Natural Sound

[dcathro]

@Mike Lavigne wrote then deleted this:



Mike,

I sold off my entire system in two weeks and replaced it with a new one. That is surely choosing a winner and a loser. But it is my winner and my loser, no one else's. I did not denigrate other gear or other people's choices.

The Sublime Sound thread went there many times too. Every time I experimented and learned, I chose a winner and a loser. The pneumatic isolation platforms lost. The audiophile cables, cords, fancy in wall wires and fancy connectors lost. The acoustic panels and distribution box lost. The toed-in speaker orientation lost. Lessons in basic set up and standard industrial power delivery won. These were my lessons without comment about others, their systems, or their choices.

I disagree with your characterization of my Sublime Sound system thread. There were plenty of winners and losers. I got push back from people privately. They questioned and they disagreed, but I moved forward based on what I was learning and choosing as better. There was not much contention on the WBF thread, that is true. I agree with you that it is different on the Natural Sound thread. The rejection of my old preference became complete in favor of a new preference. The naming of the target and the approach to achieve it became more explicit. The reaction became more pronounced. But again, there was no denigration of other people, their gear, their choices, their preferences.

This is not unlike what you are doing with the WADAX DAC. You chose a winner and a loser based on your preferences. You did not denigrate others for their choices, you simply made yours, and you talked about it. People react. Part of the DAC story is the price. Part of my system story is the rarity and difficulty of hearing or getting the stuff. This is just the way it is.

I am not indignant about the reactions. I am frustrated by what I perceive as a mischaracterization of how I shared my enthusiasm for the choices I made. Changing gear and rejecting an approach for a new one is a personal decision. It is a reflection of what I have learned and where I want to go. This is rooted in the confidence of knowing what I want. I am sure you can relate to that. What I do not understand is why others have made it so personal. It is not about them, it is about the choices I made for myself. Indignation it is not. I am not annoyed as much as confused. The treatment is not unfair, it is curious. And I am with Tim in trying to understand the motivation behind the reaction.

Peter,

I think the religious zeal with which you adopted your new found approach, the ditching of all the hi-end hi-fi accessories and the naming of the new approach as "Natural Sound" may have rubbed a few people up the wrong way. The fact that your new approach was natural might infer that the audiophile/tweak approach was un-natural and that many here are on the wrong path. It might have been difficult for some people to just say "that's nice Peter, I am pleased for you, enjoy it.

 

[ddk]

Peter,

I think the religious zeal with which you adopted your new found approach, the ditching of all the hi-end hi-fi accessories and the naming of the new approach as "Natural Sound" may have rubbed a few people up the wrong way. The fact that your new approach was natural might infer that the audiophile/tweak approach was un-natural and that many here are on the wrong path. It might have been difficult for some people to just say "that's nice Peter, I am pleased for you, enjoy it.

You might have a point, herd doesn’t like individuals! Picking a path doesn’t entitle anyone to personal attacks and trolling every thread.

david

 

[Ron Resnick]

Dear Peter,

In your post mortem over the last couple of days of the saga of this thread you have omitted the elements of the evolution of your thinking and posting which were the real sources of the controversy. If all you had posted on this thread were your characterizations over the last couple of days of your posts on this thread — that your posts here were merely a more enthusiastic and a more self-confident and a more certain version of Sublime Sound — then this thread would not have taken the course which dismays you.

But the truth is that this thread was not merely a more excited and uni-directional version of Sublime Sound.

 

[PeterA]

Dear Peter,

In your post mortem over the last couple of days of the saga of this thread you have omitted the elements of the evolution of your thinking and posting which were the real sources of the controversy. If all you had posted on this thread were your characterizations over the last couple of days of your posts on this thread — that your posts here were merely a more enthusiastic and a more self-confident and a more certain version of Sublime Sound — then this thread would not have taken the course which dismays you.

But the truth is that this thread was not merely a more excited and uni-directional version of Sublime Sound.

Ron, I disagree. I don’t want to rehash what I’ve written in this thread many times, but the latter part of the Sublime Sound thread is very similar to this thread in my thinking, my approach, and how I describe the sound.

The real split is not the change of gear. It is when I started questioning my former and more mainstream approach to the hobby as I began my set up experiments. That is long before the end of Sublime Sound. That is when things started to change both in the way I was hearing things and describing them, and in the reactions I received both here and privately.

 

[wil]

You might have a point, herd doesn’t like individuals! Picking a path doesn’t entitle anyone to personal attacks and trolling every thread.

