Thread: The Use of the Word "Neutral" in Audio

I hardly know how to begin this thread because the word "neutral" as used in audio seems to have different connotations to different people. It can have a positive meaning and it can have a negative connotation. Some people might even think the term "neutral" has a pejorative aspect to it.

In an ideal state, I think the word "neutral" would mean that a component doesn't pass on colorations of its own and merely amplifies or reproduces the signal it's fed. Since that is a motherhood and apple pie statement, many people would stand up and salute that flag pole if it was only true. However, we all know that nothing is perfect in this world in general and audio in particular. Every single piece of gear has colorations and some more than others.

I'm beginning to wonder if some people are confusing "neutral" with a sound that I would describe as being bleached out. This is the sound of components that are "squeaky clean" sounding but yet are harmonically threadbare and don't offer much in the way of midbass punch (even if they do seem to get the bottom octave more or less correct) or have the proper midrange weight. But my oh my, they sure sound "clean" and to some I'm sure they sound "neutral." I think that Class D amps that are currently becoming the rage in some circles may be an example of what some would consider a bleached out sound while others would tell you how "neutral" they are. They are super quiet, they have rockem-sockem dynamics, and deep bass extension, but what are they missing?

But don't think that gutless neutrality is strictly the provenance of Class D amps in particular and SS in general. Mike talked about how the sound of VAC amps has changed as that company has pursued the holy grail of "neutrality." And VAC isn't the only tube company that has gone down this path.

I'm all for signal purity. I like a really well designed and built power supply that doesn't make noises that you can hear from your speakers which increases your S/N ratio. I don't want my gear to add hum or other extraneous noises to my signal and I shouldn't have to buy $50k worth of power line conditioning products to get there either. What I don't want is a sound that has been scrubbed squeaky clean at the expense of the music and what was actually recorded all in the name of "neutrality."

What say you?

I remember chatting with the owner/designer at LA Audio a year or two ago at one of the shows, I think it was CES. I was telling him what a relief it was to come into his room and hear such glorious, rich music. We talked about the topic of "neutrality" and he said to me something like "you know how you get neutrality? You stretch out the sound top and the bottom by sacrificing the middle, leaving you a thin, bland sound." He then looked at me like he was going to tell me a secret and said, "the magic is in the midrange and you lose that magic when you stretch out the sound to achieve neutrality."

My point is that absolute neutrality can never be achieved. Sources, speakers, cables, amps, preamps and even the room, will all add a certain "flavor" and unless you have the musicians sitting right beside you playing as you "voice" your particular product. How do you know how that Selmer Sax REALLY sounds? How do you know how that acoustic guitar REALLY sounds? Yes, the guitar will never sound like a piano, but you get my point. Absolute is absolute, and in this case will never, can never be achieved. At the end of the day, you can never achieve absolute systematic neutrality because something else will always add "flavor".

I don't know who started this "too much color", "coloration is bad, neutral is good" nonsense, but I do know JV is a big proponent of it.

Manufacturers shouldn't be striving for who can make the whitest, blandest tasting rice, but rather, who can make the most excitingly flavored, palatable rice.

Originally Posted by Mike

I remember chatting with the owner/designer at LA Audio a year or two ago at one of the shows, I think it was CES. I was telling him what a relief it was to come into his room and hear such glorious, rich music. We talked about the topic of "neutrality" and he said to me something like "you know how you get neutrality? You stretch out the sound top and the bottom by sacrificing the middle, leaving you a thin, bland sound." He then looked at me like he was going to tell me a secret and said, "the magic is in the midrange and you lose that magic when you stretch out the sound to achieve neutrality."

My point is that absolute neutrality can never be achieved. Sources, speakers, cables, amps, preamps and even the room, will all add a certain "flavor" and unless you have the musicians sitting right beside you playing as you "voice" your particular product. How do you know how that Selmer Sax REALLY sounds? How do you know how that acoustic guitar REALLY sounds? Yes, the guitar will never sound like a piano, but you get my point. Absolute is absolute, and in this case will never, can never be achieved. At the end of the day, you can never achieve absolute systematic neutrality because something else will always add "flavor".

I don't know who started this "too much color", "coloration is bad, neutral is good" nonsense, but I do know JV is a big proponent of it.

Manufacturers shouldn't be striving for who can make the whitest, blandest tasting rice, but rather, who can make the most excitingly flavored, palatable rice.

The question is not how the sax "really" sounds, but what's in the recording you're playing. Coloration (as the opposite of neutrality) is when all saxes, all instruments, all recordings sound somewhat the same. We can all quote speakers, amps and CD-players that make every recording sound the same.

Many audiophiles are after a given sound, one that they like for a reason or another (it goes well with the music they like, they have pleasant memories associated with it, something physiological...). I heard many "it's excellent but it's not my sound".

A transparent or neutral system is one on which different instruments, different recordings, will sound very different. So manufacturers sure shouldn't be trying to be bland, but some are striving to reproduce what's in the recording (and that is not the same thing as the real instrument) as faithfully as possible. This doesn't have to be the only measure of a system's quality, and it may even not matter to some people, but it has a precise meaning and reality.

The idea that this is just about spectral balance, about some response curve, seems short-sighted to me. If you want to throw in measurement, at least phase and rise time should be added for a start.

Long time ago I auditioned a pair of Dynaudio's. The dealer explained that these are beautiful, neutral transducers. Then I have listened to the most boring sound (ever?). Since that time both Dynaudio and the term neutral are not on top of my mind when I audition or look for improvement.

Originally Posted by Mike

I remember chatting with the owner/designer at LA Audio a year or two ago at one of the shows, I think it was CES. I was telling him what a relief it was to come into his room and hear such glorious, rich music. We talked about the topic of "neutrality" and he said to me something like "you know how you get neutrality? You stretch out the sound top and the bottom by sacrificing the middle, leaving you a thin, bland sound." He then looked at me like he was going to tell me a secret and said, "the magic is in the midrange and you lose that magic when you stretch out the sound to achieve neutrality."

My point is that absolute neutrality can never be achieved. Sources, speakers, cables, amps, preamps and even the room, will all add a certain "flavor" and unless you have the musicians sitting right beside you playing as you "voice" your particular product. How do you know how that Selmer Sax REALLY sounds? How do you know how that acoustic guitar REALLY sounds? Yes, the guitar will never sound like a piano, but you get my point. Absolute is absolute, and in this case will never, can never be achieved. At the end of the day, you can never achieve absolute systematic neutrality because something else will always add "flavor".

I don't know who started this "too much color", "coloration is bad, neutral is good" nonsense, but I do know JV is a big proponent of it.

Manufacturers shouldn't be striving for who can make the whitest, blandest tasting rice, but rather, who can make the most excitingly flavored, palatable rice.

This is exactly my point. I do think that some designers are creating an artificial sense of neutrality by doing that.

Originally Posted by Mike

I remember chatting with the owner/designer at LA Audio a year or two ago at one of the shows, I think it was CES. I was telling him what a relief it was to come into his room and hear such glorious, rich music. We talked about the topic of "neutrality" and he said to me something like "you know how you get neutrality? You stretch out the sound top and the bottom by sacrificing the middle, leaving you a thin, bland sound." He then looked at me like he was going to tell me a secret and said, "the magic is in the midrange and you lose that magic when you stretch out the sound to achieve neutrality."

My point is that absolute neutrality can never be achieved. Sources, speakers, cables, amps, preamps and even the room, will all add a certain "flavor" and unless you have the musicians sitting right beside you playing as you "voice" your particular product. How do you know how that Selmer Sax REALLY sounds? How do you know how that acoustic guitar REALLY sounds? Yes, the guitar will never sound like a piano, but you get my point. Absolute is absolute, and in this case will never, can never be achieved. At the end of the day, you can never achieve absolute systematic neutrality because something else will always add "flavor".

