I agree every self respecting audiop(h)ile would/ should state that .
Unless he belongs to a " fringe" minority off course
Forget it Jake, it's Audiophile
- Thread starter tima
- Start date
Unless he belongs to a " fringe" minority off course
No, the fact that people product is different is extremely relevant. Coupled with a system that has no absolute spatial information (stereo) it is one of the roots of preference and the diversity of successful stereo sound reproduction.
And sorry you get confused so easily. It was not my intention.
i'm sure what you meant to say was that Brian does not seem to understand
No. I wrote what I meant to write. My understanding of the term is based on what other people who use the term I’ve taught me. Vladimir Lamm used the term as did others. So I actually think of it as a type of sound and a certain approach to the hobby.
Mike, I understand your comment, but it is hard to know what Brian thanks. David asked Brian to define what he meant and then I followed up with the same request, but Brian has not responded.
It’s possible that people have different definitions of what the term natural means. But I would find that rather surprising.
How would you refer to the sound of live acoustic instruments in a concert hall other than them sounding natural? Personally, I don’t think the word “absolute” works because different violins sound different from each other and “absolute” implies one sound. The term Natural covers all of the violins on stage and elsewhere.
What would you suggest is a better way to describe it Mike?
well, i have no problem with how you, or David, or anyone uses the term natural sound. i view it as an individual viewpoint on how musical presentation should sound. where i differ is the degrees of singular broad interpretation.
do i think SET's and vintage horns with generic cables have any higher claim on natural sound than my solid state and cones? of course not!!! yet many here would have me buy into that narrative. yet i absolutely respect where you are coming from and have zero problem with it. just don't expect me to buy into it more than my own perspective.
i respect other's perspectives and don't expect them to change to mine, or think mine is the true viewpoint. it's just my viewpoint.
why would i know less about what natural means than anyone else? why would Vladimir Lamm know more about audio terms than Herve Delatraz?
Last edited:
Can we maybe express this in equivalences
‘’live” violin playing = natural sound
human remembers natural sound ( probably has good understand of how that instrument sounds based on much personal experience)
audio system plays violin music human compares with auditory memory of live violin and makes qualitative evaluation of its
”naturalness”
I would agree this becomes highly subjective, but to those with a very good ear and auditory memory I think such a construct exists and is plausible
it is certainly what I personally am trying to achieve, whether well or badly , and as stated before I am unclear if this extended to amplified instruments of which I have little experience
perhaps it relates to variability in what people find important in reproduced music and their own musical sensibilities
‘’live” violin playing = natural sound
human remembers natural sound ( probably has good understand of how that instrument sounds based on much personal experience)
audio system plays violin music human compares with auditory memory of live violin and makes qualitative evaluation of its
”naturalness”
I would agree this becomes highly subjective, but to those with a very good ear and auditory memory I think such a construct exists and is plausible
it is certainly what I personally am trying to achieve, whether well or badly , and as stated before I am unclear if this extended to amplified instruments of which I have little experience
perhaps it relates to variability in what people find important in reproduced music and their own musical sensibilities
‘it’s an interesting point Mike whether someone knows less about naturalness?
if we go to a concert and we discuss at the end, and you say ( not having a go at you Mike just a thought experiment) well that was wonderful
and I say to you “really “ but the singer sung flat, the violin was out of pitch and the drums came in late and there was some weird reverb in the concert hall , are our abilities equal ?
Mike, no one said anything about how a system “should” sound. I described Natural Sound simply as a type of sound; one of many approaches to the hobby. Of course everyone has the choice to do whatever he wants.
No judgment from me about anyone else’s system or how he chooses to pursue the hobby. I have no opinion of the sound of your system having not heard it. I am also not making any comment about SETs or vintage horns. I started a thread about four fairly different systems all sounding natural. The speakers were not all horns, the source was both digital and vinyl. The only thing they all had in common was Lamm electronics and cabling and that they were all set up by the same person who has one criteria.
Tim, I apologize for once again going off the topic of your thread. All this discussion really belongs in the language thread.
I describe myself as an audiophile because the hobby for me is more than just about listening to music or loving music.
I do have some “audiophile“ recordings in my collection. I still enjoy some of them, but I am now able to hear the flaws in some of the recordings and my focus no, as my system has improved, is more on the performance than the quality of the recording. I suppose my tastes and priorities are changing.
Is “audiophile“ somehow a curse? Such topics can cause navel gazing and chest pounding. I will sit on my thumbs for a while.
I describe myself as an audiophile because the hobby for me is more than just about listening to music or loving music.
I do have some “audiophile“ recordings in my collection. I still enjoy some of them, but I am now able to hear the flaws in some of the recordings and my focus no, as my system has improved, is more on the performance than the quality of the recording. I suppose my tastes and priorities are changing.
Is “audiophile“ somehow a curse? Such topics can cause navel gazing and chest pounding. I will sit on my thumbs for a while.
This thread is incredible. Natural Sound (tm) is again being thrown around like it's the ultimate term for musical nirvana and what any self-respecting audiophile must strive for. It's crazy to me because I would guess that most of the people using this term are Vintage Sound (tm) aficionados. So vintage sound = natural sound?
Not that there can't be any aspects of vintage sound that sounds natural, but there are certainly limitations inherent in anything I've heard to date that would preclude it from sounding 'natural' (i.e. akin to live acoustic instruments). More so if you're listening to vintage recordings. I personally love vinyl, but most of it is produced years ago; older recordings can sound wonderful, be very engaging, but they're antiquated in terms of capturing the full spectrum of sound. It's like saying black and white photos are natural compared to color.
In my (probably not so humble) opinion, coining the phrase Natural Sound as a way of suggesting that one has attained something elusive through the use of vintage equipment is full of irony.
I really think it would be more practical to use the term Vintage Sound. I know I, for one, would then have a good idea of what it sounds like.
Not that there can't be any aspects of vintage sound that sounds natural, but there are certainly limitations inherent in anything I've heard to date that would preclude it from sounding 'natural' (i.e. akin to live acoustic instruments). More so if you're listening to vintage recordings. I personally love vinyl, but most of it is produced years ago; older recordings can sound wonderful, be very engaging, but they're antiquated in terms of capturing the full spectrum of sound. It's like saying black and white photos are natural compared to color.
In my (probably not so humble) opinion, coining the phrase Natural Sound as a way of suggesting that one has attained something elusive through the use of vintage equipment is full of irony.
I really think it would be more practical to use the term Vintage Sound. I know I, for one, would then have a good idea of what it sounds like.
The point is that many manufacturers approach "natural" with very different types of sound. See for example this Stereophile page " Bozak Concert Grand B-410 loudspeaker Natural Sound" https://www.stereophile.com/content/bozak-concert-grand-b-410-loudspeaker-natural-sound
We can see that part of this type of sound was rolling off the tweeter drastically at 11kHz. I quote Peter Breuning " I read those words and I know that Rudy Bozak was a genius. He could articulate his thoughts into words and ideas and then into manufacturing processes and designs that did what he said they would do—make music sound more natural. An elder hi-fi salesman who used to display Bozak Concert Grands next to JBL Paragons (the squat, broad, all-in-one stereo cabinet design) and Klipschorns told me that the CGs were the poorest seller. He said that during a typical demonstration the Bozaks sounded dull compared to the brighter, more exciting compression-driver/horn designs. Sound familiar?—Peter Breuninger"
i've listened with Joel Durand a good deal, and i recognize i will never understand music like he does. it's his profession. he teaches music composition at the university level and composes. and i've bought 6 or 7 tone arms from him. so i trust his musical viewpoints. his credentials might equal or exceed anyone on WBF.
yet i can have my legit opinion about what i think sounds natural, and might even not agree with him about it. he might be able to articulate his views much better than myself, but i can still view things my way. it would make sense that most people would view him as an authority. yet i know what i like (btw, we almost 100% agree as far as i know)..
music is art, to be consumed. and there is no one way to view it. that does not mean i don't respect knowledge and experience. but i reserve the right to determine my own preferences. if i think it sounds natural, who can dispute my feelings?
Joel can certainly judge the performance dramatically better than i can, but as far as what i like, that's up to me.
understand that i have considerable listening experience that i base my confidence on. it's not based on just a whim. yet many would say, i'm listening mostly to reproduced music. and they would have every right to say that. i can pay attention to it or not.
Last edited:
I generally agree with you.
But, philistine that I am, I genuinely enjoy the music of Sheffield Lab's Thelma Houston I've Got the Music in Me and Amanda McBroom Growing Up in Hollywood Town.
Mike as I said this isn’t about you, personally , it about whether everyone’s perspectives are equally valid about naturalness
let me give you an example from real life ( true story)
an audiophile friend of mine who has built Valve amplifiers for 30 years, was demonstrating his system to a man who walked into his studio
that doesn’t sound like a timpani said the man to my friend
what do you know about how instruments sound really? Enquired my friend a little arrogantly to the visitor
I am a timpanist in the symphony orchestra said the visitor
are their opinions equally valid in terms of naturalness/realness of how a timpani sounds
This is totally incorrect, good vintage recordings have more information compared to modern and modern are more grey, less capable of nuancing tonal and dynamic differences. This is on both SETs horn and SS cone systems, so if you are not hearing that, you are buying the wrong pressings. Which is often an issue.
What are you basing your judgement on what vintage sound sounds like, by listening to Peter's system? There is one vintage component there, the speaker. Lamm and vdh are modern. You can argue that MS 8000 is vintage, but it is like any TT, you will find modern TTs less than it and better than it (by your own judgement of less and better), just like you will find with any modern TT. The MS designer is making techdas which represents today's most expensive tables. Can someone listen to your system and generalize this is what modern sound is like, or is that what Magico and CH are like?
Have you heard different versions of Altecs, TADs, JBLs, and western electrics? Today's most modern and expensive horn, Cessaro, uses TAD drivers which were made decades ago. The richest audiophiles have WEs. Almost all modern quality valve triode electronic owners use vintage tubes where they are available and can afford them.
This remains for me an enduring mystery. Ian is a real musician. He has forgotten 1000 times more than I will ever know about the sounds of acoustic instruments played live and unamplified in the concert hall.
The sounds of music reproduced by certain stereo systems which Ian believes most closely approximate the sounds he hears in the concert hall are different than the sounds of music reproduced by other stereo systems which I believe most closely approximate the sounds I (we) hear in the concert hall.
Ian is the music professional, so I have no problem concluding that I simply must be wrong. But then I think that one does not necessarily have to be a music professional to have an experience-based opinion on the comparison between the live and the reproduced sounds.
Like so much in this hobby there simply is no way to reconcile these disparate perceptions and opinions.
The sounds of music reproduced by certain stereo systems which Ian believes most closely approximate the sounds he hears in the concert hall are different than the sounds of music reproduced by other stereo systems which I believe most closely approximate the sounds I (we) hear in the concert hall.
Ian is the music professional, so I have no problem concluding that I simply must be wrong. But then I think that one does not necessarily have to be a music professional to have an experience-based opinion on the comparison between the live and the reproduced sounds.
Like so much in this hobby there simply is no way to reconcile these disparate perceptions and opinions.
Last edited:
Sorry, but this is misrepresentative. Ian hasn't heard the same (or rather, same type) of systems, so there is no reason for him and me to agree. Whether we agree or disagree with each other will only be known after he he hears those other systems.
For those not audiophile, walkman or Sonos most closely represent sound in concert hall.
Once you start listening to audio systems, you just take the closest that sounds among the ones you heard.
I'm not hearing you speak about the actual sound you hear from @PeterA 's or someone else's system.
My sense is you find the terminology - the words 'natural sound' - to be problematic. Also my sense is you feel some people are arrogating an exclusivity - a shutting out of others or a uniqueness - to the notion of using live acoustic music as a reference for assessing if a reproduction system offers a 'natural sound'? And perhaps likewise you find advocacy for what you may see as a specially defined sound - that is not defined by you - that this advocacy marks itself with some sort of superiority, some sort of inside access to sound. Tell me if I'm wrong.
I can understand concerns about the terminology. We've been through this a few times already. We've talked about alternative words but reached no satisfaction. David uses 'natural sound' to characterize a stereo system that sounds a certain way. For someone not in sync with David's thinking, the phrase needs more unpacking, otherwise It is about as simple as one can get - does that system sound natural? But - i hope i get this right - the notion has no inherent ties to component age - it's just that David uses components made in earlier times (mostly speakers, sometimes cartridges) to put together systems he believes sound natural. So no, imo, vintage sound (a term i hate) may or may not equal natural sound. (For me saying such is a category mistake.)
So, about that unpacking ... the concept of natural sound in reproduction, as used by David and Peter and others, is grounded in the sound of live acoustic music. I think that is fundamental. Without that grounding 'natural sound' could be whatever anyone wants it to be. Don't let the terminology get in the way of understanding what is at issue. Suppose the approach to system building were called 'concert sound' or 'live musician sound' or something else. Saying "Natural Sound (tm)" as you did basically makes the words a proper name. It is probably not helpful for us going forward to think of "Natural Sound" as a proper name. That is presumptuous, I agree. I don't recall people having issues with Peter's former system described or named "Sublime Sound". I don't think he believed he cornered the market on what sounds sublime. I don't think he believes today that he has cornered the market on natural sound - a trip to Utah should show he has not.
Folks who want their stereos to enhance or be better than what they hear from the live venue should (!) advocate for what that means and what specific differences make their listening better for them. This has been a consistent issue for the synthesist that has not been taken up. (So far the best we get is 'I like what I like'.) Instead of finding 'natural sound' problematic or its concepts or terminology as presumptious, speak positively about what you believe or want. You like noise-reducing cables - tell us why? You like black space between the musicians - tell us why. Tell us what else you like. Call or describe your system or what you think is an ideal sound (hint hint) in a way that suggests coherent intent is behind its construction. This is not a zero-sum game, it is a hobby anyone can enjoy as they choose.
Fair enough. I will delete my mistaken assumption about you and others from my original post.
Similar threads
