Natural Sound

[hopkins]

It depends if each recording is presented the same. If it is, the system is not very revealing. If different recordings sound different, that is a good start.

Yes, but that is something else. You mentioned closely miced recordings versus recordings with more ambience. Deciding whether one is more “natural” then the other is expressing a preference for the “production” of the recording, regardless of the system.

 

[hopkins]

Here is a wonderful quote from Karen Sumner here on WBF touching on the differences between capturing maximum information from the grooves of a record versus focusing on detail:

“Achieving and maintaining a believable level of tonal density in a hi fi system should be the foundation of building any system regardless of its price tag or the type of music that one prefers. Unfortunately, it is the first quality to fall by the wayside in a quest to hear more information. I think this is at least in part due to the fact that music cannot be played in a home setting on the scale and volume of music played live, and recordings also have their limitations in terms of capturing the scale and volume of live music. If we are on the hi fi improvement path, we just get inexorably drawn into trying to compensate for these limitations. Most of us tend to choose components or room set ups that reduce middle frequencies and lower harmonics below the level that they are present on the source material because large and enveloping middle frequencies and lower harmonics seem to diminish some of the detail that we think we need to hear. The result is a rather antiseptic listening experience where middle frequencies and lower harmonics are “purified” of their essential character. Reducing the power of midrange to hear more details is hi fi, not music, and I don’t mean “hi fi” in any pejorative sense if that is what you really want.”

I don’t know what “tonal density” means, and all this seems quite theoretical (not that it’s always a bad thing - but I think here she is blowing hot air).

 

[PeterA]

I don’t know what “tonal density” means, and all this seems quite theoretical (not that it’s always a bad thing - but I think here she is blowing hot air).

The point is that quite a few of us recognize the distinction between detail and information. That’s fine if you do not see the distinction. There’s no point in arguing about it.

 

[PeterA]

Yes, but that is something else. You mentioned closely miced recordings versus recordings with more ambience. Deciding whether one is more “natural” then the other is expressing a preference for the “production” of the recording, regardless of the system.

Yes, there are close mic’d recordings, and there are others that present a different perspective. I’ve heard gear that makes all presentations from a variety of different recordings sound as though they are all close mic’d when they are not. That is a system collaboration, and in my opinion worth avoiding. Some systems are designed for this kind of presentation. And that’s fine if you prefer it. People do. It’s no big deal, but I think it helps to be aware of these distinctions when making choices. Water.

 

[hopkins]

The point is that quite a few of us recognize the distinction between detail and information. That’s fine if you do not see the distinction. There’s no point in arguing about it.

Yes, you are right, and I am not trying to "argue" about it, just trying to understand. I have always felt that more resolution is better - all other things being equal - that has been my experience.

 

[Al M.]

The point is that quite a few of us recognize the distinction between detail and information. That’s fine if you do not see the distinction. There’s no point in arguing about it.

Actually, in your above quote of Karen Sumner she does *not* seem to draw a distinction between detail and information. This does not mean she equates the two (she certainly does not, at least not explicitly), but I don't believe her quote serves the purpose that you think it does.

(Having said that, I agree with her thoughts about tonal density and artificially stripping it in order to hear more "detail".)

 

[PeterA]

Yes, you are right, and I am not trying to "argue" about it, just trying to understand. I have always felt that more resolution is better - all other things being equal - that has been my experience.

I agree completely that more resolution is better. But it depends on how that resolution is presented. Also, if some information is stripped out to enhance detail. This was actually one of the things I identified with certain high-end cable brands and power cords, which is why I abandoned them. Same with acoustic treatments. These things strip out information and energy, leaving others exposed and enhanced. This is my own experience in my room with my system. I’m not prescribing anything or suggesting anyone do what I have done. I encourage experimentation and listening with live music as a reference if that is your target. Then some of this stuff will be noticeable. If it then matters to the listener, he can respond accordingly.

 

[PeterA]

Actually, in your above quote of Karen Sumner she does *not* seem to draw a distinction between detail and information. This does not mean she equates the two (she certainly does not, at least not explicitly), but I don't believe her quote serves the purpose that you think it does.

(Having said that, I agree with her thoughts about tonal density and artificially stripping it in order to hear more "detail".)

Yes, I understand what you’re saying Al. For me what I like about Karen’s quote is the emphasis on the mid range and lower harmonics. She says that stuff is often on the recording and yet some choose to diminish those in an effort to hear more detail. It comes at the expense of naturalism, in my opinion. Ironically, I abandoned her cables because they do exactly the thing that she warns against. At least the mid-level cables I had in my system at the time. Once I removed them from my system, I heard much more information presented naturally.

The terms detail, information, and resolution are tricky, IMO. I prefer information as more encompassing or overall more comprehensive. Detail is a subset of information and is particular to a recording and presentation. Resolution is an attribute of the system or a component and is perceived in degrees. The best systems have an ability to resolve the information on the recording and present that information, or much of it, and also details, naturally.

 

[Al M.]

I don’t know what “tonal density” means, and all this seems quite theoretical (not that it’s always a bad thing - but I think here she is blowing hot air).

She is not blowing hot air, to the contrary. Tonal density is fundamentally important and something that I always check for with every change to my system (including acoustics and speaker positioning).

Greater tonal density usually means more weight and harmonic completeness, richness of tone.

A particularly important marker for it is found in the lower midrange, something that has also been called the "power range" of an orchestra (think low brass, for example). Weight and richness in the low midrange are also important for the weight of the left hand of piano and for cello, to name two more examples (out of many that could be given).

Yet tonal density is also important for the "thickness" of sound throughout the midrange, including upper midrange, and in the treble. You could argue that it plays a role for the bass as well *) (even though excessive "thickness" there is counterproductive).

When comparing unamplified live music (in an average, not bright sounding hall, that is) with home stereo it is often the case that the home system sounds "thinner", i.e., with lower tonal density.

Preserving tonal density to a maximum extent possible should be, in my view and that of many others, a prime objective for a relatively realistic sound at home.

What Karen Sumner correctly points out is that in the search for "detail" often a thinner sounding midrange is preferred by system owners, but that this cuts against realism.

___________________

*) Especially rock music needs a solid and weighty (even though at the same time rhythmically agile) foundation in the upper bass and mid-bass.

 

[hopkins]

She is not blowing hot air, to the contrary. Tonal density is fundamentally important and something that I always check for with every change to my system (including acoustics and speaker positioning).

Greater tonal density usually means more weight and harmonic completeness, richness of tone.

A particularly important marker for it is found in the lower midrange, something that has also been called the "power range" of an orchestra (think low brass, for example). Weight and richness in the low midrange are also important for the weight of the left hand of piano and for cello, to name two more examples (out of many that could be given).

Yet tonal density is also important for the "thickness" of sound throughout the midrange, including upper midrange, and in the treble. You could argue that it plays a role for the bass as well *) (even though excessive "thickness" there is counterproductive).

When comparing unamplified live music (in an average, not bright sounding hall, that is) with home stereo it is often the case that the home system sounds "thinner", i.e., with lower tonal density.

Preserving tonal density to a maximum extent possible should be, in my view and that of many others, a prime objective for a relatively realistic sound at home.

I assumed that this is what she meant, and I would state it more simply as "completeness"? We obviously want to hear it all, and as faithfully as possible.

I am not sure that there is a conscious decision by manufacturers to remove some aspects of the sound to increase the perception of detail. My experience, on the contrary, is that they often sacrifice high resolution (the ability to produce low level detail) in pursuit of other metrics.

 

[Al M.]

I assumed that this is what she meant, and I would state it more simply as "completeness"? We obviously want to hear it all, and as faithfully as possible.

"Completeness" may seem simple, but is too general a term to be of any use, in my view. Tonal density is much more specific.

As you say, we want to hear it all, and as faithful as possible. Sure. But obviously people have different perceptions, listening priorities, preferences. These decide which aspects of "all" are the most important for each individual listener. Otherwise, why would systems sound so different from one another? So we need to be specific.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I think "tonal density" is another audiophile expression which is not susceptible of plain meaning. Yet most of us know exactly what the term means, and I do think the term has descriptive and explanatory value.

 

[hopkins]

"Completeness" may seem simple, but is too general a term to be of any use, in my view. Tonal density is much more specific.

All these terms are rather vague. The precise terms used to describe sounds are banished from this thread It’s a case of making things complicated when they could be simple.

As you say, we want to hear it all, and as faithful as possible. Sure. But obviously people have different perceptions, listening priorities, preferences. These decide which aspects of "all" are the most important for each individual listener. Otherwise, why would systems sound so different from one another? So we need to be specific.

I never said the objective was achieved. We all know the difference between the reproduction and the real thing.