I don't know who started this "too much color", "coloration is bad, neutral is good" nonsense, but I do know JV is a big proponent of it.

Manufacturers shouldn't be striving for who can make the whitest, blandest tasting rice, but rather, who can make the most excitingly flavored, palatable rice.

Good post, Mike. The term "neutral" to me has always meant a generally flat frequency response across the entire audible frequency range. The term "transparent" to me has always meant true to (or the least deviation from) the original recording. One of the things that attracted me to the Revel Salon 2's was that it had one of the flattest frequency response curves that Stereophile ever measured for a full sized speaker. When I listened to the speakers the first time, what I noticed was that the bass, midrange and treble were neither too bright nor too recessed, just right in my opinion. So in this case neutrality was an aurally pleasing phenomenon for me, which was backed up by empirical measurements.

Best,
Ken

Neutral simply means free from coloration.

Coloration is the audible signature with which a reproducing system imbues all signals passing through it.

Just as one owns a unique handwritten signature - one also possesses a preferred sonic signature.

Philosophically many would claim to desire absolute neutrality (no signature) in audio reproduction. In reality, it is a claim for many that lasts as long as actually hearing it.....

Originally Posted by iosiP

Neutrality can be measured, at least for the electronic part of the reproducing chain. The electro-acoustical part is kind of more difficult to assess but not impossible.

Whether you like neutrality is a whole different story mostly linked to the Fletcher-Munson curves.

Say what?

Originally Posted by mep

I'm beginning to wonder if some people are confusing "neutral" with a sound that I would describe as being bleached out. This is the sound of components that are "squeaky clean" sounding but yet are harmonically threadbare and don't offer much in the way of midbass punch (even if they do seem to get the bottom octave more or less correct) or have the proper midrange weight. But my oh my, they sure sound "clean" and to some I'm sure they sound "neutral." I think that Class D amps that are currently becoming the rage in some circles may be an example of what some would consider a bleached out sound while others would tell you how "neutral" they are. They are super quiet, they have rockem-sockem dynamics, and deep bass extension, but what are they missing?

Agreed. I think today's "Neutral" is actually more colored than folks really think. The distortion/negative feedback has stripped out the harmonics.

But I also think some folks like what they traditionally would call "colored" as well- for example, 300B amps. I think there are limits to the second harmonic to my ears, but everyone is different. Nelson Pass' article on negative feedback said 30% of the audiophiles preferred 2nd harmonic and like 30% preferred 3rd. I might be in the ladder camp, so we each listen differently.

Originally Posted by KeithR

Agreed. I think today's "Neutral" is actually more colored than folks really think. The distortion/negative feedback has stripped out the harmonics.

Something has stripped out the harmonics which is why some gear sounds like there is no meat on the bones.

I think people also forget- music is warm by nature. Matt @ PPA told me this once and it has rang with me since.

Originally Posted by KeithR

I think people also forget- music is warm by nature. Matt @ PPA told me this once and it has rang with me since.

PPA?

And I agree with Matt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Alpinist

Good post, Mike. The term "neutral" to me has always meant a generally flat frequency response across the entire audible frequency range. The term "transparent" to me has always meant true to (or the least deviation from) the original recording. One of the things that attracted me to the Revel Salon 2's was that it had one of the flattest frequency response curves that Stereophile ever measured for a full sized speaker. When I listened to the speakers the first time, what I noticed was that the bass, midrange and treble were neither too bright nor too recessed, just right in my opinion. So in this case neutrality was an aurally pleasing phenomenon for me, which was backed up by empirical measurements.

Best,
Ken

Transparent is exactly what it sounds like.

From J. Gordon Holt's The Audio Glossary.
(1) a quality of sound reproduction which gives the impression one is listening through the system to the original sounds, rather than to a pair of loudspeakers. (2) freedom from veiling, texturing, or any other quality that tends to obscure the signal. A quality of crystalline clarity.

Me added. It's the ability on the best systems to clearly visualize in the minds eye, instruments or musicians located in the furthest reaches of the soundstage. It's also the ability to clearly visualize not only the back and side halls of the recording, but even the ceiling on the very best of the recorded art. It's the absence of a "smoke-like" murkiness that envelopes the soundstage and not only obscures the back of the soundstage but also the lateral and vertical spaces between performers.

My experience over the last couple of years is that there's an inverse relationship between the combined noise floor of the system (electronics, cables, sources, speakers, isolation, electricity-and even room acoustics (!)) and a system's transparency.

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

My experience over the last couple of years is that there's an inverse relationship between the combined noise floor of the system (electronics, cables, sources, speakers, isolation, electricity-and even room acoustics (!)) and a system's transparency.

I agree with your post above. But can you clarify what I quoted above? Are you saying that you feel a lower noise floor sounds less transparent? So a system with a 95db noise floor sounds more real than one with 133db?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by kev313

I want it to sound better than transparent. If I wanted transparent, I'd pay more attention to pro audio. I guess I'm an unapologetic colorationist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Transparency has nothing to do with coloration. They are totally separate entities.

And the Pro Audio gear that I've heard is no more and actually much less transparent than high-end audio equipment. Pro gear is basically about two things: dynamics and low end. The latter is particular important so there isn't any rumble or any other low frequency artifacts on the recording.

Originally Posted by Mike

I agree with your post above. But can you clarify what I quoted above? Are you saying that you feel a lower noise floor sounds less transparent? So a system with a 95db noise floor sounds more real than one with 133db?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If only it was that simple.

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

[...] My experience over the last couple of years is that there's an inverse relationship between the combined noise floor of the system (electronics, cables, sources, speakers, isolation, electricity-and even room acoustics (!)) and a system's transparency.

Say what?

While I can't argue with your observation, I can say this has not been my experience.

Noise obscures signal and you appear to be proposing that more noise equals greater transparency..

Originally Posted by kiwi_1282001

Say what?

While I can't argue with your observation, I can say this has not been my experience.

Noise obscures signal and you appear to be proposing that more noise equals greater transparency..

Huh where did I say that? Just the opposite. As the amount of noise in the system goes down, transparency goes up. That's inverse. And with that more shadings, subtleties, information, and less intranote smearing and noise between the notes.

Originally Posted by Mike

And I agree with Matt.

Matt @ Pitch Perfect Audio

Originally Posted by KeithR

Matt @ Pitch Perfect Audio

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

Huh where did I say that? Just the opposite. As the amount of noise in the system goes down, transparency goes up. That's inverse. And with that more shadings, subtleties, information, and less intranote smearing and noise between the notes.

OK and agreed. I read your reply to Mike as being something different.

Originally Posted by Mike

I agree with your post above. But can you clarify what I quoted above? Are you saying that you feel a lower noise floor sounds less transparent? So a system with a 95db noise floor sounds more real than one with 133db?

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

If only it was that simple.

I'm quite aware of the Fletcher Munson curve and the implications for audio as well as the applications for audio (think loudness switch). However, Fletcher Munson curves have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Bleached out sound stays bleached out no matter how loud you turn it up.

Something that sounds "bleached out" at a high volume may sound better at a much lower volume where the midrange becomes subjectively more prominent. I'm not saying that happens, but I think that is what iosiP means. That has to do with frequency response, whereas other theories mentioned above would tend to imply that as something (e.g. negative feedback) strips out some harmonic distortion it takes out the harmonics themselves along with the distortion.

Originally Posted by iosiP

Please define "bleached out sound".

I thought I did in my original post. If you need more clarification after reading it again, let me know.

Originally Posted by iosiP

...In other words, a neutral component is one that reproduces exactly what was recorded, not more and (certainly) not less.

That would be the ideal, which as yet appears unachievable. How "neutral" is currently used seems to be somewhat different, which I think is the point of this thread.

Originally Posted by iosiP

Yes I know what you said! However, by stating
you are not talking about neutrality since, by definition, neutrality cannot commit sins of omission, as well as not add anything to what was recorded. So to use your words, a neutral system (or component) cannot scrub anything off of what was actually recorded, or it won't qualify as being neutral.
In other words, a neutral component is one that reproduces exactly what was recorded, not more and (certainly) not less.

