Peter A.’s System: A Perspective on Natural Sound

[VLS]

This post completely misses the point of natural sound. Natural sound is full range, full spectrum sound where nothing calls specific attention to itself. Just like live music should sound.

Dissecting sections of the audible frequency spectrum is, I think, the antithesis of Peter's approach.

I must say that I find these responses perplexing.

Would it have been better if the question were framed as something like “to what degree does this system attain the frequency extension one might find in a range of natural, real-life musical performances”?

Al’s review addressed some *very* specific characteristics of the system in great detail – namely its handling of transients (and it notably omitted mentioning many others). There were no objections to that, so why the objection to a question about another aspect such as frequency extension? What is the list of allowable characteristics that can be discussed?

Is it the case that if I declare my system to be one that strives for “naturalness”, I thereby invalidate all of the common criteria we all use to understand what we are hearing, and force everyone to discuss my system only in “gestalt” ways?

I’m inherently skeptical of any school of thought – whether audio, scientific, or political – that attempts to control what questions it is permissible to ask.

I’m fine with the proponent of such a system explaining why they don’t find a particular “traditional” criterion important, but I don’t think they should refuse to answer the question.

 

[bonzo75]

Dissecting sections of the audible frequency spectrum is, I think, the antithesis of Peter's approach.

Understand that while listening but while commenting on the forum if analysis is asked for it can easily be provided

 

[bonzo75]

When my gf is asked to describe me she simply says I love him, and she often gets surprised I am more than half a foot taller than her. But my online dating profile used to list various attributes. Similarly, when you document your system, one style is to describe it as my gf describes me, the other one is to list out the way I did my dating profile

 

[bonzo75]

I must say that I find these responses perplexing.

Would it have been better if the question were framed as something like “to what degree does this system attain the frequency extension one might find in a range of natural, real-life musical performances”?

Al’s review addressed some *very* specific characteristics of the system in great detail – namely its handling of transients (and it notably omitted mentioning many others). There were no objections to that, so why the objection to a question about another aspect such as frequency extension? What is the list of allowable characteristics that can be discussed?

Is it the case that if I declare my system to be one that strives for “naturalness”, I thereby invalidate all of the common criteria we all use to understand what we are hearing, and force everyone to discuss my system only in “gestalt” ways?

I’m inherently skeptical of any school of thought – whether audio, scientific, or political – that attempts to control what questions it is permissible to ask.

I’m fine with the proponent of such a system explaining why they don’t find a particular “traditional” criterion important, but I don’t think they should refuse to answer the question.

Spot on. You must be the sensible one from Boston

 

[ack]

Al’s review addressed some *very* specific characteristics of the system in great detail – namely its handling of transients (and it notably omitted mentioning many others). There were no objections to that, so why the objection to a question about another aspect such as frequency extension? What is the list of allowable characteristics that can be discussed?

Is it the case that if I declare my system to be one that strives for “naturalness”, I thereby invalidate all of the common criteria we all use to understand what we are hearing, and force everyone to discuss my system only in “gestalt” ways?

Moreover, based on the assertion that "Natural sound is full range, full spectrum sound", if one declares their system as natural sounding, then that implies full-range, full-spectrum, proper tonal balance all around. In other words, this has been perfectly achieved in Peter's system, and any explicit questions around that are thus invalid.

 

[Al M.]

Great, my ears are hurting from that too, thanks a lot.

But: very nice playing!
(As far as I can hear that through the sub-par iPhone sound.)

 

[jeff1225]

I must say that I find these responses perplexing.

Would it have been better if the question were framed as something like “to what degree does this system attain the frequency extension one might find in a range of natural, real-life musical performances”?

Al’s review addressed some *very* specific characteristics of the system in great detail – namely its handling of transients (and it notably omitted mentioning many others). There were no objections to that, so why the objection to a question about another aspect such as frequency extension? What is the list of allowable characteristics that can be discussed?

Is it the case that if I declare my system to be one that strives for “naturalness”, I thereby invalidate all of the common criteria we all use to understand what we are hearing, and force everyone to discuss my system only in “gestalt” ways?

I’m inherently skeptical of any school of thought – whether audio, scientific, or political – that attempts to control what questions it is permissible to ask.

I’m fine with the proponent of such a system explaining why they don’t find a particular “traditional” criterion important, but I don’t think they should refuse to answer the question.

There are questions that totally miss the point and are a waste of time.

 

[Al M.]

@Al M. Back on topic, how would you describe Peter's system in terms of treble and bass performance? Lacking in extension at the frequency extremes? Properly extended? Something else?

Treble is somewhat attenuated. A bit too much for my taste (and I have already attenuated my own treble quite a bit by speaker toe-out), but despite that, some things come through very nicely, such as "air" on some high notes of solo violin on Scheherazade, or the very high-pitched metallic percussion at about 3-4 min into the fourth mvmt. of Scheherazade.

Bass extension is more or less as good as the Magico Q3 -- but character of bass is considerably more life-like. In fact, I would say bass quality is spectacular in many ways. Bass doesn't seem to go as low as a subwoofer would, but then, most speakers don't.

 

[jeff1225]

Moreover, based on the assertion that "Natural sound is full range, full spectrum sound", if one declares their system as natural sounding, then that implies full-range, full-spectrum, proper tonal balance all around. In other words, this has been perfectly achieved in Peter's system, and any explicit questions around that are thus invalid.

And just think, you could drive over and hear if for yourself.

 

[morricab]

Great, my ears are hurting from that too, thanks a lot.

But: very nice playing!
(As far as I can hear that through the sub-par iPhone sound.)

Maybe you should play it through a less aggressive system??

 

[Al M.]

Maybe you should play it through a less aggressive system??

I played it through headphones which normally are anything but aggressive, duh.

Through the same headphones I can play tons of YouTube violin videos that sound much nicer than this, and certainly don't make my ears hurt.

 

[morricab]

I played it through headphones which normally are anything but aggressive, duh.

Through the same headphones I can play tons of YouTube violin videos that sound much nicer than this.

You just prove to me you don’t know what you are talking about...

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Treble is somewhat attenuated. A bit too much for my taste (and I have already attenuated my own treble quite a bit by speaker toe-out), but despite that, some things come through very nicely, such as "air" on some high notes of solo violin on Scheherazade, or the very high-pitched metallic percussion at about 3-4 min into the fourth mvmt. of Scheherazade.

Bass extension is more or less as good as the Magico Q3 -- but character of bass is considerably more life-like. In fact, I would say bass quality is spectacular in many ways. Bass doesn't seem to go as low as a subwoofer would, but then, most speakers don't.

In the past 12 months or so I really came to appreciate bass quality as being the absolutely essential key of my system. Always happy to trade some extension if it keeps the quality.
Imho the biggest difference between live sounding acoustic classics music and most hifi systems is in the lower octaves. In a lot of hifi the music is lost in these regions.
I heard exceptional sounding natural bass on David’s Bionor vids actually - just breathed with speed and so much tone.

Best.

 

[bonzo75]

Treble is somewhat attenuated. A bit too much for my taste (and I have already attenuated my own treble quite a bit by speaker toe-out), but despite that, some things come through very nicely, such as "air" on some high notes of solo violin on Scheherazade, or the very high-pitched metallic percussion at about 3-4 min into the fourth mvmt. of Scheherazade.

Bass extension is more or less as good as the Magico Q3 -- but character of bass is considerably more life-like. In fact, I would say bass quality is spectacular in many ways. Bass doesn't seem to go as low as a subwoofer would, but then, most speakers don't.

What about integration with midbass and midrange, is it seamless?

 

[Ron Resnick]

I must say that I find these responses perplexing.

Would it have been better if the question were framed as something like “to what degree does this system attain the frequency extension one might find in a range of natural, real-life musical performances”?

Al’s review addressed some *very* specific characteristics of the system in great detail – namely its handling of transients (and it notably omitted mentioning many others). There were no objections to that, so why the objection to a question about another aspect such as frequency extension? What is the list of allowable characteristics that can be discussed?

