Yes I expected you to have another definition to the word analytical. But analytical is a common word that is used wildly not only in audio terms and to mean break down and separating the thing you want to analyze into smaller parts. In my line of work we use the phrase put on analytic glasses for the thing we want to resolve or analyze. http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/analytical The blur and sharpness you are talking about can be a bi-product of over or under analytical sound but is not analytical per se IMO. The same for neutral or accurately they are separate terms and explain other factors (that can be manifested at the same time as more analytical reproduction), but stand for other SQ effects. I know that then increase the contrast in Photoshop you actually make the resolution less in other parts of the picture to get the effect of a sharper edges. More or less the same way the record industry do then remastering a record by lowering the overall dynamic to get more headroom for changing and emphasizing particular leading edge frequencies. The result is good and sharper in many people’s hifi, but often really crappie in a more reveling system. “You can't make the blur go away by adding sharpness - at best you can create an illusion that makes it look superficially better.” Our hearing is not perfect or liner so practically the gear that can make all the fault and artifacts in frequencies that we can’t hear, or at least not hear so good is better than the one that puts them so we can, right? That has to include the fault and artifacts that can interfere with the frequencies we can hear. Normally we distinguish between the distortion/coloration that is harmonic to the one that is non harmonic. The reason is that we normally can like or at least tolerate a bit of harmonic coloration because it follows the music whilst the non-harmonic do not.