Forget it Jake, it's Audiophile

[PeterA]

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.

Ron doesn’t do CDs. He is talking about a direct to disk vinyl record. Don’t stop there with your critique. Others have referred to it as a cult with members making a “pilgrimage” to Utah.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Ron doesn’t do CDs. He is talking about a direct to disk vinyl record. Don’t stop there with your critique. Others have referred to it as a cult with members making a “pilgrimage” to Utah.

Lol , like shedding your old self and getting rid of cones and start a new life

 

[microstrip]

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.

Again you try to focus the discussion on the the psychology of the poster, avoiding to debate the essential aspects.

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.)

Let us try to put some chronology in this debate. Is David the original creator of the concept of "Natural Sound"?

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.

No, the concept of Natural Sound in reproduction, as used by David and Peter and others, is grounded in their current perception of the sound of live acoustic music. As far as I see, Peter acknowledged that David influenced the way he perceives music.

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.

Artists and sound engineers enhance their sound recordings to overcome the technical limitations of the two channel sound reproduction. The objective of sound reproduction is transmitting the emotion of music, not creating just an acoustic facsimile in your room, something that is not possible physically.

Why should audiophiles narrow their terminology to describe just the preference of a few whose objective is just listening to some specific music?

 

[microstrip]

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.

Aren't direct to disk recordings considered "audiophile recordings"?

BTW, audiophiles debate with valid arguments if 180g vinyl is really better, it is another never ending discussion - contrary to some people perception we are an open minded group of people, although most of us now debate bit rates ...

 

[microstrip]

Ron doesn’t do CDs. He is talking about a direct to disk vinyl record. (...)

Yes, but he unashamedly does digital LP's ...

 

[andromedaaudio]

I cant hear the difference , lol

I m currently DAH ( deaf and happy)

Which is much better then GEAU ( golden ears and unhappy )

 

[Mike Lavigne]

although most of us now debate bit rates ...

now.....much less than before....

 

[PeterA]

Aren't direct to disk recordings considered "audiophile recordings"?

BTW, audiophiles debate with valid arguments if 180g vinyl is really better, it is another never ending discussion - contrary to some people perception we are an open minded group of people, although most of us now debate bit rates ...

Fransisco, you must have missed my recent post where I said I like some of my audiophile recordings. Some happen to be direct to disk too, in fact, both the Thelma Houston one that Ron likes, and also the one that Ian mentioned, the Ray Brown/Almeida Moonlight Serenade. This thread started out about audiophile recordings.

 

[microstrip]

Fransisco, you must have missed my recent post where I said I like some of my audiophile recordings. Some happen to be direct to disk too, in fact, both the Thelma Houston one that Ron likes, and also the one that Ian mentioned, the Ray Brown/Almeida Moonlight Serenade. This thread started out about audiophile recordings.

IMHO the interesting question is not about a few audiophile recordings, but our general feeling about the audiophile recordings. The quote in the OP of the thread painted them as an extremely negative aspect of this hobby, so you also feel the same?

We can't start a thread with such an violent claim and expect posters to ignore it.

 

[microstrip]

now.....much less than before....

Curiously I posted the same a few years ago ...

 

[PeterA]

Let us try to put some chronology in this debate. Is David the original creator of the concept of "Natural Sound"?

No, the concept of Natural Sound in reproduction, as used by David and Peter and others, is grounded in their current perception of the sound of live acoustic music. As far as I see, Peter acknowledged that David influenced the way he perceives music.

Why should audiophiles narrow their terminology to describe just the preference of a few whose objective is just listening to some specific music?

1. David was introduced to the concept of "Natural Sound" by someone else. He then introduced the concept to others and then to me.

2. Wrong. I never acknowledged that David influenced the way I perceive music. That is false and a complete mischaracterization.

David taught me how to choose and set up system components to present recorded music that gives me a closer experience to what I have when listening to live acoustic music. The criteria: Does it sound more natural? I heard it in his listening room in Utah, and I now hear it in my living room.

The only live music we have listened to together was a string quartet in his living room. He did not influence how I perceived what I heard while listening to that. I acknowledged that it was Dr. Peter Poltun in Vienna who influenced how I think about live music: energy.

