Now you're confusing me. You're in favour of a system that allows the music to speak for itself, does not impose any character on the music, no tonal homogeneity, dynamically unfettered.
That *wouldn't* be described as sonically invisible?
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
That *wouldn't* be described as sonically invisible?
On the contrary, I am extremely proud of my UnNatural Sound (TM).
Marc, I mentioned your phrase “sonically invisible”. I rarely use the word, transparency or transparent. I use the word natural. It refers to the perception from the listening seat and the listening experience in the room and references, live music as a guide and target. I want the system to be revealing, but I never claim I want no character from the system. I haven’t given that much thought.
You’re conflating my target of natural sound with whatever everyone else wants. I don’t really know what others want, except for a few friends. I’m simply describing my target and how I achieved it. You and everyone else, of course can make your own choices and pursue the hobby as you want. If you listen to 10 different systems, surely they sound different. It’s hard to conclude as you do that everyone wants the same thing. Ron started a whole thread about individual audio file different goals. It’s clear to me from listening to various systems and talking to people in the hobby that people have different goals and some don’t clearly articulate what they are.
I think you are confused precisely because you make assumptions about what each of us wants. Or you’re confused about my goals for my system and conflating that somehow with what others want. The hobby is richer and more diverse than that.
Last edited:
Thanks for confirming the obvious. Perhaps Marc can now appreciate that people have different goals.
When you come to this conclusion by swapping a cable in your system, then you know you have a problem with your system (or your hearing).
Do you really believe that a cable manufacturer can “tune” a cable to decrease the midrange and give the impression of more detail? This is complete nonsense.
This type of frequency manipulation can be done with speakers, obviously, and it is very simple to check with a frequency response curve. Try to compare the frequency response of two cables and get back to me if you can see a difference on a graph!
Whether you get more information or detail (same thing) from your system is the result of an infinite number of factors. Karen Sumner’s explanation are nonsense and just written to stroke those who believe they are “true” audiophiles (and not just hi-fi enthusiasts)
Well, I think you are addressing mainly semantics - the words used by Karen Sumner are subjective and IMO your interpretation of them is different from her intention. I would suggest that you wire an well balanced system with Transparent Audio Opus cables and next with Nordost Vallhalla (complete looms, not just a cable). Next describe the difference with your words. I did such comparison and I can easily understand what she means with her words. And yes, I consider that I am a "true" audiophile, or at less I try to be it.
Hehe. I guess I need to put emojis behind some of my posts
I know you were teasing about the trade mark. How are your experiments with speaker position and acoustic treatments progressing?
Last edited:
You tell me I am a asdressing semantics then proceed to explain that cables can make or break the “tonal density” of a system. As I said, if this is what you experience then there is something very wrong with your system. Then again, I would bet anything that your cable swap would go unnoticed in a blind test!
The subject at that moment was the distinction between detail and information. You were asked to elaborate on your comment and we are still waitlist for your response.
Thanks for telling me that my system, as well as 99.99% of the audiophile systems, are very wrong.
BTW IMO the key words in describing "tonal density" are "well-integrated overtones", "midrange weight" and "saturation". Probably we have different views on "tonal density" and this helps explaining our divergence.
My experience allowed me to understand Karen Sumner words and intention. Just wanted to share it with others.
I'll stick to resolution, frequency response, and dynamics. The rest is intellectual masturbation
My apologies, I addressed the subject so many times in threads about the formats (tape, vinyl and digital) that I became tired of it. I will be back to it later. The main idea is that sometimes detail can enhance or mask information.
You should learn what is a proper blind yest and its purpose.
I'll stick to resolution, frequency response, and dynamics. The rest is intellectual masturbation
You should also add this last sentence, exactly as arrogantly stated, to your WBF signature. It will save our time.
“Well-integrated overtones, saturation, and midrange weight”
Maybe you should put that in your signature. It sounds very sophisticated. Or maybe state that your cables let you listen to music not hifi. I promise, you won’t sound arrogant.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |