The Use of the Word "Neutral" in Audio

Michael Fremer on neutrality. Quoted from from his Stereophile Momentum preamplifier review.

I wrote in my review about hearing the Momentum amps a few years before, at a Consumer Electronics Show, driving a pair of original Wilson Sashas. (...) "The overall result," I continued, "was the production of an all-enveloping 'sonic aether' in which all of the notes swam with equal ease and at just the right time. In short, I heard at home precisely what I'd heard through the Wilson Sashas at CES: pretty much nothing. Or everything." (...)
However, now that I have more listening time under my belt, I won't call the Momentum preamp's sound "pretty much nothing." Because what I heard when I walked into that AXPONA room was a familiar sound. When we think we're hearing "nothing" or "neutrality," we're kidding ourselves. Every audio system produces a distinctive "sound" of one sort or another. The great ones produce a sound that's so coherent from top to bottom that it dissolves almost instantly beneath the music, and so does disappear. The more "distinctive" systems have a sonic signature that never submerges and remains an obvious coloration, though one some ears might appreciate.
 
Interpretation can be a funny thing. For example:

The other day, I fired off an e-mail to a Serbian manufacturer. The purpose of this e-mail was to summarize my impressions of the three products that were sent to me for review. When it came time to summarize the performance of their most expensive offering, I mentioned how linear sounding it was. Hours later, I received this response:

"As music lovers and as audiophiles, we are surprised that you feel this way about (said product). We believe that it's more accurate than our less expensive offerings. We strive to offer the truth!"

OK. So that's not a direct quote. I paraphrased that a little. Still, I was nonetheless caught off guard by their response. I was literally staring at the screen with my head tilted sideways going "Huh"? Clearly something was lost in translation. So I fired off a few more e-mails in an effort to figure out what the problem was. As it turns out, it was an interpretation issue. They associate the word 'linear' as something that's hugely colored sounding. They also felt 'neutral' was something that people use to describe a rather thin and lifeless sound. Well, f*** me then. I decided that it was best to use non-audiophile descriptors from that point moving forward.

Anyways, it's funny how interpretation works. I used to think that the common "warm" and "forward" designations were universally understood - but now I'm not so sure. All I know is that to me, 'neutrality' is something of a concept. One that's well worth striving for. It's embodies the age-old notion of creating a component that neither adds or detracts from an electronic signal. Executed perfectly, the component would be completely transparent. The funny thing is that I know a guy who thinks his gear does exactly that (mostly because his $fancy$ equipment tells him so) - but I guess that's a whole different subject in and of itself. :D
 
mep said:
Say what?
Click to expand...
"The Fletcher–Munson curves are one of many sets of equal-loudness contour for the human ear, determined experimentally by Harvey Fletcher and Wilden A. Munson, and reported in a 1933 paper entitled "Loudness, its definition, measurement and calculation" in the Journal of the Acoustic Society of America" [Wiki source]

Basically, these state that:
1. For a given (measured) SPL the subjective loudness is greater in the midrange than in the bass or treble ranges.
2. These differences are larger at low SPLs and smaller at high SPLs, meaning that our hearing becomes more linear as the volume increases.

Results:
a) There is only one "proper" SPL (actually, a narrow range) at which the recording sounds as intended.
b) The "loudness" (also called "contour") filter of older HiFi amps was used to compensate exactly this, by boosting bass and treble at low volumes.
c) If someone listens to Led Zeppelin at 70dB peak he will need a very "colored" system (or an appointment with the shrink).
 
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.
 
Yes I know what you said! However, by stating
mep said:
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."
Click to expand...
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.
 
iosiP said:
...In other words, a neutral component is one that reproduces exactly what was recorded, not more and (certainly) not less.
Click to expand...
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.
 
iosiP said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
mep said:
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.
Click to expand...
I do agree, completely! The war was started long ago when some manufacturers used excessive negative feedback and other dirty tricks to get "perfect" measurements (usually done under static conditions). Unfortunalety, the (over)reaction was to get rid of most procedures ensuring linearity and just state "the key is the sound, and damn the measurements".
I'm not in any camp: I think that the first thing to do is determine which measurements have an influence on the percieved sound and starting with which values this influence becomes audible. And then proceed...

P.S. Halcro amps measured below what Stereophile's test system was able to display, and yet the company went belly-up. And no, it wasn't for the price but for the sound - I listened to a pair of monoblocks and they played plenty of signal but only little music. OTOH you wouldn't catch me listen to Zanden - if I want a distortion generator I'll buy a professional one, at least I can set it properly.
 
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.
 
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
 
Mike, I do agree with BlueFox
BlueFox said:
Semantics. In my mind, "neutral" is the same as "accurate". What comes out is the same as what went in.
Click to expand...
There 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.
 
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
 
Mike said:
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
Click to expand...

But I think we can identify what a sax, guitar or say a violin doesn't sound like.
 
Mike said:
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
Click to expand...

What about day a Dave Wilson, Mark Levinson or Keith Johnson that use their own recordings to judge their own - or other manufacturers - designs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top