IMHO you (and a few others) fail to understand what means debating audio stereo reproduction. We had great debates in many long threads along many years, even more vigorous, and no one felt personally insulted by the posted ideas.
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
IMHO you (and a few others) fail to understand what means debating audio stereo reproduction. We had great debates in many long threads along many years, even more vigorous, and no one felt personally insulted by the posted ideas.
+1
This long running thread has turned from one whereby it's author continues to express his joy in describing his enthusiasm for his latest acquisition, into one so hostile and caustic that it is now just mostly a hollow breast-beating pissing contest. What I always considered a place for valuable discussion and learning has become a place that has turned several members who I have read for many years, against each other in a way that is at total odds with the purpose of the forum. The moderators have made comments but things have not changed despite their request to lighten things up with respectful posts. The barbs and arrow continue to fly. After 75+ pages, enough is enough. Don't you think?
Last edited:
Agrreed
if I were Peter I would have closed this thread after post 1505 which I thought was well articulated and stated the very obvious. Enough is enough
Peter,
Do you recall your excellent thread entitled Do Members use Live Music as a Reference ?
A fairly detailed discussion arose of natural sound in that thread. It seems after 5 years of absence, nothing is new - even discussion of Harry Pearson citing the concept of Gestalt in making his own comparisons.
I don't recall anywhere in this thread that you invited debate over ddk, his cables, his advice, personal attacks on anyone, or that Dr. Williams system and his lived listening experiences be both attacked and derided, from anyone let alone from a distance ^ (Edit).
In that thread I posted this
I have been struggling to put my finger on it, but it seems to me that what you have been sharing your joy of, is arriving at that magical place.
Anyway back to topic - do you by any chance have a copy of London Grammar's "If You Wait" ? This one:
"Hey Now" is a track I know very well. I think Ian has the LP, by memory.
There are a few contemporary songs that move me as much as this one. Along with their cover of Chris Issac's "Wicked Game".
In any event, if you have it, and it is not too much trouble, I should love to experience it on your system via YouTube.
In the meantime, here are a couple YouTube Video's of music, not systems. I am amazed at 1943 Benny Goodman / Peggy Lee cut...they are both...so cool. Peggy Lee is positively sultry.
Do you recall your excellent thread entitled Do Members use Live Music as a Reference ?
A fairly detailed discussion arose of natural sound in that thread. It seems after 5 years of absence, nothing is new - even discussion of Harry Pearson citing the concept of Gestalt in making his own comparisons.
I don't recall anywhere in this thread that you invited debate over ddk, his cables, his advice, personal attacks on anyone, or that Dr. Williams system and his lived listening experiences be both attacked and derided, from anyone let alone from a distance ^ (Edit).
In that thread I posted this
I have been struggling to put my finger on it, but it seems to me that what you have been sharing your joy of, is arriving at that magical place.
Anyway back to topic - do you by any chance have a copy of London Grammar's "If You Wait" ? This one:
"Hey Now" is a track I know very well. I think Ian has the LP, by memory.
There are a few contemporary songs that move me as much as this one. Along with their cover of Chris Issac's "Wicked Game".
In any event, if you have it, and it is not too much trouble, I should love to experience it on your system via YouTube.
In the meantime, here are a couple YouTube Video's of music, not systems. I am amazed at 1943 Benny Goodman / Peggy Lee cut...they are both...so cool. Peggy Lee is positively sultry.
Last edited:
Apologies. Perhaps I was being a little cryptic. My point, respectfully, is that it is a little hard to pass judgement on someone's system if you haven't actually heard it....
I edited my original post after considering your very well made point.
I am clumsy in my words and expression, and often what I mean I do not write well.
Last edited:
Hello Andrew, I do indeed recall that old thread. Attitudes and decorum have changed since then.
I do not have the London Grammar LP, but I enjoyed both videos. Thank you.
You have a point, Andrew, even though in their own way those were interesting days as well.
Your comment is a useful reminder of the fact that the idea of "good old days" mostly does not hold up to scrutiny. Human memory has a way of creating the idea over time.