David

I don't think it's particularly individualistic, or unusual, for an audiophile to be picking a path where natural sound is the goal. It's certainly my audio North Star.

Whatever static this thread spawned is the result of linking a particular concept of superior Natural Sound with the dismissal of other methods.

I'm happy for anyone who finds their audio/music bliss. If that's all this thread was about, I don't believe it would have resulted in any angst. Unfortunately, the presentation has at times been innocently tone deaf. Always a risk on an Internet forum...

 

[hogen]

I don't think it's particularly individualistic, or unusual, for an audiophile to be picking a path where natural sound is the goal. It's certainly my audio North Star.

Whatever static this thread spawned is the result of linking a particular concept of superior Natural Sound with the dismissal of other methods.

I'm happy for anyone who finds their audio/music bliss. If that's all this thread was about, I don't believe it would have resulted in any angst. Unfortunately, the presentation has at times been innocently tone deaf. Always a risk on an Internet forum...

This is exactly my impression also.

 

[gian60]

Hi Peter,
i always read all your beautiful report since you had the Magico mini,very good speaker,and your report with MSL and Airtight.

You had with New Magico,Sme 30,MSL and Pass a no bad system,but i always thought was nothing special,but now have to congrats you because you did a big jump in music reproduction with top components from TT to speakers.
Really among the best TT,Cartridges,amp and speaker.

Great congrats to you and David that suggest to you this components.

In your previous system you always thinking some tuning and components,now you forget everything and think only to listen music,
this happen when one have a natural sound.
This also teach me Imai and Yamamura.

 

[microstrip]

Francisco, the trademark thing is a joke. You never defined it. You make a mockery of the actual trademark process where something is defined and described and has meaning. You are a professor and you like to lecture others. Instead of providing clarity and new ideas all you do is distract and confuse and avoid debate. You do not respect other people’s opinions. You denigrate them.

Well, considering that others choices are just a preference as many others is denigrating them? Looking for the technical characteristics of gear that are correlated with these preferences is an heresy? Using concepts developed by audio scholars that are widely recognized by the audiophile community and using analysis is our debates is lecturing?

What are you talking about me wanting people to remain ignorant? I shared more information about three extremely rare turntables and provided videos. That has never been done on the Internet before with these three. I exposed people to these extremely rare items and my speakers. I posted the first ever videos of David Karmeli‘s system. I discussed them, I photograph them, and I share videos of their sound. I do not share with others what I’ve been told in confidence.

You spread great information and we thank you for that. In our hobby rarity , general photos and youtube videos very seldom are a source of real knowledge - as you know the details are critical in this hobby. And yes, it seems 90% of Natural Sound TM is confidential. A question on it most of the time is answered with another question.

I have never considered myself a victim. I am grateful for the incredible opportunities and freedom I’ve had to pursue my interests. It is a privilege to learn from others and share what I am doing here on this forum. I do not get offended easily and I am happy to defend my opinions.

Well, nice to know you are now in a different mood.

Here you are again trying to tell me what to say and how to say it. I have defined what I mean by my use of these terms. It is not unique.

Yes, your use of the terms is not unique, a few others also use it. But thousands of people in the audiophile community use them with a different meaning, sorry ... BTW, in this hobby disagreeing is not telling others to change, just means there are other ways.

I am not hiding behind anything. I’m not interested in you telling me what is acceptable and not acceptable. I decide what information I want to share or not. I find it very ironic that the people who do not respect David’s opinions about anything suddenly care whether or not I tell them what David has taught me.

Your TM crap is simply an attempt to shut a different opinion down. It is a weapon that you created and allow others to use. It does not seem like you regret anything because you certainly do not criticize how this aberration is polluting and infecting lots of good discussions.

This is all simply personal nothing more. It would be great if we could get back to actually discussing some substance and the ideas that I am introducing in this thread.

You are the one trying to make it personal, nothing to add. No one is asking you to share confidential or valuable information , I am just ust referring to facts of the past. Calling something a joke, crap, aberration or weapon just shows your inability to discuss it and does not add anything to the thread.

 

[ddk]

I don't think it's particularly individualistic, or unusual, for an audiophile to be picking a path where natural sound is the goal. It's certainly my audio North Star.

Whatever static this thread spawned is the result of linking a particular concept of superior Natural Sound with the dismissal of other methods.

I'm happy for anyone who finds their audio/music bliss. If that's all this thread was about, I don't believe it would have resulted in any angst. Unfortunately, the presentation has at times been innocently tone deaf. Always a risk on an Internet forum...

I would consider your argument if there’s even one of the Natural TM’s posts was about a system type of sound etc., it’s all personal and part of the sick cancel culture of today. Here it is direct from the source! But they’re someone else’s words that unfortunately Ian is parroting.

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/ch-precision-10-series.32193/post-822415
It’s obvious that anyone plunking a ton of cash for a new system believes is buying something superior only a moron would buy something inferior. You’re welcome to defend or justify the motives of this lot but you’re going to have to put up with this shit on every thread.

I don’t need for anyone to agree with me about what’s natural sound or how to get there, discussion is welcome as long as it’s not personal like it has been for some time now.

david

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, I disagree. I don’t want to rehash what I’ve written in this thread many times, but the latter part of the Sublime Sound thread is very similar to this thread in my thinking, my approach, and how I describe the sound.

The real split is not the change of gear. It is when I started questioning my former and more mainstream approach to the hobby as I began my set up experiments. That is long before the end of Sublime Sound. That is when things started to change both in the way I was hearing things and describing them, and in the reactions I received both here and privately.

Dear Peter,

I feel that you are not focusing on your posts and views which I believe are the actual origins of the controversy which dismays you. People love to read your eloquent writing about “[your] thinking, [your] approach, and how [you] describe the sound.” People loved reading about your experiments with speaker positioning and cable changes. The origin of the controversy is not your transition of components from mainstream to horn loudspeakers and SET amplifiers. The origin of the controversy, likewise, is not “when things started to change both in the way [you were] hearing things and describing them.”

As I indicated in Post #3,682 of this thread, I think your Post #5 is the animating “Big Bang” of this controversy. The origin of the controversy was your list of “the qualities of a ‘Natural Sound’ system.”

I do not see any way to argue that this does not constitute a subset of the commonly understood adjective, “natural.” You disavowed your “Natural Sound” nomenclature recently by posting that all you meant all along was the natural sound we all hear in the concert hall, but that is not the way this controversy began.

From “Natural Sound” you largely adopted David’s views about subjective versus objective. You agreed that if an audiophile is sufficiently experienced from listening to live, unamplified music then his/her views of what an audio system sounds like, and should sound like, compared to what he/she hears in the concert hall is an objective analysis.

Then you opened the discussion of “best.”

Putting it all together you have espoused the view that if an audiophile is sufficiently experienced from listening to live, unamplified music (such as you) then he/she would conclude that an audio system which sounds like your audio system, and which succeeds in producing “Natural Sound” (as previously described by you) is objectively correct, and that audio systems which sound like something else are objectively incorrect, and emit something other than Natural Sound.

This sonic construct and its implications went well beyond your eloquent writing about “[your] thinking, [your] approach, and how [you] describe the sound.” The elements of this sonic construct are what I meant when I wrote previously that you “omitted the elements of the evolution of your thinking and posting which were the real sources of the controversy.”

Personally, I think this is a thoughtful and sophisticated sonic construct. It is a perfectly reasonable view. I thought your Natural Sound list was great! I love the sound of David’s systems, and I am sure I would love the sound of your system, and I hope David is able to steer the sound of my system in the direction of natural sound.

I don’t happen to agree with the objective element of the construct, but that doesn’t bother me one iota. I find these kinds of discussions very interesting.

 

[PeterA]

Hi Peter,
i always read all your beautiful report since you had the Magico mini,very good speaker,and your report with MSL and Airtight.

You had with New Magico,Sme 30,MSL and Pass a no bad system,but i always thought was nothing special,but now have to congrats you because you did a big jump in music reproduction with top components from TT to speakers.
Really among the best TT,Cartridges,amp and speaker.

Great congrats to you and David that suggest to you this components.

In your previous system you always thinking some tuning and components,now you forget everything and think only to listen music,
this happen when one have a natural sound.
This also teach me Imai and Yamamura.

Thank you Gian. Your words mean a lot to me. I am glad you have been following all along. The whole process has been most enjoyable. I am grateful for what I have learned and the opportunity to share it with others.

 

[tima]

I do not see you in the TM group, your posts strike me as reasonable and genuine, even if I don't always agree with them. I will take what I quote here as not rhetorical and attempt to understand your comment.

Whatever static this thread spawned is the result of linking a particular concept of superior Natural Sound with the dismissal of other methods.

This a part I do not understand. In a personal system thread describing the approach and rationale he took, is Peter also required to describe and/or advocate for different approaches? Part of describing his approach may describe routes not taken, or components removed -- for example, tube traps, audiophile wire, etc. Yes those were dismissed in his system.

Were there hurt feelings from those who held an approach that was not chosen? Did people feel disrespected because a piece of gear they chose was removed? Do you think Peter did what he did to please others? I expect him to make the case for what he did but he really does need to rationalize it to others. Should he have said "but other ways can work as well" whether he believed that or not? Must we always pander to equity? A path chosen is just that; it is not an embrace of some othe path. A goal sought may not be another's goal.

Wil, would you please cite examples of the dismissal you say occurred? Who or what was dismissed?

What did you want Peter to say that you didn't hear?

 

[PeterA]

I do not see you in the TM group, your posts strike me as reasonable and genuine, even if I don't always agree with them. I will take what I quote here as not rhetorical and attempt to understand your comment.



This a part I do not understand. In a personal system thread describing the approach and rationale he took, is Peter also required to describe and/or advocate for different approaches? Part of describing his approach may describe routes not taken, or components removed -- for example, tube traps, audiophile wire, etc. Yes those were dismissed in his system.

Were there hurt feelings from those who held an approach that was not chosen? Did people feel disrespected because a piece of gear they chose was removed? Do you think Peter did what he did to please others? I expect him to make the case for what he did but he really does need to rationalize it to others. Should he have said "but other ways can work as well" whether he believed that or not? Must we always pander to equity? A path chosen is just that; it is not an embrace of some othe path. A goal sought may not be another's goal.

Wil, would you please cite examples of the dismissal you say occurred? Who or what was dismissed?

What did you want Peter to say that you didn't hear?

Tim, these are some good questions. I do not see many active personal system threads on this forum. I see fewer members actually naming an approach they are taking, defining the target, and then describing how to get there. Those who are critical of what I have done seem unwilling to offer an alternative. There does not seem to be a lot of precedent for what I am attempting to do in this system thread.

I appreciate your well reasoned post attempting to understand what people’s expectations are for such a thing.

 

[wil]

I do not see you in the TM group, your posts strike me as reasonable and genuine, even if I don't always agree with them. I will take what I quote here as not rhetorical and attempt to understand your comment.



This a part I do not understand. In a personal system thread describing the approach and rationale he took, is Peter also required to describe and/or advocate for different approaches? Part of describing his approach may describe routes not taken, or components removed -- for example, tube traps, audiophile wire, etc. Yes those were dismissed in his system.

Were there hurt feelings from those who held an approach that was not chosen? Did people feel disrespected because a piece of gear they chose was removed? Do you think Peter did what he did to please others? I expect him to make the case for what he did but he really does need to rationalize it to others. Should he have said "but other ways can work as well" whether he believed that or not? Must we always pander to equity? A path chosen is just that; it is not an embrace of some othe path. A goal sought may not be another's goal.

Wil, would you please cite examples of the dismissal you say occurred? Who or what was dismissed?

What did you want Peter to say that you didn't hear?

Good questions, but I'm not quite masochistic enough to wade back through the thread for specific quotes.

I think the actual content of Peter's journey and system is interesting and a gift to anyone reading this forum.

But the tone, for me, sometimes created annoying distortions (so to speak). In any form of communication, tone communicates more directly than the mere content of the words. And I think the thread, unfortunately, got off to rocky start with the capitalized title, "Natural Sound." This immediately says "my" Natural Sound is something different, and more exalted, than your "natural sound." This criticism sounds nit-picky, but just imagine if the thread had been alternatively titled : "My quest for natural sound". I think it might have gone more smoothly!

After the title, the recurring emphasis on contrasting Natural Sound with standard Audiophilia vocabulary such as "black backgrounds, pin point imaging, etc" tended to further the tone of division. "Fancy audiophile cables" came up often which again communicates a dismissive attitude.

Again, the content is great. I like the challenge of standard audiophile concepts. And I think it's awesome if cheap Chinese power cables can work well.

Peter's experience in Utah was undoubtedly inspiring and left him with a zeal to share his experience. It takes some courage, because as we can see, things can go off the rails. If I were to ever feel inspired to share a system thread, I'd certainly approach it with trepidation!

 

[Fishfood]

I just don't understand why people reply with negative things. What's actually the point? I love hearing about people's experience with different gear. Some I like. Some I don't. Some is even paradigm shifting. But if someone posts about something that I don't find appealing, why would I take my time to shoot them down? I complain to my wife enough about the world. I come here to learn about new things and look a beautiful pictures of gear I'm trying to afford!

 

[hogen]

Good questions, but I'm not quite masochistic enough to wade back through the thread for specific quotes.

