"Natural" Sound

[Al M.]

This has nothing to do with being an objectivist or subjectivist. Just as many objectivists think that there comes a time when your system reproduces a live presentation. I know because I have had to explain this simple concept of "known unknowns" to both camps. It just happens that objectivists listen more to the logic and most eventually change their point of view. The more expensive a subjectivists' system, the more they are reticent to accept that all that money still did not get them to hear the live presentation.

It is a tough pill to swallow for sure but every bit of data points to it being right. Just read Tim's post here.

Hi Amir,

probably more than you think I am an objectivist too. For example, I am informing myself about digital technology and don't buy any of that stairstep waveform or other nonsense surrounding the technology. And I do believe the technology is mathematically correct, and not inherently flawed; we are only lagging behind in implementation.

I also agree that it is impossible to hear the live presentation; Tim's post about microphone placement, an issue that I had known about for a long time myself, makes that abundantly clear.

Yet I still believe that that it is possible to create the illusion of a live event to a certain extent -- never entirely. This can be captured with the terms 'natural', 'believable' or 'convincing'. And it cannot be expressed technically in FR graphs or the like.

 

[bonzo75]

Ouch, that hurt.

Do all audiophiles agree with this?

You have to have valves to make it sound real. Not necessarily all valves if you have a low sensitivity speaker, with tough impedance, some SS helps. I love the Spectrals in Marty's systems, but he has valves. And no class D amps, please

ps: Audiophiles never agree.

 

[ddk]

C’mon, Keith.

“Natural” is what we as a species have been experiencing for roughly the last 42,000 years.

Couldn't have said it better!

david

 

[Al M.]

Ouch, that hurt.

Do all audiophiles agree with this?

No, it's total bullcrap. And I say that as a tube guy myself. I have heard SS sound that is wonderfully natural.

 

[853guy]

It just happens that objectivists listen more to the logic and most eventually change their point of view.

"Can you share any survey or research that shows this?"

Amir
Today, 09:52 AM

 

[still-one]

You have to have valves to make it sound real. Not necessarily all valves if you have a low sensitivity speaker, with tough impedance, some SS helps. I love the Spectrals in Marty's systems, but he has valves. And no class D amps, please

ps: Audiophiles never agree.

That statement is the Poster Child for hyperbole!!

 

[bonzo75]

That statement is the Poster Child for hyperbole!!

There is truth in hyperbole

 

[Ron Party]

I've heard my share of the what many here would consider excellent, SOTA systems in well treated rooms.

I play about ten different instruments. Started with trombone when I was single digit in age. I played clarinet, flute and sax performing classical and jazz music. I play guitar, bass, drums, harmonica, and dabble on the keys. I've played and performed classical, jazz, rock, progressive rock and blues.

I've also been into high end, high fidelity ... call it what you wish, since I was a teenager back before the Civil War (well, not quite that far back, though sometimes my body feels that old).

I've attended at least 400 concerts in my time; all genres, from classical to hip-hop.

That's my background. Make of what you will.

I've never, ever, heard a system which I personally would describe as *natural*. Enjoyable, extremely enjoyable? Absolutely and then some. But *natural*? Not even.

Were I to take to heart the comments I've read in this thread, I'd become depressed, for this is what I would have learned. I've not heard so and so's system, therefore I must be inexperienced and ignorant. I simply cannot suspend disbelief, therefore I must be musically and emotionally retarded. In addition to placing value on the opinions of others, I also do value the scientific method, therefore I must be intellectually and/or otherwise challenged and I must listen to test tones, not music.

... and so it goes, another thread bringing out arrogance, intellectual dishonesty and lack of humility. Embarrassing. Amir and Frantz, I feel for you.

Meanwhile, check out Dave Mason's current tour schedule ... he's playing music from the early Traffic albums in addition to his own.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Any way despite all the different points of view , we come to the essence of " high end audio " no matter the costs

 

[Wonner Naus]

Ouch, that hurt.

Do all audiophiles agree with this?

I would answer "No", but...

perhaps I need to ask myself if I am really an audiophile.

When we are done discussing "natural" sound, let's tackle "organic".

 

[FrantzM]

as David suggests the "natural" sound is one wherein you sit and listen and for the lack of better terms there is just nothing to analyze as everything sounds right. There is no need to listen to a particular song to demo the system bass or another song to demonstrate sibilance or lack thereof. It is the sum total of what you are listening to. If you start analyzing what you are hearing and begin to break everything down into it's pieces and listen for those particular sounds IMHO you are talking HiFi and not natural. You'll know it when you hear it. I would suggest again that if anyone wants to know how natural sounds, make a trip to Cedar City as you will come away with a whole new perspective of your sound system. And there is no rioting in the streets

Here is the thing .. You take a kid with on his/her Apple earbuds and iPhone and he willnot be analysing what he is listening just enjoying the heck our of his music ... Would you qualify this reproduction as "natural"?

All that I have been saying is that the terms is subjective and not universal.. What is "natural" to you may not be for another person. No need to start subjectivist /objectivist debate...

 

[Steve Williams]

Frantz

I honestly don't believe Ron was trying to start such a debate or he even thought that this thread would go down that path and looking back on the posts the debate I believe was started by objectivists.

Frantz you told me a while ago that you had plans to visit David. I think you should because once you hear his system I believe you'll understand

 

[PeterA]

It isn't. It is cloudy. How blue does a picture of the sky here needs to be for you to determine the photograph is natural versus not?


So you want me to go and prove or disprove your statement? Does everyone else agree here? That a kid that took piano lessons is superior to you all who did not take such a test in determining the naturalness of your audio system?

Based on many of my other posts in threads that were deleted before they could be read, my expectation bias conditions me to presume that if I respond honestly to this post, then it will be censored and deleted from this thread.

 

[KeithR]

This, re horns, I haven't heard the Siemens but Silbatone bring a different pair of vintage WE horns every year to the Munich HiEnd,they are a very enjoyable listen, huge scale, designed of course for auditoria , but extremely coloured by modern standards.
Keith.

funny- I find digital amps, even by the alleged guru Bruce Putzeys you worship, to be colored.

as far as the OP, not sure what natural is- although "holistic" means something to me in audio. i find many analytical systems make me focus on pin drops in soundstages instead of getting the holistic picture correct. i think much of this is due to truncated decay which might be easier terminology for folks to understand.

 

[KeithR]

What does 'analytical' mean ?
Bruno is a God, I hope in time he will forgive you!
Keith.

good question- in measurement terms, JA considers it too much output into the treble from one review i read. subjectively, lack of proper tone to me and artificial detail.

I'm not worthy apparently

 

[Al M.]

I've never, ever, heard a system which I personally would describe as *natural*. Enjoyable, extremely enjoyable? Absolutely and then some. But *natural*? Not even.

Were I to take to heart the comments I've read in this thread, I'd become depressed, for this is what I would have learned. I've not heard so and so's system, therefore I must be inexperienced and ignorant. I simply cannot suspend disbelief, therefore I must be musically and emotionally retarded. In addition to placing value on the opinions of others, I also do value the scientific method, therefore I must be intellectually and/or otherwise challenged and I must listen to test tones, not music.

... and so it goes, another thread bringing out arrogance, intellectual dishonesty and lack of humility. Embarrassing. Amir and Frantz, I feel for you.

Speaking just for myself, I have never claimed that a system can sound perfectly natural. In fact, on thread page 7 I wrote:

I also agree that it is impossible to hear the live presentation; Tim's post about microphone placement, an issue that I had known about for a long time myself, makes that abundantly clear.

Yet I still believe that that it is possible to create the illusion of a live event to a certain extent -- never entirely. This can be captured with the terms 'natural', 'believable' or 'convincing'. And it cannot be expressed technically in FR graphs or the like.

I an perfectly and painfully aware that the sound of live music is something that cannot be completely captured, and I know of some others in this thread who approve of the term 'natural' and also have extensive experience with live music, that they are painfully aware of this as well. It also depends on the kind of music. Some vocal music and small-scale music can be reproduced on some systems in a rather convincing ('natural', if you will) manner, even though there is still a sonic distance to the real thing. Yet when it comes to reproducing the sound of an orchestra in all its facets and nuances, the task becomes extremely difficult -- on any system.

I do think that the sound of unamplified live music, and with it the concept of 'natural', should serve as a benchmark for the performance of any system, and that it is useful to describe the performance of a system in terms of naturalness.

 

[caesar]

It is easy to examine audiophile terms to see if they have value. If we subjected 10 audiophiles to the same system that was say is "natural," would the majority of them describe it the same? I would say no. It is not a quantitative term. The same word when used in some supplement you take has a very specific meaning, meaning it is not man-made. But here, it loses its specificity and just conveys some emotion the person had. It is not a descriptor of system performance.

....

As I said above, subjective audiophile terms are meaningless because everyone has a different definition in their head of what they mean.

 

[ack]

I've been waiting for a thread like this... FWIW, I think audiophiles use the term "natural" a bit too liberally. At the core of it, if it sounds "real" then it's natural - and it all ties to live unamplified music serving as reference.

However, what is "real"? Are there gradations of "real"? Think about this: Is a clear blue sky real? It is. Is a cloudy sky real? It is. Is darkness real? It is. Do I care for one over the other? I do. Does a live orchestra sound the same from row A to row Z to row ZZ to Balcony 1 and Balcony 2? No. Are they all variations of real? They are. Do I prefer one over all others? I do.

I have heard systems that fit the blue-sky analogy; I have heard systems that fit the cloudy-day. All of them sounded natural, within their limits. I tend to associate such blue-sky systems as more transparent to what a typical recording [with on-stage mics] captures, over cloudy-sky systems, which I associate with darker, closed-in sound. I consider them both natural, but obviously different in character. However, if a system were to give me the cloudy-sky perspective - typically darker and less lively - I'd say that system is actually flawed, because recordings rarely capture the event that way, and I _prefer_ Balcony 1&2 over anything else, because that's the type of "natural" I prefer.

So whoever considers his/her own system natural, while others' don't fit your description, great. We just don't have to agree.

 

[caesar]

Caesar and Frantz.

Not sure that I completely agree with either of you. My epiphany came several months ago when I made a pilgrimage to Cedar City Utah and heard David's system. I have never heard anything more realistic than when I heard that sound. It was mesmerizing, ethereal and seductive beyond anything I have ever heard in over 50 years in this hobby. I disagree that "natural sound" is speaker specific Frantz but I do believe that certain speakers and systems given the right music will create that natural sound that Ron was trying to define. I also believe that lack of coloration gets you there much easier than signal with coloration

Steve, not asking that you agree with me, but everyone has a different of "real" or "natural" in their head - that is what subjectivity is all about. You and David seem to share that, but that doesn't mean that everyone else will.

 

[Steve Williams]

Steve, not asking that you agree with me, but everyone has a different of "real" or "natural" in their head - that is what subjectivity is all about. You and David seem to share that, but that doesn't mean that everyone else will.

Fair enough but I wasn't asking anyone to share that feeling TBH