What does the source sound like...

[tima]

You were the one to introduce the word "mentor" in this debates. You extensively and interestingly discussed the type of training you had before. IMHO in this hobby "learning by being there" with a mentor is training. And yes, trying David suggestions and experimenting the CCs is training - it has shown me different ways of listening to reproduced music.

'Training' is not the right word, not the right concept. Training has a predetermined outcome. Learning with or without a mentor (counselor) is a process of discovery.

 

[tima]

Give that a little more thought and you’ll then conclude that logically, there’s also no such thing as a recording that‘s an exactly replica of the original event, so the whole goal of pursuing the ’absolute sound’ defined by the original performance is impossible to achieve.

I doubt many confuse reproduction with reality, but we can still have live acoustic music as a reference for assessment.

 

[bonzo75]

So if you go to the gym and exercise regularly, but not for an outcome, are you a trained or untrained lifter?

 

[bonzo75]

And I would say audiophiles are the equivalent of someone exercising for a 6 pack or to win some contest, no holds barred, all diet, exercise etc planned

 

[tima]

So if you go to the gym and exercise regularly, but not for an outcome, are you a trained or untrained lifter?

You are a trained lifter if you know how to lift correctly without hurting yourself.

 

[andromedaaudio]

You are a trained lifter if you know how to lift correctly without hurting yourself.

You are a trained lifter if you use the correct cable lifters in your system

 

[bonzo75]

You are a trained lifter if you know how to lift correctly without hurting yourself.

Exactly, that requires training, and audiophiles are similar except that they usually hurt themselves often but that's the process.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I do think that the training word is clumsy in this context. At best it is really perhaps more informal self directed learning. There is little formal training and what there is seems variable. Also determining what is the principal aim, ie to appreciate sounds or appreciate music... this might involve different kinds of learning development or the focus of it.

I do however believe we assess. This is also an area that is quite variable in terms of being structured and most seem to be also more informal in assessment strategy. Some even perhaps over-assess.

I can only reflect on my own perspective because we are all divergent in the primary aims for each of us and our processes would also be then quite different.

The thing is I virtually never sit down to listen to my stereo reproduction. Instead I sit down to listen to music.

In this I will mostly focus on the artistry of the performance. I might occasionally make an anecdotal observation that the recording sounds a certain way (ie the baseline sonic attribute would be essentially natural sounding or even better yet with moments of realness) but if the performance isn’t engaging (typically enough to want to listen to the whole recording) I will not then play the music regardless of how the recording sounds.

If the (quite diverse) music that I am usually drawn to play develops into a pattern of not engaging me sufficiently (deeply) I would only then pull back to focus on assessing what’s going on with the sound. I’d break it down into the parts of sonic performance that relate to what I most value in terms achieving musical engagement and more fully appreciating the performance.

If there develops a longer term pattern in favouring some types of music over others that I typically also usually enjoy I might use that as a significator of where the characteristic traits or nature of the system might have changed and then do a work around to bring it back on song.

 

[ddk]

I do think that the training word is clumsy in this context. At best it is really perhaps more informal self directed learning. There is little formal training and what there is seems variable. Also determining what is the principal aim, ie to appreciate sounds or appreciate music... this might involve different kinds of learning development or the focus of it.

I do however believe we assess. This is also an area that is quite variable in terms of being structured and most seem to be also more informal in assessment strategy. Some even perhaps over-assess.

I can only reflect on my own perspective because we are all divergent in the primary aims for each of us and our processes would also be then quite different.

The thing is I virtually never sit down to listen to my stereo reproduction. Instead I sit down to listen to music.

In this I will mostly focus on the artistry of the performance. I might occasionally make an anecdotal observation that the recording sounds a certain way (ie the baseline sonic attribute would be essentially natural sounding or even better yet with moments of realness) but if the performance isn’t engaging (typically enough to want to listen to the whole recording) I will not then play the music regardless of how the recording sounds.

If the (quite diverse) music that I am usually drawn to play develops into a pattern of not engaging me sufficiently (deeply) I would only then pull back to focus on assessing what’s going on with the sound. I’d break it down into the parts of sonic performance that relate to what I most value in terms achieving musical engagement and more fully appreciating the performance.

If there develops a longer term pattern in favouring some types of music over others that I typically also usually enjoy I might use that as a significator of where the characteristic traits or nature of the system might have changed and then do a work around to bring it back on song.

Graham,
You’re describing “natural” sound! Pretty much my process too.

david

 

[microstrip]

Actually current opinion, I still think that CD is top digital not streaming. Of course not discussing glass other professional media.

Top was not my concern - the question is that you consider computer audio is not capable and "magic" and an inferior sound quality in your natural systems.

This is your entire post and sentence, I'm not half quoting.

Thanks - the full sentence is clear - audiophiles go through education IMHO.

Peter often reports his experience with Jim Smith - he is also very clear about it in his book "Get a better sound" - IMHO hisi message is that we should have a better system, but also become a better listener.

Please explain why doesn't a system have a sound field? Previously you mentioned you have a different definition of sound field from the ones I linked, what's your definition if we're not talking about the same thing.

I will make it simple, without vectors. Suppose we have three real instruments playing in a room. Each instrument creates a sound field - if you approach each of them with a microphone, the sound intensity follows a defined law of increase versus distance. You play a stereo recording of them - you perceive the illusionary instruments in the space, but if you move approaching the microphone towards the perceived instrument position you do not follow the same law - as there is no real sound field created by the playback of the stereo recording. It is why we can't record a stereo playback the way was recorded and play it again in stereo - we can't record an illusion.

I think the main issue in communication here isn't discovering the wheel, it's the wheel itself. You're focused on the wheel's theory while the rest of us are actually working the wheel!

david

I and many others are focused on what turns the different wheels, including the natural wheel, you and and a few others are focusing on keeping a special wheel above any discussion!

 

[microstrip]

'Training' is not the right word, not the right concept. Training has a predetermined outcome. Learning with or without a mentor (counselor) is a process of discovery.

Sorry, but it is the concept and word used by audio scholars. The outcome of typical audiophile training is a more enjoyable experience in sound reproduction - or for some to enjoy the new toys - nothing against it, this is an hobby. The outcome of Olive training is finding specific technical faults and enjoying technical aspects in recordings - because they assume these issues are of major importance in our enjoyment of sound reproduction, something many audiophiles (including me) do not fully agree.

I am not a believer in internet wisdom, but for lazy-ness I quote it:

What does training mean?
Training is teaching, or developing in oneself or others, any skills and knowledge or fitness that relate to specific useful competencies. Training has specific goals of improving one's capability, capacity, productivity and performance.

 

[ddk]

I and many others are focused on what turns the different wheels, including the natural wheel, you and and a few others are focusing on keeping a special wheel above any discussion!

According to many of your posts your wheel is still stuck in the mud with you and your scholars standing around, hands tightly in pockets, figuring out how to jaw it out! Get the wheel rolling first then we can have a real conversation.

david

 

[microstrip]

According to many of your posts your wheel is still stuck in the mud with you and your scholars standing around, hands tightly pockets in pockets, figuring out how to jaw it out! Get the wheel rolling first then we can have a real conversation.

david

Sorry you think so. Fortunately most people are interested in discussing the high-end and understand it with the help of scholars, designers, dealers and manufacturers.

 

[PeterA]

I and many others are focused on what turns the different wheels, including the natural wheel, you and and a few others are focusing on keeping a special wheel above any discussion!

Fransisco, If you want to learn more, seek out a natural sounding system in Europe, then sit and listen to it. If you want to learn why it sounds natural, talk to the owner, study the gear and the set up. Listening is the key. Take your own music and arrive with an open mind. If it sounds natural to you, it's sound will be based on your memory of the way acoustic music in real space sounds. This should be very easy to grasp.

If you want to learn still more, read some of the threads on WBF that welcome an open discussion about Natural Sound. There is nothing special about such a wheel or above any ability to discuss it. No one is keeping the discussion from you. You had private discussions with David about your internal searching with your own system. It seems you continue to search. David made suggestions and offered advice. There is nothing special or above the discussion there. You either welcome the discussion with an open mind or you reject it outright. It is your prerogative to do as you please and to follow your own preference.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Graham,
You’re describing “natural” sound! Pretty much my process too.

david

I think we mostly signed on because of the music... and after years of faffing around trying to understand the various contributing parts (which was valuable and contributes to problem solving) it really has come back to let the music be your guide as far as any summative assessment.

Besides it just involves appreciating music as a benchmark and it’s more enjoyable ‘work’ than anxiously sitting there worrying things are at fault with the stereo process and my enjoyment of stereo listening.

I was slow in the uptake but got there eventually

 

[bonzo75]

Fransisco, If you want to learn more, seek out a natural sounding system in Europe, then sit and listen to it. If you want to learn why it sounds natural, talk to the owner, study the gear and the set up. Listening is the key. Take your own music and arrive with an open mind. If it sounds natural to you, it's sound will be based on your memory of the way acoustic music in real space sounds. This should be very easy to grasp.

If you want to learn still more, read some of the threads on WBF that welcome an open discussion about Natural Sound. There is nothing special about such a wheel or above any ability to discuss it. No one is keeping the discussion from you. You had private discussions with David about your internal searching with your own system. It seems you continue to search. David made suggestions and offered advice. There is nothing special or above the discussion there. You either welcome the discussion with an open mind or you reject it outright. It is your prerogative to do as you please and to follow your own preference.

But he wants American.

Also, I don't think he takes advice correctly. For example, if someone asks me about Indian food, they listen to the first half (the dish I like) but ignore the half where I tell them I don't like this in London restaurants. They go try out the dish in London and decide they don't like it. Similarly, take the lamm and run it on Wilson. Advice needs to be followed in full. Go to India and have the dish. Don't mix squats with good mornings

 

[microstrip]

Fransisco, If you want to learn more, seek out a natural sounding system in Europe, then sit and listen to it. If you want to learn why it sounds natural, talk to the owner, study the gear and the set up. Listening is the key. Take your own music and arrive with an open mind. If it sounds natural to you, it's sound will be based on your memory of the way acoustic music in real space sounds. This should be very easy to grasp.

There is one horn system I would like to listen in Europe - and it is from a WBF member. However, it has the opposite approach of David practice - expertly done DIY of current components, mix of known brands, exotic cables. My best music is digital, fortunately not a problem in this case.

If you want to learn still more, read some of the threads on WBF that welcome an open discussion about Natural Sound. There is nothing special about such a wheel or above any ability to discuss it. No one is keeping the discussion from you. You had private discussions with David about your internal searching with your own system. It seems you continue to search. David made suggestions and offered advice. There is nothing special or above the discussion there. You either welcome the discussion with an open mind or you reject it outright. It is your prerogative to do as you please and to follow your own preference.

As far as I see them the WBF discussions on Natural Sound were never really open - interesting questions are systematically ignored. This thread is on What does the source sound like... , I posted on it. I will respect your wish to avoid what I and others consider interesting subjects on your system thread, that would be a natural workbench for them.

I feel honored you debate my system - it does not deserve it, IMHO.

I try to approach audio questions in a straightforward and direct way, no taboos. Sorry if it consternates you.

BTW, I feel very happy you now write "Natural Sound" in capitals - I fully agree with your decision.

 

[microstrip]

But he wants American. (...)

Wrong again ...

 

[andromedaaudio]

This thread is on What does the source sound like... ,

The source sounds like whatever you like it to be , through your system .
However how the source really sounded like will forever stay a mystery.


Ps i think micro is just spoiled his listening room is already packed with great gear

 

[bonzo75]

Why have you made up your mind to listen to only one horn system, a system you haven't heard? Even those who know a lot about horns don't do that.