I think the actual content of Peter's journey and system is interesting and a gift to anyone reading this forum.

But the tone, for me, sometimes created annoying distortions (so to speak). In any form of communication, tone communicates more directly than the mere content of the words. And I think the thread, unfortunately, got off to rocky start with the capitalized title, "Natural Sound." This immediately says "my" Natural Sound is something different, and more exalted, than your "natural sound." This criticism sounds nit-picky, but just imagine if the thread had been alternatively titled : "My quest for natural sound". I think it might have gone more smoothly!

After the title, the recurring emphasis on contrasting Natural Sound with standard Audiophilia vocabulary such as "black backgrounds, pin point imaging, etc" tended to further the tone of division. "Fancy audiophile cables" came up often which again communicates a dismissive attitude.

Again, the content is great. I like the challenge of standard audiophile concepts. And I think it's awesome if cheap Chinese power cables can work well.

Peter's experience in Utah was undoubtedly inspiring and left him with a zeal to share his experience. It takes some courage, because as we can see, things can go off the rails. If I were to ever feel inspired to share a system thread, I'd certainly approach it with trepidation!

My thoughts exactly, I agree.

 

[Al M.]

If I were to ever feel inspired to share a system thread, I'd certainly approach it with trepidation!

No trepidation needed, just an uncontroversial thread title. As you said in your well-written post, the thread title was an issue in this particular case.

I chose for my system thread the factually, technically correct title "My monitor/subwoofer system". The thread has developed without any major controversy, and certainly the title has never been questioned by anyone.

Can you imagine the uproar if I had called the thread "Realistic Sound"? Of course I strive for that, but c'mon. And every system has its compromises and shortcomings towards its goal, no matter how good it is (and I have never pretended that mine is the best).

 

[PeterA]

Sublime Sound to Natural Sound. This is the evolution of my thinking about audio as reflected in my two systems. Natural sound is what I heard from four different systems for seven days in Utah: SETs and SS, horns and cones, vinyl and digital. Natural sound is what David Karmeli heard the first time he listened to Lamm ML2 amplifiers. He asked Vladimir, “What is that?“ Vladimir said, “natural sound “.

Having a similarly revelatory listening experience, the name seemed appropriate to me. It is the recognition that this is a complete system assembled and set up by David Karmeli out of his own collection, and it is a reflection of what I am hearing in my room. Nothing more, nothing less. (That would have been a good name too, actually. Bonzo's Zero Distortion is pretty good too, and bold.)

You will never read me telling others what they should name their threads.

 

[ddk]

No trepidation needed, just an uncontroversial thread title. As you said in your well-written post, the thread title was an issue in this particular case.

I chose for my system thread the factually, technically correct title "My monitor/subwoofer system". The thread has developed without any major controversy, and certainly the title has never been questioned by anyone.

Can you imagine the uproar if I had called the thread "Realistic Sound"? Of course I strive for that, but c'mon. And every system has its compromises and shortcomings towards its goal, no matter how good it is (and I have never pretended that mine is the best).

@wil, now you're ordered to go along if you want to get along. Why this group of flunkies or anyone else thinks has the right to tell others what to say or else, not their forum! No reason for you to fear posting, it’s ridiculous.

@Al M., you're welcome to call your thread whatever the hell you want not your place to define boundaries for others because you don't measure up.

david

 

[PeterA]

No trepidation needed, just an uncontroversial thread title. As you said in your well-written post, the thread title was an issue in this particular case.

Al, if you and others are so offended by the thread title, why did you or anyone else not claim outrage in the first say twenty pages of the thread?

I chose for my system thread the factually, technically correct title "My monitor/subwoofer system". The thread has developed without any major controversy, and certainly the title has never been questioned by anyone.

That is your prerogative and your choice. Others make theirs. I will not be telling others what to write or how to express themselves.

Can you imagine the uproar if I had called the thread "Realistic Sound"? Of course I strive for that, but c'mon. And every system has its compromises and shortcomings towards its goal, no matter how good it is (and I have never pretended that mine is the best).

No, actually, I can not imagine the uproar if your system were called "Realistic Sound". And I do not think there is an "uproar" about my thread title. It is only a few who seem easily offended by words.

Some systems, some components, and some rooms are less compromised than others. The very best have the fewest shortcomings, which is what makes them the best. Ian's MPros have fewer shortcomings than did my Mini II and Q3. The MPros were the best Magico speaker at the time, with the possible exception of the Q7II and Ultimate.

No, you have never pretended that your system is the best. Nor have I or anyone else on this forum pretended that his is the best.