"Natural" Sound

[microstrip]

Quoted from a white paper by Dr. Earl Geddes, GedLee LLC

The question then becomes could a waveguide and a piston source be made to work properly if they were not coaxially located.In Figure 18 I have shown the polar map for the Geddes Summa. This speaker is widely praised for its neutral and natural sound. (...)

 

[esldude]

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.

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.

I now believe while most audiophiles believe this it is usually not true. I get this from the same experience Phelonious does. Recording acoustical instruments. You can record simply an instrument or few. Play it back well and get a good resemblance of what was actually going on. Yet you can offer that unadorned, unprocessed result along with some "pimped up" versions, and most people will find more natural the artfully pimped version. Or at least they will prefer it given a choice without knowing which is pimped and which is 'natural'.

Add in how very rare truly natural recordings available for purchase turn out to be, and it is a wonder some sound as good as they do. I also find this is true even for those who attend regular concerts. It might prevent them for falling for gross manipulation, but not some more tastefully done processing.

In the end, the Absolute Sound guiding principle I have found to be a myth. It isn't tenable in a serious manner. Recordings and reality are different things at least when using stereo playback. Different gestalts of experience. Treating them as such will usually result in happier listening. TAS sounded like a good logical idea, that in practice doesn't really work.

 

[esldude]

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

I think you would run into a similar problem that created the two camps. Though research of the effect itself would be very interesting.

People have all the responses you list when seeing a special person they care about, a famous person they think highly of, a valued object they own, and surely there is an effect seeing your favorite speakers or the glow of your favorite tubed amp glowing in the darkness while listening to music. Untangling that is possible, but solves nothing. Maybe simply the sight and knowledge of what is in use adds to those pleasant responses music engenders. If you play two systems covered by a curtain perhaps they don't. I doubt that will do anything to convince someone their favorite gear isn't better when they know it is in use.

 

[ddk]

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?

I thought we were cozying up when you took the liberty of calling me Davey!

Picking any person's definition of *natural* doesn't change anything.

It does in this case. It proves that its not alleged and it is a familiar term to the speaker manufacturer. Besides, its not just anyone's opinion!

While you're at it, you might as well cite Miriam Webster.

I have, read the threads.

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.

Since you're the only one talking about brands and people dumping your personal issues on the rest of us in thread, you're only arguing with yourself at this point.

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.

OP had to do with the usage of "Natural", two things things that I've argued for is that the term "Natural" can be a descriptor and that it is an important descriptor for me and some others, why are rambling on about universal truth?

Humility is a virtue.

You should it repeat to yourself till you remember it and reminds you of your own words, "One failing to acknowledge this would be well served to look in the mirror and find the tip of one's nose".

david

 

[rockitman]

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

Thank you for being objective Steve...when it needs to be !

 

[Ron Party]

I thought we were cozying up when you took the liberty of calling me Davey!

Nope. Never happened. There actually is a member here whose user name is DaveyF who raised an issue I had been thinking about and gave an example of different guitar strings.

It does in this case. It proves that its not alleged and it is a familiar term to the speaker manufacturer. Besides, its not just anyone's opinion!

I have, read the threads.

Since you're the only one talking about brands and people dumping your personal issues on the rest of us in thread, you're only arguing with yourself at this point.

OP had to do with the usage of "Natural", two things things that I've argued for is that the term "Natural" can be a descriptor and that it is an important descriptor for me and some others, why are rambling on about universal truth?

You should it repeat to yourself till you remember it and reminds you of your own words, "One failing to acknowledge this would be well served to look in the mirror and find the tip of one's nose".

david

You've completely lost the plot and there's no further benefit to be had in maintaining the discussion with you. When you find me posting that my version of *natural* is more than just opinion but fact, you can throw my words back at me. Until such time, blocked.

 

[ddk]

Nope. Never happened. There actually is a member here whose user name is DaveyF who raised an issue I had been thinking about and gave an example of different guitar strings.

My apologies if that was the case.

You've completely lost the plot and there's no further benefit to be had in maintaining the discussion with you. When you find me posting that my version of *natural* is more than just opinion but fact, you can throw my words back at me. Until such time, blocked.

Never claimed any version as fact or otherwise, just that "Natural" is a valid term in describing a certain qualities.

david

 

[NorthStar]

I reported that I found that Steve's system playing vinyl sounded very "natural." As our self-designated hyperbole and introspection control policeman am I guilty of hyperbole when I describe a system's sound as "natural"?

What do we mean by "natural" when we say an audio system sounds "natural"? Does natural have any inherent, determinate, generally accepted meaning? Or when we use the word "natural" are we, as usual, simply expressing our subject preference for smooth, warmish and non-fatiguing sound as opposed to detailed and analytical sound?

Doesn't describing reproduced music as "natural" simply beg the question "natural as compared to what?" and circle us back to the fundamental question of the hobby: are we seeking to recreate an original musical event or are we seeking to recover with as little adulteration as possible what is on the master tape?

How do we know if something sounds natural? And how do we know if one type of sound is more natural than another type of sound?

Is "natural" a sonic attribute on a continuum which begins on one end at "completely unnatural" and ends on the other at "completely natural"? How can sound become more natural?

So does "natural" mean anything clear and knowable, or is it simply another word we use to describe something completely subjective and which is not susceptible of any ubiquitous understanding?

I am simply quoting Ron's (OP) original first post of this thread in order to study his questions with a better "grip".
And it reminded me the audio terms often used by professional audio reviewers to describe the sound they've heard from the audio electronics/components, loudspeakers they had in their own rooms to review and write about. ...Like the word "natural" here from what Ron used to describe Steve's system.

Natural, transparent, neutral; all similar to describe a sound that is 'pleasant' and accurately reproduced with clean, clear high fidelity to the original music recording of when it was captured in time and space by the microphones plugged into the recording machine. ...Anything added and/or removed to that original music recording will distance us further from all the attributes and flaws in order for the audio mixer to deliver a 'pleasant' product from his own set of ears in tandem with the needles focused in a specific range of the meters to not clip the audio signals. To what extent the 'natural' capture of that music recording/audio mix represents its original "sound venue" is more up to the recording music mixer than anyone else. He is also an artist as much (in a direct way) as the musicians playing and singing that he/she is recording.

We, can only playback what the audio mixer gave us as the final product. ...And how far it is from the original master short of having that original master ourselves makes all the difference in the level of absolute naturalness. IMO

There is the stereo sound system, and there is the music recording...and not all sound systems and music recordings were created equal and recorded and reproduced in equal acoustical rooms.

 

[853guy]

I think you would run into a similar problem that created the two camps. Though research of the effect itself would be very interesting.

We created the two camps. We did. They don’t exist except as manifestations of prejudice on behalf of our own insecurities and arrogance. If I choose not to empower that ideology through non-identification with either camp, it ceases to exist. Instead, I simply have a continuum of ideas which in-and-of-themselves need not be defended or attacked, nor persons I need to malign nor worship.

People have all the responses you list when seeing a special person they care about, a famous person they think highly of, a valued object they own, and surely there is an effect seeing your favorite speakers or the glow of your favorite tubed amp glowing in the darkness while listening to music. Untangling that is possible, but solves nothing. Maybe simply the sight and knowledge of what is in use adds to those pleasant responses music engenders. If you play two systems covered by a curtain perhaps they don't. I doubt that will do anything to convince someone their favorite gear isn't better when they know it is in use.

Hence the need for rigorously designed and executed research that eliminates as many confounding variables as possible.

What will that prove or convince anyone of? Perhaps nothing. Hopefully it’d just add to the continuum of ideas and data points for further study and elucidation, though I’m sure once in the hands of one of the “camps” will no doubt only be used as ammunition for further prejudice toward the other.

 

[Al M.]

Natural, transparent, neutral; all similar to describe a sound that is 'pleasant' and accurately reproduced with clean, clear high fidelity to the original music recording of when it was captured in time and space by the microphones plugged to the machine recording. ...

Live music does not always sound 'pleasant' -- far from it. For some examples, see my post # 3 on the first page of this thread. I don't want my system to always sound pleasant either, and I am a glad (pleased if you will ) that it does not when that would not be appropriate.

 

[Jazzhead]

Let's get back to the music .....

 

[rockitman]

Let's get back to the music .....

I agree....44 pages to objectively slice and dice the word "Natural"....hard to believe that many people are hung up on the word as a descriptive to describe the sound of a stereo system.

 

[NorthStar]

Live music does not always sound 'pleasant' -- far from it. For some examples, see my post # 3 on the first page of this thread. I don't want my system to always sound pleasant either, and I am a glad (pleased if you will ) that it does not when that would not be appropriate.

Post #3 :: Good question, Ron, and important to discuss.

In my view the term 'natural' can only be ascribed in reference to unamplified live music. A system that sounds natural can reproduce the sound of unamplified live music.

Yet we must not forget that this sound does have a rather wide range, depending on acoustics, distance from instruments, the way they are played etc.

Smooth, warmish and non-fatiguing sound as opposed to detailed and analytical sound? That again depends on acoustics etc. And there is not necessarily opposition here. Live music can sound smooth and warm, but it can also be very detailed at the same time (in fact, it mostly is the latter, regardless if 'warm' or less warm sounding). On the other hand, live music can also sound with an edge, it can even sound 'hard' or 'distorted'. For example, sit close to a brass section, with your eyes closed so as to suppress expectation bias, and just concentrate on the sound. It may sound hard and distorted indeed (I had a discussion with a representative from Linn, and he said that the air pressure within a trumpet is so high that it 'shreds' the sound waves). Natural therefore does not always mean pleasant and inoffensive either. Yet in a smooth sounding venue even brass can sound very smooth, especially when listened to from a distance.

A natural sounding system should be able to reproduce all those ranges of sounds, depending on the recording, and to some extent trick the listener into believing that s/he listens to real live music. If a system always sounds warm, smooth, pleasant and inoffensive that may compromise the idea of natural sound, if it never does sound that way there may be something wrong as well.

I quoted your post number 3 from the first page of this thread, just above.

And I surely agree with you; live music does not always sound pleasant, depending of the venue and our seat, and the musician's performance @ the time (no double take in a live music performance).

A music performance recorded in a professional music recording studio, or on stage in a concert hall is generally more 'pleasant' than the live one.
The music recording has the advantage to be 'pleasantly' manipulated after the fact, and in the studios several takes are necessary to get the best one.

I like Blues music because it is generally "raw", "natural". ...And there is something more "natural" about live music that we don't always get from a studio music recording.
Then "natural" here means raw, in your face, direct, without after the fact manipulated audio adjustments/mixes.

And, some artist musicians they are happier playing live than in the studio, like Bob Dylan for example.

For me, this thread here, and for other people too, is a door to communicate our thoughts and music listening own experiences with other's own experiences.
So it's a natural, it's an advancing communication system of a hobby we all deeply love; music live and music recording reproduction in our own rooms @ home.
I just wish you were all here...

________

 

[Gregadd]

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.

I now believe while most audiophiles believe this it is usually not true. I get this from the same experience Phelonious does. Recording acoustical instruments. You can record simply an instrument or few. Play it back well and get a good resemblance of what was actually going on. Yet you can offer that unadorned, unprocessed result along with some "pimped up" versions, and most people will find more natural the artfully pimped version. Or at least they will prefer it given a choice without knowing which is pimped and which is 'natural'.

Add in how very rare truly natural recordings available for purchase turn out to be, and it is a wonder some sound as good as they do. I also find this is true even for those who attend regular concerts. It might prevent them for falling for gross manipulation, but not some more tastefully done processing.

