I know just doing you. That post could not be taken seriously
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
I know just doing you. That post could not be taken seriously
Marc, it is important to define and understand your goal. The list I made is of the characteristics I heard from David's four systems. He describes the sound from those four systems, and the sound he is after, as Natural Sound. He did not invent this type of sound. Perhaps he introduced it to the readers of this forum, but it is distinct from "your" natural sound.
I do not think of the list I made in Utah as "my checklist". If I were to make such a checklist, which I don't recall having ever made, it would be quite different from your list. There is no right or wrong list for any individual. People seek what they want and describe it as they can. I have not objected to any list and rarely criticize what others are doing. I have objected to specific sonic attributes. Often, they are the sonic result of using specific devices or approaches. Such sonic attributes often prohibit a system from sounding natural.
IMHO it depends a lot on our preference and objectives. Sometimes common recordings sound impressive, but next similar one does not. I need time and many recordings to evaluate with rigor the positive points of my system - the negatives usually show fast.
Concerning audiophile recordings, the HM Paniagua La Folia is still a needed for full evaluation of a system, as well as the Sheffield Harry James. Also they are enjoyable for many of us, it matters a lot!
It had nothing to do with preference it’s about intent. You chose your words carefully to define “natural sound” negatively as you’ve done all over this thread, I called you on it. You’re doing the twisting, what you wrote is archived.
Hmmm! Your audio gear collection is a testament to your lack of interest
(deserves two emojis). I’m not the one quoting the past while conveniently dismissing it when it doesn’t suit your intent. Who brought up ML or any other brand, comment was about HP and his “as” concept that you quoted? This is your deviation not mine.Yes the post was about live music which “natural sound” is connected to. I’m pointing out the recreation of the experience, not only the sound, that is at the heart of “natural sound”. This is me clarifying what you call obtuse and why it has nothing to many of your attempts of defining it for us.I saw it with interest, but he was addressing reality at 3 meters, not sound reproduction. See post #1620. Surely it was natural.
david
Yes, true, but that is not what i meant. What i meant to say is that the music on the recording (arrangement) is challenging. Most audiophile recordings are clean by nature, so is "La Folia", just occasionally it has some outbursts and even when it distorts people blame it on the recording as it is a peak (the church bells are a nice example). This is a "defect" of the audio system naturally (missing headroom) as it should never distort at any point during the demo. So this recording can be used for this type of testing. And so there are more records that can be used to evaluate a system, as long as the recording can be trusted to be clean.
I have never defined Natural Sound negatively - just wanted to define it in equality, as I did with all other preferences we have addressed in WBF. I use the same type of words I used in thousands of posts, thanks for finding I do it carefully.
Hmmm! Your audio gear collection is a testament to your lack of interest
Curiously my gear collection is always temporary. Most of it are used bargains, sometimes coming from part-exchanges of the local high-end distributors. Some pieces stay just because I do not manage to find anyone interested in them. The XLF's will go on sale very soon, as will I move to another location - I regret, but my new space is not convenient to 72 inches tall speakers. I am also considering downsizing the turntable - love it but can't stop thinking it is too much money for the use I am giving to it. And waiting the end of Covid to listen to the Wadax Reference, I am curious.
99% of manufacturers, distributors and dealers say the same.
OK!Yes, that's a great description.
Clearly the latter. But if you cannot locate at all the sound sources within the soundstage you're in trouble.
Say what you want Francisco most of us can see through you, X-Ray glassesI have never defined Natural Sound negatively - just wanted to define it in equality, as I did with all other preferences we have addressed in WBF. I use the same type of words I used in thousands of posts, thanks for finding I do it carefully.
Curiously my gear collection is always temporary. Most of it are used bargains, sometimes coming from part-exchanges of the local high-end distributors. Some pieces stay just because I do not manage to find anyone interested in them. The XLF's will go on sale very soon, as will I move to another location - I regret, but my new space is not convenient to 72 inches tall speakers. I am also considering downsizing the turntable - love it but can't stop thinking it is too much money for the use I am giving to it. And waiting the end of Covid to listen to the Wadax Reference, I am curious.
99% of manufacturers, distributors and dealers say the same.
!I don't care about the cost of your equipment or how much you accumulate just pointing out that gear matters to you. You're like kid who got caught on the potty with the Playboy centerfold open on his lap claiming he's only interested in the articles. Not judging, just saying.
david
David,Say what you want Francisco most of us can see through you, X-Ray glasses
I don't care about the cost of your equipment or how much you accumulate just pointing out that gear matters to you. You're like kid who got caught on the potty with the Playboy centerfold open on his lap claiming he's only interested in the articles. Not judging, just saying.
david
Well, I got used that you had Natural Sound, but could not imagine that you believed on the existence of X-Ray glasses. Anyway you do not need them to know that gear matters a lot to me.
I have often written it - gear is also part of the hobby for most of us, including me. I find great pleasure in the gear I own, pleasure using it , but also pleasure when I manage to sell it with a reasonable l devaluation after using it for some time or loosing interest on it. For me the gear is connected intrinsically to the music I listen at home - I do not play any instrument. But I also appreciate and enjoy the technical part of it - nothing could prepare me for the first time I got a complete massive but precise capstan block of a Studer A80 in my hands.
My interest in the articles and books is because they are intrinsically connected to the gear - they help me enjoying better my own gear. My little audio science is an hobby for me, my real science is elsewhere.
And IMHO we should let the Playboy analogies to our member Tang - he is much more witty than us ...
If I may - these, respectfully, get to the nub of it. Depends where you are, who you are listening to, and what your seat is like. May I respectfully suggest, there are no absolutes in this.
Yes. An inconsequential label outside of audiophile land.
Great Post.
99% of manufacturers, distributors and dealers say the same.
Well, this is a true. Not to undermine the bona fides of any of any dealer.
Nor step into the Francisco vs David thread - which is to my mind a sub-thread all of its own here .....
Last edited:
Speaking of bells and Tam Henderson's Reference Recordings...
They released an LP named 'Star of Wonder' (RR-21) in 1986 that is basically Christmas music recorded in a church, some traditional and some less often heard. One track featured a group called The Ringmasters playing hand bells. Just hand bells. It's been some time since I played the album but I'm recalling that track sounded really good.
1986, yes digital
I hope we don't start talking about naturally sounding records.
Suggesting to me that dispite all the personal preference and everybody hears differently talk that we may share a fair amount of aural aptitude.
Nope, can’t agree with you on this. Live sounds like live regardless of distance or hall...or even outside down a busy street.
Oh, there goes my clumsy words again. I am so sorry. I am not what I was, and sometimes what I write is not what I mean to say. Of if I mean to say it, it nonetheless comes out as something somewhat cryptic.
I think we are cross purposes. Of course you are 100% correct. I suppose what I meant to say was - whatever somebody hears at a live event, that may or may not be what you get in a recording of it, &C.
I could not imagine us disagreeing on anything of consequence. Your posts are, respectfully, something I always look forward to reading.
Thank you @bonzo75 for this perspective. I reread your post above in response to Al M's report on the sound of my system in his separate thread. I am responding to this post here because I think it belongs in this system thread and is pertinent to Natural Sound.
I have heard leading edges and transients portrayed very differently by different systems. Some systems seem to emphasize this aspect of sound more than other systems do. I think my system portrays them in balance with other aspects of the sound, but Al seems to think they are de-emphasized in my system. I am not sure if he thinks they are in balance or reduced relative to the other parts of the notes. He wrote that this leads to a more relaxed and mid hall listening perspective.
I heard Al's system last night again and it gave me some more insight about Al's listening impressions of my system and what he reported. Having lived with my system for a while now, I also heard Al's system with a different and somewhat new perspective. The leading edges and transients are definitely more emphasized than in my system. However, this does not seem to contribute to an up front or more forward presentation, at least to me. I agree with Bonzo here that the treatment of leading edges and transients does not seem to change the listening perspective. The attack is just more pronounced than are the other parts of the notes.
The listening perspective - the listener's perception of where his is located relative to the imagined musicians in the room - is created by the ambient cues on the recording, the size and scale of the instruments and musicians, and their location in the soundstage as it is presented to the listener in his listening room. This information is on the recording. The system can retrieve it. Some systems/rooms may shift the whole thing slightly forward or backward and change the quality slighly, but based on what I hear in my system and in Al's system, the emphasis on leading edges/transients does not alter the listener's perspective. The systems, on the other hand, do present the edge/transients quite differently.
Al's system emphasized them on all instruments in a string quartet we heard and on all the keys from two different solo piano pieces. This is a characteristic of the system and very distinct from the presentation of my system. However, the listening perspective or distance from the performance to me in my listening seat in both of our systems seemed more or less the same. Even on the very pronounced leading edges of jazz horns from Al's system, I did not feel as though I was up on stage, but rather back a few rows or tables from the action on stage, similar to how I hear it in my system/room.
I can see how Al's preference for this more exciting sound favors my higher output vdH cartridge and why Al was not enamored of my moving magnet cartridge with its less emphasized edge. I prefer the more nuanced presentation with a more balanced sound. I slightly prefer the lower output vdH which seems to have about the same amount of nuance but with a higher degree of resolution. I heard a sound at Al's more reminiscent of my older vdH cartridge, but that cartridge is now been modified.
It is fascinating to me that we have such different perspectives on natural sound, but it goes a long way to explaining why most systems are so different from each other. The important thing is that we enjoy getting together with friends and listening to music. It is important that each of us really likes his own system, but it is nice that we can enjoy other presentations.
It didn’t change the perception of depth or draw more attention to the speaker location?
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |