Ron’s New System

[tima]

I appreciate the distinction you point out, but not the insult. People post videos of systems asking for commentary. We have many such video threads. Are you suggesting it is elitist to comment on someone else’s system sound as represented by a video? Or only if the commenter’s reference is real music? As someone pointed out, we live in the natural world in our surrounded by natural sounds. Some can certainly choose not to use that as a reference preferring to use something else.

What could be "something else"?

I don't find alternative descriptions of an anatural reference -- saying anatural rather than non-natural or unnatural -- that are created from whole cloth rather than comparative with live acoustic music.... or even ones that are. We seem to be left with 'live acoustic music' and 'what sounds pleasing to me.'

I suppose there is 'just enough less truth', however that cashes out. Not helpful though.

 

[bonzo75]

I also mostly prefer to watch sports on TV in my 'dedicated sports place' to going to a live game. the best part of going to a game is the people i go with and the time i spend with them. and the feeling of being with the crowd at the good moments.

just how i see it. YMMV.

Not the same. I too prefer to watch cricket on TV, because there is no way a live seat can replicate the view of multiple cameras showing from different angles and close up how the ball moved, which is key to the game. The ball is just too fast to follow properly from the spectator stands, and you can never get a seat to show you from various angles.

Live acoustical music is completely different to the above. The only advantage at home is you can choose your performance, which is fine for music as you can play some performances over and over. That’s not the incentive for a sports game, hence another difference. These analogies of cars and restaurants and sports appear right at a high level but there is no similarity

 

[hopkins]

Not the same. I too prefer to watch cricket on TV, because there is no way a live seat can replicate the view of multiple cameras showing from different angles and close up how the ball moved, which is key to the game. The ball is just too fast to follow properly from the spectator stands, and you can never get a seat to show you from various angles.

Live acoustical music is completely different to the above. The only advantage at home is you can choose your performance, which is fine for music as you can play some performances over and over. That’s not the incentive for a sports game, hence another difference. These analogies of cars and restaurants and sports appear right at a high level but there is no similarity

How is any of this relevant to audio systems?

 

[hopkins]

That Strads sound is some real sound reference point I d say!

Yet not many people will be able to identify that a Stradivarius is being played in a recording (though they may prefer it's sound when comparing it with another recording), and those who do, probably don't need a high end audio system to do so. Morricab in fact posted video recordings of his ex (if I remember correctly) playing different violins, and the differences are pretty obvious just listening with a phone.

If a good system can't allow you to differentiate the sound of different instruments (and the musicians playing them) - even if you cannot name them - then you need to find another hobby.

I am no expert, but I can instantly recognize Johnny Hodges playing saxophone, for example, as many afficionados will (there are no super-powers involved). Does that give me any authority in terms of audio? No. By the way, I can do that listening on my phone...

Differentiation is one thing, but what about how accurately a system and recording reproduces the sound of a given instrument? Here again, I assume most people will be able to tell the difference between a violin and a cello, but very few will correctly identify which violin is being played. Assuming someone was intimately familiar with the sound of a Stradivarius, would that be helpful in assessing the accuracy of a recording and system? Perhaps, but for all of us who are not, you can simply record your voice (or even better, someone's voice that you are familiar with) with a good microphone and compare how it sounds on different systems. Results may be surprising...

All this to say that "natural sound" as a reference is completely meaningless unless you get very specific and use a performance and recording that you are very familiar with (you have actually heard live, and can perhaps even hear live repeatedly). I doubt that many here have done this.

 

[hopkins]

Also, it is pretty obvious that if you go through the trouble of doing these comparisons, you may not end up with the same conclusion as others.

Here is an interesting example:

Musicians as Audiophiles: Ron Carter | Stereophile.com

Ronald Levin "Ron" Carter is arguably the greatest upright jazz bassist to have ever walked four strings, and he's literally the most recorded bassist of all time.

www.stereophile.com

Ron Carter likes how his system reproduces his bass. Should we all rush out and purchase that system?

On a side note, he mentions this recording having a good bass sound. Check it out:

Listen to the release Chemistry by Houston Person on Qobuz https://open.qobuz.com/album/opat342v233tb

 

[andromedaaudio]

How is any of this relevant to audio systems?

With a audiosystem you have the ability to hear multiple mike feeds mixed together to stereo
Something which is impossible live .

Attending live performances and then constanly moawn about SET amps means attendance value is limited lol

 

[PeterA]

What could be "something else"?

I don't find alternative descriptions of an anatural reference -- saying anatural rather than non-natural or unnatural -- that are created from whole cloth rather than comparative with live acoustic music.... or even ones that are. We seem to be left with 'live acoustic music' and 'what sounds pleasing to me.'

I suppose there is 'just enough less truth', however that cashes out. Not helpful though.

“Something else” could be an enhancement that stirs the emotions. It could also simply be one’s imagination of what sounds good to him from a particular system. It is not so much a dismissal of referencing live music, but it does seem to be an alternative that is rarely ever defined. It is a state of emotional connection or something that matches their priorities or pleases their preferences, sometimes described as “a lower center of gravity” I suppose for tonal balance. I wonder lower than what, the typical high end system, or the sound of real instruments?

This is where I see a distinction between a recording and system presentation attempting to be an accurate documentation of an event versus the hobby as entertainment and the pursuit of maximizing personal subjective enjoyment. Both approaches may result in a connection to the music and having fun. I think both are valid. The former seems more grounded while the latter is more ephemeral, where anything goes.

The “something else” can be whatever one chooses. Since this is Ron’s system thread, it could be more woofage and a lower center of gravity.

 

[hopkins]

This is where I see a distinction between a recording and system presentation attempting to be an accurate documentation of an event versus the hobby as entertainment and the pursuit of maximizing personal subjective enjoyment. Both approaches may result in a connection to the music and having fun. I think both are valid. The former seems more grounded while the latter is more ephemeral, where anything goes.

This is your way of rationalizing things, and finding some form of authority and validity to your choices. These distinctions are all in your imagination.

 

[wil]

“Something else” could be an enhancement that stirs the emotions. It could also simply be one’s imagination of what sounds good to him from a particular system. It is not so much a dismissal of referencing live music, but it does seem to be an alternative that is rarely ever defined. It is a state of emotional connection or something that matches their priorities or pleases their preferences, sometimes described as “a lower center of gravity” I suppose for tonal balance. I wonder lower than what, the typical high end system, or the sound of real instruments?

This is where I see a distinction between a recording and system presentation attempting to be an accurate documentation of an event versus the hobby as entertainment and the pursuit of maximizing personal subjective enjoyment. Both approaches may result in a connection to the music and having fun. I think both are valid. The former seems more grounded while the latter is more ephemeral, where anything goes.

The “something else” can be whatever one chooses. Since this is Ron’s system thread, it could be more woofage and a lower center of gravity.

Romy the Cat, in a couple of YouTubes, goes on (and on) about seeking something completely outside “the absolute sound” to an altered state of consciousness experience through listening to his playback system.

In my view such an altered state is reachable through live or system listening, each with its own set of variances and compromises. I don’t think much about a live music reference, but focus more on if the musical content and energy are coming through.

 

[PeterA]

This is your way of rationalizing things, and finding some form of authority and validity to your choices. These distinctions are all in your imagination.

This is a discussion. We are allowed to contribute our thoughts. I responded to Tim‘s question. You are free to criticize. It might be more interesting if you offer up your own thoughts on the subject.

 

[hopkins]

This is a discussion. We are allowed to contribute our thoughts. I responded to Tim‘s question. You are free to criticize. It might be more interesting if you offer up your own thoughts on the subject.

My thoughts are that the "subject" (people who evaluate sound with reference to "natural" sound versus others) is silly (essentially because we all do it, consciously or not, and because natural sound is not a fixed and unique reference). So how do you want me to provide more of my own thoughts regarding a topic which is of zero value?

 

[Holmz]

My thoughts are that the "subject" (people who evaluate sound with reference to "natural" sound versus others) is silly (essentially because we all do it, consciously or not, and because natural sound is not a fixed and unique reference). So how do you want me to provide more of my own thoughts regarding a topic which is of zero value?

My thoughts when someone has a different preamp with 50’ of ICs that is not playing worth a damn, is to find and o-scope and give up on using ears to figure out electronic issues.
I suppose throwing more money around with try-it-n-see approaches is a thing though, that the sales peoples would surely like to see.

 

[PeterA]

Romy the Cat, in a couple of YouTubes, goes on (and on) about seeking something completely outside “the absolute sound” to an altered state of consciousness experience through listening to his playback system.

In my view such an altered state is reachable through live or system listening, each with its own set of variances and compromises. I don’t think much about a live music reference, but focus more on if the musical content and energy are coming through.

I find Romy's thoughts on his system being used as expressionism are quite interesting. I am not quite sure I understand exactly what he means, but it is a very interesting opinion and approach. I have given it some thought. I think he is a good audio thinker and I enjoy reading his thoughts.

 

[microstrip]

All this to say that "natural sound" as a reference is completely meaningless unless you get very specific and use a performance and recording that you are very familiar with (you have actually heard live, and can perhaps even hear live repeatedly). I doubt that many here have done this.

And you are are ignoring the Circle of Confusion - stereo has loose and diverse capturing and manipulating techniques, resulting in very different recordings of the same event.

Natural sound, as addressed by audio scholars, is the daily experience of living in a world surrounded by objects emitting sound - the experience goes for more than 50 million years.

What are audiophiles and the high-end industry call "natural sound" is just particular perspectives of stereo sound reproduction - it became an abused marketing expression.

I have done the exercise you address with two particular challenging recordings - it was a valuable experience because I added the information coming the visual information to sound and could build a much truthful and much longer lasting representation of the events.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

you quoted me out of context.

Not the same.

i never claimed it to be the same. only that one makes lifestyle choices and my whole barn/man cave environment compliments my personal culture. and my sports watching is part of that where i value being at home more than joining crowds of people i don't know all the time. if my wife liked to go out often then i might live in a different place and our perspective on nightlife and restaurants and concerts would be different. we all live our own lives. you have a completely different set of perspectives. and i respect that.

one can make a strong case that home hifi listening is more enjoyable for various reasons, but home sports watching is more enjoyable for different but equally compelling reasons.

that does not mean that i view music = sports. they are not the same. you took my comments out of context and only quoted the sports part.

I too prefer to watch cricket on TV, because there is no way a live seat can replicate the view of multiple cameras showing from different angles and close up how the ball moved, which is key to the game. The ball is just too fast to follow properly from the spectator stands, and you can never get a seat to show you from various angles.

Live acoustical music is completely different to the above. The only advantage at home is you can choose your performance,

disagree.

which is fine for music as you can play some performances over and over.

i have a different opinion about that. i prefer the overall sonics mostly of my home hifi. live music is often flawed and you listen through the flaws to find the jewels. each time is different. the highs are higher, but the sucky parts are suckier. with home hifi one can depend on the result 100% of the time. and not have all the hassles of the logistics. and the actual deliverable is more palatable. i get more from it.

yet there is great value in the live music experience. no doubt. those great moments are very rich and memorable. i have plenty of those. but it's not what i desire to do now.

we all value what we value on our own scale.

That’s not the incentive for a sports game, hence another difference. These analogies of cars and restaurants and sports appear right at a high level but there is no similarity

there are benefits of the home hifi environment that are similar to the home sports watching; but the actual experience of hifi and sports are different. which is obvious.

 

[Kingrex]

Live acoustical music is completely different to the above. The only advantage at home is you can choose your performance, which is fine for music as you can play some performances over and over. That’s not the incentive for a sports game, hence another difference. These analogies of cars and restaurants and sports appear right at a high level but there is no sisimilarity

You get to pick your volume.
Sit in a easy chair. Or work out.
No sick people to deal with.
You can move about or go to the bathroom as you please.
You can drink whatever you want.
And, generally the quality of playback is extremely high.

The one big drawback isn't sonics. Its an isolated loner hobby with no one to share the experience with.

 

[Ron Resnick]

You'll need more like about 3.3uf and 5 Ohms if your speaker is nominally 4 Ohms to put you in the right range, assuming the use of the 4 Ohm tap.

Why only 3.3uF? Wouldn't it need to be more like 8uF to achieve the attenuation starting at about 5kHz?

 

[bonzo75]

You get to pick your volume.
Sit in a easy chair. Or work out.
No sick people to deal with.
You can move about or go to the bathroom as you please.
You can drink whatever you want.
And, generally the quality of playback is extremely high.

The one big drawback isn't sonics. Its an isolated loner hobby with no one to share the experience with.

The volume is fine live based on where you sit to your preference. There is a bathroom interval in an hour, and you can drink during the interval. Sonics are never higher at least in London because you can choose the halls of your choice and stay away from the ones you don’t like. The only thing that you can’t choose is the performance.

 

[morricab]

Yet not many people will be able to identify that a Stradivarius is being played in a recording (though they may prefer it's sound when comparing it with another recording), and those who do, probably don't need a high end audio system to do so. Morricab in fact posted video recordings of his ex (if I remember correctly) playing different violins, and the differences are pretty obvious just listening with a phone.

If a good system can't allow you to differentiate the sound of different instruments (and the musicians playing them) - even if you cannot name them - then you need to find another hobby.

I am no expert, but I can instantly recognize Johnny Hodges playing saxophone, for example, as many afficionados will (there are no super-powers involved). Does that give me any authority in terms of audio? No. By the way, I can do that listening on my phone...

Differentiation is one thing, but what about how accurately a system and recording reproduces the sound of a given instrument? Here again, I assume most people will be able to tell the difference between a violin and a cello, but very few will correctly identify which violin is being played. Assuming someone was intimately familiar with the sound of a Stradivarius, would that be helpful in assessing the accuracy of a recording and system? Perhaps, but for all of us who are not, you can simply record your voice (or even better, someone's voice that you are familiar with) with a good microphone and compare how it sounds on different systems. Results may be surprising...

All this to say that "natural sound" as a reference is completely meaningless unless you get very specific and use a performance and recording that you are very familiar with (you have actually heard live, and can perhaps even hear live repeatedly). I doubt that many here have done this.

Point of clarification, it was not my ex playing all the different violins…this is a recording you can buy.

 

[Al M.]

This is your way of rationalizing things, and finding some form of authority and validity to your choices. These distinctions are all in your imagination.

Actually, these distinctions are not just in the imagination. Of course a system cannot provide an accurate portrayal of an event, but it can provide an impression of believability. To your earlier point of each violin sounding different, that is true, but believable sound moves within a certain range. Once you're out of that range, there is no believability. A violin on my car radio is always recognizable as a violin, but it never sounds believable other than on the most superficial level. A halfway decent violin recording played back on my system has a believability that my car radio never matches. Of course it still doesn't sound like live, but it comes much closer, and to me it's a thrilling experience.

If someone does not approach things from a solid reference, such as unamplified live music or convincingly sounding vocals, they may go for a superficially exciting sound that is not natural.

When I was in college in the 1980s, a room mate was cranking up the treble on a Supertramp song, making the voice really tipped up sounding, among other things. I turned the tone control back to neutral, saying this sounds "much more natural" (sic) -- yes, I used that term long before Natural Sound(TM). Sure, it sounded less superficially "exciting" that way, but much more musical.

Apparently many people like their sound skeletal, without meat on the bones, and tipped up with unnatural energy in the highs, partially in the search of ever more fake "detail" and fake "resolution". That was the character of most (thankfully, not all) of the sound that I heard at T.H.E. Show in SoCal last year. Certainly, some of that may have been the culprit of bad room acoustics and bad electrical power in those hotel rooms, but I suppose some, or probably a lot, of it was by choice. At the end of my first day there my ears were literally hurting (even though I avoided the loudest parts).