Natural Sound

[hopkins]

https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Recording-Practical-Tradition-Engineering/dp/0367312808/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0

Thanks. I am sure this is an interesting read. As I mentioned, I don't choose what I listen to based on recording quality. Good engineering is a bonus, not a prerequisite.

Should I conclude from the fact that you choose to link this book here that "natural sound" is essentially the result of the recording?

 

[tima]

Did I misunderstand the essence of "natural sound"?

Tell me what you think is the essence of natural sound.

 

[hopkins]

Tell me what you think is the essence of natural sound.

From what you and PeterA explain, it's more a question of what it is not, rather than what it is - instruments not "clearly outlined", for example - hence my question (what makes instruments clearly outlined...).

 

[tima]

Should I conclude from the fact that you choose to link this book here that "natural sound" is essentially the result of the recording?

I posted a link to the book from which a quote was taken and to which Brad referred in order to show the book is currently available in case someone wanted to further pursue Brad's thought that "recordings are enhanced on purpose to give more precise localization."

 

[tima]

Tell me what you think is the essence of natural sound.

From what you and PeterA explain, it's more a question of what it is not, rather than what it is - instruments not "clearly outlined", for example - hence my question (what makes instruments clearly outlined...).

No offense but from that I don't think you have an understanding about natural sound. The discussion also includes differences and similarities between hearing live acoustic music and hearing listening room reproduction.

If you want to learn, I suggest you read this thread on Natural Sound from the start and then come back to ask questions. Below is part of post #5. Some of the useful ensuing discussion goes over these items, back and forth, in detail. Some of the discussion comes from offended or disputatious people who think it is arrogant or self-righteous of Peter to name his system 'Natural Sound'.

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.

 

[hopkins]

No offense but from that I don't think you have an understanding about natural sound. The discussion also includes differences and similarities between hearing live acoustic music and hearing listening room reproduction.

If you want to learn, I suggest you read this thread on Natural Sound from the start and then come back to ask questions. Below is part of post #5. Some of the useful ensuing discussion goes over these items, back and forth, in detail. Some of the discussion comes from offended or disputatious people who think it is arrogant or self-righteous of Peter to name his system 'Natural Sound'.

None taken. If this thread is about the difference between live and reproduced music, then I could have skipped it entirely.

I did read the first post. Most people would agree with many of these aspects, there's nothing new under the sun. Who doesn't want a "balanced" sound? Who wants a "genre specific" system? Who doesn't want to feel the character of each recording? Who doesn't want to be drawn in to the music? Superior information retrieval? Dynamic sound? Etc...etc...

There are some things which are more vague.

"No analysis of the sound into bits and pieces, music experienced as a whole". I don't know what "bits and pieces" means, but sometimes I do focus on the performance of individual musicians in the band, and sometimes I don't.

"Natural resolution, not "detail"". I have no idea what this means.

"No added or artificial extension". No idea what that refers to either.

Those are some of my questions, but they don't need to be answered, especially not if they require a full lecture on "misguided esthetics"

 

[PeterA]

Ok, this is not very close for a chamber performance. Still, it should have been easy to audibly locate the individual players with your eyes closed.

Please also read what Micro posted from Decca. They sought to recreate more of the visual aspects in the recording than you would get live with your eyes closed because when you listen live with eyes open you have a lot of other input to guide you on where the sound emanates from. The recordings are enhanced on purpose to give more precise localization.

Oh, I could locate the different locations of the musicians with their instruments. They were just not as pronounced and separated, as on some recordings and as some systems present them.

I read the quote about what Decca was doing. Someone was implying that my system makes all the recordings sound the same or that I only listen to some specific type of recording. That is not the case. I clearly hear the differences from different recordings. I have also owned cables which enhance this separation of instruments and exaggerated this effect making recordings sound unlike live music. I’ve also heard systems that exaggerate or enhance this effect.

I accept the differences built into the recordings themselves and want my system to reflect those differences. I have tried to avoid components that enhance some of these effects because they sound less convincing to me at least by reminding me less of my experience with live music.

 

[morricab]

Oh, I could located the different locations of the beauticians with their instruments. They were just not as pronounced and separated, as on some recordings and as some systems present them.

