Forget it Jake, it's Audiophile

[microstrip]

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

Perhaps David can tell us who introduced the concept to him.

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

I quote you from your interesting report on your trip to Utah:

"Around 1:00AM (3:00AM my time), after ten LP sides and some interesting discussions, it was time for some sleep. What a night! This system was truly “Beyond” anything I have ever heard. My new education had begun. What had started in Vienna ten years ago with live sound and learning about the “energy” made by the instruments and voices, was now continuing with an emersion into “natural resolution” from an audio system."

And

" About a year ago, David and I started corresponding, and he made a few suggestions about my system set up based on the photographs and videos I sent him. " (end of quote)

Please do not tell us that David did not influence the way you now perceive music.

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.

BTW1, I am not addressing live music, mostly reproduced sound. And sorry, if you listen to a lot of reproduced music it will also change the way you perceive real music.

BTW2 Please note that I make a difference between hearing and perceiving.

 

[PeterA]

Please do not tell us that David did not influence the way you now perceive music.

BTW1, I am not addressing live music, mostly reproduced sound. And sorry, if you listen to a lot of reproduced music it will also change the way you perceive real music.

BTW2 Please note that I make a difference between hearing and perceiving.

Fransisco, You have changed the subject again. Here you say that you are "not addressing live music..." but I responded to your earlier post in which you were precisely addressing live acoustic music. You wrote this: "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."

Again, I am saying that David did not influence the way I perceive live music, or recorded music for that matter. Dr. Poltun gave me my first revelation about live music when he described the energy from instruments. That changed my perception of the sound of instruments. The second revelation came when I listened to a visitor's voice in my listening room and discovered that there is no such thing as pinpoint imaging in live music.

David encouraged me to experiment with set up. I learned how changes in set up affected sound. David's contribution was to get me to simply focus on the question of whether or not the change in set up resulted in a more natural sound. He did not tell me what natural sound means. I already knew that because I listen to live acoustic music. I made the change, listened, and assessed based on my reference from memory.

The next important step was actually hearing a natural sounding system at David's house. Again, David exposed me to reproduced sound that I associated with my own memory of live acoustic music. David did not change the way I thought of what I hear from live music, or how I perceive it. He simply encouraged me to find it from my old system through set up changes, and then he demonstrated it using his four systems at a higher level.

I do credit David for teaching me how to achieve a natural sounding audio system.

 

[the sound of Tao]

View attachment 88939

She also casually worked pulling beers in the bar at The Munich Hiend where she was known as Philla Stein.

 

[tima]

She also casually worked pulling beers in the bar at The Munich Hiend where she was known as Philla Stein.

Bottoms up!

 

[ddk]

So many others? You must be joking. We are just a few in this discussion and most of them just evidence how ambiguous the term is - everyone says its sound is natural. As far as I see no one has said that his sound is artificial or "hifi" - non "natural".

Here are two in this thread who wont say their systems sound natural!
Brian believes "natural sound" is low fidelity so he'll have to stick with hifi and unnatural for his system.

Natural sound and high fidelity sound are often at odds with one another because Natural sound is often low fidelity.

and we have Ian who doesn't think "natural sound" exists and prefers "vintage sound", whatever that's supposed to be so he's probably not going for natural sound in his system.

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.

There's nothing ironic about attaining "natural" sound wether through modern SETs and vintage horns or solid state and inefficient modern box speakers Ian. "Natural" is simply that, what "vintage sound" in general as used in specialty circles has nothing to do with "natural", it's another adjective for a different type of sound and it can both be natural and unnatural.

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.

That's inaccurate and a misrepresentation of facts! Peter experienced what's possible and how "natural" and realistic music reproduction can be, nothing to do with how he perceives music.

Perhaps David can tell us who introduced the concept to him.

No relevance to the topic but I can repeat it again. I heard it for the first time with the Lamm ML2 and L1, the phrase/term "natural" came from Vladimir and it was immediately clear what it meant. IME the people who oppose the term or are either confused by it have never achieved or heard it in a system!

I quote you from your interesting report on your trip to Utah:

"Around 1:00AM (3:00AM my time), after ten LP sides and some interesting discussions, it was time for some sleep. What a night! This system was truly “Beyond” anything I have ever heard. My new education had begun. What had started in Vienna ten years ago with live sound and learning about the “energy” made by the instruments and voices, was now continuing with an emersion into “natural resolution” from an audio system."

And

" About a year ago, David and I started corresponding, and he made a few suggestions about my system set up based on the photographs and videos I sent him. " (end of quote)

Please do not tell us that David did not influence the way you now perceive music.

BTW1, I am not addressing live music, mostly reproduced sound. And sorry, if you listen to a lot of reproduced music it will also change the way you perceive real music.

BTW2 Please note that I make a difference between hearing and perceiving.

Again you misrepresent and make it sound as if this is the Manchurian Candidate! You have a lot of opinions about a system you haven't heard or a place you haven't been to!

david

 

[awsmone]

Does everyone really think their system sounds natural
I certainly haven’t and have struggled to get my system to sound the way I perceive for 8 years getting close in last few months

then I bought a pair of quad esl on a whim as a bedroom system

I played around with spare amps I had because there was something about the sound I connected with

I finally I hit on a combo that made me go now that sounds so natural and the sort of sound I was looking for

then I contacted Peter A to have a chat as I find him to have similar sensibilities and aspirations as myself and musical tastes
My perception never changed it was hitting on the combo of equipment that did it

 

[tima]

An Apologia

Francisco asks @PeterA if David will reveal from whom David took his concept of "natural sound." And David responds:

I heard it for the first time with the Lamm ML2 and L1, the phrase/term "natural" came from Vladimir and it was immediately clear what it meant. IME the people who oppose the term or are either confused by it have never achieved or heard it in a system!

Throughout this and other threads, including Peter's system thread, we discuss what is meant by "natural sound". People go back and forth, many concluding they are their own judge of whether their system sound's natural. This seems an area of contention as some seem offended or put off that someone else is telling them what is natural sound, that the notion is taken by a few as proprietary knowledge. Every time the topic comes up there is an expression that "no one's gonna tell me what sounds natural."

Imo all this consternation is misguided - the reaction of audiophilic egos to what they perceive as egotism from others. I say that thinking that 'natural sound' is the province of a select few could not be further from the truth. Of course each person determines for themselves what sounds natural - who else could possibly do that for them? And the belief or feeling that someone else might actually be trying to do that for them is what is misguided.

David notes he came to natural sound through listening to Lamm equipment and the phrase 'natural' came from Vladimir Lamm. Across many years and with considerable resources made available to him through the Soviet military/industrial complex, As a scientific (blind and double-blinded) endeavor, Mr. Lamm studied how people hear and react to sound.

All those scientific studies boiled down to some really complex math and also boiled down to something incredibly simple. We assess sound - we gauge what sounds natural from a stereo through a natural process that belies all the words in all the audio forums. This natural process is not owned by anyone and is available to every one.

If you ask him about assessing sound quality of a stereo, Vladimir Lamm will tell you first that "It is important . . to know how the real orchestra sounds. We choose a reference point based on live music and compare to this point," then, once so prepared, "the problem of sound-quality assessment is almost completely solved in the first 10-15 seconds of listening at the intuitive level."

I cannot speak for him so this is imo, but the simplicity of assessing sound quality is reflected in David's notion that the phrase 'natural sound' is really all one needs to know what he is talking about. Note how David says "I heard it first ..." - no theory or construct needed to explain what he heard. It is an awareness, a 'coming to' as it were.

"Natural" is simply that

 

[Ron Resnick]

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

I think of "direct-to-disc" as a recording technique, not as a sonic characterization or as a musical description.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Does everyone really think their system sounds natural

Even if you dont think so you can say yes.
Its basically your word against the other.

Everybody cheats no big deal( Its not like there are fines involved or anything )

 

[andromedaaudio]

Unless everybody agrees on a meter that says if the sound is in the red zone its a natural system its basically all talk / claims without any proof

 

[ddk]

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

As a technic it's not audiophile this is how records were done in small batches in America. Musicians used to travel from town to town and record a session at a local record shop, those recordings were direct to disc tape was a European standard at the time. First time I came across D2D in "audio-pile" context was with Mobile Fidelity and their "audio-pile" LPs. It's not the recording process it's what some labels, primarily those who market themselves "audiophile" grade create products that I personally find unnatural and unumusical

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 ...

180g vinyl is just another example of poor execution and marketing hype. The only audiophile label that didn't produce "audio-piles" IMO was Chesky records.

david

 

[Atmasphere]

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

Almost is what makes this statement true.

older recordings can sound wonderful, be very engaging, but they're antiquated in terms of capturing the full spectrum of sound.

The Westerex 3D cutter head ushered in the golden age of stereo. It had bandwidth well past 42KHz; the system is bandwidth limited beyond that to prevent damage to the cutter due to RIAA pre-emphasis. Neumann was making the U67 in 1958 and that is still an excellent microphone by any standards. The real limitation was the tape itself, but at 15 i.p.s. the bandwidth of the old Ampex 351-2 tape machines with the original Ampex heads was well past 20KHz. In a nutshell the older recordings had bandwidth wider than Redbook and the range of human hearing.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I honestly have lost track of why "Natural Sound" is so controversial.

How about this:

1) Each of us has our personal, subjective view of natural sound -- the sound from a stereo which seems natural to each of us based on whatever is our reference.

2) David has a concept, adopted by Peter, of Natural Sound. To them, Natural Sound -- their view of natural sound -- describes the sound of stereo systems they believe most faithfully and convincingly reproduce the sounds of acoustic instruments played live and unamplified.

3) David has an inventory of select audio components which, he believes, in various combinations, to greater or lesser extents, are able to produce Natural Sound.

4) Some of these components are vintage; some of these components are currently manufactured. There is nothing inherently vintage about Natural Sound. David is not advancing a concept of "vintage sound." Both vintage stereo systems and contemporary stereo systems can be evaluated according to how well or poorly they make Natural Sound. However, the loudspeakers David prefers tend strongly to be vintage.

5) Each of us has our own view of and understanding of and examples of natural sound. Natural Sound is a particular type of natural sound, described by Peter's list of adjectives, which, to Peter and to David, illustrate the sonic characteristics of the particular type of sound David's stereo systems produce.

 

[bonzo75]

I honestly have lost track of why Natural Sound is so controversial.

How about this:

1) Each of us has our personal, subjective view of natural sound -- the sound from a stereo which seems natural to each of us based on whatever is our reference.

Natural sound should be synonymous with real sound or live acoustic sound. Our stereo system should strive to do that, with transparency to the recording. If you strive to not create a live acoustic sound, your objective is not natural sound. If you strive to have a constant sound that makes every recording sound similar due to gear signature, you will not have natural sound.

The reference has to be one, reference systems can be multiple.

Of course, those who do not strive to relate to live acoustic, simply should state they strive to do something else, like create a club sound for electronica. That though, is not the natural sound of instruments, it comes out of a mixer and gear and by definition has the signature of the mixer or gear used in that club.

Now, for those who strive to create live acoustic sound, can further debate what causes that. Peter and David seem to think there is one way, others think that is the wrong way. So that debate I can understand, that will always happen.

Some are just tired of the constant prescription popping up every month.

People who do not care to listen to live, or don't try, or don't care for classical for evaluation, should simply move on to an electronic sound thread, or Pop sound thread, or Diana Krall/audiophile recordings thread.

 

[ddk]

Some are just tired of the constant prescription popping up every month.

After nearly a century of this everything's a prescription. Many of the arguments are personal and they're obvious !

david

 

[andromedaaudio]

Regarding a classical concert recording .

Instrument recording techniques usually include close mike recordings and are then mixed and put on a storage medium.
Iow its something completely different then what you hear sitting at the 10 th row .
Also concerthalls are usually very much dampened acoustically .
Completely different from a home setting .

To me a system is natural if its able to convey the artists intention , whatever music it is

 

[awsmone]

Even if you dont think so you can say yes.
Its basically your word against the other.

Everybody cheats no big deal( Its not like there are fines involved or anything )

This reminds me of surveys that show the vast majority of people think they are “above average” drivers ,
clearly there needs to be Audiophile police ( sub branch of homeland security?), and any card carrying audiophiles house needs to be raided and blind tested imho

records taken away to check if “audiophile” recordings and confiscated if such … ( the word audiophile on the cover is a giveaway mostly)

 

[andromedaaudio]

Audiophile police

It exists already.
Luckily they cant take away the audio gear , otherwise mine would be gone already

 

[PeterA]

Regarding a classical concert recording .

Instrument recording techniques usually include close mike recordings and are then mixed and put on a storage medium.
Iow its something completely different then what you hear sitting at the 10 th row .
Also concerthalls are usually very much dampened acoustically .
Completely different from a home setting .

To me a system is natural if its able to convey the artists intention , whatever music it is

Andromeda, could you expand on your last sentence? Are you talking about the composer's intention, the conductor's interpretation, or the musician's translation? And how are you able to understand what those are so that you can then judge if the system is able to convey them and be (sound) natural?

Yours is a very interesting comment. Is this your approach to the hobby or an expression of your goal when designing your speakers? My friend in Vienna had access to many original manuscripts with original notes written by Mozart and others. He also knows many composers and musicians. He told me that the genius of the composer is corrupted the moment he puts his ideas to paper, in two dimensional notations. Ofen much later, the composer then interprets those notes. This is why they often asked my friend to see the original manuscripts. The musicians then translate the notes on paper and the instructions of the conductor to produce the sounds (energy) with their instruments. A gifted soloist like du Pre will seem like a more direct conduit and communicate Elgar's very genius directly into emotion without notes or glances at Barenboim.

The listener in the concert hall experiences all of that and is left with that evening's result. If we are lucky, we have gear that can perhaps convey glimpses of that result to us in our living rooms. I want a similar experience in my room to the one I have sitting in the audience of that concert hall.

You seem to want something different, something closer to that which was in the mind of the composer. Is that correct? If so, how do you know what it is that you are after? How do you know the artist's intention from a recording?

 

[andromedaaudio]

Are you talking about the composer's intention,

Yes because he is the most important , he is the creative brain/ drive behind it all

the conductor's interpretation, or the musician's translation?

They are simply executioners they follow the notes on paper , some do it better then others

Is this your approach to the hobby or an expression of your goal when designing your speakers?

Yes it is/ was a goal mainly for myself , a sort of challenge to see what was possible if i designed something the way that made sense to me

You seem to want something different, something closer to that which was in the mind of the composer

Yes but thats a feeling , its some kind of emotional click you get when the music is playing .
Its an emotional thing its the only way listening to music makes sense to me
To my ears i have succeeded ( others might think differently off course ) .

How do you know the artist's intention from a recording?

Its a feeling.
A correct rhythm plays a large part , thats why i love analogue tape so much it has it naturally with voices classical and jazz
Regarding electronic music Tiesto for example i like digital more , Mark levinson digital has the best rhythm ( artists intention ) to my ears