Natural Sound

[PeterA]

Hopkins asked this interesting question in another thread that made me reflect a bit and respond. I would like to post that question and response here:

Can these different degrees of naturalism be described in any way?

That’s an excellent question. I think of it like hearing a piano being played in another room. You know it is a piano and not a harpsichord. You know it is a live piano and not a recording of a piano. That knowledge is based on direct experience with my reference of live sound. As you move closer to the open door of the room, you start to sense the energy of the instrument. You begin to hear more character from each note. As you pass through the door opening and take a seat in the room and start listening to the music, you see and appreciate the emotion on the players face and body. You begin to appreciate more nuance in the playing and notice the ambience of the room. You become more engaged. The listening experience becomes more complete. The sound energy and the beauty of the music now more fully captivate your attention. You are drawn to the music from the beginning, because it is live, and you want to move closer. As with natural sounding systems, each degree of naturalism draws you in closer to the music and the experience becomes richer.

These are the different degrees of natural sound, both live and in an audio system: with each degree, the listening experience moves closer to the music.

 

[Amir]

The first is more obvious: ground loops. They can color the sound a bit even if buzz doesn't show up since intermodulations can occur in the ground due to non-linearities scattered around the system.

The second issue is the geometry and capacitance of the cable. As you know, capacitors are made of different materials for a reason and some sound better than others (due to measurable performance). If you eliminate or reduce that as a variable the interconnect cable will have less effect on the sound.

The other bit is the ability of whatever is driving the balanced line to be able to make a bit of power into the load which its driving. This has the effect of swamping capacitance and noise from high impedance sources (such as an induced magnetic field). For example my Neumann U67s can drive 150 Ohms which allows them to drive extremely long cables without any coloration at all, regardless of the kind of cable used.

Do you have pdf file of AES48 ?

 

[Atmasphere]

Do you have pdf file of AES48 ?

There is one available from the AES. But this says all you really need to know about it:
https://www.ranecommercial.com/legacy/note110.html

In addition, the signal Voltages present in balanced lines are usually measured in dBm, which is to say how many milliWatts into a 600 Ohm load, as seen by a VU meter. So 1 milliWatt will show on the meter as 0VU, which is about 0.76V. 3dBm is therefore 2 milliWatts.

If you are driving a balanced line it is a very good idea that the equipment used to do so supports this ability as well, since that little bit of power swamps out any artifact caused by cable construction.

This is why quite a lot of tube equipment meant for studio use employs an output transformer (essentially being a tiny power amp) since driving a 600 Ohm line is otherwise difficult. We do it direct coupled FWIW.

 

[Amir]

There is one available from the AES. But this says all you really need to know about it:
https://www.ranecommercial.com/legacy/note110.html

In addition, the signal Voltages present in balanced lines are usually measured in dBm, which is to say how many milliWatts into a 600 Ohm load, as seen by a VU meter. So 1 milliWatt will show on the meter as 0VU, which is about 0.76V. 3dBm is therefore 2 milliWatts.

If you are driving a balanced line it is a very good idea that the equipment used to do so supports this ability as well, since that little bit of power swamps out any artifact caused by cable construction.

This is why quite a lot of tube equipment meant for studio use employs an output transformer (essentially being a tiny power amp) since driving a 600 Ohm line is otherwise difficult. We do it direct coupled FWIW.

Thank you very much

 

[microstrip]

(...) This is why quite a lot of tube equipment meant for studio use employs an output transformer (essentially being a tiny power amp) since driving a 600 Ohm line is otherwise difficult. We do it direct coupled FWIW.

As long as I could find in professional audio forums, the 600 ohm standard is not used in modern studios. Recording studios overwhelmingly use bridging impedance, not matched impedance having low output impedance: (10–100 Ω) and input impedance being typically low (1 kΩ – 20 kΩ+), in order to avoid the question you refer. We find the 600 ohm standard in vintage gear and some equipment built with compatible requirements or transformer balanced devices.

 

[Amir]

There is one available from the AES. But this says all you really need to know about it:
https://www.ranecommercial.com/legacy/note110.html

In addition, the signal Voltages present in balanced lines are usually measured in dBm, which is to say how many milliWatts into a 600 Ohm load, as seen by a VU meter. So 1 milliWatt will show on the meter as 0VU, which is about 0.76V. 3dBm is therefore 2 milliWatts.

If you are driving a balanced line it is a very good idea that the equipment used to do so supports this ability as well, since that little bit of power swamps out any artifact caused by cable construction.

This is why quite a lot of tube equipment meant for studio use employs an output transformer (essentially being a tiny power amp) since driving a 600 Ohm line is otherwise difficult. We do it direct coupled FWIW.

https://www.ranecommercial.com/legacy/pdf/ranenotes/Sound_System_Interconnection.pdf

I think it is not bad idea if you post a new topic about AES48 and history of audio standards for lowering noise and increasing SNR for both class I and Class II equipments. AC Polarity, Balance vs Un balance and …

I think clean audio installation for maximum resolution is very very important.

https://amiraudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/TB_05-R2.pdf

https://amiraudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Benchmark.pdf

Balanced vs. Unbalanced Analog Interfaces

If you look at the back of any Benchmark product, you will find balanced XLR analog-audio connectors. As a convenience, we also provide unbalanced RCA connectors on many of our products. In all cases, the balanced interfaces will provide better performance. We build our unbalanced interfaces to...

benchmarkmedia.com

https://jhbrandt.net/assets/resources/An_Overview_of_Audio_SystemGrounding_and_Interfacing.pdf

https://www.russandrews.com/images/pdf/GroundingGuideV7.pdf

Sorry for off-topic

 

[Lycurgus]

As long as I could find in professional audio forums, the 600 ohm standard is not used in modern studios. Recording studios overwhelmingly use bridging impedance, not matched impedance having low output impedance: (10–100 Ω) and input impedance being typically low (1 kΩ – 20 kΩ+), in order to avoid the question you refer. We find the 600 ohm standard in vintage gear and some equipment built with compatible requirements or transformer balanced devices.

dBm has almost nothing to do with the impedance of the equipment being measured, it is used to refer to an absolute value of voltage, which requires a reference to distinguish it from a relative measurement or degree of change between two measurements (dB). The small 'm' in this case refers to 'one milliwatt' as the reference. Different references can be used with absolute voltage levels: 0 dBV = 1 Volt. 0 dBu =.775 Volts. 0 dBFS = Full Scale in digital music (0x7FFF in 16 bit signed notation).

0dBm when used in the audio field refers to the voltage produced at 1mW into 600 Ohms: P=E^2/R or E=SQRT(P*R) or E=SQRT(600*.001) = 0.775VRMS. It does not mean the measurement was taken across a 600 Ohm impedance, it means the measurement was 0.775VRMS.

0dBm when used in the RF field refers to the voltage produced at 1mW into 50 Ohms: P=E^2/R or E=SQRT(P*R) or E=SQRT(50*.001) = 0.223VRMS. It does not mean the measurement was taken across a 50 Ohm impedance, it means the measurement was 0.223VRMS.

 

[PeterA]

Gentlemen, you’re discussing a very interesting topic, but I think it will be buried and lost to those who may find it useful if it remains in this system thread. Someone should just start another thread and move these posts over there in the technology section or something, and the membership will likely find more benefit.

 

[Atmasphere]

As long as I could find in professional audio forums, the 600 ohm standard is not used in modern studios. Recording studios overwhelmingly use bridging impedance, not matched impedance having low output impedance: (10–100 Ω) and input impedance being typically low (1 kΩ – 20 kΩ+), in order to avoid the question you refer. We find the 600 ohm standard in vintage gear and some equipment built with compatible requirements or transformer balanced devices.

Yes. The problem is legacy equipment, which might have a 600Ohm input. Even though these days you might see 1 or 2K input impedances, the equipment still needs to be able to drive a 600 Ohm load.

Gentlemen, you’re discussing a very interesting topic, but I think it will be buried and lost to those who may find it useful if it remains in this system thread. Someone should just start another thread and move these posts over there in the technology section or something, and the membership will likely find more benefit.

Its the issue of interconnects.

If you've ever auditioned two different cables for your system, and found that one sounded better than the other, then you know what I mean. You can eliminate this coloration by use the technology we've been discussing. That is literally what its for.

A good bit of the recordings you play on your system have this stuff baked in. 'Natural sound' is impossible without it.

 

[tima]

Its the issue of interconnects.

I think what Peter is saying is that topic is not one for his personal system thread on Natural Sound as presented in its first 10 posts, or put differently this thread is not where someone will go looking for information on interconnects.

 

[Atmasphere]

I think what Peter is saying is that topic is not one for his personal system thread on Natural Sound as presented in its first 10 posts, or put differently this thread is not where someone will go looking for information on interconnects.

So are you saying opportunities to get closer to Natural Sound will not be entertained?

 

[PeterA]

So are you saying opportunities to get closer to Natural Sound will not be entertained?

I am not entertaining new interconnect experiments at the moment nor class D application. Surely there are other more appropriate threads for you to promote your ideas.

 

[Atmasphere]

I am not entertaining new interconnect experiments at the moment nor class D application. Surely there are other more appropriate threads for you to promote your ideas.

I'm sure there are.

But to be clear I'm not promoting my ideas here. If you wish to deny the effect that balanced lines have on Natural Sound, you might as well stop playing LPs since that is how the signal arrived from the microphones to the recorders. Literally Natural Sound has not been possible without them for most of the history of stereo reproduction.

IOW I didn't make this up so not my ideas. Balanced lines were around before I was born.

I may have mentioned some aspects of class D operation in passing but that is not promotion.

I get the tenor of your tone though. I am sorry that you took offense. Next time don't shoot the messenger.

 

[jeff1225]

I'm sure there are.

But to be clear I'm not promoting my ideas here. If you wish to deny the effect that balanced lines have on Natural Sound, you might as well stop playing LPs since that is how the signal arrived from the microphones to the recorders. Literally Natural Sound has not been possible without them for most of the history of stereo reproduction.

IOW I didn't make this up so not my ideas. Balanced lines were around before I was born.

I may have mentioned some aspects of class D operation in passing but that is not promotion.

I get the tenor of your tone though. I am sorry that you took offense. Next time don't shoot the messenger.

Peter named his thread Natural Sound, as that's what DDK calls his approach to playback. If you want to discuss balanced cables and class D amps, I'd start a new thread.

 

[Atmasphere]

Peter named his thread Natural Sound, as that's what DDK calls his approach to playback. If you want to discuss balanced cables and class D amps, I'd start a new thread.

Actually my interest is Natural Sound which is why I gravitated to this thread. I only talk about balanced lines, class D, tube operating points and things like that, often to correct misconceptions; my goal is to present accurate information (rather than anecdotes based on limited sample size) whenever I can.

That's been my MO for the last 36 years on the internet. That is why you also see me helping out people with problems in their 1970s receivers and the like.

Its clear to me now there are some on this thread that don't want to entertain how Natural Sound is accomplished. Since doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is the definition of insanity, yesterday I realized that schooling on how Natural Sound is achieved (which starts at the microphone) was being exactly that. So I have unfollowed this thread so as to leave y'all to it. So don't put stuff to my attention here and hopefully I'll not be annoying you all so much.

Regardless, I really do hope, FWIW, that all have a good Thanksgiving.

 

[microstrip]

Peter named his thread Natural Sound, as that's what DDK calls his approach to playback. (...)

Finally someone tells the exact truth about the thread tittle. No fundamental magic at all, just a personnel approach to stereo playback.

 

[Narayan]

Peter named his thread Natural Sound, as that's what DDK calls his approach to playback. If you want to discuss balanced cables and class D amps, I'd start a new thread.

Many times threads suffer deviations from their original message that can lead to interesting discussions within that same thread, I think Atmasphere was contributing his ideas on natural sound in an acceptable manner and found them interesting. Curtailing valid discussion (even politely) is against the nature of any forum since it discourages participation, I regret Ralph leaving the thread and it´s unfortunate that you and others have shown him the exit door.

 

[PeterA]

Finally someone tells the exact truth about the thread tittle. No fundamental magic at all, just a personnel approach to stereo playback.

Yes. That is right. Magic was never claimed. Actually it was Vladimir Lamm who told David about natural sound when David asked him what the ML2 amplifier was doing. Then this became David’s approach for a particular type of presentation, one that referenced the live music listening experience.

 

[PeterA]

Many times threads suffer deviations from their original message that can lead to interesting discussions within that same thread, I think Atmasphere was contributing his ideas on natural sound in an acceptable manner and found them interesting. Curtailing valid discussion (even politely) is against the nature of any forum since it discourages participation, I regret Ralph leaving the thread and it´s unfortunate that you and others have shown him the exit door.

Or, Ralph can start a thread, maybe as a manufacturer sponsored thread, which discusses his approach that he refers to his natural sound also. He can discuss how he defines natural sound and how his products and wires facilitate that type of sound. That would only some support his efforts. Instead, he comes quite often onto my system thread to discuss what he views as the problems with SET amplifiers, which are the basis of my system to promote his alternative approach.

I don’t deny that Ralph knows what he’s doing and has a lot to contribute, but it has nothing to do with my system, my selection of components. In fact, he comes here, not to discuss my system at all, which is the subject of the thread and instead advocates for a different approach.

I don’t see that type of hijacking taking place on other system threads. I have encouraged him to start his own threads, describing his approach and his equipment and his choices. If Ralph is a sponsored advertiser, he could do it under his company promotion. If he is not a sponsored advertiser, paying a fee, I believe we just discovered the rules that prohibit him from discussing his products on threads that he starts and maybe that’s why he wants to do it on my thread and other threads. This is not the first time this has come up in my rather long thread.

 

[Atmasphere]

Instead, he comes quite often onto my system thread to discuss what he views as the problems with SET amplifiers, which are the basis of my system to promote his alternative approach.

Any thread on this site, to the best of my knowledge, is not personal property of the original poster.

Apparently the site is still sending stuff my way.

Peter, it is not 'my view' of the problems with SETs.

As I've pointed out before on this thread, some of the most ardent SET followers I know are well aware of the bass problem I've mentioned. Talk to any SET output transformer designer and you'll find out that nothing I've said is false or some kind of weird promotion. If you wish to ignore that stuff that's fine, but in doing so you'll never find out what your existing equipment can actually do.

Instead you go after me with the false narrative of my 'promoting my products'. I do walk my talk; it would be disingenuous to not do so. All I was advising was keep the bass out of the SET. I did not say dump your SET. Do you see the distinction??

If you wish to leave performance on the table that's up to you. Until now I've not harangued you about it, I've tried to be polite but firm about how you can get a more natural performance out of your existing equipment. But since you took the gloves off I'll just be blunt:

To me that's just being willfully ignorant; why waste the time and money on a compromise in the first place? If you're going to do it, do it right.

Please, don't answer. Its rhetorical in a sense; you've not been open to suggestions I've made about improving things so we'll just let that be. Once again I'll try to get the site to stop sending me stuff on this thread.