What I tried to convey was what some people refer to as "neutral" sounding gear is in fact not really neutral as it is shaving off information in order to give the auditory appearance of being super clean/distortion free.

I don't look at the term neutral as coloration because every piece of audio gear ever made imparts its own coloration or sound. If you want to make a system sound neutral then you should make a system that sounds exactly as a live band or as live music sounds. That to me that is lack of coloration and even then the environment affects the sound of live music. It is hard to reproduce because audio engineers use their own gear and mix the music to what sounds good to them and the musicians in most instances and not exactly what the actual live performance sounds like.

I tend to use neutral these days to describe a system as neither too warm or too bright.

As far as air and transparency is concerned, I like it but it does not describe live music in most settings. I go to a fair amount of live intimate concerts and I would never describe it as transparent.

I tend to like my music colored a bit. I like it on the warm side of "neutral" with a rich midrange and good air, transparency and a wide and deep sound stage.

In my experience,"neutral" can sometimes be another word for boring.

Anyway, do we really think the mics, mic preamps, cables, audio boards, and recording systems are "neutral"?

Or the studio monitor system is "neutral"?

Do violinists want a "neutral" violin?

So, IMO, "neutral" is still controlled by someone's taste, somewhere in the chain.

Semantics. In my mind, "neutral" is the same as "accurate". What comes out is the same as what went in.

Might I add that there can be no discussion if people can't even agree upon simple terminology.

Accurate- 1) ultimate objective of an ideal sound system, which everyone claims to want, but nobody likes when they have it; 2) The degree to which the output signal from an active device is perceived as replicating all the sonic qualities of the input signal

Neutral- descriptive of sound reproduction which is free from coloration.

Tonality/timbre-the recognizeable characteristic sound signature of a musical instrument, by which it is possible to tell an oboe from a flute when both are sounding the same note. Timbre is determined by a mixture of harmonics, transients and body sound from the instrument.

Coloration-an audible "signature" with which a reproducing system imbues all signals passing through it.

We'll never achieve perfection. To take Mike's example, a system that is neutral or uncolored should reproduce those differences. One might not know why, but a difference will be obvious. Just like listening to the individual "sound" of top jazz guitarists. They should sound more different than alike.

Francisco's post points to the fact that every designer imparts a little bit of what they think real music sounds like. Every piece of equipment has a sonic signature. It's just that the better the gear (or in the case of MF listening in an unfamiliar system), the longer that process takes. All give you a little different piece of the puzzle. D'Agostino will never be mistaken for Rowland that will never be mistaken for Mark Levinson. Same goes for cj vs. VAC vs ARC.

As far as Jim goes, I've never in all my years heard neutral sound boring. Lack of harmonics. Check. Lack of dynamic accents. Check. Lack of dynamics. Check. Not enough gain. Check. Neutrality? No check.

What if we looked at this from another angle. What if we were designing musical instruments. Let's take an acoustic guitar. Would we use a very plain Jane type of wood, like some laminate, which sounds "neutral" or would we be using exotic woods like Ash to get a rich tonality?

My point is that I believe the best gear has a flavor which the designer(s) believe adds to our overall listening pleasure.

Would someone prefer Audio Note, Conrad Johnson or Shindo over Wyred4Sound or some Class D amp?

Pick your flavor. Some will choose Vanilla, but others will pick Chocolate, Strawberry or something with rich flavors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In an ideal world yes, but it's unachievable because we can never really know the true sound, so, why not make your gear sound sweet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Mike

What if we looked at this from another angle. What if we were designing musical instruments. Let's take an acoustic guitar. Would we use a very plain Jane type of wood, like some laminate, which sounds "neutral" or would we be using exotic woods like Ash to get a rich tonality?

My point is that I believe the best gear has a flavor which the designer(s) believe adds to our overall listening pleasure.

Would someone prefer Audio Note, Conrad Johnson or Shindo over Wyred4Sound or some Class D amp?

Pick your flavor. Some will choose Vanilla, but others will pick Chocolate, Strawberry or something with rich flavors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But I think we can identify what a sax, guitar or say a violin doesn't sound like.

Originally Posted by Mike

In an ideal world yes, but it's unachievable because we can never really know the true sound, so, why not make your gear sound sweet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What about day a Dave Wilson, Mark Levinson or Keith Johnson that use their own recordings to judge their own - or other manufacturers - designs?

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

What about day a Dave Wilson, Mark Levinson or Keith Johnson that use their own recordings to judge their own - or other manufacturers - designs?

Yes, that gets you very close for sure. But rare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

But I think we can identify what a sax, guitar or say a violin doesn't sound like.

No argument there. But what kind of guitar? How did it REALLY sound? Since know is near impossible - make it sound beautiful and lush, not sterile and lifeless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Mike

No argument there. But what kind of guitar? How did it REALLY sound? Since know is near impossible - make it sound beautiful and lush, not sterile and lifeless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually the late Brian Cheney used to do an interesting experiment at CES. He'd bring in musicians, record them in the room and then switch back between the live and recorded event. The scary thing was how bad even high Rez DSD or PCM digital sounded next to the live event-even for a dynamically limited instrument like a guitar. Digital was so far away from what a real solo guitar sounded like in the room as to be ridiculous. No finesse, no nuances, truncated decay and so on.

I guess I'm jaded. I had an amp that sounded oh so beautiful. The same manufacturer today considers that "colored" and the new version of this amp just doesn't measure up IMO. It sounds bland and lifeless - so yeah, no color!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by iosiP

Mike, I do agree with BlueFoxThere is no "what went in" with a musical instrument, so artists have the chioce of sound. However, a stereo is a reproducing device, so it should not mess with the sound the artist decided to offer.

When I listen to Vivaldi interpreted by Carmignola (on a period instrument of his choice) and, at least presumably, mastered by someone who knows his business... well, I don't need the result to be "re-interpreted" by my Audio Note amplifier, nor do I need Mr. Johnson to decide that a Stradivarius should have some extra second order harmonics.

My issue is this- How do you really know what the musician was really going for? In a recording studio they use different electronics and speakers for play back as well as a different listening environment.

I tend to like a system that leans a little on the warmer and dark side. I listen to a lot of older music that was recorded too bright or poorly recorded/mastered. I find this coloration more forgiving and more pleasing to my ears. I am one of those guys who would love to have tone controls on a preamp just so I could turn down the treble on bright recordings to make them more listenable.

I am not necessarily after accurate sound, but I do want sound that fits my taste and pleasure. That's why I own the specific gear that I have, especially my Magnepans. And I assume that's why the rest of you guys and gals have the gear that you have.

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

Actually the late Brian Cheney used to do an interesting experiment at CES. He'd bring in musicians, record them in the room and then switch back between the live and recorded event. The scary thing was how bad even high Rez DSD or PCM digital sounded next to the live event-even for a dynamically limited instrument like a guitar. Digital was so far away from what a real solo guitar sounded like in the room as to be ridiculous. No finesse, no nuances, truncated decay and so on.

No recording and playback gear regardless of price can capture the intensity and dynamics of the sound(s) that we hear from instruments played live. If you don't believe this is true, hire a local drummer to come to your house and play for 30 minutes. After the drummer has blown your house down, go put on your best drum record and tell me how close you were to the live sound. You can do the same with a trumpet player in your room. Your system can't replicate the scale, dynamics, and intensity of a single person blowing into a horn live in your room. If you say it can, your either deaf or lying and I don't care if you have a seven-figure system as it really doesn't matter.

Now having given you a dose of reality, the best we can hope to achieve given the current state of the art is faux facsimile of live sound in our rooms. Obviously the better the system, the better the facsimile is. As good as it is and can be, it's just not the same as live musicians playing in your room.