3. "Some specific music" seems misleading and limited. In my case it is unamplified acoustic instruments and voice in a concert hall or jazz club setting: small and large scale classical, choral, a cappella, jazz, big band, blues, and then amplified classic rock plus some digital contemporary pop music on vinyl.

 

[fbhifi]

In the best sense an audiophile is someone who is passionate and driven to achieve a natural sound reproduction in their listening environment. This necessarily will require the audition and possible purchase of new equipment. The trick is to maintain a reference baseline for what is the natural sound of any given instrument. I grew up in a house with a reproducing piano as well as played alto saxophone in the school band. I still have a reasonably good recollection of what those two instruments sound like. You get the idea of how I try to maintain a reference. If any new piece of equipment, of any kind, comes into my system and it takes me away from my baseline its back out again. We all are frequently impressed with something new, the tough part is being honest about whether it takes us closer to natural or further away. It’s taken me 40 years of trial and error with more errors than I’d like to remember to get to a system where I can approach changes in the way I now do. Complicated shit Ollie!

In the worst sense an audiophile is someone obsessed with the exercise of buying new, and generally, more expensive, equipment believing that this behavior will guarantee an ever improving system. The idea of a mature system, one that sees infrequent changes, can be terrifying to the second example of an audiophile.

I’ve gotten to the point with my system where I’m very circumspect about making changes. And if you’re going to- never, ever, ever change two things at the same time.

Very soon Emile will be shipping my Extreme. This is an equipment change that I’m not sweating……..

 

[tima]

1. David was introduced to the concept of "Natural Sound" by someone else. He then introduced the concept to others and then to me.

2. Wrong. I never acknowledged that David influenced the way I perceive music. That is false and a complete mischaracterization.

David taught me how to choose and set up system components to present recorded music that gives me a closer experience to what I have when listening to live acoustic music. I heard it in his listening room in Utah, and I now hear it in my living room. The only live music we have listened to together was a string quartet in his living room. He did not influence how I perceived what I heard while listening to that. I acknowledged that it was Dr. Peter Poltun in Vienna who influenced how I perceive live music: energy.

3. "Some specific music" seems misleading and limited. In my case it is unamplified acoustic instruments and voice in a concert hall or jazz club setting: small and large scale classical, choral, a cappella, jazz, big band, blues, and then amplified classic rock plus some digital contemporary pop music on vinyl.

If hearing is perceiving anyone claiming that someone else influences how you or anyone perceives music is nonsensical. Confusing percepts with concepts is a rudimentary mistake.

 

[awsmone]

1. David was introduced to the concept of "Natural Sound" by someone else. He then introduced the concept to others and then to me.

2. Wrong. I never acknowledged that David influenced the way I perceive music. That is false and a complete mischaracterization.

David taught me how to choose and set up system components to present recorded music that gives me a closer experience to what I have when listening to live acoustic music. I heard it in his listening room in Utah, and I now hear it in my living room. The only live music we have listened to together was a string quartet in his living room. He did not influence how I perceived what I heard while listening to that. I acknowledged that it was Dr. Peter Poltun in Vienna who influenced how I think about live music: energy.

3. "Some specific music" seems misleading and limited. In my case it is unamplified acoustic instruments and voice in a concert hall or jazz club setting: small and large scale classical, choral, a cappella, jazz, big band, blues, and then amplified classic rock plus some digital contemporary pop music on vinyl.

I think it’s very clear from PeterA other blog, that it was a journey, and DDK assisted him by allowing him to try different equipment which would help him on his journey , he cannot have changed his perception of music, but rather what was possible in sound reproduction , the changes are very clear from his videos

 

[the sound of Tao]

How does it go… Hi my names Graham and I am an an audiophile and its been two months since my last sonic breakdown or nirvana.

I’ll be honest and say that I’ve mostly always just thought of the term audiophile as the meta tag for all of us here on the forum. A label that we share in group therapy together and the fundamental connection that perhaps has drawn us all here to share such a diverse range of perspectives in the very first place.

I very much agree with Tim’s original covering proposition that audiophiles can be defined as lovers of sound reproduction. I’d have simply imagined that anyone on our forum that reads or writes about gear or any of our approaches to systems or sonic qualities of recordings would surely qualify for the entry requirements for being an audiophile.

But it’s interesting that it’s also slipped into usage as a derogatory tag that speaks to what we can see individually as a negative trait within the culture and reflecting excessive attachments to various ‘audiophile’ kinds of extremes or values that might not be in tune with our own particular set of audio values… so ‘audiophile’ can describe our point of connection to each other and also be a term of derision for where we see a disconnection.

I’ve done it myself at times. I’ve used it in the context of ‘audiophile’ music not just as well recorded music but where I believe the music is perceived as largely less important (or at times completely unimportant) and just a medium or vessel to ultimately appreciate sound quality and that the music and performance artistry are not factored as relevant. This reflects a failure in me to get for a long time that some of us are primarily into sound and even when listening to great performances of music are still focussed mostly on the effects of the soundfield and what the sound systems (and for me music systems) are doing.

Sonics are clearly an important element in the experience of music and in its playing and orchestration but for some the effect of the sound sits as a layer of singular focus rather than a fundamental part that can be viewed separately but then ultimately still temporally enmeshed within the appreciation of the experience of music.

While I still get a disconnect when sonic qualities of a recording are promoted without regard to what I perceive as considerably lesser qualities of performance or (for me) less meaningful music being played (whoops hyper judgemental ) I do get that every perspective of audio appreciation is valuable to us in learning about the recorded art and in it’s sharing.

So (quite a bit ) judgemental on my part and this reflects a conflict for me at times through my own journey with another (and for me ultimately deeper) aspect of me as music lover. I originally was just a music lover, then early on audio gear became a part of that relationship. Twice the audiophile element completely took over for a time, the first time it caused me to find the whole thing unfulfilling and so I sold up and stopped for years and just had a very ‘unaudiophile’ system. Later I stepped back into the pursuit with valves and a modest two way standmount setup and after straying in and out of various audiophile states and at times a shifting balance in focus between music and gear in my journey and understanding I have returned as music lover first closely following behind as a committed (or soon to be) audiophile. At any point though the deep love of music has never left me. It is my constant compass and great moderation and salvation.

Often being a music lover and an audiophile work hand in hand but also at times these two values have competed for my attention and even for me at times been in temporary conflict.

So also hi my name is Graham and I am a music lover and its been over twenty years since I have heard a Diana Krall track… and counting .

With ‘audiophile’ recordings or ‘audiophile’ music its the same with identifying ‘audiophile’ gear and ‘audiophile’ companies or ‘audiophile’ accessories, ‘audiophile’ tweaks and in ‘audiophile’ behaviour itself I guess… all can be viewed as some kind of out of kilter state and a criticism under an attached derogatory tag or label if seen as being in conflict with our own personal audiophile compass in our current best ways to be an audiophile or to how best to pull an audio system together. We can all have our own audiophile perspectives and values and these shift around along the way. Audiophiles can express in a range of ways and have a very different mix of goals and completely different measures of what is best.

I completely get how some of us also use the ‘audiophile’ word as a criticism (I loved Karen’s earlier ‘audiopile’ comment, all kinds of awesome)… but I spose we shouldn’t forget that as lovers of sound (as well as other things like lovers of music and lovers of gear and lovers of engineering and technique and lovers of ideas about the human experience and abstracting perceptions and flow of changes in our being etc etc) that it is also a canopy that represents the nexus of our whole culture and a big part of what bring us to crossroads and to be here in the great audiopile together.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

and its been over twenty years since I have heard a Diana Krall track… and counting

...now *that* is some primo funny audiophile humor.

 

[the sound of Tao]

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, who is this Phillis Stine person and what audiophile label does she record on?? Looking forwards one day to Phillis Stine’s Greatest Hits being remastered on 180gm of glorious virgin vinyl at MoFo.

 

[awsmone]

...now *that* is some primo funny audiophile humor.

i am an audiophile and it’s six months since I last listened to Diana Krall, Natural Sound anonymous meeting opening line

 

[the sound of Tao]

...now *that* is some primo funny audiophile humor.

I do admit to being a tad judgemental at times

 

[awsmone]

Ron, who is this Phillis Stine person and what audiophile label does she record on?? Looking forwards one day to Phillis Stine’s Greatest Hits being remastered on 180gm of glorious virgin vinyl at MoFo.