I read the quote about what Decca was doing. Someone was implying that my system makes all the recordings sound the same or that I only listen to some specific type of recording. That is not the case. I clearly hear the differences from different recordings. I have also owned cables which enhance this separation of instruments and exaggerated and make recordings sound unlike live music. I’ve also heard systems that exaggerate or enhance this effect.

I accept the differences built into the recording themselves and want my system to reflect those differences. I have tried to avoid components that enhance some of these effects because they convincing to me at least by reminding me less of my experience with live music.

I guess it comes back to which live experience are you trying to replicate. When I was recording my ex playing solo violin the intensity and power of that one instrument threatened to overpower the room. The same instrument in Tonhalle was still very present (it was a Stradivarius after all) but still quite a bit softer, warmer and a lot less raw.

I tend to take live up close as a closer to a good recording standard because the mic proximity in most recordings is up close. It will almost never sound mid-hall live and IMO a stereo should never be mentally compared to that live experience.

When I recently heard Vikingur Olafsson in Tonhalle, we sat in the front row…then it really sounded much closer to what one hears on a good classical piano recording through a top notch system. A piano concerto mid-hall doesn’t have the same comparability.

Good live recording's can be a valuable source for comparison…because while still usually pretty up close, it is a more natural perspective than studio produced recordings. If your system can capture the energy and ambiance welll then it has a good chance to create some suspension of disbelief.

 

[PeterA]

I guess it comes back to which live experience are you trying to replicate. When I was recording my ex playing solo violin the intensity and power of that one instrument threatened to overpower the room. The same instrument in Tonhalle was still very present (it was a Stradivarius after all) but still quite a bit softer, warmer and a lot less raw.

I tend to take live up close as a closer to a good recording standard because the mic proximity in most recordings is up close. It will almost never sound mid-hall live and IMO a stereo should never be mentally compared to that live experience.

When I recently heard Vikingur Olafsson in Tonhalle, we sat in the front row…then it really sounded much closer to what one hears on a good classical piano recording through a top notch system. A piano concerto mid-hall doesn’t have the same comparability.

Good live recording's can be a valuable source for comparison…because while still usually pretty up close, it is a more natural perspective than studio produced recordings. If your system can capture the energy and ambiance welll then it has a good chance to create some suspension of disbelief.

Brad, the goal is not to replicate a particular live performance. That is not my target nor the subject of this thread. The goal is to assemble and set up a system that gives me a listening experience in my living room that reminds me of the experience I have when listening to live music. It is about the quality of the presentation of the information embedded on the recording. That is different from replicating the sound a mic picks up a few feet from a violin. No system I have ever heard sounds like what I imagine that mic picks up. I refer you back to that list in post #5 that identifies the sonic attributes that I heard from all five of the systems I heard on that visit to David Karmeli's place in Utah. What they all had in common is what I call a natural sound, and that is my target using live unamplified music as my reference, and the topic of this thread.

 

[PeterA]

None taken. If this thread is about the difference between live and reproduced music, then I could have skipped it entirely.

I did read the first post. Most people would agree with many of these aspects, there's nothing new under the sun. Who doesn't want a "balanced" sound? Who wants a "genre specific" system? Who doesn't want to feel the character of each recording? Who doesn't want to be drawn in to the music? Superior information retrieval? Dynamic sound? Etc...etc...

This thread is about my new system and what lead me to select the components and set it up in a specific way. It is about an approach to the hobby. Some choose this approach, others choose a different approach.

There are some things which are more vague.

"No analysis of the sound into bits and pieces, music experienced as a whole". I don't know what "bits and pieces" means, but sometimes I do focus on the performance of individual musicians in the band, and sometimes I don't.

Breaking the sound into bits and pieces is basically what Harry Pearson and others did with the glossary of audiophile terms. They broke down the listening experience into attributes that can be emphasized in part to promote some components over others and to make distinctions. In my and other's view, this began the emphasis on specific aspects of sound and can take one away from the more holistic experience we have from live music. I think it accelerated the separation of hifi from real music and encourages the listener to listen for specific things like black backgrounds, separation of instruments, image outlines, slam.

"Natural resolution, not "detail"". I have no idea what this means.

For me resolution is more comprehensive and complete than simply how much detail one hears. It is how the system resolves all of the information on a recording and how it presents it to the listener. There are different levels of resolution which lead to different degrees of natural sound, but it is all in the right direction. Detail for detail's sake at the expense of other aspects of music distracts me and interferes with my listening experience.

"No added or artificial extension". No idea what that refers to either.

This is when a system enhances and spotlights frequency extension, both high and low beyond what sounds natural.

Those are some of my questions, but they don't need to be answered, especially not if they require a full lecture on "misguided esthetics"

This is certainly not a full lecture. It is simply a glimpse into my thoughts about and goals for my system, and what I experience when listening to live music. The latter influences the former. This is my system thread where I enjoy sharing these thoughts and reading what others think about these topics. I am not suggesting that you agree with or accept any of it, though you started out by writing:

"Most people would agree with many of these aspects, there's nothing new under the sun. Who doesn't want a "balanced" sound? Who wants a "genre specific" system? Who doesn't want to feel the character of each recording? Who doesn't want to be drawn in to the music? Superior information retrieval? Dynamic sound? Etc...etc..."

 

[hopkins]

This thread is about my new system and what lead me to select the components and set it up in a specific way. It is about an approach to the hobby. Some choose this approach, others choose a different approach.

As I explained, I believe that the objectives you outline (those that I understood) are valid for most of us. You were disappointed by what you had before, and are happy with what you have now. For others, it's going to be the reverse, they may find your system to be "un-natural". Magico speaker owners are not sub-audiophiles with "misguided aesthetics" - they probably choose a specific system because they see limitations - very real ones - with the type of system you have chosen to use (and for many of them, those limitations are also guided by reference to live acoustic music!).

Based on your videos, I can understand both points of view - there's no perfect system, unfortunately. You can try and rationalize it whichever way you want, and attempt to explain that a given sound is "truer" to whatever reference you choose. Perhaps a more balanced and honest approach would be more successful and avoid these discussions.

I won't comment on the rest of your reply - I don't understand most of it - and will leave it at that.

 

[Rexp]

At the risk of raising yet another controversial observation, I want to share my thoughts about the "separation of instruments". I consider this attribute to be similar to the two audiophile attributes of black backgrounds and pinpoint images. Over the years I have read in reviews how some particular components have the uncanny ability to increase the separation of the instruments in the soundstage. Individual instruments are clearly delineated, both tonally and spatially in the presentation. Sometimes the description takes it even further to describe the instruments as though they are occupying their own space and surrounded by air. In this sense, they are describes as "isolated". This effect is described as a positive characteristic. I think I have read this when describing both the playback of large scale orchestral pieces as well as small scale chamber performances.

A couple of weeks ago I attended a classical concert of Wagner, Debussy and Elgar. Two nights ago I heard these Beethoven String Trios. At neither performance did I hear black backgrounds, pinpoint images, or separation of instruments. I did see separate musicians playing their instruments, but the sound, the energy from those instruments immediately expanded out and around to fill the hall's space. The individual sounds from the instruments was intertwined and overlapped. There was a wholeness to the sound, not pieces of sound. There was no sense of space between the musicians and their instruments, not in the orchestra or in the trio. There was just the location of the origin of the sound next to or behind other locations of the origins of the other sounds, and they were all mixing to create the gestalt of the experience.

We have discussed these specific terms or expressions before, and I understand why they are used when describing some components and system presentations. I do not doubt that people hear these attributes when listening to some audio systems and when comparing some components. I have heard them too. I suppose they are meaningful as descriptors to convey what people hear when describing reproduced sound. However, I just do not hear these effects when listening to live music. This system thread is about assembling and setting up a system in a room that reminds me of what I experience when attending a live performance. I do not hear black backgrounds, pinpoint imaging, or a separation of instruments when listening to my system. The absence of these helps to create what I refer to as natural sound from an audio system. Tonight it will be an organ recital in my neighborhood church built in 1714.

Some recordings have been miked and mixed to create a specific sound stage (can be natural sounding).
A system needs to have very controlled dispersion in order to recreate that soundstage. The trade off is often that speakers like ATC's that can reproduce the natural sounding soundstage are not able to reproduce the natural sounding dynamics. Having attended a live jazz trio last Friday, the ideal scenario for me is to listen to a recording of this set at home with the explosive drummer on the front right of the soundstage, bassist in the middle, set back a bit and Saxsophonist front left. That is what I call natural/realistic reproduction.

 

[microstrip]

In my opinion, language should clarify the writer’s intent, not confuse the reader. If you mean low noise floor when you write “black background”, why not simply write “low noise floor”?

Because "low noise floor" has a precise technical meaning and "black background" is a subjective term with a more complex meaning. As pointed by Ron, that has been debated many times in WBF. https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/natural-sound.32867/post-1039067

If you mean something other than low noise floor, please explain what you mean.

An interesting thread
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/black-backgrounds-in-music-reproduction.40324/

 

[microstrip]

The real source of disagreement:

View attachment 147576

From the book "Classical Recording: A Practical Guide in the Decca Tradition"

https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Recording-Practical-Tradition-Engineering/dp/0367312808/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0

I suggest you quote the original post. The isolated link misquotes the tittle of the book and is a masquerade of the original. The reference to Decca is also IMO mandatory.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I read the quote about what Decca was doing. Someone was implying that my system makes all the recordings sound the same or that I only listen to some specific type of recording. That is not the case. I clearly hear the differences from different recordings. I have also owned cables which enhance this separation of instruments and exaggerated this effect making recordings sound unlike live music. I’ve also heard systems that exaggerate or enhance this effect. (...)

The interesting aspect of the quote is that it helps to understand what you call "natural sound". IMO "Natural Sound" as you define it is one of the many possible audiophile preferences that is far from the original intention of the recording creators, as shown in the text (and several other books about stereo). I respect such type of sound - I have listened to it in my room for some time, but I prefer other options in order to get better enjoyment of music and avoid listening just to a limited subset of the existing recordings.

When we understand how the recording engineers manipulate the signal to create a good and enjoyable illusion we also understand that high-end designers also want to have their share in our enjoyment.

 

[PeterA]

The interesting aspect of the quote is that it helps to understand what you call "natural sound". IMO "Natural Sound" as you define it is one of the many possible audiophile preferences that is far from the original intention of the recording creators, as shown in the text (and several other books about stereo). I respect such type of sound - I have listened to it in my room for some time, but I prefer other options in order to get better enjoyment of music and avoid listening just to a limited subset of the existing recordings.

When we understand how the recording engineers manipulate the signal to create a good and enjoyable illusion we also understand that high-end designers also want to have their share in our enjoyment.

Yes. The recording is what we have to begin the experience we have at home. We don’t have control over that recording. But we do have control over the system and components we select and how we set it all up in our listening room. Our systems are a reflection of our intent and goals. They illustrate our approach to the hobby. Each of us decides for himself how to proceed.

I agree with you that the engineers have an intent, and the equipment manufacturers have an intent. I think we could reasonably agree that the equipment has changed since Decca made their golden age recordings. An interesting discussion might be the evolution of recording techniques and equipment sound and how they may be related. It may explain all the different kinds of experiences we have from the various systems we hear. Some inspire us and some surely disappoint.

I have always maintained that each of us makes his own choices and that the hobby is fascinating.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Breaking the sound into bits and pieces is basically what Harry Pearson and others did with the glossary of audiophile terms. They broke down the listening experience into attributes that can be emphasized in part to promote some components over others and to make distinctions. In my and other's view, this began the emphasis on specific aspects of sound and can take one away from the more holistic experience we have from live music. I think it accelerated the separation of hifi from real music and encourages the listener to listen for specific things like black backgrounds, separation of instruments, image outlines, slam.

Sorry, you are misrepresenting the work of Harry Pearson and his methodology. I many times disagree with his work, but your very unfair view of his work in analysing stereo sound reproduction shows that you have not read his long essays on subjective aspects of sound reproduction. He systematically had an holistic approach on equipment reviewing, but also dived into details.

For me resolution is more comprehensive and complete than simply how much detail one hears. It is how the system resolves all of the information on a recording and how it presents it to the listener. There are different levels of resolution which lead to different degrees of natural sound, but it is all in the right direction. Detail for detail's sake at the expense of other aspects of music distracts me and interferes with my listening experience.

Resolution is surely how much detail and how the detail is heard. Most people refer to it. They are interactive.

 

[PeterA]

As I explained, I believe that the objectives you outline (those that I understood) are valid for most of us. You were disappointed by what you had before, and are happy with what you have now. For others, it's going to be the reverse, they may find your system to be "un-natural". Magico speaker owners are not sub-audiophiles with "misguided aesthetics" - they probably choose a specific system because they see limitations - very real ones - with the type of system you have chosen to use (and for many of them, those limitations are also guided by reference to live acoustic music!).

On the contrary, I enjoyed my former system very much. I never said I was disappointed with it. I simply found a different approach and one that I decided to pursue. I am happy that I did. I realize full well that others make different choices. I don’t criticize that and rarely comment on it.

For some reason you seem to enjoy attributing certain behaviors to me. I never claimed that “Magico owners are sub audiophiles with misguided aesthetic“. That is an extraordinary claim that you imagined. You should have the decency to retract it.

Yes, all systems have limitations. We accept them and understand them and within our abilities, we make our choices and pursue the hobby on our own terms.

Based on your videos, I can understand both points of view - there's no perfect system, unfortunately. You can try and rationalize it whichever way you want, and attempt to explain that a given sound is "truer" to whatever reference you choose. Perhaps a more balanced and honest approach would be more successful and avoid these discussions.

Yes, videos are very revealing. So are posts. This thread is not an attempt to rationalize my choices. It is a description of what I am doing and why I am doing it.

Why do you claim my posts are not balanced or honest? What would be a more balanced and honest approach? Why do you think this thread is not successful? It has sparked pages and pages of interesting discussion. These discussions allow me to reflect on my opinions and to learn how to articulate them. I’ve learned from this thread and I enjoy participating in it. I consider it successful given my own goals for it.

I won't comment on the rest of your reply - I don't understand most of it - and will leave it at that.

Thank you for reading and contributing to the thread. Your confusion and questions have encouraged me to better articulate my thoughts. Readers like you and Micro help to create some lively debate.

 

[microstrip]

Yes. The recording is what we have to begin the experience we have at home. We don’t have control over that recording. But we do have control over the system and components we select and how we set it all up in our listening room. Our systems are a reflection of our intent and goals. They illustrate our approach to the hobby. Each of us decides for himself how to proceed.

Ok,

I agree with you that the engineers have an intent, and the equipment manufacturers have an intent. I think we could reasonably agree that the equipment has changed since Decca made their golden age recordings. An interesting discussion might be the evolution of recording techniques and equipment sound and how they may be related.

It is why it is important to read and understand the written words of sound engineers - in the absence of the period systems we learn about their intentions from other sources. I have posted on people opinions on the evolution of recording systems with technology advance in other threads - it is a common subject in digital debates.

BTW, I own a lot of Quad vintage equipment - it sounds great on Decca recordings, but I prefer by far more recent equipment. And for me the golden age represents a small share of what I listen.

It may explain all the different kinds of experiences we have from the various systems we hear. Some inspire us and some surely disappoint.

I have always maintained that each of us makes his own choices and that the hobby is fascinating.

Surely.

 

[wil]

No, not really Ron. I tend to use a more comprehensive definition of the word. “resolution“ then you do. You tend to equate it to number of pixels or bits. If a cello sounds warm on a particular recording, or a drum is very dynamic, I tend to describe the system as being resolved if that warmth or dynamic is fully expressed or presented by the system to the listener at the listening seat. If it is not, the system does not resolve fully or completely the information on the record recording. For me, the concept of resolution goes way beyond the number of pixels or bits.

Another example is a system that resolves spatial relationships, or the sense of balance between instruments captured in the recording. Same with the ability to portray the scale captured on the recording convincingly at the listening seat. That is resolving the information on the recording.

I agree with what you say here, but I don’t think Ron brought up pixels or bits, did he?