Natural Sound

PeterA said:
Of course, but as far as I can tell, Ralph is the only one arguing that a system cannot sound natural to the listener unless it covers the bottom octave accurately.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find that those who insist on accurate/natural sound and who also have recordings where they were present at the recording sessions will have similar requirements. It really does make a difference when you know how a recording is actually supposed to sound- what sounds are there in the groove or data stream.

Some bass drums only make a 40Hz fundamental but some go clear down to 25Hz. Organ pedal tones can be 16Hz. I linked an LP earlier which has these tones on it (the Saint Saens).

But I also listen to modern music, such as this LP (from 30 years ago) by Global Communication. The bass lines play a pretty prominent role. This is very laid back, dreamy electro-ambient material BTW. I've often played this LP at shows to show off what a good system can do.
 
Al M. said:
If I don't want to think about hi-fi (high fidelity) attributes I can turn on my car radio. The concept of high fidelity never crosses my mind when I listen to the car radio -- too compromised for that -- but it's not the most Natural Sound either.
(Even though it may be quite engaging.)

The concept of pitting high fildelity attributes against Natural Sound is flawed. If reproduced sound has no high fidelity, then how can it be natural?
Click to expand...
It's quite possible many of us might prefer your car radio to your hifi system. You probably do too.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Lagonda, Al M. and Rensselaer
PeterA said:
Mike, "under everyone's skin"? Really? Are you talking to both me and to Rensselaer (Mark)? You quote both of us but leave out his name.

Some listeners do indeed want their system to draw attention to itself and some listen for specific attributes. I am not criticising that. It is fun, and what some people are after. I AM saying that that is not a characteristic of a natural sounding system, to me, as I think about this stuff. This system thread is my open book exploration and discussion of my approach - one of many possible approaches - to system building and to set up, which I and others refer to as natural sound. You, yourself, have often written that you want to be left with only the music, saying something like: "leaving nothing between me and the music", or "musical message" or "musical intent". And you write at length how your latest upgrade gets you closer. Am I misunderstanding you? It sounds like we have similar goals, but for some reason, this seems personal to you and you seem intent to argue. So here goes:

I am not rationalizing/demonizing anything. It is also not black and white. There are degrees of natural sound. The more hifi attributes are diminished or banished from the presentation in the room, the more natural the system sounds, to me. You are so dramatic with your condescending sighs and your rolling eye emojis. Higher performance, in fact the highest performance, in my view, is a system that disappears and one in which the listener is left in his room with nothing but the music, and being reminded of the live music listening experience. That is my goal. You can talk about Warp 11, limitless headroom, all formats at the "tippy top", and the latest dongles, all you want. That is your game, and I leave you to it, not arguing with you or your world. I am happy with my system, and I am glad you are happy with yours. We have different approaches, but perhaps our goals are not that different. (No sighing or rolling eye emojis)
Click to expand...
When describing sound, it’s only natural for audiophiles to use language to try to describe the different aspects of how their system is producing sound.

As a photographer, I can break down the different elements that go into a fine print. Painters can also break down with descriptive elements what makes up the whole.

This doesn’t mean when I look at a photograph or a painting that I don’t see it in it’s whole presentation.

You like to think of an ideal of “natural sound“ that is based on your aural memory of live acoustic music.

Just because someone (like Rex in the post you refer to) uses some descriptive “audiophile terminology” to try to communicate with others does not mean they’re listening to “bits and pieces” or that the sound is not natural.

I have an idea of what natural sound is and I think I’m pretty successful in achieving it in my system.
You obviously think you’re successful with your system. But we might disagree on what we think is natural. One person‘s natural might sound colored to another person, for instance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Argonaut and Al M.
Al M. said:
If I don't want to think about hi-fi (high fidelity) attributes I can turn on my car radio. The concept of high fidelity never crosses my mind when I listen to the car radio -- too compromised for that -- but it's not the most Natural Sound either.
(Even though it may be quite engaging.)

The concept of pitting high fildelity attributes against Natural Sound is flawed. If reproduced sound has no high fidelity, then how can it be natural?
Click to expand...

You missed the point. It’s not that it doesn’t have any attributes of realism or fidelity,, it’s that the system does not accentuate or highlight aspects of its sound. I had thought that distinction was fairly clear, but apparently not.

Sure, you and I can go to the Boston Symphony, and marvel at the clarity and dynamics and timber of the instruments up on stage in front of us. my point is that a good system should disappear and not make one think of the system. The very best systems make it very difficult to identify weaknesses or even describe the sound other than with references to real music.

We have all gone to shows and dealerships where someone plugs in a new cable or something and we immediately hear an attribute. He wiill even describe it as highlighting details, or adding more weight, or listen to the impact of that woofer how cool I don’t want my mind to go to those things when I’m interested in the music and the presentation in my living room.