In the end, the Absolute Sound guiding principle I have found to be a myth. It isn't tenable in a serious manner. Recordings and reality are different things at least when using stereo playback. Different gestalts of experience. Treating them as such will usually result in happier listening. TAS sounded like a good logical idea, that in practice doesn't really work.

. .
Tim ,et al and i,et al have been back ans fourth on this issue since the inception of this forum. Fidelity to the the source vs fidileity to the music Of course there is an absolute sound. . It is real susic in real space. Simple enough. The question is can we recreate such a thing in our living room with current stereo playback systems.

Flight by Icarus is a myth. But we can fly in just about every manner imaginable. It could be argued that man never achieved his goal of flapping his wings (man made) and taking off form a standstill like birds do. to them perhaps machine aided flight just does not get it for them. The point being you an't defeat a theory by citing incompetent attempts at it s execution.
The fact that there are bad recordings or bad stereo systems is irrelevant . Nor is the absolute sound defeated because some don't like it or elect not to pursue it. It is a worthwhile endeavor
T

 

[PeterA]

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.

I now believe while most audiophiles believe this it is usually not true. I get this from the same experience Phelonious does. Recording acoustical instruments. You can record simply an instrument or few. Play it back well and get a good resemblance of what was actually going on. Yet you can offer that unadorned, unprocessed result along with some "pimped up" versions, and most people will find more natural the artfully pimped version. Or at least they will prefer it given a choice without knowing which is pimped and which is 'natural'.

Add in how very rare truly natural recordings available for purchase turn out to be, and it is a wonder some sound as good as they do. I also find this is true even for those who attend regular concerts. It might prevent them for falling for gross manipulation, but not some more tastefully done processing.

In the end, the Absolute Sound guiding principle I have found to be a myth. It isn't tenable in a serious manner. Recordings and reality are different things at least when using stereo playback. Different gestalts of experience. Treating them as such will usually result in happier listening. TAS sounded like a good logical idea, that in practice doesn't really work.

I agree. If the "pimped version" sounds more natural, I will prefer it. A natural sounding system is my goal. Perhaps that is the crux of the disagreement here. Amir's intellectual side would prefer the best measuring system and his goal seems to be to reproduce the recording as accurately as possible. That sounds like a worthwhile goal, unless the result does not sound much like actual instruments. If it does not sound as good as the pimped version, I imagine there would be a deep conflict for him and for other measurement based audiophiles. How to reconcile selecting the pimped version in a blind study when later learning that it does not also measure better.

Is the non flat frequency response that shows a slight rise in the bass and gradual drop above 10kHz a "pimped version"? What exactly would the ideal FR graph look like and could we ever get that response at the listening seat? Amir has already written that it is not truly flat. What does it look like? Do any systems have this FR? And if they do because of digital correction, are they preferred and do they sound natural? I have not heard such a system sound natural, at least not yet, but I have not seen measurements at the listening seat of such a system to know if the FR was ideal.

TAS is a myth, but it gets the conversation started, and us pointed in the direction of the sound of actual instruments. Without seeing measurements of the natural sounding systems that I have heard, I have little idea about what makes them sound natural. I am only describing the result, not the method of getting there. Same with the sound of famous symphony halls. Does a FR graph at a good seat resemble Amir's ideal FR graph?

I don't think anything that I have written in this thread about the few systems that I have heard sound natural to me on specific recordings and specific types of music has discussed how accurate to the recording or well measuring the system is. That is the whole point. Whether the system is neutral, or pumped up as you say, my comments are simply meant to reflect how those systems sounded to me when I heard them. They did not sound identical to the real thing, they never could, BUT they reminded me of the natural sound of acoustic instruments that I have heard live, and that resemblance to the real thing helps me to suspend my disbelief and provides a deeper, richer emotional connection to the music.

I don't want to restart the format debate, but what does it say that when hearing one of the systems I consider to sound natural, that we first heard standard CD, then high rez digital files and finally vinyl analog. We all know which format is supposed to measure the best. That best measuring format was not the format that I thought sounded the most like real instruments. And other people also at that demo agreed with my observations when we discussed the sound later.

 

[Al M.]

They did not sound identical to the real thing, they never could, BUT they reminded me of the natural sound of acoustic instruments that I have heard live, and that resemblance to the real thing helps me to suspend my disbelief and provides a deeper, richer emotional connection to the music.

Well said, Peter.

 

[Gregadd]

Goal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Goal (disambiguation).

A poster at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York, showing the Millennium Development Goals
A goal is a desired result that a person or a system envisions, plans and commits to achieve: a personal or organizational desired end-point in some sort of assumed development. Many people endeavor to reach goals within a finite time by setting deadlines.

It is roughly similar to purpose or aim, the anticipated result which guides reaction, or an end, which is an object, either a physical object or an abstract object, that has intrinsic value.
Myth
Contents
myth
miTH/Submit
noun
1.
a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
synonyms: folk tale, folk story, legend, tale, story, fable, saga, mythos, lore, folklore, mythology
"ancient Greek myths"
2.
a widely held but false belief or idea.
"he wants to dispel the myth that sea kayaking is too risky or too strenuous"

 

[Gregadd]

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

Here Here!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

. .
Tim ,et al and i,et al have been back ans fourth on this issue since the inception of this forum. Fidelity to the the source vs fidileity to the music Of course there is an absolute sound. . It is real susic in real space. Simple enough. The question is can we recreate such a thing in our living room with current stereo playback systems.

We have been back and forth on this one many times, and perhaps I'm not being clear, because a few folks still don't seem to get it. The question is not "can we recreate such a thing in our living room with current stereo playback systems." The question is more fundamental than that, It is "can we record such a thing to be reproduced by those playback systems," and the answer is no.

That's why, when you search the internet for pictures or walk into any recording studio, even when they're recording unamplified music, what you see are pairs (at least) of mic's hanging five or six feet above string sections, mic's several feet out in front of brass sections, grand pianos mic'd from above their open lids, acoustic guitars with microphones typically only several inches away and pointed, oddly enough, at the point where the neck joins the body. Engineers record these parts and pieces from those positions (and others, but not from your ears' location in the club or concert hall), because that's where they get the best recordings; because that's where they sound best to the microphone. Then they take all of those parts and pieces, put them together in the mix, sometimes add a bit of room ambience or even crowd noise for good measure, and create the illusion of real music in real space. And the illusion of real music in real space is the only thing your stereo playback system reproduces, because that's all it has. It doesn't have any other information to work with.

It's highly unlikely that your collection has even a single recording that was recorded with just a stereo pair of microphones from a typical seat in a performance venue, and if you do, it's highly likely that it doesn't sound very good. That's the reality, and it is only so hard to grasp because people want so badly to believe the illusion, and their precious systems, are more than the are. Believing in it seems to be even more important to some people than enjoying it. This is ultimately a religious discussion.

Tim

 

[Al M.]

Great post, Tim.

It is indeed important to realize that a system cannot reproduce the original event, but can only reproduce what is recorded from it.

Engineers record these parts and pieces from those positions (and others, but not from your ears' location in the club or concert hall), because that's where they get the best recordings; because that's where they sound best to the microphone. Then they take all of those parts and pieces, put them together in the mix, sometimes add a bit of room ambience or even crowd noise for good measure, and create the illusion of real music in real space. And the illusion of real music in real space is the only thing your stereo playback system reproduces, because that's all it has. It doesn't have any other information to work with.

Yet what you say is in perfect consonance with:

They did not sound identical to the real thing, they never could, BUT they reminded me of the natural sound of acoustic instruments that I have heard live, and that resemblance to the real thing helps me to suspend my disbelief and provides a deeper, richer emotional connection to the music.