Natural Sound

[PeterA]

In your experience, with your system or others that you have heard, do you find this aspect can be well conveyed through system videos?

Not really. System videos are a useful tool that can convey certain aspects of a system sound, but the full impact of live music, as we experience with our multiple senses, rarely comes through. I see and hear glimpses from the best systems through videos, but they are not like listening and experiencing the main system.

most people listen to system videos through headphones or computer speakers or desktop speakers. These replay devices can only convey so much. They do not really present space or energy and mass the way a main system can.

 

[Argonaut]

In a lot of the discussions about new components or other changes, people rarely articulate why it is they want to make a change and what they hope to achieve by making the change.

I think having a goal and understanding how to achieve it is important in this hobby. It seems rather simple, but I actually think it can be a real challenge.

Quite true … However I tend to take it as read that whenever a member posts regarding acquiring a new to them item , or moving up the product range of their manufacturer of choice , be it from a cable riser to a new DAC, that they are hoping to improve the quality of their audio experience , without the necessity to explain in detail the why and wherewithal of their reasoning And with the goal of having a Sax or a Viola sound as close to real in their music room as possible .

 

[PeterA]

Quite true … However I tend to take it as read that whenever a member posts regarding acquiring a new to them item , or moving up the product range of their manufacturer of choice , be it from a cable riser to a new DAC, that they are hoping to improve the quality of their audio experience , without the necessity to explain in detail the why and wherewithal of their reasoning And with the goal of having a Sax or a Viola sound as close to real in their music room as possible .

That is fine that people simply tell you that they want an improved experience. It seems everybody wants that, but I don’t really know what it means, and people tend to not really define or describe what they mean. Perhaps Ron will start another one of his threads for people to discuss the topic.

This is my system thread. It is a place where I explore my thinking about audio and try to articulate it clearly and share my thoughts with others. It is a place where I document my progress as a hobbyist. Others can read or ignore, and I am not suggesting what anyone else should do. There are many different approaches to the hobby. Many simply read and do not participate. That is fine too.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, you may want to rethink this one. (If you don't get yourself out of this one I think it is "checkmate" on your protestation that Natural Sound is not indelibly a component-exclusionary concept.) You are effectively eliminating the concept of implicit.

A statement can have an implication without that implication being merely the imagination of the reader. This is not my personal, subjective opinion -- this is the way the English language works.

It is incorrect to suggest that unless an assertion is explicit it is incapable of being implicit. In other words, you are saying there's no such thing as an implication (an implication which is objectively present in a statement, and not merely the imagination of the reader).

The Natural Sound crowd's inability to see, or intellectually dishonest refusal to acknowledge, that whittling from the universe of high-end components all of those components which fail the Natural Sound test such that only high-efficiency speakers, pro audio cables and Lamm electronics remain I believe is precisely the implication to which Al is referring.

That is the implication. Writing that "Only high-efficiency speakers, pro audio cables and Lamm electronics are capable of achieving Natural Sound" would be an explication -- which I agree you have not written. But the fact that you have not made it explicit, does not, by itself, mean that you have not made it implicit.

Thank you for the lesson and implied warning, Ron. Where did I suggest that natural sound is "indelibly a component-exclusionary concept"? My system thread is about my system which meets my criteria for natural sound. It is not the only system that meets that criteria. It is not about specific components or even types of components. My list of natural sound attributes is devoid of specific components or types.

I am not denying the possibility of implications. I am stating that I am not aware of where I explicitly stated, or implicitly inferred, that natural sound can only occur with "high efficiency speakers, pro audio cables, and Lamm electronics" (your words, not mine). This is your claim, presumably inferred by my writing, and it is the premise on which you base your argument against me. I am saying that what I describe as the way to get to natural sound is not how you represent it. Just because you infer something does not make it true or a matter of fact.

For years now, I have asked you and other critics for specific examples of where my posts have claimed, or even implied, what you claim. You correctly state, in my view, that I have made no such explicit claims. Can you point to my writing that implied, to you or others, what you claim? What I have stated, which explicitly refutes what you say I implied, is that I have heard natural sound from cone speakers, SS and hybrid amps, non pro audio cables, digital (CDs), and even streamed videos over YouTube.

Furthermore, I think I have been pretty clear that natural sound is not about specific gear. It is about an approach to component selection and set up using live acoustic music as a reference. My system is only one example of such an approach. That it sounds natural is my opinion. That it follows a specific approach, is fact. I watched a system video the other day playing a CD of some classical music in an old Oppo CD player. The system was fascinating and sounded very natural. I discussed what I heard with a couple other people. I remarked that the video sounded very natural, implying that the system sounded very natural. The owner and other friend agreed.

Despite my explicit examples to the contrary, you are free to continue to infer that natural sound is only possible with very specific gear. And I am free to conclude that such an inference, although possible, does not make much sense.

 

[Folsom]

Well, it doesn't help that usually no one can come up with hardly any suggestions outside of Lamm. It might be true there is a limited selection but even those often aren't mentioned. Then again I can say that rarely does much qualify except under specific iterations. It is a little annoying. Sometimes I wonder about making a small not super expensive amp meant for natural sound that is SS, accessible, and interest could take off. People seem more receptive to new than say buying refurbished items to be in the natural camp unless it's speakers or turntables.

 

[bonzo75]

Well, it doesn't help that usually no one can come up with hardly any suggestions outside of Lamm.

Have you seen the sets owners thread, how many non Lamm suggestions?

 

[Folsom]

Have you seen the sets owners thread, how many non Lamm suggestions?

"I've got just the 2w amp for you fella, it'll be wonderful with your 85db speakers". "Don't forget it needs a lot of gain from a preamp that SS won't provide"

Yes I know about it. But they aren't suggestions that are accessible to most people looking to start a discovery path. And a lot of people into SET aren't exactly shooting for natural sound so I don't count the two as synonymous.

 

[bonzo75]

"I've got just the 2w amp for you fella, it'll be wonderful with your 85db speakers". "Don't forget it needs a lot of gain from a preamp that SS won't provide"

Yes I know about it. But they aren't suggestions that are accessible to most people looking to start a discovery path. And a lot of people into SET aren't exactly shooting for natural sound so I don't count the two as synonymous.

sorry I didn’t realise it was for an inefficient insensitive speaker that you were having the discussion

 

[Folsom]

sorry I didn’t realise it was for an inefficient insensitive speaker that you were having the discussion

Are you jet legged? You're not making sense.

 

[bonzo75]

Are you jet legged? You're not making sense.

You mentioned 2w for 85db. I hadn’t read previous context so not sure what you were talking about.

Otherwise, SETs are usually lower powered. Lamm is pretty high.

 

[Folsom]

You mentioned 2w for 85db. I hadn’t read previous context so not sure what you were talking about.

Otherwise, SETs are usually lower powered. Lamm is pretty high.

They're in quotations, it's illustrating a point about accessibility issue. There is no previous context about any such specific speaker - very easy to see. Lamm on the other hand as you point out, are known for easy compatibility relatively. I'm sure that does have to do with their prevalence of mention.

 

[PeterA]

And a lot of people into SET aren't exactly shooting for natural sound so I don't count the two as synonymous.

I agree with you. SETs and natural sound are not synonymous, and yet some claim it is strongly implied here in this very thread. It is utter nonsense. Same with horns. I have heard good and bad of each. These kinds of blanket statements are not what I right about here, nor is it my intention to imply anything similar. I have such limited experience with SETs and horns, that I could not begin to make such an assertion, explicitly or implicitly.

Regarding Lamm, both SS/hybrid and tube, that happens to be my preference, but there are others. For years I enjoyed Pass Class A amplifiers, starting with my first Aleph 3. I followed the linear path and owned six Pass amps, each bigger and more expensive than the last. I kept the Aleph 3, sold the rest. It is not as neutral or transparent as the Lamm ML2, but it sounds quite natural in my system. So does my old Thule CDP.

My old SS/cone system also sounded quite natural by the time I was finished with two years of getting rid of stuff and adjusting the set up. It is amazing how wires, connectors, acoustic treatments, and platforms can move the system away from what I refer to as natural sound. Interestingly, some visitors liked the changes, others did not. That system was with the large SS Pass XA160.5. I tried the XA160.8, but they did not sound natural in that system.

If I were to look for non Lamm amplification in my current system, I would look to some vintage amplifiers and something like FirstWatt. I almost bought a pair of SIT1s. (These comments are based only on amps with which I have direct experience. I am sure there are others. And it is only my opinion, for my preference.) The big Sony VFET amps (designed by Pass) driving Sony speakers in a digital four channel system at RMAF in a large ballroom was one of the most natural portrayals of male choral singers that I have ever heard.

A lot more than just the right amp and speaker are needed for a system to sound natural, though. Again, only in my opinion.

 

[Folsom]

There are some parts that directly conflate with a natural sound in most Pass gear, even Firstwatt. The funny thing is they could easily be changed to get MUCH improved sound. You're welcome to inquire anytime you want about de-hifing a small Pass amp to play with.

(For example he likes Elna capacitors which are horrifically antithetical to natural)

 

[PeterA]

They're in quotations, it's illustrating a point about accessibility issue. There is no previous context about any such specific speaker - very easy to see. Lamm on the other hand as you point out, are known for easy compatibility relatively. I'm sure that does have to do with their prevalence of mention.

What is nice about the ML2 being 18 watts per channel is that I estimate that I only use between 5-10% of its rated power on my 105 dB/16 ohm speakers. This keeps the distortion very low.

Low power SETs are not around here much. I do not have any friends, or know any shops, from whom I could borrow a pair to play with and to compare to my ML2s. I also do not know anyone with really efficient speakers besides my friend's Diatones, and I have heard them with the ML2s but nothing with less power.

 

[PeterA]

There are some parts that directly conflate with a natural sound in most Pass gear, even Firstwatt. The funny thing is they could easily be changed to get MUCH improved sound. You're welcome to inquire anytime you want about de-hifing a small Pass amp to play with.

(For example he likes Elna capacitors which are horrifically antithetical to natural)

I did modify my large Pass amps for more natural sound. I know nothing about electronics, but I do know how to solder, so I followed a friend's instructions. It made a big difference. I am sure they can be modified. If the opportunity arises, I will contact you, but right now I am not really searching for alternatives. Thank you though, I appreciate it. I do have a buddy who makes his own FirstWatt clones. I need to visit again to listen to his latest efforts on his Klipsch speakers. I think he has a nice natural sound with his new Technics DD table on a wonderful simple system.

 

[PeterA]

Al M. said:
Exactly, The dogmatic absolutism as if this were an "objective" hobby with a "universal truth" is what we criticize.

……

Or saying -- or strongly implying -- that you can achieve "Natural Sound" only with certain SET and certain high-efficiency components. If it's your preferred "Natural Sound", that's fine, but it may not be others' "natural sound".

Al, stating an opinion is one thing. Please point to where anyone stated or implied that “natural sound” can only be achieved with certain SET and certain high-efficiency components? Name for us the claim for specific SET amplifiers and specific high-efficiency components, by which you likely mean speakers. I’ve heard very natural sounding systems with cone and panel speakers, digital, and solid-state. Of course there are preferences and opinions.

If it is only strongly implied, that implication resides in your imagination, not in any posted claim.

The premise that discussions about natural sound are presented as fact rather than someone’s opinion is a faulty one. You cannot build up your argument on a faulty premise.

We have just established in this thread about “best“ speakers that we are really talking about someone’s favorite. And that too is only an opinion, not a fact, and it is not dogmatic.

 

[Folsom]

I did modify my large Pass amps for more natural sound. I know nothing about electronics, but I do know how to solder, so I followed a friend's instructions. It made a big difference. I am sure they can be modified. If the opportunity arises, I will contact you, but right now I am not really searching for alternatives. Thank you though, I appreciate it. I do have a buddy who makes his own FirstWatt clones. I need to visit again to listen to his latest efforts on his Klipsch speakers. I think he has a nice natural sound with his new Technics DD table on a wonderful simple system.

Nice. I don't poo poo DD tables that are older from the golden eras, unless someone is using a garbo cart. They may not be what your current or table before were, but a lot of very quality sound can come out of them no problem. Klipsch speakers can portray a good amount of natural sound but if they're the really old models with Electrovoice then they separate themselves to another level. The local record store here uses some Cornwalls on a "natural sounding" amplifier that's a few grades up from the small Denon's DDK has mentioned. When an old album with real character is put on YOU KNOW.

 

[Al M.]

Thank you for the lesson and implied warning, Ron. Where did I suggest that natural sound is "indelibly a component-exclusionary concept"? My system thread is about my system which meets my criteria for natural sound. It is not the only system that meets that criteria. It is not about specific components or even types of components. My list of natural sound attributes is devoid of specific components or types.

I am not denying the possibility of implications. I am stating that I am not aware of where I explicitly stated, or implicitly inferred, that natural sound can only occur with "high efficiency speakers, pro audio cables, and Lamm electronics" (your words, not mine). This is your claim, presumably inferred by my writing, and it is the premise on which you base your argument against me. I am saying that what I describe as the way to get to natural sound is not how you represent it. Just because you infer something does not make it true or a matter of fact.

For years now, I have asked you and other critics for specific examples of where my posts have claimed, or even implied, what you claim. You correctly state, in my view, that I have made no such explicit claims. Can you point to my writing that implied, to you or others, what you claim? What I have stated, which explicitly refutes what you say I implied, is that I have heard natural sound from cone speakers, SS and hybrid amps, non pro audio cables, digital (CDs), and even streamed videos over YouTube.

Furthermore, I think I have been pretty clear that natural sound is not about specific gear. It is about an approach to component selection and set up using live acoustic music as a reference. My system is only one example of such an approach. That it sounds natural is my opinion. That it follows a specific approach, is fact. I watched a system video the other day playing a CD of some classical music in an old Oppo CD player. The system was fascinating and sounded very natural. I discussed what I heard with a couple other people. I remarked that the video sounded very natural, implying that the system sounded very natural. The owner and other friend agreed.

Despite my explicit examples to the contrary, you are free to continue to infer that natural sound is only possible with very specific gear. And I am free to conclude that such an inference, although possible, does not make much sense.

I'll go down memory lane on this one, in order to show what you have implied. Here is this post on p. 13 of your thread (emphases added):

[...]

I would say that there are degrees of natural sound, but just as there are different natural sounding systems, there are different natural sounding halls. And with these differences, the important thing to recognize and appreciate is that some rise above the rest. We can tell ourselves that it is all opinion, but in rare cases, those opinions seem fairly universal, in, for example, the cases of Boston, and Vienna. It is also the case with certain speakers like the WE and Seimanns Bionor, David's Beyond turntables, and certain electronics. When there is general consensus about relative quality, that should tell us something. David has spent years learning and understanding these differences. We can look to him for guidance and then listen for ourselves.

You state that there are "degrees of natural sound", fine. Yet it is clear what you think is at the top of the ladder ("some rise above the rest"), and that it is mainly horns and DDK favored items.

And with "We can tell ourselves that it is all opinion, but in rare cases, those opinions seem fairly universal",

you come close to making the claim of "objective best", a tendency that more recently you also received pushback for.

In summary, there is something (at least close to) "objective best", and it is top of the ladder of "degrees of natural sound". And it is mainly horns, "certain electronics" (well, we don't need to guess on this one in the context; it includes certain SETs), DDK turntables etc.

So yeah, it is clear that there is a superior minded attitude at work -- I know what is on top of "natural sound", and everything else is "degrees below".

In these posts of today you give away the game (emphasis added):

Nice post. No, I never saw Ked say people have to buy SET and Horns. It’s the same as natural sound not requiring SET and horns. I’ve heard some cone and panel speakers, some digital, and some solid-state, in fact sound quite natural to me. People have their own preferences and choose how to describe it.

Who could argue with increasing exposure? However, I think people are free to pursue this hobby anyway they want. And if they want to continue the path they started on, that is fine too.

My old SS/cone system also sounded quite natural by the time I was finished with two years of getting rid of stuff and adjusting the set up. It is amazing how wires, connectors, acoustic treatments, and platforms can move the system away from what I refer to as natural sound. Interestingly, some visitors liked the changes, others did not.

"Quite natural":
Yeah, quite, not completely so. A little lower on the ladder of "degrees of natural sound", isn't it?

Sure, you change your tune a bit here:

Al, stating an opinion is one thing. Please point to where anyone stated or implied that “natural sound” can only be achieved with certain SET and certain high-efficiency components? Name for us the claim for specific SET amplifiers and specific high-efficiency components, by which you likely mean speakers. I’ve heard very natural sounding systems with cone and panel speakers, digital, and solid-state. Of course there are preferences and opinions.

But do you really think that, in the general context of all that you said, we now trust this "change of heart" (or change of tone)? You've been caught, and you try to rectify things in, well, a not so convincing way.

The beginning of your "Natural Sound thread" speaks volumes. Post #2 is called,

Sublime Sound (the formative years)

Post #4 begins as:

Sublime Sound to Natural Sound
(Time for Change)​

After hearing the improvements from these various experiments, I realized that I had taken my system about as far as it could go in this room and with this equipment. Everything that David had suggested I try, resulted in better sound. After eighteen months of experiments, I was beginning to realize that to take my system to the next level, I would have to consider changing a major component.

Yeah, sublime sound wasn't so natural, wasn't it?

The phrase "Sublime Sound to Natural Sound" says it all.

(cont.)

 

[Al M.]

It continues:

​

A mint condition sample was found in a private collection in Japan. David contacted me and told me that it was being shipped to Utah. I asked David if I could visit to see the turntable, to hear his much discussed and admired system, and most importantly, to meet the gentleman who had taught me so much over text and telephone conversations.

I had planned to stay for four days and ended up staying for a week. I learned more in those seven days than in many previous years in the hobby. It was a full immersion into what David calls “Natural Sound”. This exposure, day after day, and to four completely different systems, made me reevaluate my whole approach to the hobby. We stayed up late each evening just listening and enjoying the music. I shared my observations, and David explained to me what each part of the system did and how it all worked together to produce the sound we heard. I had not heard music presented so naturally before. Resolution was extreme, but not at all in the way I had previously heard it. The resolution simply was there, presented naturally without drawing any attention to itself.

Aah, finally we are at "Natural Sound" (post #5 in the thread):

What is Natural Sound?
​

Hearing David’s four systems play music over seven days allowed me to understand the qualities of a “Natural Sound” system. I came up with this list to describe what I heard.

• No aspect of the sound calls attention to itself
• The sound is balanced
• The system sound is absent from the presentation
• Wide listening window: able to enjoy most/all genres of music
• Portrays the character of each recording, nuanced venue information
• Allows a wide range of volume adjustment for what is most appropriate for a particular recording and still be engaged
• Superior information retrieval
• Natural resolution, not “detail”
• Able to scale up and down, large to small
• No “sound”, only music
• Room is energized and music is “alive”
• Enjoyable outside of listening sweet spot
• Images are stable as listener moves around the room
• Draws listener into the music
• Relaxing, zero fatigue
• Open, effortless, and dynamic sound
• No need to crank the volume
• No added or artificial extension
• No analysis of the sound into bits and pieces, music experienced as a whole
• Result is beauty and emotion.

David discusses different degrees of natural sound. Surely more modest systems will not sound like his Siemann Bionor speakers. However, the four systems I heard all exhibited these characteristics, to a greater or lesser degree. The systems simply sounded right. Lesser natural sounding systems will still have these characteristics, but to a lesser extent.

After spending a week listening to David’s system and grasping the true meaning of Natural Sound, I have moved away from the Audiophile Glossary of Terms. Reading reviews and trying to replicate the sonic attributes of the “Absolute Sound” in my old system gave me a sense of achievement and progress, but I now think this approach led me astray. I lost the music along the way. Until I began my eighteen months of set up experiments, I was developing a more and more Hifi sound from my system and ultimately becoming less satisfied as a result.

After Utah, I realized I had to forget about hifi attributes, the glossary of terms, and breaking the music into “bits and pieces.” I needed to get back to hearing the music as it is presented in the concert hall. I wanted to experience the music’s power, its meaning, its gestalt.

Clearly then, the attributes of "Natural Sound" than are best found in these DDK systems:

Hearing David’s four systems play music over seven days allowed me to understand the qualities of a “Natural Sound” system.

***

Ok, Peter, we got the message.

Obviously, all the things you have written (the above is just a brief synopsis) have contributed to a strong feeling among many posters here of what has been implied by you:

The true "natural sound" is clearly only found in certain system configurations, and everything else is just "less natural sound".

 

[Argonaut]

Despite my explicit examples to the contrary, you are free to continue to infer that natural sound is only possible with very specific gear. And I am free to conclude that such an inference, although possible, does not make much sense.

OH MY …. Are you seriously expecting to pull this one off