When I speak of a system disappearing in the room, I’m not simply referring to the listeners in ability to point to the origin of the sound. The sound or character of the system should disappear leaving the listener with nothing but the music and his emotions. The hi-fi glossary of terms has little meaning at Symphony Hall and that is something worth aspiring to at home, in my opinion
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rexp, tima, Rensselaer and 1 other person
Atmasphere said:
I think the class D sounds more accurate, more natural than our OTLs on most speakers.
Click to expand...

Hello Ralph,

How do you evaluate the accuracy of an amplifier according to the subjective sonic parameters of "liquidity" and of what I call "breath of life"?
 
wil said:
When describing sound, it’s only natural for audiophiles to use language to try to describe the different aspects of how their system is producing sound.

As a photographer, I can break down the different elements that go into a fine print. Painters can also break down with descriptive elements what makes up the whole.

This doesn’t mean when I look at a photograph or a painting that I don’t see it in it’s whole presentation.

You like to think of an ideal of “natural sound“ that is based on your aural memory of live acoustic music.

Just because someone (like Rex in the post you refer to) uses some descriptive “audiophile terminology” to try to communicate with others does not mean they’re listening to “bits and pieces” or that the sound is not natural.

I have an idea of what natural sound is and I think I’m pretty successful in achieving it in my system.
You obviously think you’re successful with your system. But we might disagree on what we think is natural. One person‘s natural might sound colored to another person, for instance.
Click to expand...

I’m not talking about describing sound, I’m talking about designing a system and setting it up in a room so your mind goes to the music not the sound of the system or certain aspects of the sound of the system.

I have made an effort to describe what I think natural sound is. You can do the same if it somehow differs.

Black backgrounds and pinpoint imaging are hi-fi attributes defined in the glossary of terms. The irony is that if your goal is fidelity to the sound actual instruments in a space, I don’t hear those things.
 
Last edited:
PeterA said:
You missed the point. It’s not that it doesn’t have any attributes of realism or fidelity,, it’s that the system does not accentuate or highlight aspects of its sound. I had thought that distinction was fairly clear, but apparently not.

Sure, you and I can go to the Boston Symphony, and marvel at the clarity and dynamics and timber of the instruments up on stage in front of us. my point is that a good system should disappear and not make one think of the system. The very best systems make it very difficult to identify weaknesses or even describe the sound other than with references to real music.

We have all gone to shows and dealerships where someone plugs in a new cable or something and we immediately hear an attribute. He wiill even describe it as highlighting details, or adding more weight, or listen to the impact of that woofer how cool I don’t want my mind to go to those things when I’m interested in the music and the presentation in my living room.

When I speak of a system disappearing in the room, I’m not simply referring to the listeners in ability to point to the origin of the sound. The hi-fi glossary of terms has a little meaning at Symphony Hall and that is something worth aspiring to at home, in my opinion
Click to expand...

No, I did not miss the point, Peter. I was just highlighting the problem with, and danger of, the argumentation and the absurdity it can lead to.

Wil explained the issue very well above, in the post before yours.

To talk about clarity, tone, bass, detail etc. does not mean that they should distract from the whole and that they are, or should be, unnaturally highlighted in the sound.

"Adding more weight" in the example you mentioned is not necessary an actual addition, or a highlighting of an aspect of sound. On the contrary, it may well be that in the presentation with less weight the lack of weight highlights a deficiency that distracts precisely from what you want, listening to the music as a whole and its gestalt. "Adding more weight" then refills the music to be a whole again, as it were.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wil, Lagonda and Mike Lavigne
Al M. said:
"Adding more weight" in the example you mentioned is not necessary an actual addition, or a highlighting of an aspect of sound. On the contrary, it may well be that in the presentation with less weight the lack of weight highlights a deficiency that distracts precisely from what you want, listening to the music as a whole and its gestalt. "Adding more weight" then refills the music to be a whole again, as it were.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. In this example, a lack of weight is a deficiency and draws attention to itself just like adding excessive weight draws attention to itself.

It’s all relative. I pass judgment on what I hear from the system when referencing my memory of the way real instruments sound.

The ideal system to me should disappear so that it is very difficult to describe its sound and one is left with describing what one hears from the recording. But mostly, I just want to listen to the music in my room and I suspect you do too.

I don’t really go to dealerships or Audio shows much anymore. When I did, I found it surprising that many of the salesman went on and on about the sound of a particular component as we should be listening for something specific. The best demonstrations I find are those where nothing is said and the music is simply played for judgment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wil and Rensselaer
Ron Resnick said:
Hello Ralph,

How do you evaluate the accuracy of an amplifier according to the subjective sonic parameters of "liquidity" and of what I call "breath of life"?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you mean by the 'breath of life' so you'll have to explain that before I can answer.

Regarding 'liquidity' that is a function of the lower ordered harmonics and a lack of unmasked higher orders, along with very low IMD (I've read that if there is high THD there will also be high IMD, but I've found that isn't true). IMD robs the system of a smooth organic presentation. You don't have to have any great deal of the lower orders for liquid sound BTW, what is important is the higher orders are inaudible (which usually means they are masked by lower orders).
PeterA said:
Black backgrounds and pinpoint imaging are hi-fi attributes defined in the glossary of terms. The irony is that if your goal is fidelity to actual instruments, I don’t hear those things.
Click to expand...
Black backgrounds are the result of low IMD and inharmonic (which is a subset of intermodulations) distortions (both very audible to the ear) along with low actual noise, all forming the noise floor. If feedback is inappropriately applied, quite literally the noise floor of the amp will be intermodulations and inharmonic information intertwined with the innate noise of the circuit. Norman Crowhusrt wrote about this 65 years ago and its still a thing. I've no doubt that is why many prefer zero feedback amplifiers, as their noise floor tends to be noise without any of the other artifact. The ear can hear detail below this latter kind of noise floor since it has a lot in common with wind sound. Apparently the ear is not able to penetrate the kind of noise of the former, which might be why a lot of zero feedback tube gear seems to be more detailed than traditional solid state.

But its also correct that if you have less distortion you'll have a blacker background. There is disagreement about what a black background actually is, so my interpretation is: If the music is splashes of light on the palette, the palette itself is the background and should have a complete absence of color.
PeterA said:
Yes, of course. In this example, a lack of weight is a deficiency and draws attention to itself just like adding excessive weight draws attention to itself.
Click to expand...
A lack of weight is a lack of low frequency bandwidth, usually accompanied by phase shift (group delay) that colors what is actually present in the low end. This is why I really want the bottom octave right.
 
Atmasphere said:
But its also correct that if you have less distortion you'll have a blacker background. There is disagreement about what a black background actually is, so my interpretation is: If the music is splashes of light on the palette, the palette itself is the background and should have a complete absence of color.
Click to expand...

I’m just describing black background as that which is around and behind the instruments as they are played. It is the ambiance of the venue. Blackness or nothingness from a system presentation is not natural because even in an empty symphony hall or opera house, there is a quiet energy, audible and apparent. This low level information is captured on some recordings, and I want to hear it in my room. If a system always presents a black background, it is not resolving enough for me.

A low noise floor is different. That is desirable and should allow for the presentation of any and all ambient information from a recording to be presented in the listening room.

Atmasphere said:
A lack of weight is a lack of low frequency bandwidth, usually accompanied by phase shift (group delay) that colors what is actually present in the low end. This is why I really want the bottom octave right.
Click to expand...

I would think everyone ideally would like to have the bottom octave presented accurately or naturally.
 
PeterA said:
I’m just describing black background as that which is around and behind the instruments as they are played. It is the ambiance of the venue. Blackness or nothingness from a system presentation is not natural because even in an empty symphony hall or opera house, there is a quiet energy, audible and apparent. This low level information is captured on some recordings, and I want to hear it in my room. If a system always presents a black background, it is not resolving enough for me.
Click to expand...
So we have very different uses of the phrase!

When describing room ambience I use 'room ambience', 'hall reflections' and perhaps the 'rear of the sound stage'.

So if we are discussing things, the use of 'blacker background' or the like is a stumbling block since our uses are so different. When I use it its a good thing but it sounds like when you use its not. Do I have that right?
 
Atmasphere said:
So we have very different uses of the phrase!

When describing room ambience I use 'room ambience', 'hall reflections' and perhaps the 'rear of the sound stage'.

So if we are discussing things, the use of 'blacker background' or the like is a stumbling block since our uses are so different. When I use it its a good thing but it sounds like when you use its not. Do I have that right?
Click to expand...

I think so. I don’t use the phrase black background. I don’t hear it in reality so I have no use for it when describing the sound of a system.

I use the term “ambience“ and I understand what you mean by room, ambience and hall reflections. I use the word low noise floor to describe lower system noise.

Black background to me is a description of an image against nothingness like in a black theater box or a painting with a black background, or space. To me, it means absence of anything.

Again, I returned to the mythical, ideal audio system, which is so hard to describe the character of that one is left, simply describing what the instruments on the recording sound like. Describing the character of Ray Brown’s acoustic bass, not the sound of the system or the woofer or the speaker. A black background never occurs to me in that ideal. There is always a sense of the recording venue or space when listening to a good recording over a good system. The more natural the system, the more varied and distinctly this recording space or ambient information is presented.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tima
PeterA said:
I’m not talking about describing sound, I’m talking about designing a system and setting it up in a room so your mind goes to the music not the sound of the system or certain aspects of the sound of the system.

I have made an effort to describe what I think natural sound is. You can do the same if it somehow differs.

Black backgrounds and pinpoint imaging are hi-fi attributes defined in the glossary of terms. The irony is that if your goal is fidelity to the sound actual instruments in a space, I don’t hear those things.
Click to expand...
I agree — of course not. Rex, again was not using those terms and does not address what I wrote above.
 
I agree that I should use noise floor instead of saying black background but to me, a black background is a descriptor of the lowest noise floor. The music comes from nothingness. My goal is to hear ambiance if its there on the recording, and I assume by removing distortion, I'll get a clearer picture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atmasphere and PeterA
wil said:
I agree — of course not. Rex, again was not using those terms and does not address what I wrote above.
Click to expand...

No, he was not. That is true. I’m using them as my examples, not his. I like his term clarity and when a system presentation is more and more clear, it’s a good thing. It is perhaps the biggest characteristic I hear contrasting live orchestral music and an audio system, along with dynamics and accurate timber.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wil
low noise, quietness, whatever you might call it, is about non musical noise not compromising separation of things in the music. not cookie cutter outline artifacts, but layering and proper organic rightness.....and having the recesses and corners of the venue defined. ease, scale and authority are enhanced by degrees of quietness. the lowest octaves are also enhanced by low noise as then the ambience is revealed as a more defined space. and it should happen when the listening space gets pressurized when the recording starts prior to the first note. if.....it's on the recording.

sometimes a recording has a black background, but the more natural recordings don't have that. mostly that's a construct. still might be enjoyable, but it's not a reference for live or natural. ideally each recording is distinct in these type things. the more distinct the better. if they all take the same 'set' then mostly that is one note bass as an artifact/coloration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wil
Vis a vis "black background", it is interesting, once again, to read what Arthur Salvatore explains, at least to acknowledge that much of what we are talking about is inter-related. Why reinvent the wheel in every thread when others have articulated these ideas well?


It took (too) many years for me to realize what should have been obvious, but I am now convinced through my (and many others') experiences that there is one vital element of sound reproduction that is more important than any of the others, though all have relevance, and that element is...the accurate retrieval of low-level musical information.

Fortunately, the effort to retain this information is further rewarded by the remaining sonic priorities usually coming "along for the ride".

Unfortunately, low-level musical information is also the single most difficult area to preserve, or, in other words, "the easiest to lose"; bad AC power, one FET, one wrong cable, a misplaced RFI ring, etc., and, of course, poorly designed and/or executed components.

Low-level musical information encompasses the widest possible array of musical sounds;

1. The harmonics that identify instruments and enables them to sound natural or "musical";
2. The decay of the individual notes and their harmonics;
3. The subtle, instantaneous shifts of dynamics and their intensity and emphasis (also known as micro-dynamics and dynamic shading) enabling musical "expression" to be sensed, heard and felt;
4. The sense of ambience and space, allowing the listener to both hear and be "there";
5. The separation, or absence of homogenization, of all of the above, reducing "boredom" and "listener fatigue";
6. and the sense of both continuity and a continual presence, which has also been described by others as "continuousness".

It is also indispensable that all this musical information be retrieved accurately;

Both in relative level and in phase.

This allows the music to sound "natural" and appear "intelligible". This is especially relevant with speakers, which have the most problems of any component with the accurate reproduction of both musical timbres (relative level) and with relative timing (phase).

Why low-level musical information is so important.

This is this information, more than anything else, that allows the listener to believe that the music he/she is hearing, and experiencing, is a unique and human event, rather than one that is electronic, mechanical and ultimately contrived.


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Atmasphere, treitz3, wil and 1 other person
Here is someone else’s views on “accuracy”

 
Salvatore could have omitted the word "accurate" - it is contentious and subject to endless debates - it would not have changed his point.

Personally, I do believe that some level of accuracy offered by "design" of audio equipment is important - technology is interesting, but there is no perfect system. So I never ask myself when listening to a system whether what I hear is "accurate". Close enough may be good enough. What's important to me is how I feel when I listen to music (and how different systems affect my understanding of the music and listening pleasure).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Triode Pete
Stereophile's Recommended Components Fall 2024 Edition
Replies
9
Views
1K
Triode Wire Labs
treitz3
treitz3
Mike Lavigne
finally updated my system pictures; new racks, tone arm, cartridge, change in turntables, added digital pieces
Replies
86
Views
10K
Members' Systems
Mike Lavigne
Mike Lavigne
T
Transparent SC new (G6) but low level (ultra) vs. old (MM2) but high level (Ref XL)
Replies
9
Views
915
Audio Cable Forum
jfrech
jfrech
J
Burmester 911 mk2…modify to Mk3?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Burmester Forum
b91774
B
S
Wilson Audio Alexia 2 vs Sonus Faber Lilium
Replies
16
Views
781
Speakers
Semaj
S

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

Home Forums

User Menu

Login
Top Bottom