"Natural" Sound

[Steve Williams]

no one but you wants to close the thread. I don't. So if you don't like what you read, just as you advise us, stay out of the thread !!!!

Of course you can go visit him. I did. ALF did and my friend Marty will be there next week.

Lastly I did describe what I heard but you never read it or failed to comment.

I did have a great time there. I heard a sound system like nothing else and I described what I heard but heck what do I know. Your analytic mind leaves many of us with the sense of HiFi. something that is crying out with a hump here or a roll off there or imprecise imaging etc etc. I described everything I heard. None of those shortcomings were in the system. My mind was not drawn to the system in any way other than listen to music. There was nothing to critique. Now then you say that if that is the case the room must measure good correct???

Go listen to the system. It might prove something to you that there can be more enjoyment to music than coercing people into doing ABX testing. To me I want to listen. I found David's system to be the most natural sound I have ever heard. Does this mean it was the best system I've ever heard ? Does it mean the room measures better than any other room. I think not. Rather than sitting behind your screen and telling us what we are hearing I suggest a little dose of humility and take a one hour flight to his house. You might learn something

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Well said Steve!

It amazes me how one simple word can cause such division. If someone, after listening to a system, says it's the most natural system he's heard, then that's good enough for me. I can't debate that viewpoint as I wasn't there to listen with him, and even if I were I might have a different or similar take (pick one). If I had a different take does that mean one of us is wrong? Absolutely not. It is only how the system portrayed a musical experience to our own ears.

 

[Rodney Gold]

Questioning the use of natural in a description isnt questioning the system..it's questioning the listener and their credentials

 

[PeterA]

I suggested that but you specifically protested that the thread stay open so you can keep going. Here we are.


That's not what I asked you about. You said: ""Natural" does not mean "I like it" or "it makes me feel good"." So please give examples of natural systems that you did not like and let's see if there is consensus around that with the membership.

No, you suggested that the thread be closed. That is not the same as the two of us, you and I, agreeing to disagree and moving on. I think we have established that we are both stubborn and that neither one of us is convincing the other of his point of view. So, you suggested that the thread be closed, and I protested because I think this is a good discussion and that I am learning from other members something about this topic. I wrote that a popular thread to which many people are contributing should not be closed. I did not want it to stay open so that I "can keep going". What does that mean anyway?

I still contend that "natural" does not mean that "I like it" or "it makes me feel good." It is you who have argued that. Sometimes I do like a natural sounding system and on occasion, listening to one can make me feel good. But it does not follow that the terms have the same meaning. I heard a system once in NYC that I did not like. I did indeed think it sounded natural, but I did not like other aspects of the system, and I would not want to own it. I did not like the system's size, the cost, the aesthetics, the ergonomics. It did sound natural though and I did not like it.

 

[PeterA]

You really want to have this every which way, don't you? It may indeed be the case that "natural" implies "I like it", but it doesn't follow then that "I like it" implies "natural". This is not an isomorphism. I know you understand this, Amir, so I feel compelled to ask: what are you now trying to achieve here? I'm still not clear why it bothers you so much that some people use the word and it means something to them. Is it purely that the meaning isn't 100% well-defined? If so, fine, I think we're all in agreement.



Once again, it looks like you're trying to dictate the exact way in which we interact here. Frankly, I don't care what you "like to hear" in terms of descriptions of audio equipment, and I can't imagine why the rest of us should stop using whatever language we want merely to ensure that we fall into your preferred framework. For what it's worth, I like to see threads that aren't littered with references to Toole, but we can't always get what we want.

Is it your hope that we all say "you're right, Amir, we erred in using the word 'natural' to describe audio"? Is that the goal? The way I see it, there are plenty of people here who continue to claim that they find the word useful. If I may borrow the phrase that has been used a couple of times upthread: why isn't that good enough?

Yes.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Questioning the use of natural in a description isnt questioning the system..it's questioning the listener and their credentials

Credentials? What credentials would one need?

 

[treitz3]

The ability to listen.

Tom

 

[DaveyF]

I think the word "natural" isn't the word that should be used to describe the sound one is hearing...simply due to what i stated in my last post on this thread. Instead, I would suggest the word "realistic"- and that in reference/conjunction to the sound that we believe is most like what we hear in a 'live' unamplified setting. Unfortunately, this descriptor also brings up the question.. is one man's realistic another man's unrealistic/ artificial?. However, that is the reason that the hobby exists on a certain level; and why there are so many reviewers in the field that can still have credibility irrespective of the fact that they have little or no technical understanding.

 

[ddk]

Of course it is not. That is why I said we have had this long thread because you all think it means something, and I am saying it means nothing. Then David turns around and asks me to demonstrate that EQ creates natural sound. He can ask you that if you understand the term. He should not ask me as I have been more than clear that it conveys nothing specific to me.

This is what David said;

"- There's no point in arguing in circles, for example you look at an ordinary room differently that I do. For me an ordinary room means fewer issues and is a good thing. We both accept that good bass response is important but we have different methods for getting it because our end value and definition for better isn't the same. What I've defined as better i.e., "Natural" IMO can't be achieved with digital EQ. You should understand and accept my "Natural" first then show me where I'm wrong, but don't ignore it."

Point was that you can't argue something that you deny or don't want to accept.

"Just go to a show and walk up to the loudspeaker designer and say, "well, your loudspeaker does not produce natural sound. Can you fix that?" You think he would know what you mean?

As I said, it has no definition but it is my impression that you use such adjectives when you do like a system. If you don't then I bet that is another thing you all won't agree despite telling me this is a known and specific term among you

Actually, yes! When I first took on Kharma distribution and were reworking the line with the designer aim was to make them sound more "Natural" and albeit the differences in our backgrounds the term "Natural" was very clear. Whatever was done, i.e. extended frequency response, curtailing top end, changing parts, components, crossover curve etc. was to make the speakers sound more "Natural", there was no point for us to change any parameters otherwise. "Natural" is a common term in the industry, please visit us at CES in the Lamm/Kharma room and find out what "Natural" means to both designers in terms of their goals and products. I'll be there too for further clarification !

david

 

[Ron Party]

So audiophile A finds ribbon tweeters to be *natural*, or *more natural*, whereas audiophile B finds metal domes to be natural, or more natural. Or A finds box speakers to be *natural*, or *more natural*, whereas B finds electrostats to be *natural*, or *more natural*. We know the sound of each are different, and usually quite so. So whose right? A? B? Neither? Both?

I content both. Why? Because both are answering for themselves. And for each, the term *natural* means whatever they want it to mean. Or maybe they both use precisely the same definition. So even though both used the exact same definition of *natural*, different conclusions are reached.

So what's the problem? None, insofar as it goes. It's that tip of the nose thing, though. It's audiophile A telling audiophile B that audiophile A's conclusion of *natural* or *more natural*, is correct. It's audiophile A failing to distinguish between opinion and fact. It's audiophile A who embodies arrogance and disrespect.

Now, I'm sitting here and I read that audiophile B visits with audiophile A, gives his/her system a test drive, and reports back that he/she found the sound *unnatural*. Or, *natural*. Doesn't matter to me. Why? Because without more, I don't know how the term is defined. And, even if I am told the definition, I don't know that my sense of *natural* is more akin to audiophile A, B, neither (e.g., maybe I find horns to be more *natural*), or a mixture of both.

Rodney's take away is spot on.

This is to state nothing of Davey's most recent post, which opens up a whole other can of worms about this allegedly valid descriptor.

 

[Gregadd]

Saying the word natural does not mean anything to you is like calling your ex to tell her you don't love her.

 

[Gregadd]

Quote Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk View Post
I think the word "natural" has a pretty clear meaning, but given the very few people, if any, who have actually heard the sound of real instruments in their listening rooms and the very few (zero?) recordings they have that were recorded to reproduce the sound of real instruments in their room, it has little meaning in context.

In context, natural equals accurate reproduction of the recording and the recordist's/artist's intent. Sadly, in the audiophile endeavor, words like "natural" and "musical" are often used as substitutes for accurate when that verifiable claim cannot be supported. It is not that natural has no meaning that raises these objections to it's use, it is that it's meaning has been consistently abused and is suspect.



Tim

Well we want our stereo system to be neutral and our music to sound natural. That is to say ideally we want our system to add nothing. That makes it is neutral. Hopefully that will male our music sound natural, We all kno that once we convert music to an electrical signal getting it to sound natural is a Herculean effort. In fact just getting it to sound as it was intended is difficult.

If we remained natural(untreated) throughout the audio chain we have an unlistenable mess. We do an ivredivle amount of manipulation to maintain that system neutrality. The RIAA curve is a prime example. Fletcher Munson is another example of which there are many.
My impression on the visceral reaction to this thread is that a system that does not measure neutrally cannot sound natural. Members like Amir want proof that the system measures neutral before you laim it is natural sounding. In theory that is fair enough. In reality is it fair to expect an audiophile to do that?

p.S. I may have put this comment in the wrong thread.

 

[Gregadd]

If you think using scientific terminology eliminates ambiguity and stifles debate you truly are niave

 

[ddk]

This is to state nothing of Davey's most recent post, which opens up a whole other can of worms about this allegedly valid descriptor.

Hey Ronny, here's another Davey on "Natural" that allegedly valid descriptor as you put it. Middle of paragraph three, look what's the first descriptor used for their design goal, "natural"!

http://www.wilsonaudio.com/product_watch_center.shtml

Here's the man's notes on "Subjective" when designing some of world's best speakers,

http://www.wilsonaudio.com/product_xlf.shtml

Can of worms to you? (Edit, added) "Subjective" was important enough for the man to emphasize it in connection to his most expensive product!

david

 

[ALF]

In the relevant words of my wife's long departed auntie, "Eat it, I like it."

Cheers!

 

[ddk]

It's audiophile A who embodies arrogance and disrespect.

Audio terms Ron? Whatever your personal beef is it has no relevance to this thread or Forum! Who are you to judge anyone?

david

 

[Ron Party]

Do you know me well enough, or at all, to call me Ronny? User name ddk. Hmmmm... Should I take liberties? What are we, 5 years of age?

Picking any person's definition of *natural* doesn't change anything. While you're at it, you might as well cite Miriam Webster. Heck, we have maybe 10 or more definitions of *natural* in this thread alone, many of which I probably agree with at least in part, to state nothing of Micro posting some sort of *natural* cocktail... 20% this, 30% that, 2 parts this, a dash of that.

A finds Wilsons to be *natural* or *more natural*. B finds Magico's to be *natural* or *more natural*. C finds Siemens Bionor to be *natural* or *more natural*. D finds Magnapans to be *natural* or *more natural*. E finds Pipe Dreams to be *natural* or *more natural*. And on and on. There's not enough letters in the alphabet.

There is no universal truth here, notwithstanding your repeated insistence on it. There is no one final arbiter. Instead, all of us are final arbiters ... for ourselves. Otherwise, to use the line subjectivists are in favor of using, we'd all have the same gear. One failing to acknowledge this would be well served to look in the mirror and find the tip of one's nose. Humility is a virtue.

 

[853guy]

So I can play two different systems and measure your level of enjoyment of one versus the other? I don't think so but I am willing to be persuaded. Who all agrees with this and can provide some example measurements?

Amir, you’re probably one of the most intelligent members of this forum, but you need consensus as to whether this might be possible?

I’m not interested in persuading you (or anyone else) or anything. All I’m doing is making a series of observations based on the current research which has said (for many years) that music alters the brain’s neuroanatomy and (more recently) neurochemistry. Emotion in humans has been tied to activity in the adrenal gland, amygdala, hypothalamus, ventral segmental area and prefrontal cortex, as well the things I mentioned above (pupil dilation, heart rate variability, electrodermal activity, etc).

Music has been shown to activate both cerebral hemispheres, as well as the subcortical areas of the brain stem, pons and cerebellum, activating the nucleus accumbens, the ventral tegmental and modulating dopamine release. How do we know? Because it’s been researched and measured objectively (see research links below).

However, as far as I know, no one has produced any research (using rigorously matched control conditions) of the effect of different audio system topologies on the limbic system, but in as much as it’s possible to design experiments that measure brain neurochemistry and the effect on our biophysiological state when presented with music, it stands to reason that it would be possible to measure those exact same things in the presence of two different systems, would it not?

If that were to happen, perhaps we could move past the limiting and entirely myopic rhetoric of the “two camps” ideology and toward a better understanding of the audio reproduction mechansim and its effects on our emotional, psychological and neurobiological state, rather than resorting to more forcefully stating the staus quo.

Neural Correlates of Musical Behaviours
http://daniellevitin.com/levitinlab/articles/2013_Levitin_MTP.pdf

The Neurochemistry of Music
http://daniellevitin.com/levitinlab/articles/2013-TICS_1180.pdf

The Rewards of Music Listening : Response and Physiological Connectivity of the Mesolimbic System
http://daniellevitin.com/levitinlab/articles/2005-Menon-NeuroImage.pdf

 

[NorthStar]

Tout à fait naturel the discussion I am reading here.

* David, if I was rich I would pay for all member's plane tickets to your room so that we can all experience your system and perhaps, perhaps hear closer to "natural and effortless sound" as we have ever heard in our lives.

- Can another youtube video open up our imagination further towards that aspiration/inspiration. That's the closest we can be from our end of our keyboard, short of having the privilege and accessible funds to such a magnitude's project. Very few are able to, most aren't.

We all need a foundation when referring and discussing matters of hi-end sound/music, the magic of listening.
If all our systems were sounding "natural" we probably would read this thread to verify and confirm that we are so far off. :b
It's in the nature of man to discuss, analyse, observe, listen, play, compare, discover, share, to live on an understandable and acceptable footing of an accommodating harmonization and equalization of a higher learning, more advanced society.

Tout à fait naturel.

 

[PeterA]

no one but you wants to close the thread. I don't. So if you don't like what you read, just as you advise us, stay out of the thread !!!!

Of course you can go visit him. I did. ALF did and my friend Marty will be there next week.

Lastly I did describe what I heard but you never read it or failed to comment.

I did have a great time there. I heard a sound system like nothing else and I described what I heard but heck what do I know. Your analytic mind leaves many of us with the sense of HiFi. something that is crying out with a hump here or a roll off there or imprecise imaging etc etc. I described everything I heard. None of those shortcomings were in the system. My mind was not drawn to the system in any way other than listen to music. There was nothing to critique. Now then you say that if that is the case the room must measure good correct???

Go listen to the system. It might prove something to you that there can be more enjoyment to music than coercing people into doing ABX testing. To me I want to listen. I found David's system to be the most natural sound I have ever heard. Does this mean it was the best system I've ever heard ? Does it mean the room measures better than any other room. I think not. Rather than sitting behind your screen and telling us what we are hearing I suggest a little dose of humility and take a one hour flight to his house. You might learn something

This is wonderful advice, Steve. I would only add that perhaps Amir leave his test equipment at the house and seek out some live, unamplified music. Much can be learned by actually listening to real instruments being played. What he may hear is a list of attributes which I posted earlier in the thread. Those attributes define the term for me and the few systems that I have considered to sound natural, all share those attributes. Furthermore, Amir has asked for advice about jazz and classical music in other threads. Some of the suggestions included attending a few performances.

I raised the question about how different seating locations within an orchestra hall actually measure in terms of frequency response. I assume they measure differently and thus contribute, in part, to the range in which an instrument or full orchestra sound natural. I, and others, have suggested that there is no true "absolute sound". That is why, imo, we all have different perspectives and ideas about how a piano actually sounds. But anyone who spends time listening to real pianos being played, has a very good idea of how it sounds. I don't think all of the measurements available today can adequately describe the sound of a piano. And that is the reason that we need additional information in the form of subjective terms.