Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Every man is made by another man so by definition people are man made; guess that explains why there are so many phonies around!
david
I wonder where that leaves a monkey trained to play Für Elise.
Resphigi's "Pines of Rome" includes a nightengale singing in the pines - the nightengale's song as specified in the score is performed by playing a record of a nightengale singing made by the American Academy of Rome.
It's all so confusing.
Peter I’d be interested to find out if you find listening to the Vitas changes your listening approach over time.
When a mate who I visit probably 6 or 7 times a year for music, coffee and comraderie first got his Animas about 8 or 9 years ago for me as a confirmed panel guy I found over time I began to atune (pardon the pun) more and more to horn listening.
Panel and horn are for me very different ways of listening.
Then a few years back he leant the Animas (plus another pair of horns later as well) to me for a few months and it really created a significant change in my appreciation of listening and it was in the living with them that then the deep addiction set in.
It was why I then bought my first pair of horns a bit over 2 years ago and initially started listening equal time to those and the Harbeth 40.2s as well.
Over that first year I moved across to the horns virtually full time and now only occasionally listen to anything else. Plus I have since gone up again in scale with the new pair.
I said to my mate that listening longer term to horns with great flow can change you, the way you listen, your moods and approach to life can even become more in the flow and more laid back and he then agreed fully. He also listens to other speakers as well from time to time but his Animas are his default way of listening and perhaps represent his way of being.
It’ll be interesting to hear if you also find anything like this essential shift with ease and flow begins to happen for you through time.
When a mate who I visit probably 6 or 7 times a year for music, coffee and comraderie first got his Animas about 8 or 9 years ago for me as a confirmed panel guy I found over time I began to atune (pardon the pun) more and more to horn listening.
Panel and horn are for me very different ways of listening.
Then a few years back he leant the Animas (plus another pair of horns later as well) to me for a few months and it really created a significant change in my appreciation of listening and it was in the living with them that then the deep addiction set in.
It was why I then bought my first pair of horns a bit over 2 years ago and initially started listening equal time to those and the Harbeth 40.2s as well.
Over that first year I moved across to the horns virtually full time and now only occasionally listen to anything else. Plus I have since gone up again in scale with the new pair.
I said to my mate that listening longer term to horns with great flow can change you, the way you listen, your moods and approach to life can even become more in the flow and more laid back and he then agreed fully. He also listens to other speakers as well from time to time but his Animas are his default way of listening and perhaps represent his way of being.
It’ll be interesting to hear if you also find anything like this essential shift with ease and flow begins to happen for you through time.
Last edited:
I started a thread on flow which helps confirm the protesters who can't relate to it
Posters autocorrect is protesters, thought I would leave it there
Be nicely industrious and provide a link if you want us to read it.
And nowadays there are posters ... and protesters
Be nicely industrious and provide a link if you want us to read it.
And nowadays there are posters ... and protesters
I decided to post this here. It is my response to Al's post in his thread about my system.
Al and I had a long and interesting talk on the phone last night about this thread, my system, and my list of observations of David's four systems. The discussion was mostly about the two subjects Al discusses in the post above: Balanced sound and how it relates to specific aspects of a system sticking out, and Relaxing, zero fatigue. I understand that we all hear differently, have different preferences, and different experiences and that Al is simply sharing his perspective of what he is hearing from my system. However, I disagree with Al's observations here. Some readers of my thread called for "independent" impressions of the sound of my new system. I suspect those readers will dismiss my thoughts here because they are not independent. Others wanted to know what my friends Al, Ian, and Tasos think. Well, we have no heard from both Al and Ian. Tasos does not think timbre is a priority of mine based on my listed observations of Natural Sound, so he is likely not interested in hearing my system. I do not think we would even be having a discussion about, or referring to anything as "natural sounding" if timbre were not believable or convincing. That just seems silly.
My list does not mention the usual audiophile list of terms, with the exception of "dynamic", as Al pointed out to me last night. The reason is that when I listened to David's four systems, I was drawn into the music, and the systems did not have an identifiable sound as such. I could not dissect them pointing to specific areas which called attention to themselves. The music and the system did not lend themselves to be thought of in terms of bits and pieces. This is precisely because they were balanced sounding. Because of this, the systems disappeared, and the music was left. There was nothing to distract me from the music. My mind could not easily focus on sonic aspects of the presentation. This is the whole key, the main point, of what these systems had in common, and precisely what I experience when listening to live music in the concert hall, or jazz club, or chamber setting. This is why the systems sound "Natural".
