it that neutrality means something like the degree of absence of audible colorations. I take it that naturalness means something like what the real event sounded like. In other words, a system that is natural is one that reproduces, in the listening space, what things sounded like in the recording space. It seems to me that this meaning of naturalness is more or less what audiophiles mean by transparency. With that in mind, the difference of opinion on this thread can be understood as different answers to the following question:
Does greater neutrality result in greater transparency (i.e. "naturalness")?
I am one of the people who thinks that the answer to this question is Yes, but I recognize that there are good arguments on the other side. Many of those arguments were discussed at length in this thread.
if the system is in fact "neutral", then you should get that live-like sound if that is how the recording was made.
If not, then you are attempting to correct for something you do not like in the recording with the system, and the results may be further off as well with other recordings.
Soon you are on a merry go round that never ends.
I agree with Mapman here. IME, a system that is relatively free of audible colorations is often the one that is more likely to create, in the listening space, what things sounded like in the recording space. In other words, I believe that the more neutral a system sounds (all other things being equal), the more transparent (i.e. "natural") it will sound on the widest range of recordings.
And I agree with Mapman that the use of complementary" colorations to achieve a desired sound makes the system "recording-specific," since colorations that enhance one type of recording often detract from other types of recordings. Finally, I agree with Mapman that the use of complementary colorations increases the risk of getting on the equipment merry-go-round. To use another metaphor, the use of complementary colorations makes the system a house of cards, in that, when you change any element of the system, you can easily disrupt the delicate balance of colorations, making the system less resilient to component changes. IMO.
I can't imagine that the your system in the room you describe sounds neutral or natural. There's no way the Thiels can produce adequate bass or lower midrange to properly pressurize that room. I suspect what you hear is way too much upper midrange/treble info.
I agree with Onhwy61 here. I doubt the OPs system is particularly neutral, as a consequence of likelihood that his speakers, in their current position, are creating a presentation that is tonally unbalanced. If this is true, then that audible coloration (i.e. deviation from neutrality) could easily be the reason why the system does not sound transparent, i.e. "natural."
Bryon