"Natural" Sound

[Audiophile Bill]

Ultimately the indivuidual has to choose their preference,
Keith.

Preference of what Keith - enjoyment or no enjoyment? Or a handful of reference recordings versus a library of great music?

 

[Audiophile Bill]

I know this was tongue in cheek, but it is true.
'science in the service of art'
Keith.

Gosh - you really think that? Wow. The engineer is not the artist in any way at all to me - ever.

 

[KeithR]

The 'colour' you add may 'improve' a poor recording, but you are adding the same colour to every recording.
Personally I just want to hear what the artist intended.
Keith.

but you never know "what the artist intended", do you. all gear has its distortions and "color." in other words, everything has a sound.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

but you never know "what the artist intended", do you. all gear has its distortions and "color." in other words, everything has a sound.

Precisely!

 

[microstrip]

No point. The Symphony isn't the art, the recording is the art. The engineer is the artist.

Yes, sometimes the engineer (producer) and the conductor make the "artistic" choices together. But curiously, the mastering engineer, who most of the time did not hear from any of them and did not listen to the original performance, also modifies the recording. Why should not the equipment designer participate in the process?

 

[Gregadd]

Hi Al.

The OPer went beyond expressing his preference. As I quoted, he framed his question in such a way as to unneccessarily antagonize those who do not subscribe to his list of 2 purportedly exhaustive and mutually exclusive definitions of *natural*. He did not need to include the questions containing such caricatures. As such, as I stated, I reject it.

As a trial attorney -- where's Greg to confirm -- I evaluate and object to questions for a living. Of course, we're not in a courtroom, but I can assure you my objection to his question would be readily sustained.

Thanks Ron.Generally speaking lay witnesses are not allowed to give opinions. Under some circumstances they are allowed to give thier subjective impressions. e.g.They could say you were driving fast. But they would have some factual basis for saying he was doing 50 mph. I was traveling fifty mph and we stayed even. Of course he would not be allowed to comment as to what anyone elses' opinion might be or was told to him. Is that what you meant Ron?

 

[853guy]

But the recording is all we have.
Keith.

Well, yes and no.

Yes, the recording is all we have, and we can only ever hear it via the playback mechanism. But the recording represents two things: 1) The intention of the artist(s); and 2) The “sound” of that recording as mixed and mastered onto a format by human beings exercising preference. The two are not the same, and given the non-linear nature of all playback equipment, it seems valid to ask how those two things when subjected to the interpretive mechanism that is the playback system undergo changes relative to the system's non-linearity, what those changes might be, and how they might affect our perception. If we did ask those questions, it seems reasonable to posit that the artist may feel their intentions were not adequately represented by the playback mechanism, or indeed, that the sound of the playback mechanism departs from the intentions of the mix/mastering engineer, or both.

And, no, the recording is not all we have. As I’ve suggested, we also have thousands of years of collective experience of listening to and/or creating music in monasteries, courts, cathedrals, concertgebouws, rehearsal rooms, smoke-filled clubs, stadiums, recording studios, et al, not to mention on the banks of the Nile in order to convince Osiris to provide fertile crops and loved ones entrance to the Afterlife.

We are the creators of music. There is nothing else on Earth that creates sound in an intentional manner as we do. Birds, whales and primates all have a version of intentional sound (some of which has been misidentified as “music” but more properly falls into the category of pareidolia) but no animal has ever consistently departed from a basic repertoire of low-level communication processes for speciation, sexual selection and warnings*. We on the other hand have been singing, humming, whistling and clicking for some purpose other than those things for, well… forever. We’ve composed in multiple keys, multiple time signatures and for multiple instruments - sometimes in the same piece of music. We’ve made stone gongs, hum bucking pickups and Ableton Live. And though the estate of Marvin Gaye have convinced a jury otherwise, for the most part, we continue to create music that the world has heretofore never ever heard or experienced before.

Not only that, we invented the recording and playback mechanism. We created heated conductors and placed then in a vacuum to give off emissions which are electrostically controlled by a positively charged collector. We created the transistor and the electro-magnet. We created the electrostatic speaker, the magnetostatic speaker, the air-motion transformer and the plasma tweeter. Alongside, we also created a set of measurements to objectively quantify and analyse their performance. We have made some incredible breakthroughs over the last two centuries, and the joy they bring us in allowing us individualised access to the single greatest and most commercially available democratised art form from artists both living and dead is without precedent in all of human history. (I imagine the Mauritshuis will not take kindly to you asking to hang the Vemeer in your living room just ‘cause you’re a big fan of his previous work.) Recorded music and the playback mechanism is a nascent human construct continually defined and redefined by us and our experience, it does not and cannot define us or our experience of music simply because we can objectively quantify individual aspects of the mechanism relative to the parameters of non-linearity.

*As with any branch of science, there is continued debate amongst zoomusicologist's on this point.

 

[ddk]

Actually I am . The moment we look at a recording as a step down version of the live presentation, we are back to thinking creating recorded music is about replicating a live experience. That simply is not so. The person creating a recording is creating new art. He and the talent sit together in a room with stereo speakers and see how they can create an enjoyable version of that music. At no time are they trying to mimic the live sound with minor exception of binaural recordings and such. Again, please allow me to quote Dr. Toole:

"In a recording studio, the recording engineer becomes a major contributor
to the art by adjusting the contribution of each musician to the overall
production, adjusting the tonal balance and timbre of each of the contributors,
and adding reflected and reverberated sounds or other processed versions of
captured sounds to the mix. This too is judged subjectively, on the basis of
whether it reflects the artists’ intent and, of course, how it might appeal to
consumers."

I'm not arguing any of this about recordings nor is anyone else and you don't need to continue repeating yourself or quote Dr. Toole further, its an obfuscation of what was said. The only thing that I, Steve and others have claimed is that certain systems sound more "Natural" than others as do recordings, what is your position regarding what was said not what wasn't?

For the sake of clarification, from Webster dictionary;

Natural;

- having an essential relation with someone or something
- having a specified character by nature.

Why the original event? You are not given the original event. Per above, you are given a new manifestation of art, to be appreciate as that. Not to be second guessed to be something else as that being the sign of greatness. We seem so determined to explain terms like this which at the end of the day, are just compliments. They are not to be taken as specific terms that have useful meaning. Here again is Dr. Toole:

"The evaluation of reproduced sound should be a matter of judging the
extent to which any and all of these elements are accurately replicated or
attractively reproduced. It is a matter of trying to describe the respects in
which audio devices add to or subtract from the desired objective. A different
vocabulary is needed. However, most music lovers and audiophiles lack this
special capability in critical listening, and as a consequence, art is routinely
mingled with technology. In subjective equipment reviews, technical audio
devices are often imbued with musical capabilities. Some are described as being
able to euphonically enhance recordings, and others to do the reverse. It is
true that characteristics of technical performance must be reflected in the
musical performance, but it happens in a highly unpredictable manner, and
such a commentary is of no direct assistance in our efforts to improve sound
reproduction."

What you're writing here and in blue is impertinent to the conversation, why continue to bring it up? "Original Event" is a term and every recording has an original event, even dead space is an event.

When we are trying to convey what we hear for the others to appreciate, we need to have the terms have real meanings. Such meanings need to translate in specific ways to equipment's ability to reproduce sound in a high fidelity manner. We need precise terms just like the Legal profession does in its use of English language. Generic feel good terms do not fill this purpose.

"Natural" is a very specific term, what's confusing about it? Legal profession, really? Since you want to go there please legally define "Natural" born citizen as intended in the constitution.

What you just did David was strip all the art from the painting and represented it as whether it accurately reflected real life or not. This is at the core of our disagreement. The painting stands alone. It need not have any connection to a reality to be fantastic in its regard.

FYI, the painting that I showed was the work of Dutch painter, Johannes Vermeer. The name of the painting is "Girl With a Pearl Earing." The type of painting is called a "tronie" meaning that it is not a literal painting of anyone specific. It is art in itself and no attempt should be made to think backward as to who that person is.

Context Amir… I know what this painting is but we weren't discussing art nor wether the photo is homage to the painting or not. You used the images as an example of what can change in recordings, in that context I agreed with you and added that even with all the changes and differences its still a "Natural" and realistic reproduction of the original event, i.e. portrait of a young female, is it not?

The studio shot was an attempt to replicate that painting in real-life. As a photographer, I find the studio picture boring and other than attractiveness of the model, of little value emotionally. The painting on the other hand, grabs me as great work of art. I can study it for a long time and continue to enjoy it. Yet what is there is not natural as in what happened in real life. As I explained there was no such person.

The bottom line is that the art is what is handed to us as recorded music. That is the start of it. Any terms we use to imply what came before it in any manner, is not helpful to assess the fidelity of a system whose input is only that recorded art and no more.

I fully agree with what you say regarding the artistic values of the images, I feel the same but I disagree with what you're saying in regards to audio, we do have a "Natural" reference and there are plenty of "Natural" and "Realistic" sounding recordings, does Dr. Toole say otherwise?

david

 

[853guy]

Yes .... but we still only have the record, and I prefer to hear it unadulterated .
You can do anything to the recording you choose, that is your perogative .
Keith.

Sleep well, Keith.

May you and those most important to you experience peace, joy and love in all unadulterated objectivity.

 

[amirm]

I'm not arguing any of this about recordings nor is anyone else and you don't need to continue repeating yourself or quote Dr. Toole further, its an obfuscation of what was said. The only thing that I, Steve and others have claimed is that certain systems sound more "Natural" than others as do recordings, what is your position regarding what was said not what wasn't?

OK, let me quote Steve in entirety (emphasis mine):

Natural......let's just say that once you hear it you'll know exactly what I mean. To all you word parsers who are finding it difficult to wrap your objective minds around the term, I say make the trip to Cedar City and then let's talk. Until then all of you can think what you think but believe me it will smack you in the face when you hear it because you'll understand when you hear it. It sounds as real as it gets. I'll just leave it as that. This takes no measurements other than those that God gave you, to wit, your ears, something that many here don't use all the time

Is he not saying natural= as real as it gets? Where did he get the real part? Real was never fed into your system. What was fed was a recording. No way a piece of electronic can crawl upstream and manifest reality above and beyond the recording. A tiny bit of reverb added to a recording will make it sound far more "real" to many people but it is not anything that is really there as by definition, it was artificial.

As to what I think, I have said it multiple times so I will repeat: when you all use these words, all you mean is that you heard great sound and very much enjoyed it. Nothing other than that can be gotten from that statement. It is what you read in Steve's post. Such statement are great from the point of view of understanding the person's emotions. But mean nothing with respect to how the system sounded. Do you think having read Steve's note above I can walk into your system and already know what it sounds like before you even turn it on? Or anything remotely like that? I can't right? I have no idea if he liked the dynamics, the highs were rolled off and that is what he likes, or he is a bass freak and he felt a literal earthquake under him, or it was the vocals that were impressive, or that the soundstage was large and that is what he likes, or that it was focused between speakers and again, that is what he likes.

What I quoted from Dr. Toole said all of this. It says that we need to a) have a critical ear to properly analyze audio systems and b) have specific vocabulary that leads to understanding of its attributes and deficiencies. Neither is there in Steve's quote. He says he had a steak last night and that was the best he has ever had. Well, great for him. But it tells us nothing as to what that experience really was. Let me instead tell you what happens when you first eat Kobe beef in Japan. The fat melts at a lower temperature than regular beef. So the warmth in your mouth melts it as you chew just once or twice before swallowing. You have never had a steak so tender with such great mouth feel. This is being specific. Saying it was the best steak, is not.

Mind you, there is nothing wrong with using accolades. Ron's question is whether it is hyperbole and the simple answer is that it is. Saying "it is as real as it gets" is the definition of it. So is saying the sound was natural.

Used to be that everyone that went to Steve's house said it was the best system they had heard. Now we hear Steve saying your system is a lot better. Is Steve's system not natural? If it is, is yours more natural???? What does that mean to be more natural?

What do we do with the fact that nothing was shared as a weakness? Is there none? If there are, then why are they not shared?

I fully agree with what you say regarding the artistic values of the images, I feel the same but I disagree with what you're saying in regards to audio, we do have a "Natural" reference and there are plenty of "Natural" and "Realistic" sounding recordings, does Dr. Toole say otherwise?

Yes, plenty.

"This aspect of sound perception has been greatly influenced by both recording
technology and also by culture. Blesser and Salter (2007) discuss this in
terms of “aural architecture,” defi ned as those properties of a space that can be
experienced by listening. This begins with natural acoustical environments, but
nowadays we can extend this definition to include those real and synthesized
spatial sounds incorporated in recordings and those that are reproduced through
loudspeakers in our listening rooms. In this sense, all of us involved with the
audio industry are, to some extent, aural architects.

Recording engineers soon learned that multiple microphones could be
used to simulate the effects of reflecting surfaces, so the natural acoustics of the
recording studio were augmented, or even replaced, by the tools and techniques
of the sound recording process."

So the context of something being "natural" by definition is an artificial one so the use of that word refers to how a recording was produced, not the capabilities of the system.

"With the passage of time, directional microphones gave further control of
what natural acoustics were captured. With relatively “dead” source material, it
became necessary to add reverberation, and the history of sound recording is
significantly about how to use reverberation rooms and electronic or electromechanical
simulation devices to add a sense of space."

Because of all of this, the choice of recording has far more impact on us thinking something is "natural" than anything your system can do. And that "naturalness" is most definitely artificial.

 

[NorthStar]

I'm reading this thread and looking for the holy grail in "natural sound" ... it is only very few who seem to know about it ... and I feel that for as long as I will never experience it in my own life I have no right to even exist. :b

Lol, only the very few fortunate ones know about "natural sound" and everyone else is simply wasting their time to look for it...but @ least they express their righteous free opinion of what it could be...just an opinion indeed which we all have based on all our personal experience and life's adventure...poor and rich people of our planet. ...All lovely people across the universe.

This is my only one post in this thread...and I've read them all.

Natural sound for me is very simple; it is live, it is in the moment. Any other type of sound reproduction is just that, an "unnatural sound" reproduction from another passing time of the past and space (the music recordings when they took place in a totally different dimensional 'state')...even if it sounds spooky naturally real. Please please please let's all give ourselves a peaceful break and accept all the natural sounds in life. :b

* If we can make a piano sounds like a real "natural sounding" piano it would be having the piano inside our room.
Any other type of 'artificial' illusion created by the loudspeakers and extended to/by/into the room...is just that...an illusive sound reproduction.
Nothing is perfect...nothing is real like the real thing.

 

[ddk]

So if one is a member of an extraordinarily small club, if one speaks Audiophilese, one understands it. If one is not a member of the club, if one does not speak Audiophilese, one does not get it. Um, OK.

Sadly, I guess, I'm not a club member. Steve did not limit his post to state merely that he enjoyed ddk's system more than any other he has experienced in a few decade's worth of being an audiophile. Again, why isn't that good enough? The fact of the matter is, he went further. He stated, in no uncertain terms, that ddk's system not only is the most *natural* he's experienced, but that anyone who would take the time to visit ddk would come away with the same feeling.

Well, I'm happy that Steve enjoyed his time with ddk. Sharing time with fellow music lovers is great. And I'm happy that ddk is kind enough that he would open his doors and share his labor of love with Steve.

But what am I supposed to do with Steve's contention? Take it on faith? Is that what being an Audiophile is... faith? Or, heaven forbid, is it a sin to ask, as Amir has done, is there something more? Will Amir (and I) be admitted into the Audiophile heaven in the sky, not by insisting one rejects his/her faith, but instead by asking one to acknowledge it as such, to acknowledge one's own boundary, by asking one to know where the tip of one's nose is?

Look, I've spent more hours listening to music with Steve over the last 15 or so years than perhaps any other WBF member, save Marty. I've got a pretty good handle on what kind of sound Steve enjoys, be it gear, genres, favorite artists, or storage formats. I know to a reasonable degree of audiophile certainty what is (are) his favorite flavor(s).

And so what? Steve can't evolve, learn or change or have a desire for a more "Natural" sound? Who stopped Amir from posting or disagreed with he said about the nature of recordings?

So now, guess what? I have a different favorite flavor. So now I guess I post on WBF that my favorite flavor (which is, of course, based on the sum total of all of my experiences which I described hereinabove) is, to be (to use ddk's terminology), more natural.

If I'm going to state it as a fact, which at least some members here have done, then I'm going beyond the tip of my nose. Facts are pesky little things.

I haven't seen any facts, pesky or otherwise to disprove Steve's comments besides your mention of past personal history with him, are you alluding that he can't be a qualified jude of "Natural" sound based on that past? Why should anyone get upset over your personal preference? Like whatever you want and pick your flavor, "Natural" or otherwise. You haven't even heard either one of the systems in question, what is the basis of your contention here besides old listening sessions with Steve?

And, ddk, please, spare me. I do have contempt, contempt of arrogance, lack of humility and intellectual dishonesty. If you don't care for my observations, don't read them. Indeed, blocking members (me) will set you free. Please do so forthwith.

Of course, but not your own! Blocking is unnecessary and for children, I simply mentioned it before to avoid getting into it with you but now, what I really want to know is where do you get off condescending and putting people down this way? Is there a relevance between your personal comments and the OP or contemptuous is your natural (pun intended) state of being?

david

PS. Feel free to block me!

 

[amirm]

Natural sound for me is very simple; it is live, it is in the moment. Any other type of sound reproduction is just that, an "unnatural sound" reproduction...even if it sounds spooky naturally real. Please please please let's all give ourselves a peaceful break and accept all the natural sounds in life. :b

Well said Bob.

Let's have whatever last words people want to get it and then say goodbye to this thread/debate....

 

[NorthStar]

Hey thx Amir! :b

<> EDIT: A sound reproduction (music recording) can sound "natural" too...as natural as the microphones, recording machine, studio recording venue, mixing console, concert hall avenue, recording techniques, ...through our gear and loudspeakers would allow it to be.

*** I would live to listen to David's system...some LPs...and those speakers. ...I have a very strong feeling that the sound reproduction of some of those music recordings contain enough "natural sound" capture to be reproduced with naturalism...bordering on realism.
...And Mike Lavigne's system too, and Steve Williams' system as well. ...And many many other WBF members.
{My own system is crap...I just love the music ? mainly.}

Where is the best "natural sound" of all the best sound systems of the world? ...Most likely in Italy...Rome perhaps. ...Or in Germany...in some castle of the Black Forest. ...Or...

 

[Gregadd]

B\Blacks Law Dictionary
The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in the cases where it is used in op position to the term "legal;" and then it means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguish- ed from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than to the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions. Natural affection. Such as naturally subsists between near relatives, as a father aud child, brother and sister, husband and wife. This is regarded in law as a good consideration.



Law Dictionary: What is NATURAL? definition of NATURAL (Black's Law Dictionary)

 

[Al M.]

OK, let me quote Steve in entirety (emphasis mine):


Is he not saying natural= as real as it gets? Where did he get the real part? Real was never fed into your system. What was fed was a recording.

I agree, this comment was problematic, even if it was just the result of enthusiasm.

 

[rockitman]

My system sounds natural.
Do I need to prove that assertion with some objective measurement ?

 

[Al M.]

My system sounds natural.
Do I need to prove that assertion with some objective measurement ?

Natural as in entirely natural? That is quite a statement. I have never heard a system that sounds entirely natural. I have heard systems that sound more natural than others, or at best "quite natural".

 

[steve williams]

I agree, this comment was problematic.

In retrospect I can certainly agree as well. As real as it gets is still not real but rather realistic but rather than parsing words for the sake of argument let me try to explain what I heard......

First off there was nothing to analyze. There was nothing rolled nor was there a bloated bottom end or blurred mid range. I was not stopping to analyze anything which for me has been something I have all too commonly found myself doing with most system I hear including my own. Everything IMO was perfect and the way it was meant. There was low noise floor huge soundstage with depth beyond anything I've ever heard. The sound was here, it was there, it was everywhere and it was all the same in every place. There was no sweet spot. You could lie on your back on an exercise ball at the back of the room and hear virtually the same as the person sitting in the chair. There was ease of presentation. I wasn't forced to think about succussion splashes against my abdomen with every bass assault. Rather I felt I was in the night club with the singer or at the small venue with the jazz band or in a huge outdoor stadium listening to a loud rock group. With speakers that have 115 Db efficiency it was easy to not only see the lips of the singers but at times I thought I felt the phonation of their uvula. When guitars played the resonance from the strings literally caused small vibrations on my arms as if I were sitting that close. There was a large sub far in the front of the room that you don't even know it is there powered by an old Lamm ML 1.0. David has the same electronics as I and I was amazed that when he played albums to which I was familiar and at a level that I played at position 12-14 on my preamp, he is playing it at 2-3 on the same preamp. The timbre and resonance brought goose bumps to my skin when I listened to Oistrakh play the Hindemith. Simply put I had never heard anything as profound as that in my life.

Is it a different flavor...of course

and as Ron states these are just my opinion and my $0.02 and don't go beyond the tip of my nose

I apologize to everyone about being so taken in by a sound system that in my zeal I mentioned "as real as it get"

I hope that my short synopsis of my personal thoughts weren't smeared by the zeal within which I stated them

 

[rockitman]

Natural as in entirely natural? That is quite a statement. I have never heard a system that sounds entirely natural. I have heard systems that sound more natural than others, or at best "quite natural".

I consider one media more natural than the other...namely analog playback is more natural sounding (to my ears) than digital. Yes, my system does sound natural to me....and that is all that matters.