Now, this whole idea is contrary to the HP's glossary of audiophile terms. I think this is why my list is met with so much resistance. Al was telling me that the list is extremely vague, the bullet points can be applied to any system by any owner. I reject that. David's four systems do not bring attention to themselves. They do not shout, "listen to me". They disappear, and this is what distinguishes them from almost all other systems I have heard. As Al says that his posts are only his observation, as say the same. This opinion is mine, only mine, and people are free to disagree.
The discussion about transients/leading edges is fascinating. As I wrote in my other thread, people have varying ideas about this, and here too based on that violin video Bonzo just posted. Al does not hear a pronounced leading edge from my system. Some have read his comments to mean that transients are missing from my system. I agree that there is no pronouncing, no enhancing, no exaggeration of leading edge. I consider it to be balanced with the rest of the presentation, Al does not. In contrast to this, Al does not think this aspect of the presentation from his system is pronounced where I do. I hear it as a constant across all music. He hears it as recessed across all music in my system. Where does this leave us? I don't know. I guess we hear things differently, but this is a primary condition for a system to sound natural FOR ME. It is as Tima wrote in his Lamm LP2.1 review. Paraphrasing: "transients/leading edges are are somewhat less pronounced, but that is more like the way I hear them in the concert hall."
I disagree with Al about transients drawing attention to themselves, especially when heard way up close in the concert hall. Everything is more pronounced when one is sitting closer to the live instrument. Transients are no different from the energy in the midrange, the weight of the lower frequencies, it is all more, but the key is it remains in balance. When a system highlights the transients above and beyond the rest of what is going on, I think there is an issue, an imbalance, and that does not sound natural to me.
When closer, natural resolution becomes detail. I make the distinction between the two because I hear some systems pronounce "detail". It sticks out as if spotlit. I don't hear that at concert hall. It is an artifact created by the electronics or something else in the chain, at the expense of something else. Sure, when sitting right next to a piano, or a violin, there is all sorts of detail heard. But this is as it is. A system should portray that in a natural way, not in an artificial, enhanced way. Al disagreed with this last night and argues that resolution and detail are different. I argue that resolution presents detail when appropriate and based on the listening perspective. Systems can mess with this fine/subtle distinction. David's systems did not, and that is why that is on the list.
Continued below:
Thank you Al for taking the time, and making the effort, to write down your thoughts and impressions of the sound of my system and for sharing them here. I do think it is confusing to have this thread separate from the main thread, because it makes it more difficult to follow the discussion, and for me personally, much more difficult to then go back and find specific posts about my new system. I take you last paragraph as in invitation to comment on your post.
Al and I had a long and interesting talk on the phone last night about this thread, my system, and my list of observations of David's four systems. The discussion was mostly about the two subjects Al discusses in the post above: Balanced sound and how it relates to specific aspects of a system sticking out, and Relaxing, zero fatigue. I understand that we all hear differently, have different preferences, and different experiences and that Al is simply sharing his perspective of what he is hearing from my system. However, I disagree with Al's observations here. Some readers of my thread called for "independent" impressions of the sound of my new system. I suspect those readers will dismiss my thoughts here because they are not independent. Others wanted to know what my friends Al, Ian, and Tasos think. Well, we have no heard from both Al and Ian. Tasos does not think timbre is a priority of mine based on my listed observations of Natural Sound, so he is likely not interested in hearing my system. I do not think we would even be having a discussion about, or referring to anything as "natural sounding" if timbre were not believable or convincing. That just seems silly.
My list does not mention the usual audiophile list of terms, with the exception of "dynamic", as Al pointed out to me last night. The reason is that when I listened to David's four systems, I was drawn into the music, and the systems did not have an identifiable sound as such. I could not dissect them pointing to specific areas which called attention to themselves. The music and the system did not lend themselves to be thought of in terms of bits and pieces. This is precisely because they were balanced sounding. Because of this, the systems disappeared, and the music was left. There was nothing to distract me from the music. My mind could not easily focus on sonic aspects of the presentation. This is the whole key, the main point, of what these systems had in common, and precisely what I experience when listening to live music in the concert hall, or jazz club, or chamber setting. This is why the systems sound "Natural".
