Natural Sound

This may be a tangent, but keep in mind that not all live acoustic performances are a good reference for good sound. The performance space is every bit as critical our own hi-fi performance spaces.

Awhile back, I heard classical guitar in a medium sized professionaly developed concert space. The room completely swallowed the life out of the guitar. I would imagine a closely miked and well mastered recording of the performance would sound much more like a real guitar than what I heard in person (from the first row btw).

If this live performance were someone’s only reference to an acoustic guitar, they would have a very skewed aural memory.

Rensselaer said:

No, I understand that bit. I think what you are saying is that the system doesn’t make music sound natural, but that a good recording will sound most natural from a system that is most accurate (least distortion), right?

But, if I get that part correctly, having an accurate system will not make a crap recording sound natural (as in the sound of real acoustic instruments in situ), but will accurately play what was recorded. That is where I have trouble reconciling your comment that natural and accurate are the same thing.

I accept that a natural sounding system must necessarily be an accurate system if the naturalness is in the recording. That is if it is only heard when accurately pulled from a stellar recording and not something in the combination of analogue front end, DH SET’s and certain horn speakers putting out some sort of auditory clues similar to live recordings so that even lesser quality recordings somehow sound more real, some psychoacoustic effect of the system on the listener.

Click to expand...

I see your point. The system isn't responsible for the recording- you are. I am only talking about the system itself and not the recording because other than having a copy or not, we don't have control over the recording.

hopkins said:

They have the lowest sound-floor and also are the best "organized" (and music is simply "organized sound")."

Click to expand...

What do you suppose he meant by that? 'Sound floor' isn't a thing. Usually in audio when a 'floor' is mentioned if anything to do with an amp or preamp, its a noise floor and SETs are not particularly good at that. 'Organized' does not make sense either (synonymous with 'nonsense'). No idea what he's trying to get across.

Ron Resnick said:

I think we are talking past each other, perhaps because you are not recognizing that my objective of high-end audio is different than your objective of high-end audio. I believe your objective is: Objective 2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played.

My objective, for the purpose of this discussion, is: Objective 4) create a sound that seems live.

I cannot put a vinyl LP up to my ear and hear music. I take the recording as a starting point. I am not trying to maximize the fidelity of what comes out of my stereo to what is encoded on the LP. Is this what you mean by accuracy? That is your objective, correct?

I am taking that LP and doing whatever I have to do to extract from it the particular sonic cues which subjectively for me cause my stereo to output a "sound that seems live" to me. Whatever I do with the signal extracted from the grooves and amplified by my system to achieve a sound that is most natural to me -- a sound that seems live to me -- is what I want my stereo to do. If I achieve for my ears a sound that seems the most live -- a sound that seems the most natural to me -- by running the signal through a distortion generator and by having an oompa-loompa whistle at the same time through a piece of woo-woo wood then I am happy. To me this has little to do with a notion of "accuracy" from the medium.

Click to expand...

If the recording does not sound live neither will its playback. So it sounds to me as if you have to stay away from most studio recordings and stick to those only done with 2 or 3 mics (if the 3rd mic is part of a Decca stereo tree or a 3rd omni spaced equally with 2 other omnis).

That comment about an LP next to your ear is common to all media. Its irrelevant.

If you don't accurately portray what is in the recording regardless of source, you have exactly zero hope of it sounding natural. It will always have an electronic quality- whatever that might be (much of what I've already mentioned in prior posts so will not repeat myself here).

PeterA said:

The reference for natural sound is one’s memory of a live acoustic music event.

The reference for accurate sound is a recording of a music event or assembly.

The discussion started out being about how closely a signal at the output of an amplifier compares to the input signal. We were told that an SET can not sound natural because of the distortion to that signal. We were then told that a system could not sound natural if the speakers do not reproduce accurately the bottom octave.

Ralph has tried to prove that my system does not sound natural and therefore that the title is nonsensical. I disagree. Does that about cover it, or would Ralph like to expand the discussion to why a belt drive turntable can not sound natural?

Click to expand...

If there is no recording of a live event then it is not a reference for anything. That is why I was talking about direct microphone feeds earlier- that is the only way you can get around this issue!

Since this issue is apparently at the heart of this discussion can we discuss that first and get it put to bed?

I'm wondering what you think of Saint Saen's Organ symphony with Louis Fremaux conducting. Have you heard it?

Rexp said:

Yes natural and accurate are not always the same. Do SET/Horns make unnatural recordings sound more natural, probably.

Click to expand...

I've always thought that SETs got their start in the 1990s because CD players sounded so dry back then. But as it turns out trying to compensate one distortion (of the CD; the brightness of them was distortion) with another doesn't work. Of course that idea I had about their origins is probably bunk.

Amir said:

If you look at preamplifiers, dacs, phonostages you will see the output stage is almost class A.
The most linear topology is Class A.
Low/zero feedback SET tube amplifiers are Class A (very simple and linear).
Compression drivers for horns (like vitavox s2) are fast.
Horns like impedance matching devices need less power than direct drive speakers.

When you use SET with Horns you will have maximum speed plus maximum linearity.
I think good horns have wider dynamic range and are also fast (live sound).

Click to expand...

If you have PP class A then the distortion is inherently lower. If you have fully differential class A its even lower than that. Again, SETs produce a quadratic non-linearity which results in a prodigious 2nd harmonic with succeeding harmonics falling off on an exponential curve. But if you have a fully differntial PP amp the non-linearity is cubic due to even ordered cancellation. Now the 3rd is dominant with succeeding harmonics falling off at a faster rate on an exponential curve based on a different exponent.

In both case the lower orders are significant enough to mask the higher orders. But the fully differential PP class A amp may well have less than 1/10th the distortion making it more revealing. FWIW all preamp outputs including phono sections are class A. Some are fully differential and class A.

tima said:

C cont. I think (but am not sure) that Ralph adds the condition "and when the reproducing equipment is designed in conjunction with the rules of human hearing." I don't how those rules are codified or described in measurement. If the test of conformity to the rules of human hearing is Natural Sound then okay, but it seems the argument (natural=accurate) becomes circular or tautological.

Click to expand...

The rules of human hearing are not taught to EEs. You have to sort that out on your own so some designers have quite a grasp of them and others do not. From my discussion on this topic with Vladimr Lamm, it seemed we were on the same page as to the end result but of course had/have different ways of going about it. Toole has expressed similar viewpoints as have a variety of others.

Anyone not familiar with the Radiotron Designer's Handbook, 3rd edition might be interested to know that the significance of distortion components was known back before WW2. John Curl mentioned this once in one of his talks. Its a useful tome despite its age. And interesting that none of this is all that new.

PeterA said:

Not if the increased detail from one system is exaggerated or heightened or sounds artificial. It’s just more information presented unnaturally. I completely disagree with your assertion. To know what a tympani actually sounds like one must have heard it live.

All your scenario tells the listener is that the two systems sound different and that they present different information.

Click to expand...

I'm curious: how do you exaggerate detail?
A lot of solid state amps are very detailed due to low distortion, but they are also bright due to distortion rising with frequency, causing some higher ordered harmonics to not be masked. I think a lot of audiophiles have come to associate that brightness with detail when they are quite different!

PeterA said:

Did the instrument you heard sound like a guitar? Or did the room acoustics make it sound like something other than a guitar?

Click to expand...

If a recording of it reflected that the life was sucked out of the guitar it would be natural because it was accurate. If the recording didn't show that, it sure as heck wouldn't be natural!

Atmasphere said:

What do you suppose he meant by that? 'Sound floor' isn't a thing. Usually in audio when a 'floor' is mentioned if anything to do with an amp or preamp, its a noise floor and SETs are not particularly good at that. 'Organized' does not make sense either (synonymous with 'nonsense'). No idea what he's trying to get across.

Click to expand...

He defines "sound floor" as "The "lower limit" of an audio component's capability to reproduce (or pass) softer and softer sounds".

