Peter A.’s System: A Perspective on Natural Sound

[Al M.]

The vdh does not sound forward in tang's and captures ambience very well. So I was surprised to read it sounds forward here (especially if it did not in the Magico system).

It does not. Peter commented to me on the vdH as having "a more aggressive and forward presentation” -- compared to the Technics MM. It's all relative. The vdH also did not sound forward or aggressive in the Pass/Magico system when I heard it last there in Ocober 2020 (I think). It did sound aggressive and tilted up, with very exaggerated leading edge, in July 2020 when Peter had not sorted out his system yet (with the same components as in October, but less good power and component support being main issues). At that time both Ian and I very much preferred the Japanese MSL cartridge as being much more natural sounding; later that cartridge sounded in Peter's system dark in comparison to the vdH, and the vdH much more natural.

It is all system context.

 

[spiritofmusic]

If its relevant at all, I've now spent quality time in front of Audiophile Bill's bespoke horns, via high quality Mayer SETs and a top vinyl front end, Bergmann and Red Sparrow/Dava carts.
It's a totally different experience from any box spkr or even panel/ribbon.
Music appears effortlessly as if air resistance in the room is lowered, yet the dynamics are not rushed or forced as even some of the very best non-horns alternatives present.
At the same time, music just hangs in the air, seemingly free of any production mechanism or artifacts.
Both these qualities so remind me of the experience of listening to live classical and jazz, the flow in the room, and lack of imposed character.
Where I agree w Al is that there's a hint of a more distant perspective in the presentation compared to box spkrs, approaching a mid hall, the experience inviting you into the music rather than serving it to you on a plate, or projecting it into you.
I wouldn't call it more relaxed, because that suggests poorer dynamics. I'd sum it up as less strained, and less restrained.
And more natural and lifelike as a result.

 

[Al M.]

Ok clear though surprised this is a central part of essence. Is that your interpretation or he agrees as well?

That is my interpretation. I do think Peter would agree that my system has more leading edge of transients.

In my post I tried to point out that, among others:

a) Peter's Natural Sound is one of several options of a natural sound, not the only one. It is a particular perspective relative to live sound, and can be considered valid. Yet it is not necessarily more valid than others.

b) A sound with more leading edge is not necessarily less natural. Again, it depends on the perspective relative to live music, close-up or less so (I disagree with you when you seem to suggest -- I may read that wrong -- that position of the listener in the hall should not have so much influence on perception of leading edge). On the other hand, a system sound with constantly pronounced leading edge is problematic, as has been pointed out here by others; I have addressed this in my post as well.

c) The whole issue of "fast" vs. "slow" is very complicated in my view, and I have tried to point out why that is so. I am fully aware that my observations in that respect are not complete, and that there is much that is open for discussion.

 

[bonzo75]

Sorry, to clarify: is Peter saying the lack of leading edges helps in the system becoming more natural?

 

[ack]

So I asked about timbre, micro-dynamics et al, and you responded:

As I said on top of my opening post, this is a continuation of my report that started in Peter's "Natural Sound" thread. Link is given.

"In this post, I will try to define, from my perspective, what is a central part of the essence of Peter’s Natural Sound compared to other system sounds that strive to portray a natural sound."

So none of these attributes are central part of the essence of Peter's [whatever] compared to other systems... Hmmmm.....

 

[jeff1225]

Let's not forget the wonderful Lamm electronics driving them, they define natural sound and accurate tone and timbre. This is pretty much the same system with Lamm phono and Reference preamp.

david

I've heard several Shindo based vintage horn systems and they were indeed vary slow and lacked resolution. This led to less engagement with the system.

 

[rbbert]

I'm more confused than ever... From the posts here it would appear that even when the sound of PeterA's system deviates from "live", it does so in a "natural" direction?? Even at a distance, the leading edge transients of brass and percussion are quite pronounced, admittedly less so for strings, winds, etc. And as you mentioned, even with reasonable listening distances (e.g., 20-25 feet) the inner detail and micro-dynamics of a chamber group are easily heard and characteristics of live sound that are often not well reproduced in a home system.

 

[bonzo75]

I've heard several Shindo based vintage horn systems and they were indeed vary slow and lacked resolution. This lead to less engagement with the system.

Totally agree about them

 

[ddk]

"“No analysis of the sound into bits and pieces, music experienced as a whole” is also facilitated by a de-emphasis of transient leading edge"

=> homogenized and non nuanced

That’s totally inaccurate! The basis of natural sound is music not what you learnt from “absolute sound”. The system should not compete with nor be impressive to distract from the music it should present it and get out of the way. You analyze the music and the performance not bits and pieces of the system reproduced over the music that stand out and attract attention to themselves, that’s exactly what “Natural Sound” is about.

david

 

[Al M.]

Sorry, to clarify: is Peter saying the lack of leading edges helps in the system becoming more natural?

Peter has just posted his perspective on this in his Natural Sound thread.

 

[microstrip]

I'm more confused than ever... From the posts here it would appear that even when the sound of PeterA's system deviates from "live", it does so in a "natural" direction?? Even at a distance, the leading edge transients of brass and percussion are quite pronounced, admittedly less so for strings, winds, etc. And as you mentioned, even with reasonable listening distances (e.g., 20-25 feet) the inner detail and micro-dynamics of a chamber group are easily heard and characteristics of live sound that are often not well reproduced in a home system.

I was going to write something similar - I listen to a lot of ancient music with period instruments and this type of music needs excellent transient behavior that does not depend on distance. The same for micro detail and nuance.

 

[microstrip]

Peter has just posted his perspective on this in his Natural Sound thread.

Yes, he answered to your question on his thread - it is now impossible to follow it.

IMHO we can't mix leading edges, transients, high frequencies and roll of in the same sentence. They are different aspects of sound reproduction, not forcefully connected.

 

[bonzo75]

Can we link to sublime sound thread to get clarification on how it was before

 

[Al M.]

IMHO we can't mix leading edges, transients, high frequencies and roll of in the same sentence. They are different aspects of sound reproduction, not forcefully connected.

Agreed. There is some connection in some aspects, but not a tight one by any means.

 

[Kingrex]

This is a bit of a confusing post to me. It feels like the tone is about the leading edge is missing, yet its Natural.

Isn't leading edge also defined as attack. And isn't this an attribute we look for in piano that helps make it "real". Without it, its more a Clavinova sound.

 

[Al M.]

Isn't leading edge also defined as attack. And isn't this an attribute we look for in piano that helps make it "real". Without it, its more a Clavinova sound.

That depends. In a reverberant acoustic the sound of attacks on piano keys does lose leading edge. In Boston Symphony Hall a piano can have good attack, but I have never heard there a leading edge as hard as in some smaller, dryer acoustics.

 

[rbbert]

That depends. In a reverberant acoustic the sound of attacks on piano keys does lose leading edge. In Boston Symphony Hall a piano can have good attack, but I have never heard there a leading edge as hard as in some smaller, dryer acoustics.

But what matters is what is on the recording, which is admittedly hard to know. Nevertheless we can be pretty sure that some (a lot of?) recordings are mic'ed more closely than our ears are likely to be, and if the mics are cardioid then the effect is even closer. In those cases the system should resolve that detail, micro- and macro-dynamics that are definitely not "natural" in the sense of what we (listeners) are likely to hear unless we are situated in the middle of the performing ensemble.

In most cases timbre and tone will not be significantly affected by that type of recording technique

 

[Al M.]

I should mention that I have not yet listened to piano in Peter's system.

 

[wil]

I think both Al and Bonzo's contributions above are insightful. My takeaway is that there is really no way to define, or put this concept of "natural sound" in a box. I do think the concept is a good touchstone to strive for, but it's way too complex to define and say "this is it." And, bottom line, it will vary (or should vary) from recording to recording. Otherwise, it's a coloration/homogenization. "Transparency" could be another touchstone word, and would come with it's own set of semantic issues.

Peter's Pass/Magico system was one successful system and it sounds like his Lamm/Vitavox system is another musically satisfying playback system. As Bonzo notes, they, and all systems, come with their limitations and trade-offs.

 

[ack]

It is a particular perspective relative to live sound, and can be considered valid. Yet it is not necessarily more valid than others.

If we were to get to the bottom of it, in one word: did you like what you heard, or not