Now, this whole idea is contrary to the HP's glossary of audiophile terms. I think this is why my list is met with so much resistance. Al was telling me that the list is extremely vague, the bullet points can be applied to any system by any owner. I reject that. David's four systems do not bring attention to themselves. They do not shout, "listen to me". They disappear, and this is what distinguishes them from almost all other systems I have heard. As Al says that his posts are only his observation, as say the same. This opinion is mine, only mine, and people are free to disagree.
The discussion about transients/leading edges is fascinating. As I wrote in my other thread, people have varying ideas about this, and here too based on that violin video Bonzo just posted. Al does not hear a pronounced leading edge from my system. Some have read his comments to mean that transients are missing from my system. I agree that there is no pronouncing, no enhancing, no exaggeration of leading edge. I consider it to be balanced with the rest of the presentation, Al does not. In contrast to this, Al does not think this aspect of the presentation from his system is pronounced where I do. I hear it as a constant across all music. He hears it as recessed across all music in my system. Where does this leave us? I don't know. I guess we hear things differently, but this is a primary condition for a system to sound natural FOR ME. It is as Tima wrote in his Lamm LP2.1 review. Paraphrasing: "transients/leading edges are are somewhat less pronounced, but that is more like the way I hear them in the concert hall."
I disagree with Al about transients drawing attention to themselves, especially when heard way up close in the concert hall. Everything is more pronounced when one is sitting closer to the live instrument. Transients are no different from the energy in the midrange, the weight of the lower frequencies, it is all more, but the key is it remains in balance. When a system highlights the transients above and beyond the rest of what is going on, I think there is an issue, an imbalance, and that does not sound natural to me.
When closer, natural resolution becomes detail. I make the distinction between the two because I hear some systems pronounce "detail". It sticks out as if spotlit. I don't hear that at concert hall. It is an artifact created by the electronics or something else in the chain, at the expense of something else. Sure, when sitting right next to a piano, or a violin, there is all sorts of detail heard. But this is as it is. A system should portray that in a natural way, not in an artificial, enhanced way. Al disagreed with this last night and argues that resolution and detail are different. I argue that resolution presents detail when appropriate and based on the listening perspective. Systems can mess with this fine/subtle distinction. David's systems did not, and that is why that is on the list.
Continued below:
Continued:
Regarding Relaxing, no Fatigue: Al hears my system as having a "mid hall" perspective. This leads to a more relaxed presentation. The music is presented at more of a distance from the listener. At the BSO, this would be from about 80-100 feet back from the stage, I suspect. My bullet point list is not about that. It is about the mood David's system put the listener in when he sits down and plays that first record. The listener is not presented with fireworks, bits and pieces of sound to be digested, analyzed, taken apart and criticized. No, he is left with the music in front and around him. The mind does not have to work to understand what the heck is going on. There is an ease to the presentation, much like anything is experienced in nature. Nothing has to be reconciled. The mind/listener is relaxed, and he is free to enjoy the music. Al is talking about the presentation of my system, while I am talking about the mental state of the listener.
Mid hall perspective: This is perhaps where I disagree the most with Al. Last night, and for the last couple of months, I have listened to a large variety of music on my system. Solo piano or violin sounds close to me while sitting there on the sofa. Symphony, large choral music, organs, sound distant. Jazz groups, string quartets sound about in the middle. For the most part, this system distinguishes between recording perspectives and venues and scale, size of performers better than my former system, because it is more resolving. All seems to imply that every recording sounds similar with a somewhat distant perspective. I agree that Al's system, on some specific recordings, sounds extremely up front and close, more so than mine, but my system certainly does not present all music from a consistent mid hall perspective. I do not know what else to say about that.
Again, I thank Al for his thoughts. This is what I like about good respectful exchanges about the hobby and how it is understood by different people. This is how we learn, and this is what makes such threads interesting. Thank you Al, we will have much more to discuss and time to enjoy each other's company over the years to come.
Reactions:Audiophile Bill, Al M. and ddk
Regarding Relaxing, no Fatigue: Al hears my system as having a "mid hall" perspective. This leads to a more relaxed presentation. The music is presented at more of a distance from the listener. At the BSO, this would be from about 80-100 feet back from the stage, I suspect. My bullet point list is not about that. It is about the mood David's system put the listener in when he sits down and plays that first record. The listener is not presented with fireworks, bits and pieces of sound to be digested, analyzed, taken apart and criticized. No, he is left with the music in front and around him. The mind does not have to work to understand what the heck is going on. There is an ease to the presentation, much like anything is experienced in nature. Nothing has to be reconciled. The mind/listener is relaxed, and he is free to enjoy the music. Al is talking about the presentation of my system, while I am talking about the mental state of the listener.