Whether SETs are good or not at that, I would not generalize, and I was just relating his experience, which you are of course free to disagree with.

As for "organized" - yes, it's vague, but I can relate to it. Description of sound is subjective, unless you want to evaluate pitch, for example, and even then, we don't always get it right

PeterA said:

Did the instrument you hear sound like a guitar? Or did the room acoustics make it sound like something other than a guitar?

Click to expand...

It sounded like a guitar, but because of the space, it’s sound was relatively wan and lifeless
compared to how it would sound in a more appropriate setting (even though this was a otherwise a nice concert space).

While I agree with Ralph that a natural and accurate recording would reflect the lifeless sound I heard in person, I could also imagine that a recording of the same event would confer a much better result than the live experience , capturing the guitar’s inherent bite and dynamics, if the guitar were close miked for the recording.

wil said:

This may be a tangent, but keep in mind that not all live acoustic performances are a good reference for good sound. The performance space is every bit as critical our own hi-fi performance spaces.

Awhile back, I heard classical guitar in a medium sized professionaly developed concert space. The room completely swallowed the life out of the guitar. I would imagine a closely miked and well mastered recording of the performance would sound much more like a real guitar than what I heard in person (from the first row btw).

If this live performance were someone’s only reference to an acoustic guitar, they would have a very skewed aural memory.

Click to expand...

I went to a guitar recital by Milos Karadaglic at the church of St Jude on-the-hill. They hold a Proms season in June and it's a short walk from my house so I went along. St Jude on-the-hill is a very popular recording venue. Discogs lists over 700 recordings, many award-winning, including several by Rachel Podger produced by Jared Sachs, Sir John Eliot Gardiner and many others.

I found the live sound horrible, but the recordings from that venue are generally magnificent.

Thundersnow said:

I may not know much about “natural” vs “accurate” and arguing about the semanthics or whatever, but clearly @Atmasphere comments come from a place of serious knowledge and understanding of both music and music reproduction.

And while most go around in circles arguing over the same interpretation or misinterpretation in this thread, if you have some knowledge of acoustics and engineering (which I do) his are the only posts informative and meaningful enough to actually learn something from for at least the last half a dozen pages of this thread.

While I like “hi fi banter” as much as the next guy let’s just not have the most vocal crowds kill constructive dialogue in this thread by beating a dead horse (e.g. “Horns are God vs. horns are the false prophet” “natural is what bees make vs natural is processed sugar if you look at it under the right light” etc.)

Sorry for getting too high on my horse, but I felt like I had to say this. I’ll shut up now.

Click to expand...

I agree, the OP finding that his Lamm triodes and horns (and the rest) gives him a very Natural sound has been attacked by:
1. those who feel (in their imagination) that their use of equipment that the OP had but moved on from is being denigrated.
2. Atmasphere, who argues that to sound Natural equipment must be accurate so accuracy and sounding natural are the same thing, doubts SET’s can be “accurate” because of high second and third harmonic distortion. Then tells us that the OTL’s and class D amplifiers, that he sells, have much less distortion (so must be more accurate, thus sound more natural). But then, he owns a business that competes directly with Lamm for market share, so go figure.
3. Then there are those who take the accuracy out to the enth degree. Did you actually attend X concert by Y conductor, and does your recording of X concert with Y conductor LP sound exactly the same on your system as your aural memory of that concert? Are you sure that was on the same night, in the same hall, sitting near the microphones? Can you trust your aural memory…

Sheesh! Give me a break!

What if we all try thinking outside the box you have trapped this discussion in and just accept that there is something about the OP’s system (and it might be a trait of certain class A triodes and horns as others hear it on their’s) that plays back recorded music with defined (such as speed, or timbre), and undefined, characteristics/aural cues/the X factor which mimics certain aspects of live music in such a way that it pleases the OP in a similar way to live music.

RCanelas said:

Technically it is not a syllogism as there is either only one proposition, or several more, if you consider truisms propositions.

I believe Ralph did a good job at arguing for the equivalence of accuracy and natural over the last few pages, when we feed system A with recording B, trying to reproduce event C (that we don't have access to), these are effectively one and the same, because C is effectively virtual and exists only encoded in B. I won't be adding to that and repeating things.

This simple equivalence doesn't imply more than just that, at a minimum natural sounding reproduction and accuracy are joined at the hip, ideally they are the same thing. It doesn't imply zero distortion (very much on the contrary), it doesn't imply formulaic approaches and singular solutions to the problems at hand. It doesn't disregard our experiences, our taking of references from our concert halls, the distinction between Natural Sound and sounding natural. It's all fair game, but there is an underlying reality that demands respect at all times. I think we all understand it, proof is that we all strive for better sound in our own ways, but we get lost in semantical fantasia and the supper cool online gotcha games.

Click to expand...

Thanks for replying. I read what you wrote several times and don't see an argument that I understand. Ralph can jump in here too.

I read your second paragraph to say when you play a record of a recording, accuracy and natural "are effectively one and the same" because we don't have access to the performance that was recorded. I read that as (in your words) a proposition, but I don't read it as a conclusion. I believe you see it as true, but to me it is simply a statement without means to convince.

Maybe we have a different understanding of 'accuracy'. I accept a standard dictionary definition viz:
"the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness." Or accurate "free from error or defect; consistent with a standard, rule, or model." Are those your meanings?

How can we tell that experiencing natural sound from a system is accurate, that it is 'true', 'correct' etc.? If you say such is true by definition, then okay, then to me that's tautological but has no information value. I can accept that you choose to use the word that way although I do not -- and that can account for my failure to understand.

Let me try a different tack: to what noun do you attach 'accurate'? accurate sound or accurate recording or accurate experience, that you find equivalent with "natural sound"?

tima said:

Thanks for replying. I read what you wrote several times and don't see an argument that I understand. Ralph can jump in here too.

I read your second paragraph to say when you play a record of a recording, accuracy and natural "are effectively one and the same" because we don't have access to the performance that was recorded. I read that as (in your words) a proposition, but I don't read it as a conclusion. I believe you see it as true, but to me it is simply a statement without means to convince.

Maybe we have a different understanding of 'accuracy'. I accept a standard dictionary definition viz:
"the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness." Or accurate "free from error or defect; consistent with a standard, rule, or model." Are those your meanings?

How can we tell that experiencing natural sound from a system is accurate, that it is 'true', 'correct' etc.? If you say such is true by definition, then okay, then to me that's tautological but has no information value. I can accept that you choose to use the word that way although I do not -- and that can account for my failure to understand.

Let me try a different tack: to what noun do you attach 'accurate'? accurate sound or accurate recording or accurate experience, that you find equivalent with "natural sound"?

Click to expand...

Ah, this is a good point. My english allows me to go a certain distance before it gives up on me.

I think it is quite clear by now that being accurate in the sense of just focusing on reducing distortion across the board on our systems is not the way to go. It can only be done in relationship to a recording, that already has a set of distortions encoded, so at best you're left with those. We all know what happens with a supper low thd amplifier, it's not pleasant for most people. So accuracy to the recording can't be it, but it can't be thrown out of the window as well, otherwise we might as well just pop some fun chemicals and enjoy boombox sound.

I'm having a hard time splitting between accurate sound and accurate experience. I'm tempted to bundle them together and pick up on the work of Vladimir, Ralph, Cheever, Crowhearst, Fletcher, Clark et al. Ultimately it is an accurate experience of sound I'm looking for. I can't (as in prevented from, I'm unable) to distinguish that from a natural sounding reproduction. Are they not the same? So this is closer to it, IMO.

The good and bad part about this is that there is no single solution to this. It is a high-dimensional landscape with multiple local maxima of pleasure, where there are different ideas, topologies and solutions at play. And that is why we're here

PeterA said:

Did not this discussion get started because Ralph claimed that my system could not sound natural precisely because a signal at my Lamm ML2 SET amplifier’s output does not match the signal at the input? He determined this by measuring the two and concluding they are not the same so the amp is not accurate so the sound is not accurate which is the same as the sound is not natural.

Click to expand...

I guess it did. But he also says his amps (or any other) also incur on the same grave sin, in a different way (both in nature and magnitude), so I don't take it as a hard statement. He's not debating absolutes, but relatives, as far as I'm concerned, so there is space for discussion. Perhaps over a nice glass of wine, with some Kenny Burrell on the background, the same points could have been made and received better.

He maybe looking at your natural sound local maxima from his natural sound local maxima

RCanelas said:

I think it is quite clear by now that being accurate in the sense of just focusing on reducing distortion across the board on our systems is not the way to go. It can only be done in relationship to a recording, that already has a set of distortions encoded, so at best you're left with those. We all know what happens with a supper low thd amplifier, it's not pleasant for most people. So accuracy to the recording can't be it, but it can't be thrown out of the window as well, otherwise we might as well just pop some fun chemicals and enjoy boombox sound.

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, what led you to this conclusion?

PeterA said:

Did not this discussion get started because Ralph claimed that my system could not sound natural precisely because a signal at my Lamm ML2 SET amplifier’s output does not match the signal at the input? He determined this by measuring the two and concluding they are not the same so the amp is not accurate so the sound is not accurate which is the same as the sound is not natural.

Click to expand...

Peter is this the model you own, or is it the higher model ? Micro is selling it,

hopkins said:

Out of curiosity, what led you to this conclusion?

Click to expand...

This is a supper broad statement.

As an example: have you spent time with a very low distortion amp? Those that say thd 0.001% @ 500W, but forget to say that last bit is all high order, even at 1W? That's a very close to zero figure, so we should be good. It is also a very boring and sometimes offensive experience. Not all distortion is created or perceived equal. Very few things are linear and simple. Details matter.

RCanelas said:

This is a supper broad statement.

As an example: have you spent time with a very low distortion amp? Those that say thd 0.001% @ 500W, but forget to say that last bit is all high order, even at 1W? That's a very close to zero figure, so we should be good. It is also a very boring and sometimes offensive experience. Not all distortion is created or perceived equal. Very few things are linear and simple. Details matter.

Click to expand...

Thanks. It's probably a topic for another thread.

PeterA said:

Milan, my primary preamp is the LL1 Signature, four box original version, not the LL1.1 revision. Ddk sold it to Microstrip. I also just bought an L1, one box unit.

Click to expand...

Thank you Peter !

Atmasphere said:

I've always thought that SETs got their start in the 1990s because CD players sounded so dry back then. But as it turns out trying to compensate one distortion (of the CD; the brightness of them was distortion) with another doesn't work. Of course that idea I had about their origins is probably bunk.

If you have PP class A then the distortion is inherently lower. If you have fully differential class A its even lower than that. Again, SETs produce a quadratic non-linearity which results in a prodigious 2nd harmonic with succeeding harmonics falling off on an exponential curve. But if you have a fully differntial PP amp the non-linearity is cubic due to even ordered cancellation. Now the 3rd is dominant with succeeding harmonics falling off at a faster rate on an exponential curve based on a different exponent.

In both case the lower orders are significant enough to mask the higher orders. But the fully differential PP class A amp may well have less than 1/10th the distortion making it more revealing. FWIW all preamp outputs including phono sections are class A. Some are fully differential and class A.

Click to expand...

1- I just said Class A amplification is more linear and never compared SET vs Push Pull.
Kevin designed his Speakers (Living Voice) with Kondo push-pull 300b and it seems matching of amplifier/speaker is very important in this area.
Delima (Audiopax) has an article about distorion of amplifier speaker.

2- I think higher distortion of SET is not a good reason for prefering push-Pull to SET. I do not say SET is better or not, I just say the important key is listening experience not measurements.
I trust David @ddk, Romy the Cat, Peter (Audio Note UK), Delima (Audiopax) and all of them prefer SET to push-pull. In the next step Romy the cat recommends DSET (multi channel SET) to decrease distortion.