This is another reason why doing comparative analysis with audio recordings of other systems is also important to progressing the sound of your own system in the right direction. When you hear another system do some thing that your system does not or that you want it to do, then that gives you a target to work towards achieving. You can use any kind of audio recordings for these comparative analysis, even those audio recordings embedded in videos. Again these are relative comparisons of the “resultant sound”, the only thing that actually matters.
Ron’s New System
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
This is another reason why doing comparative analysis with audio recordings of other systems is also important to progressing the sound of your own system in the right direction. When you hear another system do some thing that your system does not or that you want it to do, then that gives you a target to work towards achieving. You can use any kind of audio recordings for these comparative analysis, even those audio recordings embedded in videos. Again these are relative comparisons of the “resultant sound”, the only thing that actually matters.
I understand that point, but my target sound is what I experience with a live performance and to a lesser extent the few great systems that remind me of what I experience with live music. Those systems do come across on videos. For me, it comes down to energy and information presented naturally.
B & C are the same?
My preference was B, A and C have more spatial details but lack emotion.
That is fine also and if you feel that you have achieved that then that is great. Obviously we have different targets. I like a “raw” sound with “texture” and a delineated & articulate bass line. From what I gathered you like a “weightier” bottom and a “smooth” top presentation that sound pleasing and “natural” to you.
I have been very busy so I have not had a chance to sit down and put together a table of how different audiophile terms correlate to frequency and spectral composition but I will find the time to put together a table that shows columns for the “audiophile descriptor”, “frequency or spectral implications”, and “cause of phenomena” or “how to achieve this trait”. A simple table like that could help many. As an example, you use the term “natural”:
Natural : fuller bass : Extra bass energy associated with turntable resonances & modulation effects, in nature the attenuation of high frequency creates a perceived sense of greater bass content
: softer treble :associated with the attenuation of or diminished high frequency content with distance from the source in nature because of absorption and directionality of high frequencies
MikeL like to use the word “Completeness” for analog playback:
Completeness : greater density and “weight” across various portions of the frequency spectrum : extra spectral content associated with generated harmonics and compression associated with magnetic tape playback and with vinyl playback left & right channel crosstalk amplitude modulations
I hope you get the picture of where I’m going with this exercise of correlating audiophile vocabulary phenomena with their cause and effect.
Last edited:
I get the picture, but if you read the first page or two of my natural sound system thread, you would see that your definition of “natural” is different from mine.
I will have to go back and read it again. That was what I gathered you liked but it sounds like I’m off.
For the record, I like the sound of both vinyl and magnetic tape playback and obviously hear what you and MikeL enjoy about that sound.
Take a look at the description of the sound presentation that I like and then listen to the sound of my systems and they correlate.
Once I read your thread and read how you describe natural then I will play your videos to hear if their sound correlates with the sound that your describe as “natural”.
The above is the reiterative process that I go through while fine tuning the sound of my systems.
That was sneaky. But, I notice with my cell phone, there is often a strange glitch when the screen distorts for a moment before it enters better stereo recording.
I suppose that the recording electronics of the same cell phone could vary depending on adaptive internal electronics and/or just the physical way the phone is held, in a case, etc. compared to the microphone opening.
Yeah, overall the sound quality isn't great, it's quite laughable that Ron is using them to confirm his view that system videos have no value. Luckily members like @Believe High Fidelity are testing ways to better capture system sound more seriously.
Nice theory, but in practice I think you would find it exceedingly difficult to replicate the sound. I guess you won’t empty your room so I guess we are left to speculate…
It wasn't. I hardly heard a difference across all 3 except for some resonance in 1, as I said. If Ron claims that is a superior mic (Sennheiser) maybe it captured room resonance. Only Todd imagined a lot of difference on 3 after Ron must have made a couple of taps on the phone mic.
No, it was my attempt to add a meaningful description that is useful to vague audiophile descriptors. Are you familiar with cause & effect charts?
I used to have one on the wall of my moon landing module back in the sixties .
for example : no more fuel / no return home Cause / efffect
Sorry for the of topic post
Last edited:
Carlos, you can better understand exactly what I mean by natural sound by reading the list of attributes that I have identified from hearing very particular systems and what they have in common.
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
What you dont get is your theory and methodology is flawed and it fits your circular reasoning to justify your own results. These results are not what all the others here are trying to achieve. You can make any sound you like, and master your recordings and "color" them as you see fit to make yourself happy. Enjoy that. However that is not what the overwhelming majority are trying to achieve. You are like a client coming in and telling me he wants everything to sound like it is in Carnegie Hall. A nice idea? well maybe to him but what he is asking for is a color , not reality, not what the recording sounds like but rather what he wants it to sound like. That is fine for him or you but not for me or most others.
Personally I explain to my clients what I do and what I can do. I explain the room and what it does and I actually go to those spaces and set up the gear to get the best result possible within the parameters of the space. If the space can use some change I talk to my client about that as well.
I can't walk on water even if you think that you can.
I don't agree Eliot. I'm not interested in having a stereo that is designed to only show what is on the recorded media. I want a stereo that is engaging and sound good. Period.
If that means, exact reproduction of the source, so be it. But as many have noted, the sourxe material is key to enjoyable playback and much of it is crap.
I would love a stereo that was able to make crap recordings magical and engaging. I would also love a stereo that was fully digital and could integrate into any room, as well as shape the sound to what I want. Carnage Hall for classical or a miked studio for chicks with guitars. The ugly truth is, technology has been at a stand still and we are still using expensive tubes and analog media. What A Joke. Think about it. How stupid are we to be using tubes, old vinyl technology and paper driver cones. Its a shame. Maybe someone with a creative mind will show up and save us some day.
Peter, I have read the list of attributes that you specify constitute “Natural” sound. I will reply back to that list on your thread.
i think an audiophile can choose what is important to them. no rules. so in that sense i agree with you. if you want to get a big hulking Receiver that has a bunch of silver buttons with various EQ curves suggesting different halls, and that floats your boat.....then good for you. that is one part of the hobby and fully legit. you have your priorities.
OTOH i agree with Elliot that ideally our systems should be able to tell us what is on each recording distinctly, while also touching us with the music. and serious audiophiles do pursue a certain natural absolute sound that is able to do justice to all types of music. customers don't come to Elliot for ultimate audio to dumb down their systems with some alternate universe. they want to hear real. and real starts with a source that is transparent. do 100% of listeners want that? obviously not. when someone does want to move the goal posts, it does cause a conflict. but it's a hobby so no big deal. have fun, don't hurt anybody....it's all good. but if you are 'selling' that alternate viewpoint, don't expect many buyers. it's a left turn from where most are going.
what do listeners want? few want a Carnegie Hall facsimile with every cut. remember.....it will never be what a 'live' Carnegie Hall recording would be, that you have that was recorded that way. it will be something else. a flavor. coloration. not real. real is different every time.
Last edited:
Here is the kicker, the best a home stereo audio reproduction system can do, in the traditional high-audio is to faithfully reproduce what is on the recording. That is what is called “High-Fidelity” or HiFi. To this I ask you, how does one confirm that the sound from the speakers and at the listening ear matches that of the recording/media/source material?
Furthermore, you have others like Peter that don’t want their home audio system to sound like what’s on the recordings, with the close-mic’ed high frequency extension or such associated with recordings, but instead he wants his system to sound “Natural” and have the sound he hears from the audience perspective listening a distance back from the stage, when listening to live un-amplified acoustic music.
We all have our different goals and objectives. The Absolute Sound is a mirage.
So your clients do not purchase based on what they hear in your demo room? I would think that if they like the sound in your demo room and make big outlay for The whole system that they are buying “that sound that they heard in the demo room”. Many will be disappointed if the sound at least fails to meet that expectation. Ever hear of the term “meet or exceed expectation” before?
I agree that you are limited with what you can do with the traditional approach and that is why I advocate for an approach the gives the user & installer flexibility and control by allowing them to dial in the resultant sound. There are many ways to do this so I’m not implying that you have to use one of the methods that I use.If you are clever enough, you will find a way to control either the mastering of the recordings or the transfer function of the system, or both. That is the part that you have to understand, those that are clever enough don’t let room acoustics and other items in the room dictate to them what the resultant sound is going to be. If you device a way to control the resultant sound, then you have the power to control the sound of your system through means other than equipment and cable substitutions, and acoustic treatments.
It is the endless carousel that audiophiles subject themselves to what I call chasing your tail. Back a couple years ago, when you sold the Level 1 WADAX Reference combo to your customers it was “the best”, then came the Level 2, then the Level 3, then the Level 4, now the Level 5 and tomorrow the Level 6. Get the picture yet?
Last edited: