"Natural" Sound

[Ron Party]

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?



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?

david

Last time I checked, Steve was an adult. He doesn't need me to tell him he's perfectly free to evolve, learn or change or have a desire for whatever he believes to be a, there it is again, *more natural*, sound. I haven't read anyone get upset about his personal preference, so I've no idea what the heck it is you're posting about. I certainly didn't. Amir didn't. We both genuinely hope he can find as much satisfaction from his, your, and anyone else's system as is humanly possible. I bet your system is extremely fun. From Steve's account, it is exactly that.

But what is the basis of my contention? And disprove Steve's opinion? Opinion? Seriously? Wow! Am I reading Fox News On Line?

Exactly what contention is that? Insofar as I can recall, I've made two: (1) the OP contains a false dichotomy and caricatures when, in the asking of the question itself, it contains 2 purportedly exhaustive and mutually exclusive definitions of *natural*; and (2) flavor choices are just that, taste, not facts. One's natural is another's unnatural. One's more natural is another's less natural. Is this really so hard to grasp?

I know Steve gets it. I can't even count the number of times he has quoted me with my use of the language "flavor choice". Steve even has has a few of his own pet expressions.

Well, now that I think about it, I've made a third contention, to-wit: Amir is spot on. Natural, more natural, call it what you wish, doesn't tell me anything about the sound, it just tells me one really enjoyed it. And so I've beat this dead horse more than once and I'm done.

Frantz, thanks for expressing your appreciation. You've got to PM me your latest address ... I'd love to send to you some more prog rock.

 

[steve williams]

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.

Now that I have been listening to essentially only vinyl for the past several months I have to concur. In retrospect I believe RonR who started this thread did so with the fact that he was only listening to vinyl at my house.

 

[microstrip]

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

Christian,

No, but just written in a short isolated sentence without context it has a very broad, even undefined meaning, particularly when it is written by the system's owner.

 

[microstrip]

A guess for educated readers. Who wrote the following sentence about discrete center channels? (less educated readers can use google )


"Listeners comparing a discrete center channel with a phantom center image
generated by a stereo pair in a normal room consistently rated the phantom
image higher in perceptual dimensions of width, elevation, spaciousness, envelopment,
and naturalness. In a situation where the discrete center sound was
unsupported by any sounds from other loudspeakers, this is consistent with
expectations."

 

[Al M.]

In retrospect I can certainly agree as well.

Fair enough, Steve.

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

Thank you for this account. It makes it easier to appreciate how you felt the system sounded natural. By the way, I totally love Hindemith.

 

[Diapason]

I'll tell you one thing, as I sit here listening to Ann Sofie van Otter singing Grieg, I ask myself "does this sound natural?"

The answer is an emphatic...No.

So thanks everyone for reminding me!!

 

[ddk]

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. 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.

Come on Amir, would "realistic" solve the problem?

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.

What you say is true but he did go further than that and tell you what he liked about the system, if you have a problem with "Natural" as a descriptor is a different matter.

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.

We're coming at it from different directions and values. Personally, wether the system costs a $1000 or a $1,000,000 the first and only thing I care about is how "Natural" it sounds, the rest is immaterial for me. We can continue to define "Natural" if you like but I doubt that the terminology is your point of contention.

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.

So ask him to elaborate and describe further what he experienced if you're interested in what he has to say, why jump on him?

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?

Does it matter who's is bigger? What is being discussed is a value, i.e. "Natural" and what was the best system he's heard, what's wrong with that?

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?

There's always a weakness, its not mentioned because it didn't bother him or didn't notice it, either way it didn't his "Natural" experience.

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.

That's not how I read it, where is he negating the importance 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.

I'm not disputing the value and importance of the recording but it still has to be played back through systems which can and do vary in ability and nature. Why can't a system have "Natural" as a quality?

david

 

[microstrip]

I'll tell you one thing, as I sit here listening to Ann Sofie van Otter singing Grieg, I ask myself "does this sound natural?"

The answer is an emphatic...No.

So thanks everyone for reminding me!!

Curiously this recording can sound very natural in some systems. I use it as a test for naturalness - it has information enough to create the feeling of being a piano player, a real piano and a real singer playing in complicity in your room. The best I listened to it was in MBL 101's and the SoundLab's can approach it. See http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?13714-Avantgarde-Horn-Speakers&p=291854&viewfull=1#post291854

 

[Diapason]

It's one of my benchmarks ever since I heard it in a friend's system and thought it was the most convincingly natural recording of its ilk that I'd heard. That friend has identical speakers to my own, but in a much better room and, let's be frank, with better source and amps. Eye-opening in a way.

 

[steve williams]

Fair enough, Steve.



Thank you for this account. It makes it easier to appreciate how you felt the system sounded natural. By the way, I totally love Hindemith.

I do as well. On that occasion however I experienced the resonance of the strings on my arms and truly I got goose bumps which I have never felt while hearing it previously. Hence I said what I did

 

[PeterA]

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.

NorthStar, thank you for your post. It prompts me to clarify something. I think it may get to the heart of why those who like to use the term "natural" to describe the sound of a system are being so criticized and misunderstood in this thread:

I (and I think Steve, David, Al M. and others) never wrote that a system IS natural, I (we) wrote that a few systems, in my (our) experience, SOUND natural to me (us). There is a distinction and a difference.

 

[PeterA]

Natural, more natural, call it what you wish, doesn't tell me anything about the sound, it just tells me one really enjoyed it. And so I've beat this dead horse more than once and I'm done.

It tells me something about the sound. When someone tells me that a system sounds natural, it tells me that that person thinks it reminds him of the sound of real instruments being played in a real space. It tells me that person thinks the sound shares many traits with the sound of live unamplified instruments, namely: the system was not fatiguing, there was enough timbral accuracy that he could distinguish between and identify different instruments, the size, shape and scale of the reproduction reminded him of what he hears live, the system has believable dynamics, tone and presence. It tells me that he was able to suspend his disbelief. It tells me that the system did not sound artificial or highly distorted. It tells me that he thought the system sounded pretty real.

That's what it tells me, and that is roughly what I mean when I use that term to describe a system. But as I have written before, I have only heard a few systems achieve a natural sound, and only on certain recordings of certain types of music.

Never do I think that it simply means the person enjoyed the system, nor do I ever think that the person thinks he was actually listening to a live event or that the system reproduced exactly what is on the recording. Those are unfounded assumptions that people have made about those who use the term "natural".

 

[PeterA]

Well said Bob.

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

Someone once suggested that if a thread was not of interest to the reader, he should not read it. Why shut down the most active thread of the last few days? This is hardly as contentious as the digital/measurement/Regen thread in the science forum and that has well over 100 pages.

Forums, like college campuses, should be places for the free exchange of ideas. If people don't appreciate threads like this, they will stop posting in them and move on to other topics.

 

[Al M.]

NorthStar, thank you for your post. It prompts me to clarify something. I think it may get to the heart of why those who like to use the term "natural" to describe the sound of a system are being so criticized and misunderstood in this thread:

I (and I think Steve, David, Al M. and others) never wrote that a system IS natural, I (we) wrote that a few systems, in my (our) experience, SOUND natural to me (us). There is a distinction and a difference.

Yes, I have thought about that distinction too. However, while this thread was progressing I have beccome a bit more critical about the use of the word natural, as also expresed in my question to Rockitman about his system sounding natural.

I have looked back critically at my own posts and see some inconsistencies there too. In post # 3 I say:

A natural sounding system should be able to reproduce all those ranges of sounds, depending on the recording, and to some extent trick the listener into believing that s/he listens to real live music.

So here it is about the illusion, "to some extent trick the listener into believing that s/he listens to real live music".

Yet earlier in the same post I say:

In my view the term 'natural' can only be ascribed in reference to unamplified live music. A system that sounds natural can reproduce the sound of unamplified live music.

Well, if we take the second sentence literally, then no system sounds natural, because no system can precisely reproduce the sound of unamplified live music (as Amir and Tim have pointed out, that is not even possible from the way recordings are made).

Yet even if we grant that we may have the illusion of natural or realistic sound, then no system passes that test either. Yes, some recordings then can sound 'natural', but others just cannot, or not to the same extent -- to start with, even the largest speakers in a large room just cannot reproduce the sheer scale of an orchestra from front row 3 in a concert hall (yet strangely enough, in the back of the hall the actual size of the sound image becomes very small, while the power of the sound still may seem overwhelming).

***

So I am starting to think that I may take the side of those who say we should drop the term 'natural'. Perhaps the terms 'believable' or 'convincing' are better. Or as someone else said, if I remember correctly, it's hard to claim something sounds natural, but I sure know when something sounds unnatural.


EDIT: Peter, I just saw that, while I wrote this, you have written new posts yourself where you address some of my concerns, like when you say:

But as I have written before, I have only heard a few systems achieve a natural sound, and only on certain recordings of certain types of music.

 

[PeterA]

Now that I have been listening to essentially only vinyl for the past several months I have to concur. In retrospect I believe RonR who started this thread did so with the fact that he was only listening to vinyl at my house.

Steve, I know what you mean about vinyl. The owner of the best system that I have ever heard, and perhaps the most natural sounding system that I have ever heard, has also stopped listening to his digital source. I've compared the two in his system, and to me the digital sounded less accurate to the recording and much less natural than does his analog front end. But that is a topic for another discussion.

 

[Al M.]

Steve, I know what you mean about vinyl. The owner of the best system that I have ever heard, and perhaps the most natural sounding system that I have ever heard, has also stopped listening to his digital source. I've compared the two in his system, and to me the digital sounded less accurate to the recording and much less natural than does his analog front end. But that is a topic for another discussion.

While I agree about his system being the best I have heard as well, and that his vinyl beats any digital I have heard so far (I haven't heard the best yet), I also have to say that there were as yet unidentified problems with his digital set-up. My digital sounds better in my system than his digital did in his, at least in his latest set-up(s) -- and that's not just because his system is more resolving than mine, potentially revealing more flaws in digital. But as you say, that is a topic for another discussion.

In any case, I enjoy my digital immensely, even after having heard top vinyl playback.

 

[PeterA]

EDIT: Peter, I just saw that, while I wrote this, you have written new posts yourself where you address some of my concerns, like when you say:

But as I have written before, I have only heard a few systems achieve a natural sound, and only on certain recordings of certain types of music.

Hi Al, We have listened to lots of music together on three systems. When I tell you that I think the vinyl recording of my aunt Carla White singing "Love Came on Stealthy Fingers" sounds natural on MadFloyd's system or that a well recorded Mozart string quartet sounds natural on my system, or that CD of Elvis singing sounds natural on your system, do you know what I mean by that?

If you know what I mean when I use the term, then it is a useful term under certain circumstances, and I will continue to use it to describe the sound of certain systems when appropriate.

 

[Al M.]

Hi Al, We have listened to lots of music together on three systems. When I tell you that I think the vinyl recording of my aunt Carla White singing "Love Came on Stealthy Fingers" sounds natural on MadFloyd's system or that a well recorded Mozart string quartet sounds natural on my system, or that CD of Elvis singing sounds natural on your system, do you know what I mean by that?

If you know what I mean when I use the term, then it is a useful term under certain circumstances, and I will continue to use it to describe the sound of certain systems when appropriate.

Yes, Peter, I know exactly what you mean by that. Thus, I tend to agree with your second paragraph as well. We just have to be careful with how we use the term.


(Edit: spelling)

 

[Gregadd]

I posted on another thread humans respond quite differently to the same stimulus. The level of detail and absence of distortion required, varies from person to person.This does not mean there is no absolute.There certainly is. The thought of using music reproduction for anything more than a background distraction is foreign to some people. Others require the highest quality systems with their undivided attention. Some call this preference. Fortunately or unfortunately music playback systems and music reproduction are designed by the few for the many. Some of the many will be frustrated because their taste was nit adequately served. C'est la Vie.

 

[Rodney Gold]

So much discussion over semantics ....
does it sound good to to you or not...