Is it the case that if I declare my system to be one that strives for “naturalness”, I thereby invalidate all of the common criteria we all use to understand what we are hearing, and force everyone to discuss my system only in “gestalt” ways?

I’m inherently skeptical of any school of thought – whether audio, scientific, or political – that attempts to control what questions it is permissible to ask.

I’m fine with the proponent of such a system explaining why they don’t find a particular “traditional” criterion important, but I don’t think they should refuse to answer the question.

I think this is a fair and very thoughtful rebuttal.

 

[DaveC]

In the past 12 months or so I really came to appreciate bass quality as being the absolutely essential key of my system. Always happy to trade some extension if it keeps the quality.
Imho the biggest difference between live sounding acoustic classics music and most hifi systems is in the lower octaves. In a lot of hifi the music is lost in these regions.
I heard exceptional sounding natural bass on David’s Bionor vids actually - just breathed with speed and so much tone.

Best.

I agree, bass quality is so important, and is the reason I have such an issue with value proposition offered by most "high end" speaker companies, often you have to spend 6-figures to get a speaker with excellent bass performance and the lower end models, even at $50k price levels, are often severely lacking in comparison to a system that uses larger woofers.

 

[Al M.]

What about integration with midbass and midrange, is it seamless?

Yes!

 

[Al M.]

In the past 12 months or so I really came to appreciate bass quality as being the absolutely essential key of my system. Always happy to trade some extension if it keeps the quality.
Imho the biggest difference between live sounding acoustic classics music and most hifi systems is in the lower octaves. In a lot of hifi the music is lost in these regions.
I heard exceptional sounding natural bass on David’s Bionor vids actually - just breathed with speed and so much tone.

Best.

Indeed, extension can sometimes be the enemy, also because of room overload. Fortunately, my JL Audio subs feature "E.L.F. (extreme low frequency) attenuation" (those guys know what they're doing), and I have set it to the max, which is about -13 dB at 24 Hz, I think. Otherwise my mid-sized room would give problems.

Despite that, with some electronica the low bass is still a room-shaking beast, but controlled -- thanks to the attenuation. On the other hand, on a lot of music the subs barely contribute to the sound.

 

[microstrip]

Treble is somewhat attenuated. (...)

Did you feel it playing the jazz selection? Blue Note recordings are known to be recorded hot, they should be an excellent match with Peter system.

 

[DaveC]

On leading edges and transients, this is an aspect of performance that can be muted, realistic or over-done due to many different aspects of the system's design.

I am absolutely not surprised to hear Al's experience of it, because I know from my own experience what some of these aspects of a "natural sound" system will do.... overall you'll get a system with softer leading edges and a more homogenized sound. This is why nothing "sticks out", it's because the whole presentation is smoothed over compared to what other systems are capable of.

This has a major effect on how the audio system engages with your nervous system. The level of stimulation has a lot to do with how leading edges and transients are handled. A system with blunted leading edges will be more relaxing and may even put you to sleep. Overshooting leading edges can sound exciting but is ultimately fatiguing.

Different people prefer different levels of stimulation from their system, but few systems can scale stimulation with the recording, because the system is very rarely NEUTRAL. I would argue "natural sound" as ddk puts it is on the soft side of neutral and will homogenize to a degree. Other systems may always sound aggressive. I've worked very hard over decades so my system scales the stimulation level with the recording. Electronica can sound aggressive and amazingly sharp, but at the same time a live recording from mid-hall will sound relaxed.

Basing Natural Sound only on live classical recordings is a major weakness because there are a lot more genres of music to get to sound right, and IMO an good system should sound right on ALL recordings.

There are a ton of factors that can effect the leading edges, cables and AC power has a major effect, but so do things like resistor choice in amplifiers. Simply changing from old style carbon resistors like Kiwame to Mills wirewound in the power supply or cathode of a SET amp can radically change the leading edges. Low quality 4N silver cables can make leading edges leap out at the listener. Dirty AC power can add a splash or glare accent to leading edges. Cheap copper cables smooth out and homogenize the sound.