Forget it Jake, it's Audiophile

[tima]

Almost all modern quality valve triode electronic owners use vintage tubes where they are available and can afford them.

Almost all basic amplifier circuits are from well in the past.

 

[tima]

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 (and, I think, David K and Peter A and Kedar and Jeffrey T) believe most closely approximate the sounds I (we) hear in the concert hall.

Is that really the case? Or does he prefer to put his own touch onto what he thinks sounds the best for him?

 

[tima]

The MS designer is making techdas which represents today's most expensive tables.

Good point. A vintage designer!

 

[bonzo75]

Fair enough. I will delete my mistaken assumption about you and others from my original post.

Still misrepresentative, as you might ask why does a non audiophile musician prefer Sonos?

Answer, that's all he has exposure too outside live

 

[Ron Resnick]

Is that really the case? Or does he prefer to put his own touch onto what he thinks sounds the best for him?

I interpreted Ian's post to suggest that the sound made by non-vintage stereo systems is closer to what he hears in the concert hall than is the sound made by vintage stereo systems. Perhaps I misinterpreted Ian.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Still misrepresentative, as you might ask why does a non audiophile musician prefer Sonos?

Answer, that's all he has exposure too outside live

We know the answer about non-audiophile musicians, and it has to do with how they listen through the crappy sound quality to the underlying musical essence.

 

[andromedaaudio]

This whole thread reminds me of elementary school , like kids basically
Haha my system sounds better then yours lol , you re system sounds crap .
Your system aint natural .
Or like politics where one group tries to control another group .

Why just not be happy with diversity , imagine a world where you can only choose out of sets / horns lol
How boring would that be .

 

[tima]

I interpreted Ian's post to suggest that the sound made by non-vintage stereo systems is closer to what he hears in the concert hall than is the sound made by vintage stereo systems. Perhaps I misinterpreted Ian.

Sure. Not meaning to say you did. Just considering another possibility - my questions or possibilities should have been directed to him in light of your interpretation.

I wonder what counts as a "non-vintage stereo system"? Anything built after mmddyy ? Maybe different for different component types.

But ultimately I think the vintage / non-vintage distinction is unproductive - there should not be differences in evaluating how something sounds based on time. Should there? It seems reasonably demonstrated that newer does not mean better - and some consistency in standards allows that to be said.

 

[tima]

Your system aint natural .

There's the problem. You seem to think that is perjorative.

 

[awsmone]

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.

Thanks Tima

this is a superb post and explains the situations very clearly

I appreciate that DdK PeterA and my approach maybe be false but it is what we pursue
I reject the idea this is related to vintage sound but rather don’t reject vintage products capabilities

in the end it’s all about personal enjoyment

it’s my opinion that not always is the latest and greatest the bestest lol

 

[tima]

Thanks Tima

this is a superb post and explains the situations very clearly

Awsmone, you are welcome!
Thank you for the compliment.

Edit: I don't think your or anyone's approach is false. That implies there are true and false approaches. Imo, it is not so much an issue of what is true, but what is one's basis of preference, of what one believes in.

 

[bonzo75]

I interpreted Ian's post to suggest that the sound made by non-vintage stereo systems is closer to what he hears in the concert hall than is the sound made by vintage stereo systems. Perhaps I misinterpreted Ian.

Please list two vintage stereo systems he has heard

 

[Ron Resnick]

Please list two vintage stereo systems he has heard

Why are you asking me? Feel free to ask Ian about the systems upon which he has forged his term "Vintage Sound."

 

[bonzo75]

Why are you asking me? Feel free to ask Ian about the systems upon which he has forged his term "Vintage Sound."

Yeah he can reply as well. I replied to your reply to his post.

 

[andromedaaudio]

There's the problem. You seem to think that is perjorative.

Im not even qualified to post here lol .

First of all my hearing is so bad i need measurement gear to design speakers , secondly i have not had exposure to some rare hornsystems so i basically dont have any knowledge regarding soundquality

 

[Audire]

After reading all these posts, I prefer the phase natural sound to describe an audiophile‘s goal in their system.

A friend of mine takes some of the best photos that I’ve ever seen, but I believe he would say that they don’t compare to the genuine thing. There’s one picture he took of a scene from nature that’s breathtaking. However, you couldn’t smell and hear the scene. The wind isn’t blowing in your face. A still life photo still lacks those genuine elements. Like many audio systems, it’s missing part of the scene.

I desire (and own) a system that engages my whole being. I don’t desire just a snapshot in time. In audio reproduction I desire the entire experience. This IMO is part and parcel of what natural sound means. No matter the components, a true Audiophile System is one that engages the whole being of the end user.

 

[PeterA]

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.

Ian, I am a bit perplexed by your post here. You seem to be talking about language and how to describe the sound of systems. No one is talking about vintage sound, ultimate terms, musical nirvana, or something elusive. Natural Sound is simply one type of sound and one of many approaches to the hobby. It has nothing to do with specific gear, but everything to do with one's goals. You and I seem to have the same goal, but different approaches. We use the same reference of live performances at the BSO, but you seem to reject the whole idea of natural sound. Some argue that the analog recordings from the golden era capture this natural sound better than more modern recordings. I am envious of your collection of great old LPs from this era.

This thread was originally about audiophile recordings, and most interestingly, you chose a well known one to describe what you heard from my system. This is what you wrote after you heard my system but before David came to set it up. You made no mention of a "vintage sound", but in fact used the phrase natural sound, and "highly beautiful tone". You describe the sound of Art Pepper's recording on my old (modern cone/SS) system as sounding "always too thin and metallic or thick and sluggish but yesterday it had body and sounded effortless and not congealed." This seems to be quite a contrast to what you wrote above. I am having trouble reconciling your post above with what you wrote when describing one of the vintage horn systems you have heard. Here is the text:

"I heard Peter's new system the other day. I guess it sounded ok. I mean, if you like natural sound and all.

I'm kidding. It was a lot more than 'ok'.

I am highly impressed with the Lamm electronics. I've owned Lamm hybrid amps in the past and I could not get a clean sound out of them in the high frequencies (perhaps that was due to the speakers I was using at the time) and added a Lamm preamp but the sound didn't work for me (at the time) and I sold it. I then heard the ML2.0 driving horn speakers (albeit with a non-Lamm preamp) and was extremely impressed; so much so that I started hunting for a pair of ML2.0 amps but could never find them (and research seemed to indicate that the ML2.1 and ML2.2 weren't as good). I eventually acquired Doshi tube electronics - which gave me a taste but wasn't the same. So I was pretty excited when I learned Peter was getting ML2.0s and I would get to hear this amp again.

Visiting Peter was almost surreal. Everything had changed - heck even the room seemed to be larger. The following is a bit of a cut-and-paste job from an email to Peter and local audiophiles:

Between the electronics and the speaker (I'm leaving the turntable out of it because I can't speculate on what it brings to the table - no pun intended) what I heard was perhaps the best wooden-based instrument tone I have ever heard - or at least in a long while. I heard wonderful timbre, fantastic body, great transients with deep bass and a great flow.

Acoustic bass had punch on every note with weight and no excess decay or blurring. It was like the bass player was in the room. Cello was great and Ray Brown's bass bowing on the Almeida/Brown recordings was the best I've ever heard it: the high notes remained 'thick' and large with a highly beautiful tone and the low notes were authoritative with great texture. I get great detail on this with my CH amps and I get nice tone with my CATS but I heard a combination of both yesterday. Oh, and the Almeida guitar was also the best I've ever heard it. I'm very envious!

I thought the horn section on Art Pepper was also the best I've ever heard it. Previously it was always too thin and metallic or thick and sluggish but yesterday it had body and sounded effortless and not congealed.

The soundstage is huge. I never realized Peter's room was 16 feet wide (also envious!) and with the speakers in the corners it was a wall to wall, ceiling to floor presentation that did wonders for orchestral music.

Congrats Peter. What a carefully planned and well executed journey!"

Ian, you did not seem to be equating natural sound to vintage sound back then, why are you trying to do it now?

 

[microstrip]

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.

Ron,
Considering that these are the recordings you often uses to evaluate and report on systems I would say that it is a little more than just enjoying.

Some people criticize generically audiophile recordings in audio forums, but exclude those they love. Surely I do not like all the audiophile recordings, but I have great admiration for people like Dog Sax, Winston Ma, David Wilson or Keith Johnson, that brought to our hobby their view of what can be achieved in stereo sound production together with great music.

BTW, Ron, you can be forgiven by the NS group - when we enter the Sheffield Lab site we immediately read:

"Welcome to Sheffield Lab Recordings, your source for audiophile award-winning natural sound"

 

[andromedaaudio]

Thats not enough micro , one cannot simply join the NS group by just buying a CD .
That would be to easy .
Its either invitation only or via a initiation ritual.

 

[PeterA]

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.

Ron, I love that Selma Houston LP and bought it on your recommendation. I think I even tried to get you to like some of the other tracks on that LP. I’ve taken it to friends’ houses as a kind of acid test for dynamics. This is one of my favorite direct to disk recordings I have. As far as I know it is not on the super thick super quiet magical formulation 180 g vinyl.