Three or.04% of his >70 posts in this thread had "interesting questions" ?
I don't recall positive or noteworthy contributions, despite several polite requests for such. I do recall a lot of negativity. It's not like putting him on pause was without cause.
I wish ill on no one, but let's not overlook reality.
Dave - could you please point to posts in this thread where someone is saying "you're doing it all wrong"? That would be evidentiary and you seem like a guy who enjoys evidence.
How many times have I said here and elsewhere that we don't get to question one's basis of preference. We don't get to tell someone what they should like.
How many times must it be said before it is genuinely ingenuous? Will one more help? Okay. We don't get to tell someone what they should like. Oh, and let me add: you get to decide if a comment is genuine. But please acknowledge that your personal judgements of intent are just that.
That someone defines, for example, 'natural sound' as not having this or that characteristic that is not derisive, it is explanatory or descriptive. If you find such a description as derisive, that is your choice.
If you consider presenting and discussing 'natural sound' as an attempt at conversion, (which imo it is not) then the effort thus far is swamped by other efforts at conversion from those many praising those values of "over-emphasized leading edges, black backgrounds and pinpoint imaging." No need to fear a small minority.
Why is that an issue when it’s true Al? In every field there are people who know more and those who know less, no one knows everything pieces of that knowledge is spread out among group, that’s reality are we now supposed to ignore that fact too? Ignoring it means never learning. How do you communicate and learn when the topic isn’t understood why is clarification contemptuous?
This is a completely different matter than what @tima mentioned, no one was told anything about what they kind of systems or sound is superior or what they should like anywhere in this thread or the one you started. The bullying and posturing is from one side using the term “natural” as excuse to bash a member’s experience for personal reasons. It’s happening more often here and it’s way beyond debating a topic.
david
This is an issue only because the people who are told they know less have an ego and want to be told they know equal even when they spend no effort in research. By nature this hobby is such that while people want to know more, they cannot due to work and family pressures. But if they have an ego, they cannot stand knowing they haven't done their research.
As this is my system thread and a place where I like to share my current thoughts about what I am doing and seeing, I thought I would share this.
I just read in interesting post in a different thread where the advice from one with "more experience" to the other with less, was roughly this: "Stop chasing your tail and stick with what you have. Fine tune the sound to your liking with these cables." I suppose one could add to cables other accessories. This leads to always fine tuning, adding stuff, changing things always searching. I used to do that thinking cables are a "component". I eagerly read reviews of things that promised to improve the sound. I know that approach and it was one I followed for years.
This approach is valid and popular. There is nothing wrong with it. A less popular, but equally valid approach, as I see it, is to search for the right components which deliver the sound you like, and then treat/judge cables and accessories with the opposite view: they should not tune the sound. In fact they should "do no harm". They should not add or remove anything from the sound. They should not be used to flavor or shape the sound to you liking. The sound and presentation is from the source, electronics, and speakers. This also allows one to spend more on the main components. This is the approach I took with this new system.
Of course, the criticism could always be that we surely don't know if the cables "do no harm". How is it determined? I've thought about this, particularly when I was doing my experiments with Sublime Sound. David suggested I simply ask "Is it more natural sounding". I interpreted this to mean compared to the reference of real instruments. I also listened for is there more of this or more of that. As soon as I heard more and more of something, I could not unhear it. Same happened when resolution or information was stripped away. In either case, the item under evaluation was doing harm. It colored all the sound, so I rejected that. That happened with cable auditions, cord auditions, room treatments, supports, etc. This is how I learned from my system in my room.
Perhaps everyone does this too, but I see a difference between the advice about trying different cables to tune a system, and the advice to find cables (just one example) to do no harm. One enhances or smooths over, the other contributes nothing, or as close to nothing as one can determine. I am not suggesting one approach is better or worse than the other. I am simply sharing my observation of the contrast between the two different approaches. There are certainly other valid approaches too, or variations of these.
From what I see here on WBF, and in the industry at large, the first approach is more popular. The second approach is pretty rare, but I see examples in places. The industry seems to advocate for the first approach, and perhaps that is why it is more popular.
I just read in interesting post in a different thread where the advice from one with "more experience" to the other with less, was roughly this: "Stop chasing your tail and stick with what you have. Fine tune the sound to your liking with these cables." I suppose one could add to cables other accessories. This leads to always fine tuning, adding stuff, changing things always searching. I used to do that thinking cables are a "component". I eagerly read reviews of things that promised to improve the sound. I know that approach and it was one I followed for years.
This approach is valid and popular. There is nothing wrong with it. A less popular, but equally valid approach, as I see it, is to search for the right components which deliver the sound you like, and then treat/judge cables and accessories with the opposite view: they should not tune the sound. In fact they should "do no harm". They should not add or remove anything from the sound. They should not be used to flavor or shape the sound to you liking. The sound and presentation is from the source, electronics, and speakers. This also allows one to spend more on the main components. This is the approach I took with this new system.
Of course, the criticism could always be that we surely don't know if the cables "do no harm". How is it determined? I've thought about this, particularly when I was doing my experiments with Sublime Sound. David suggested I simply ask "Is it more natural sounding". I interpreted this to mean compared to the reference of real instruments. I also listened for is there more of this or more of that. As soon as I heard more and more of something, I could not unhear it. Same happened when resolution or information was stripped away. In either case, the item under evaluation was doing harm. It colored all the sound, so I rejected that. That happened with cable auditions, cord auditions, room treatments, supports, etc. This is how I learned from my system in my room.
Perhaps everyone does this too, but I see a difference between the advice about trying different cables to tune a system, and the advice to find cables (just one example) to do no harm. One enhances or smooths over, the other contributes nothing, or as close to nothing as one can determine. I am not suggesting one approach is better or worse than the other. I am simply sharing my observation of the contrast between the two different approaches. There are certainly other valid approaches too, or variations of these.
From what I see here on WBF, and in the industry at large, the first approach is more popular. The second approach is pretty rare, but I see examples in places. The industry seems to advocate for the first approach, and perhaps that is why it is more popular.
Peter, it is implicit in your suggestion that there are cables which do nothing. All cables do something. They add or takeaway. Sure, you can go for the least colored, that requires a lot of research. Also, cables are very system specific, given most systems have some compromise or the other. So usually people end up choosing one that attenuates the highs, or plumps up the bass, etc. Most people don't have infinite resources and space to fine tune components and rooms. Cables are also portable so can easily be shared and tried and bought and resold
I think that is pretty much all true. And that’s why that approach seems quite popular. Nothing wrong with it. I’m just wondering if other people see this as a distinction between different approaches or not. And replies to almost everything in addition to just cables.
The reason the other post caught Mayeye is because the guy was doing a lot of gear swapping and want to stop chasing his tail. On the advice of his dealer, she was going to focus on cables to fine-tune the gear he already has.
Cable manufacturers offer different cables with different sounds. I suppose this is to meet taste requirements and budget requirements and component requirements.
I can't deny I am nostalgic of these times, where members could post their opinions without being systematically bullied. Most of the points that are now being considered a violent aggression on Natural Sound were robustly and friendly debated in the thread referred by Andrew S.
Things would be much easier if we had separate threads on Peter system and on the technical and subjective aspects of the sound proposed by David. The problem of this thread like it is now is that anything we say looks to be a direct endorsement or a disapproval of Natural Sound.
Do you think calling one group of people liars as you stated and your role as the policeman a discussion? Who’s bullying who in this scenario when that’s your position? Of course you’ll get pushback. Where the thread went wrong had nothing to do with endorsement or disapproval of “natural sound” it soured when it became personal. I don’t want to go back on forth on this, but if you’re going to preach be honest about it.
david
David,
Now you are pretending you do not understand what are subjective opinions and its debate. No one is calling anyone a liar or being a policeman. Unless you understand the difference between "real" and "perception of real" everything becomes personnel. F. Toole explains it in the first pages of his book, read them if you can't understand from me - he his surely a much better teacher than me.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |