Neutral or Detailed. You can't have both

I disagree with a couple of the premises. Particularly:
" objectively neutral speakers doesn’t come alive until the volume is turned up, but will lack the perception of detail, because those details come from exaggerated and often rough treble responses.""
Now I am crazy about treble, and clarity which is lots and lots of tiny detail, particularly in the treble.
I would say the details comes from LOSING the roughness in the treble. My experience has been only annoying treble, rough treble is what bothers folks. the moment the treble roughness, grunge, distortion is SOLVED, the same level of loudness that before was so annoying, is no longer bothersome or annoying at all.
Rough annoying treble is NEVER the speakers fault. It is always somewhere earlier in the signal chain. You can buy speakers which ameliorate the problem caused upstream, but that is just applying a band aid.
Then another issue is defining ’neutral’. What does the op mean by neutral? Flat frequency response? Then ’doesn’t come alive’. What is meant by ’coming alive’? that is does not sound ’good’ Who’s good? usually I want a little warmth in particularly the midrange. Without it, most music become one dimensional, flat. Analytical.
I am not trying to annoy.. I just am interested in the topic. But I think it is not about the speaker. it is about what the speaker gets!
My interest is mainly in clarity wanting all I can garner, and still not ’going lean’. which is always the problem (in my experience) of reaching for clarity.detail. Nearly everything that (in the past) I found to increase clarity, also brought a decrease in warmth, to the point of becoming lean sounding. A lot of what I buy is to get more clarity. detail, but NOT give up the midrange naturalness.
My speakers are Magnepan 20.7 BTW.

A truly, measurably, objectively neutral speakers doesn’t come alive until the volume is turned up, but will lack the perception of detail, because those details come from exaggerated and often rough treble responses.

Two very detailed speakers I've heard (Sound Lab ESLs and Classic Audio Loudspeakers model T-3.3 with field coil drivers) don't seem to need to be turned up to come alive, and are some of the most neutral speakers I've heard. Two other speakers that also do this: Audiokinesis and High Emotion Audio (not sure if the latter is still in business).
So I think your conclusion is mistaken- you can totally have detail and neutrality at the same time. In fact I see that when you make an improvement, the system should improve in these two areas in particular and at the same time!

I'm not a fan of the speakers you mentioned for the same reasons you mentioned them.

I can certainly see the point you are making erik, but like others I don't quite agree with your ultimate thesis here.

Certainly a goosed upper frequency region can make a speaker sound more detailed at lower playback levels.

But the move to "therefore a neutral speaker won't sound detailed at low playback levels" seems to be the stretch here.

If, for instance, I'm playing my acoustic guitar (or someone else is) extremely quietly, there is still a sense of effortless, open, high resolution, even to the sound of the fingertips on strings, that is not found in many speakers when played at a similar volume.  (I actually use a recording of my guitar sometimes to check out the realism of a system with a sound I know well).

So it still seems to me that a high fidelity speaker, if both neutral and high resolution, would retain both those characteristics, like real sounds, even when played at lower levels.

I consider my present system to be the most neutral sounding I've ever had and as a result, I can play it at quite a low setting and get excellent detail retrieval, or resolution as some may call it. The only thing that's not up to the same level is, of course, dynamics and weight.

I fell you can, and should have both, since one is necessary for the other.

All the best,
Nonoise

Prof: 

Give specific examples of speakers you consider detailed and neutral. 

Nonoise:

Same. :) What speakers are you talking about? 

erik,

To be clear:  My argument was a sort of "in principle" argument.   My example was using real life sounds as the stand in for "neutrality."   An acoustic guitar played life is, in this sense, experiencing a "perfectly neutral" sound, in the sense no additional artificial distortions are being added by anything.   It's an ideal of what a truly "neutral" system could re-create, which suggests neutrality is not in opposition to experiencing fine detail at low sound levels.   So, in principle, "detailed sound" and "low levels" are not at odds.

I hope that is more clear.

(Though they *are* at odds in some psychoacoustical sense, insofar as our hearing apparently perceives more detail/higher end detail as sound gets louder.  But even granting this, I can still experience a finer sense of detail at low sound volumes from real life sounds, vs through most speakers).

As to real world examples, I'm not sure I would be able to come up with any that satisfy you.   I do remember the Waveform Mach Solo speakers retained a satisfying sense of detail at low volume levels, as do a pair of Waveform Mach MC (egg head unit) monitors I still own.

Some measurements for the Mach Solo here:

http://www.audio-ideas.com/reviews/loudspeakers/waveform_mach_solo.html

My bigger Thiel 3.7s also seemed to retain fine detail at lower levels.

Monitor audio speakers I auditioned a while back, too.

I'm not sure if there are really very many speakers out there that everyone could agree on (even speaker designers/enthusiasts) as being "totally neutral."  It seems there is always some departure from neutral that can be found in measurements, that someone will point to.

I've thought about this and I mostly agree.  Most musical instruments are fairly loud and most recordings are made with microphones fairly close.  It makes sense that a speaker that is neutral would have the full detail of the instrument when played at the same volume as the instrument.  If listened to at a much lower volume a lot of the detail will become inaudible.  I definitely think some speakers manage to retain detail at lower volumes better than others.  I don't know what the factors are.  I suspect low mass, stiff drivers are better at making small transients audible.  

I have two systems, one with Thiel 3.7s and another with ATC 110s and I love them both but they're distinctly different in that the Thiels are better at low volume while the ATCs excel when cranked.  The ATCs sound boring at low volume but they are capable of far larger dynamic swings.  

I would think that at moderate listening volume, a neutral sounding speaker, as the human ear is concerned, would have a measurable dip in the upper mids/ lower treble. I believe this why the average studio monitor leans toward brightness and fatigue.

I agree that exaggerated treble is often mistaken for detail. Case in point would be Golden Ear Tritons:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/goldenear-technology-triton-one-loudspeaker-measurements
They have quite a large boost above 10kHz. To my ears, these speakers produced about as much detail as $400 Klipsch towers, yet they were ear-piercing bright. Maybe the brightness was simply masking detail?

I think that audiophile types have turned the word “neutral”, which would seem to imply an objective quality, into a subjective word which is code for “whatever I like.”

Of course, gross colorations can be identified quite quickly, but barring that, how can one claim neutrality for anything unless they were present at the recording session to have a base line for the original sound that is being reproduced? 

@erik_squires ,
The speakers that I consider neutral (or close to) are my JBL 4319 monitors. Factor in the incredibly neutral sounding Kinki EX-M1 (ever so slightly warm) and some Darwin Truth II ICs and one can easily hear how detail and neutrality can co-exist on the same plane and how I still feel that they aren't mutually exclusive.

Once both of those two qualities are achieved, coupled with power and control over a wide bandwidth, the speaker's job becomes so much more easier. Synergy is always touted and rarely achieved, but when it is, what you'll hear with leave all your previous impressions and beliefs at the door.

All the best,
Nonoise

The first really good tweeters I heard---the RTR ESL's---used by Dave Wilson in his WAMM and ESS in their pre-Heil AMT Transtatic---had the combination of detail, nature timbre, and liquid transparency that the best ESL's are known for. Current ESL's, as well as the first production "full" range ESL, the Quad "57", are known for that sound character and quality.

Hi-Fi speakers seem always to be compensating for something.  Studio monitors don't, but in comparison, might sound dull to some. I'll go with the accuracy of monitors everytime.

Disagree with the premise. Plenty of speakers measure almost flat through the mid band into the upper frequencies while having plenty of detail. Dynaudio, Revel, most manufacturers that design well and have capable tools to measure. 

Ok, I cheated.

I use neutral amps/pre with speakers which I built from scratch. But more importantly the amps allowed me go with active crossovers for these 3-ways, so I was able to 'dial out' crossover related roughness and nonlinearities and naturally I had a say in driver quality matching to begin with and driver levels and delay were easily set and so on. But another major factor for me was finding a great power treatment than manged not to screw up the audio band at all.

So the upper-mid/treble playing field leveled considerably...the number of choices of possible driver candidates expanded greatly in terms of tonal response smoothness and inner warmth vs detail improvement. The number of tweeters, for example, that might otherwise have been deemed by me as too harsh, all but fell off a cliff. Things have worked out well here, no matter what the volume.

There must be any number of possible influences and variables here in your scenario, but the worst ones I was able to work around. But, as far as among existing speakers, that may be be another matter. But, like some others here, I tend to think that there's no real, direct relationship between neutral and detailed. I tend I guess to think of the relationship you describe as not necessarily fundamental and I'm thinking may only superficially exist as a combination of various things like noise and the vagaries or errors of crossover/speaker design in general in the market today. But, I mean, if you go and unravel that onion, and I have, the underlying terms of neutral and detail appear to be rather unrelated.

Michael is right - natural. Real live sound is both natural and detailed.
To hell with tremble to begin with, midrange is what should be done right, though Michael might say that this is wrong too - everything should be done right at the same time as a coherent whole, you don't do it in pieces. Yep, if you can.

I would add that acoustic instruments are not created equal either. I haven't heard Amati or Stradivarius but I have heard great guitar and piano, I also heard terrible ones. Do you want to accurately reproduce the sound of a terrible instrument or you want to deviate from neutrality in this sense and try to 'improve' it ? Sometimes instruments are also slightly out of tune. Anything to do about it or leave it alone ?

Neutral and detailed comes together,when you have  both: a neutral amplifier ( like Esoteric f- 03, f-05, datzeel, d’agostino.....) and a good (neutral) pair of speakers ( Audio Monitor PL., Ilumnia Magister,....)If you listen ,to a bad recording,it sounds bad. A good one ,good. Neutral means:”how the sound really is, each instrument on the right place,neutral means also holographic and to the point. If it is neutral, means :it’s also detailed. For me, a lot of speakers like  B&W ,Y.G. ..are not neutral. They overflow the music. There is no right sinergy, between  ,high mid, and low. If you put a bad recording on it,it sounds stil good: this isn’t neutral ,let alone detailed sound. Why? :the Instruments do not sound the way they really should sound. I have now 6000 cd’s,my player is a Luxman sacd-D-06. He is very neutral. From the 6000,they are maybe 1000 that sounds very good. Many others too sharp or deep, and a large number not to hear. In high-end ,both ( neutral and detailed) come together.

It’s like a photo of you. If you take this with a normal camera, you  Will look good, no Winklers....you take one with a sophisticated one, you see all the details: wrinkles,how you really look,you look older ( not as you really want)...that’s the same with music. Enjoy it!!!

There seems to be two definitions of “neutrality” here. Some are saying it’s timber and coloration and others say it’s frequency spectrum, i.e. flat or tilted up lower treble, etc... 
I always though it was freq related and timber/coloration would fall under “natural” or lack there of. 
Cant the “natural” sounding tone, timbre or possible coloration of an reproduced instrument be separate from the even/flat or tilted freq spectrum? 
‘I’ve heard speakers that seem to have a good balanced freq response (neutral), but had a coloration, meaning the instruments did not sound as ‘natural’ to me. 
Am I mistaken? 

I always thought of "natural" as a broader more inclusive term. But, I've seen "neutrality" defined as both the "coloration/timbre" thing and also as the "bright/dark" or "warm/cool" thing. Maybe we do just have to sorta be more careful about what we each mean by it.

At least not how I understand the audiophile terms. The problem comes in the mid-treble.

A truly, measurably, objectively neutral speakers doesn’t come alive until the volume is turned up, but will lack the perception of detail, because those details come from exaggerated and often rough treble responses.

...

It’s pretty obvious to me poster @erik_squires is referring to frequency response in the "upper regions" here, and that bringing in "naturalness" in regards to tonality is irrelevant.

From that outset I’m inclined, at least partially, to side with the OP on the matter proposed. From my chair most domestic speakers are dialed "hot" in the treble (and lower frequencies as well), or at least their frequency balance is perceived that way which may also be rooted in the upper bass/lower midrange in particular, where a leanness or lack of energy is not uncommon.

What could be some of the main reasons for what appears to be an intentional trebly focus in audiophile setups? Compared to a live acoustic musical event most home hifi systems don’t come close to replicating the dynamics, their range and overall sheer impact and volume level found here, and so perhaps some compensation for "detail loss" at lower SPL’s in the domestic reproduction is sought to retrieve information or a sense of aliveness, which could translate into a tilted-up treble - and boosted lower frequencies. A loudness effect, if you may.

Or perhaps "detail" as mostly associated with hifi/highend setups is a (bi-)product not really found in the same way in a live acoustic performance, and is instead something that has been cultivated into a desirable trait here. This is also saying that audiophiles at large may not really desire or pursue the imprinting of a live acoustic event as a reference for their home setups, and that High Fidelity has grown into a sonic entity and characteristic of its (closed) own, more or less; indeed, whatever pleases this or that individual (far more than that we really perceive sound differently, which seems like an excuse to justify "subjectivity"). Thinking about it that’s certainly not a far fetched scenario..

Perhaps some food for thought would be thinking about how the very low frequencies affect how we perceive high frequencies. Most home speakers don’t approach 20Hz, let alone forcefully, and yet the frequency area from 20-40Hz, when properly reproduced, affects those upper regions in ways that lend more substance, freedom and authenticity to them. Again, some treble compensation could be at play, but this time around to ameliorate lost LF-reproduction (in typical setups) and its effects mentioned, unbeknownst the link may be.

I’ve found horn speakers to come alive at lower volumes more convincingly than direct radiating speakers, as if their overall presentation is more readily "ignited" and easy-flowing. Although the reasons for this can be speculated into and hotly debated, the effect to my mind is rather obvious still.

I guess what I’m hinting at, and where I may differ in opinion with the OP, is that I find you can have your cake and eat it too - that is: a neutral speaker can come alive at lower SPL’s and be perfectly informative as befits a rather authentic reproduction. Whether that really speaks to the ears of others is another matter, but each to their own (p)reference.

Well, to me "neutral" would entail "detailed", since there are a lot of instruments in music that have sharp, clear sounds.

I have both and love it!!!!!

Reproduction of detail is a function of rise time, both in the electronics (some are faster than others) and the speakers. I.e., how fully  the speakers' drivers fully respond to low level input. The fast ones provide a full response. The slow ones don't. You can retrieve more detail by turning the treble up or goosing the signal to the tweeter, but then the treble becomes hyped up and you lose the neutral tonal balance.
Anyway, you can have detail *and* neutrality if the speaker drivers (and particularly the tweeters) have a fast rise time.
I have a pair of Magneplanar 1.7s and I get great neutrality and realistic detail at the same time. My tube preamps and Perreaux MOSFET amp also help the cause.

Huh... One of the things the FGU is notes for, micro-motor Be tweeters and all, is sounding as smooth and detailed at a whisper as they do going full tilt. 

The discussion here is like something from the stone-age. Firstly the discussion starts with a confusion of enhanced treble with detail. Certainly you will hear more high frequency detail with hyped treble,  youwill also hear more high frequncy hash.
Let me introduce you to a new concept, mechanical resonance , all speakers and headphones (and cd players and turntables) suffer from it. The,same amount of energy going out from your speakers is going back into the enclosures through the speaker surrounds. That's Newton's every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This energy dies down eventually, probably within milliseconds by being converted to heat, and maybe some goes into the air. However there is enough floating around to mess up the speakers which are sitting on a vibrating case trying to send out clean signals.  We play with this problem using spikes for speakers or sorbothane footers. Neither is very effective although you will hear some improvement. Serious damping requires a lot of materials like sobothane glued to the enclosure, headphone case or what ever you have. Use self-stick, or industrial adhesives recommended by Sorbothane,  dense sorbothane (70 duro),  with additional backing on the glued sorb to create cobstrained damping.  I use 4 layers of electrical tape. Use as thick a layer of sorb as you can manage, 1/4, 1/8, 1/2, 1 inch even.  This technology is slowly filtering through the industry but no prediction when it will become universal.

I think in the real world, many of us who have more time and money to spend on our systems are getting up there in age. I am one of those. I know I have a rolled of high end starting at 12 kHz and a dip at about 5 kHz and I doubt if I can hear anything below 40 Hz at all. So maybe I do seek a little high end emphasis by nature. It's just a simple corrective adaptation. I spent a little while last night comparing the sonics of an Oppo BDP-95 and an EVS modded 105. Going from 105 to 95 back to 105 it was like 'Very nice'; to 'hey, the 95 seems to have more weight, which is nice', to 'no no. the 105 has the same weight AND I hear more detail'.

However, none of the younger people who have heard my system think it's too bright, so what does that mean?  ;^)

I have a pair of Yamaha NS1000x, very natural & detailed. Beryllium mid & high drivers. It's hard to find a speakers that can replace this

My Klipsch Heresy IIIs sound very natural or neutral (or something) with the tube stuff I use to drive them. A couple of subs are in the mix...also I don't think my taste has allowed a tonally "colored" speaker anywhere near my earballs in a very long time, except for guitar amp speakers during my decades long Celestion phase. I got over that when switching to Neo Jensens (mostly), although Mesa gets Celestions made to their specs and those are more neutral. Please disregard the guitar amp portion of this post if you think it's irrelevant. Thank you.