Mid hall perspective: This is perhaps where I disagree the most with Al. Last night, and for the last couple of months, I have listened to a large variety of music on my system. Solo piano or violin sounds close to me while sitting there on the sofa. Symphony, large choral music, organs, sound distant. Jazz groups, string quartets sound about in the middle. For the most part, this system distinguishes between recording perspectives and venues and scale, size of performers better than my former system, because it is more resolving. All seems to imply that every recording sounds similar with a somewhat distant perspective. I agree that Al's system, on some specific recordings, sounds extremely up front and close, more so than mine, but my system certainly does not present all music from a consistent mid hall perspective. I do not know what else to say about that.
Again, I thank Al for his thoughts. This is what I like about good respectful exchanges about the hobby and how it is understood by different people. This is how we learn, and this is what makes such threads interesting. Thank you Al, we will have much more to discuss and time to enjoy each other's company over the years to come.
Reactions:Audiophile Bill, Al M. and ddk
Peter,
I would just like to point that your list shown in post #5 looks like a summary of comments we find in plenty of high-end reviews. Probably you do not read reviews, but they are common comments made by most subjective reviewers. Even manufacturers include such comments in their advertising literature.
I could understand your comments on audiophile terms if you were addressing to hard core objective audiophiles and readers of Audio and High-Fidelity of the 70's, but a lot changed meanwhile. Good reviewers try to make the connection between our lexicon and your list, an worthy and hard job IMHO.
That is welcome news, Fransisco. It means the reviewers are moving away from HP's Glossary of Audiophile Terms which certainly led me astray for many years, though I did not realize it, always chasing attributes and more is more. However, people still search out for sonic attributes and breaking down sound into bits and pieces. It happened today in Al's thread, so I left.
It is then a bit odd that that list is causing so much anxiety for some people. Most everyone loves reviews, certainly the dealers, manufacturers, and people shopping. They then must like my list if it can be read in the magazines. However, Al told me just last night that my list is so vague that it is almost meaningless and that everyone could apply it to their own systems and conclude that they have natural sound. Why then, all the animosity and consternation? You make it sound as though we are all on the same path toward natural sounding systems and living happily together. I am not so convinced.
Last edited:
I think we should give up the anti-HP focus. Tbh, I never read (both red and read tense of read) HP. I think many might not have, given he is pre-internet era and his writings are not easily available and we have been on forums for a while now. Peter is using quotes from ddk, some people use from Mike, and people I have met also quote a random guy over the internet who is very passionate about Nat and Trans-fi (seriously, no jokes). It is clear that forums influence listening and writing styles more. In those not experienced, I find more people looking for attributes mentioned on forums.
We should describe what we hear. The reason tang's writings improved because he kept describing what he heard very well, and his gear and recordings and classical exposure improved from audiophile. When I heard transparency to recordings, and wrote about it, it was quite evident who had not experienced it and who had. Those who go to live shows and recognize violin and natural bass on gear, can easily refer to what they are hearing. For instruments, it is quite evident that nuance, inflections, intra tone variations, are required, dulling or homogenizing is not the way to natural, nor is spotlighting. Both are easy to do, the right balance is the difficult one
You can call it leading edge or whatever you choose to describe it that makes it evident it is not a dulled, blunted sound, nor a distorted hard one. Now, unless we sit down with Al and Peter to listen, we will never exactly know if Al's natural is a hardened distorted high or the correct high or Peter's natural is a blunted high or a natural undistorted high. One of them is probably right. If VLS, Ian, and Ack all concurred with one, it might be easier to guess who. Till then, we will not know for sure, except for those who have listened with these guys and know their preferences.
If something is not natural, that is sufficient description to stay away if you know the listener. But to leave it at natural is just the start. We sure need a better description of why one thinks something is natural, or rather close to live, and Al's description, right or wrong depending on his listening preference, helped in that regard.
We should describe what we hear. The reason tang's writings improved because he kept describing what he heard very well, and his gear and recordings and classical exposure improved from audiophile. When I heard transparency to recordings, and wrote about it, it was quite evident who had not experienced it and who had. Those who go to live shows and recognize violin and natural bass on gear, can easily refer to what they are hearing. For instruments, it is quite evident that nuance, inflections, intra tone variations, are required, dulling or homogenizing is not the way to natural, nor is spotlighting. Both are easy to do, the right balance is the difficult one
You can call it leading edge or whatever you choose to describe it that makes it evident it is not a dulled, blunted sound, nor a distorted hard one. Now, unless we sit down with Al and Peter to listen, we will never exactly know if Al's natural is a hardened distorted high or the correct high or Peter's natural is a blunted high or a natural undistorted high. One of them is probably right. If VLS, Ian, and Ack all concurred with one, it might be easier to guess who. Till then, we will not know for sure, except for those who have listened with these guys and know their preferences.
If something is not natural, that is sufficient description to stay away if you know the listener. But to leave it at natural is just the start. We sure need a better description of why one thinks something is natural, or rather close to live, and Al's description, right or wrong depending on his listening preference, helped in that regard.
Last edited:
Nothing seems to be to your satisfaction Francisco as if people owe you their time, instead of grilling @Steve Williams why don't you give your own system a try, you basically have the same components. Difference is he's happy with his "natural sound" and you're not, invite @rbbert over hold hands and figure it out. Try quoting some F. Toole and offer him a few of your HOs to enhance the mood. Maybe you can take him shopping for a pair of Vitavoxs too, come back and tell us about your sound for once instead of complaining to your buddy @rbbert.
david
What is the purpose of this post David? This is Peter thread, I am posting in answers to people who post in the thread. As far as I know people in WBF do not need their mentor to approve their posts or answer in their behavior.
I have explained clearly elsewhere in this thread the purpose of my quotes, you did not object directly to it in any way. Why are you systematically misrepresenting posts to create confusion?
I have reported my experiences in due time in a thread that I created, IMHO they are not of interest in this thread. And please do not bring your many personnel fights to my attention, I am not interested in them.
Well, at some period I write a lot about them, particularly on the sound of music of several types of recordings on the DCS Vivaldi and later on the XLF. Just because you did not read it does not mean it does not exist. Anyway you say you do not care about reviews or digitally recorded music , why should I expect that you would take note about my posts on the subject? BTW, most of my opinions on the sound of reproduced music were posted in interesting debates on analog versus digital.
At this point I am particularly interested in correlation between our preferences and gear/systems, or great systems. It would be great if we could learn something from you, other than you are enjoying a great moment - something I truly believe.
IMHO you have a wrong opinion on Harry Pearson - he often used all your points and debated them. People who have not read him in due time and figures his style on WBF posts will get a very wrong idea. He often discussed the mid-hall perspective referred by Al. M in another thread and even carried a soundmeter to live concerts. His finding were very interesting, although he was known to listen louder than real.
Well, as far as I see it, IMHO there is no anxiety, just some natural desire to discuss your views on Natural Sound. This forum has always discussed preferences and this thread seems similar to many others. Perhaps I see some anxiety in those who do not enjoy debating and audiophile or audio science terminology, but we are slowly making some progress.
Since you're dissatisfied with Steve's answers purpose of the post is to remind you answers await you at home. It's just a suggestion I don't know what you're talking about in the rest of your post.
david
Peter, Congats again! I guess we are all very fortunate to be partaking in this hobby.
But I believe the guys who are most fortunate, in addition to having the $$,$$$ and the real estate to accommodate the systems we want, are the ones who have discovered our taste and who have found people with similar taste who have taken that passion to the next level. So it's wonderful that you able to tap into DDK's passion and knowledge. Enjoy!
But I believe the guys who are most fortunate, in addition to having the $$,$$$ and the real estate to accommodate the systems we want, are the ones who have discovered our taste and who have found people with similar taste who have taken that passion to the next level. So it's wonderful that you able to tap into DDK's passion and knowledge. Enjoy!
Similar threads
Staff online
-
treitz3Super Moderator
Members online
- Mr P
- pdxaudio
- heihei
- Kevin58
- Bobvin
- jbrrp1
- Stefan
- John T
- ray-dude
- Mark212121
- Alinous
- Moladiego
- Jpspock
- nuway
- ecwl
- itay123
- herbreichert
- Aries Cerat
- 108CY
- morricab
- barbz127
- Elliot G.
- V-Fi
- hairyderriere
- sonrock
- Moiz Audio
- JiminGa
- pt999
- Armsan
- Rob77
- kasin
- treitz3
- ozzzy
- Foxbat
- J007B
- FT251
- ADGold
- andromedaaudio
- austinpop
- tony22
- Ron A.
- willgall
- tsaett
- emoonie
- lwr
- davidavdavid
- Argonaut
- bryans
- Klonk
- onur
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |