Natural Sound

[microstrip]

For me, personally, phono cartridges are more intelligible, and less of a morass, than are cables.

Surely, but we were addressing mainly prices and margins.

But just because I do not understand how they work do not diminish my admiration for cable manufacturers - it even increases it. Isn't it fantastic how do they manage to control the sound qualities of cables in a predictable way without a proper scientific model?

 

[Ron Resnick]

He’s only heard the last 1/4” of the Great Gates of Kiev.

The last 3/4" to be precise.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Perfect! This is the cornerstone of “natural sound” how close you get to this state is about different levels of natural!

Volume is also important for the natural experience but is space dependent. You can listen at the same volume you heard at the concert if the system is up to it and the room big enough to handle it.

david

Sure Dave, I have become more aware of it over time. And only horns imho get into that zone. Unfortunately so many horns also fail at one or multiple areas to make them effectively even worse than average box spkrs in these regards.
Certainly this piano recital gave me plenty of food for thought. Effectively reinforcing opinions I've formed over the last few years.

 

[Al M.]

I once heard the [Shostakovich] 12th symphony at Tonhalle Zurich and sat near the back...it was still so powerful my ears were pulsating...I can't even imagine the sonic torture in the front rows...

Yes, I once heard Bruckner 8 mid-hall in the Stephaniensaal in Graz, Austria, and the power of sound was still overwhelming. At the same time, while the sound itself was extremely "big", the sound "image" was very small at the distance with eyes closed. A weird disconnect to some extent. In the same hall I also sat upfront, and as usual in symphonic halls upfront, the sound image was huge and extremely wide, hardly reproducible by any system at home.

Ian and I did hear Shostakovich 11 at Boston Symphony in row 9, I believe, and Shostakovich 4 from the balcony very close to the orchestra. That was overwhelming both in power and size, and extremely loud (I would not want to expose my ears to such SPLs each day).

 

[bonzo75]

At the same time, while the sound itself was extremely "big", the sound "image" was very small at the distance with eyes closed.

This is the weirdest description of a live show I have come across

 

[spiritofmusic]

Up there with the couple walking, one close, one far behind.

 

[Al M.]

This is the weirdest description of a live show I have come across

A reviewer in TAS or Stereophile also mentioned once how surprisingly "small" in size the sound image of a large orchestra can seem from a distance.

You do need to have your eyes closed; with eyes open the sight of the orchestra deceives your ears about perceived size, and it obviously appears much bigger in "image" than just going by aural information.

 

[microstrip]

Mid or rear of the hall live will of course allow you to understand the live experience but it is less helpful in evaluating the "realness" of most recordings, which are not recorded from that distant perspective (assuming they are even not multi miked and mixed by a "tonmeister"...like DG does most of the time), then don't make the mental translation so easy. (...)

As far as I see it, part of the "Natural Sound" build is the elimination of any aspects that listeners with such preference find "artificial" in the stereo recording process of most recordings.

Harry Pearson created a nominal list of recordings, that surely helped to define his views and his sound type. It would be great to have a list of "Natural Sound" recordings.

I must say that for me listening to music is centered on the performers and the performance, not on the particular acoustics of the recording - although I have been at several of the Savall perfomances in good conditions, it was never in the spaces where the recordings were carried. The same for most of my favorite recordings.

 

[microstrip]

(...) You do need to have your eyes closed; with eyes open the sight of the orchestra deceives your ears about perceived size, and it obviously appears much bigger in "image" than just going by aural information.

Al M, great point. And then we must choose - which of those images do we want to have in your listening rooms?

 

[bonzo75]

A reviewer in TAS or Stereophile also mentioned once how surprisingly "small" in size the sound image of a large orchestra can seem from a distance.

You do need to have your eyes closed; with eyes open the sight of the orchestra deceives your ears about perceived size, and it obviously appears much bigger in "image" than just going by aural information.

I have done all that. I guess I hear differently than you do with eyes closed

 

[Al M.]

And then we must choose - which of those images do we want to have in your listening rooms?

The one with eyes open. Your apparent point, Francisco, about the illusion that recording engineers wish to convey, also when the sound perspective is more mid-hall, is well taken.

 

[bonzo75]

Al M, great point. And then we must choose - which of those images do we want to have in your listening rooms?

The ones with Al's eyes closed

 

[PeterA]

What was fascinating was the seeming contradiction of the piano at that range being "loud", but at no point was the effect overwhelming or overloading. And because his dynamic control was so precise, your brain and body stayed relaxed until he accelerated the thrill of the ride, but even now there was total mental ease as to what you were hearing.
Imho, only horns, and only the best horns get anywhere close to this. But when they do, it's the closest direct line to the performance. And I've only heard two sets of horns that fit the bill.

So Marc, before you were saying that everybody thinks their system sounds natural and everyone’s after the same goals and that the whole concept of Natural Sound doesn’t make any sense because it’s too vague and everyone’s after the same thing.

Yet here you discovered and identified a key characteristic of natural sounding systems and you admit that not all systems can do this, including your own. Now you are discovering for yourself some distinctions between types of sound and abilities that certain systems have that others do not.

Perhaps this thread is making some progress and you are beginning to understand what the thread is about.

 

[morricab]

As far as I see it, part of the "Natural Sound" build is the elimination of any aspects that listeners with such preference find "artificial" in the stereo recording process of most recordings.

Harry Pearson created a nominal list of recordings, that surely helped to define his views and his sound type. It would be great to have a list of "Natural Sound" recordings.

I must say that for me listening to music is centered on the performers and the performance, not on the particular acoustics of the recording - although I have been at several of the Savall perfomances in good conditions, it was never in the spaces where the recordings were carried. The same for most of my favorite recordings.

I have been fortunate to be in the very rooms where some recordings were made (some by myself) and the connection between what was heard live and the recording allowed one to make a judgement of the naturalness of the reproduced sound (particularly after hearing those recordings in multiple systems). I still use a lot of these recordings as reference proxies in lieu of a direct live feed through my stereo.

Since you are more centered on the performers and performance, perhaps you are not as attuned to what sounds natural or not. A lot of musicians I know don't really give a damn about sound quality because they just need to hear the music in their heads and focus on the quality of the performer. As a result, they are satisfied with very modest systems that do not even approach natural or realistic sound...they don't need it because their brains are assembling what is important to them.

I was quite fortunate that my ex- was very analytical and she actually cared a lot about sound quality (she is a top shelf profi violinist). We would go to shows and sometimes within 10 seconds she had concluded that the sound quality was not realistic sounding and would turn right around and leave the room. She stunned more than one guy who ran a room, they always gravitated towards a woman at a high end show, as they would approach her only to have her turn around right in front of them and run out of the room!

 

[PeterA]

Al M, great point. And then we must choose - which of those images do we want to have in your listening rooms?

I think you are missing a key point here which is that I want to hear a representation of what is presented by the recording and it should vary from recording to recording if the recordings have different perspectives.

I do not want to choose which of the images I want in my listening room.

 

[morricab]

A reviewer in TAS or Stereophile also mentioned once how surprisingly "small" in size the sound image of a large orchestra can seem from a distance.

You do need to have your eyes closed; with eyes open the sight of the orchestra deceives your ears about perceived size, and it obviously appears much bigger in "image" than just going by aural information.

I have never noticed that an orchestra ever sounds small...either with eyes open or closed (I close my eyes often in concerts). That is regardless if I sit in the back, middle or front (ok in the front it does sound wider but that is not unexpected). Perhaps you have been in really big halls? The halls in Switzerland are not so huge so even in the back the sound is big when the full orchestra is playing.

 

[Al M.]

I have never noticed that an orchestra ever sounds small...either with eyes open or closed (I close my eyes often in concerts). That is regardless if I sit in the back, middle or front (ok in the front it does sound wider but that is not unexpected). Perhaps you have been in really big halls? The halls in Switzerland are not so huge so even in the back the sound is big when the full orchestra is playing.

Possibly that makes a difference, and reflection patterns within the hall may make a difference as well.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . Isn't it fantastic how do they manage to control the sound qualities of cables in a predictable way . . .

Are they able to do this? Aren't the sound qualities of cables also functions of the output impedance and input impedance of the components being connected in a particular system, and of the particular AC power characteristics and ambient EMI/RFI environment in a particular location?

 

[ddk]

As far as I see it, part of the "Natural Sound" build is the elimination of any aspects that listeners with such preference find "artificial" in the stereo recording process of most recordings.

This is an inaccurate depiction and misrepresentation of “natural sound”, is this the limit of your understanding of “NS”? ”Natural Sound” is the playback system and accuracy not coloring the recording. You’ll hear the differences in recordings some more natural than others, it shows the drawbacks of so called “audiophile” pressings, I’ve mentioned them many times and how fake they are. Fortunately there are thousands of decent to great recordings and pressings done outside of that group.

Harry Pearson created a nominal list of recordings, that surely helped to define his views and his sound type. It would be great to have a list of "Natural Sound" recordings.

I must say that for me listening to music is centered on the performers and the performance, not on the particular acoustics of the recording - although I have been at several of the Savall perfomances in good conditions, it was never in the spaces where the recordings were carried. The same for most of my favorite recordings.

Fortunately ”natural sound” has a very wide listening window and not limited to a few hundred records like ”absolute sound” was assigned. There are many wonderful lists and great music from everywhere we don’t need to limit ourselves to one man’s list.

While there are similarities between the ideals “natural sound” and “absolute sound” there’s a fundamental difference between the philosophies and the people behind each. People behind “natural sound” were a group of doers and visionaries capable of accomplishing their goals in this field as they succeeded in capturing and recreating recordings of all kinds ”naturally” long before Pearson ever came on the scene and come with “AS” initially heavily borrowed “NS”. HP was a talker not a doer, he talked about something that I’m not sure he really understood. He spent 2.5 decades or more meandering and talking about something that he never achieved and if you ever visited Sea Cliff you’d know he never even close to touching. In the last decade even his writing fell apart and was throwing everything and anything including the kitchen sink into the mix, he was only a talker not a doer and maybe that’s his appeal to you, talk. A lot of his career was of a sales rep anyway, he’d promote one product as the ultimate answer to “as” just to knock it down and recommend another one in the next issue. This went on and on for decades doing the same for his pals and putting people on the insane merry go round of worthless and endless audio purchases parting with huge sums of money while never educating the audience and keeping them dependent on his lists and drivel. I never forget his one quote regarding $20k Nordost power cords, “you haven’t heard you system without them” or something to that affect. He’s the man you like and quote as the flip side (an emoji for you).

david

david

 

[spiritofmusic]

So Marc, before you were saying that everybody thinks their system sounds natural and everyone’s after the same goals and that the whole concept of atural Sound doesn’t make any sense because it’s too vague and everyone’s after the same thing.

Yet here you discovered and identified a key characteristic of natural sounding systems and you admit that not all systems can do this, including your own. Now you are discovering for yourself some distinctions between types of sound and abilities that certain systems have that others do not.

Perhaps this thread is making some progress and you are beginning to understand what the thread is about.

Peter, I've always understood what the thread is about, and we agree on a great many things. And I've been sold on how great horns can be, especially in relation to getting a reasonable facsimile of live at home. My issue is with the minutiae of so-called "hifi checklists" like Blacker Blacks, Pinpoint Imaging, Sledgehammer Bass, Incisive Treble...I've never subscribed to those, and no audiophiles I know do either. I have other terms that I find helpful, fit in w the live experience, and try to aspire to w changes.
And I think Natural Sound is by definition contentious as a label since I don't know anyone who would deny it's a valuable objective and yet some will say natural sound can't be achieved in certain ways, by definition excluding those audiophiles.