"Natural" Sound
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
- Status
Did you guys read what Keith just said above? ...The best loudspeaker is crossover free...for the most natural transition.
If we are using crossovers with our speakers, tuning ports, phase corrected, treble...midrange...bass controls, cables that are neutral and transparent, spikes, elevated wires, porcelain cups, isolating platforms for our amps, diamond rings under our AC purifiers, ... how natural all that stuff truly is or is it simply to EQ our sound so that it is acceptably pleasing in preference?
Also, are the best systems and rooms closer to 'natural sound' than less expensive ones in beautiful rooms but not acoustically treated?
And, can we treat our electronics including our mechanical loudspeakers to resemble a more natural sound?
And last but not least; which music recordings are truly natural sounding? ...Can we buy them...all of us...are they exclusive or accessible to all?
And how important the role money plays in all of that?
What's the link between state-of-the-art and extravaganza? ...Which is more natural sounding and who and what's playing from what type of playback machine...source?
How much worst digital is to analog?
Who has the best set of ears?
Who has the best (natural) sounding album?
If we go to a classical music concert hall with full orchestra and Opera singers...how close to natural sounding are we when sitting in the row 'G'?
...Or 'F'? ...Or 'H'? ...Near center.
Completely agree, after I have heard what digital room corection can do, at an event by Linn (of turntable fame) at Goodwin's High End:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18596-Linn-event-at-Goodwin-s-digital-room-optimization
Amir: would you care to address the question i put to you and Tom in the first paragraph of #304 (which I reposted in #328)?
Separate from that, you seem to be saying that any sonic artifacts imposed by the electronics in digital room correction are of less significance than the result in measured performance, as validated by listener polling or studies (or alternatively, that there are no such sonic artifacts, based on measurements and listener polling). I know Avantgarde, who make the horn system I use, has now gone to digital room correction and electronic crossovers for their latest line of products, which I have not heard. My (older) Avantgarde (Duo) has no Xover whatsoever between the amp and midrange horn, which runs its full range. (The other drivers do have crossovers, including an active woofer system which I have always found tricky to blend with the character of the horns- there I could see some value in room correction, but I'd be loathe to mess with the midrange to use David's parlance).
I'm going to put an unadulterated plug for myself here; you're partially correct 853guy in your assessment regarding some vintage components but that's only part of it, setup is the other half of the equation. You can change, make or break a system through setup as much as through the components, if not more. When I visited Steve the only thing we worked on aside from setting up his table was his setup and that's how his sound changed from what it was towards "Natural" transforming his listening experience and not changing the system. He continues to improve his sound by himself; more "Natural", by tweaking the setup more than we had time for.
david
I agree that set up is extremely important to listener satisfaction. This is the whole premise behind Jim Smith's RoomPlay set up sessions. He does his thing with whatever equipment the customer has. He essentially optimizes the customer's system to his room and it makes all the difference. The goal is an emotional connection to the music. The result with my system was that it sounded much more natural after Jim's visit, to me, in my opinion, etc. etc.
No, I am trying to do my best to avoid it
. Your question hugely increases the topic of discussion and the last thread we on that made a bunch of people super upset. Here, our main business is to keep digging into the meaning of the word "natural." I will say one thing though: I care next to nothing about correctness of time. If that is important in loudspeakers, the designer needs to have dealt with it. I am not going to use DSP to change that.
No, you can do serious damage with room EQ. Not all of them are created equally. You would have to do careful AB testing to make sure it gives subjective improvement. The ear is critical in that. Unfortunately mass market EQ systems don't make that easy or possible and without it, I usually turn them off.
I sympathize with that. I can appreciate that someone who avoids digital systems would not want to stick an ADC and DAC in the path especially in midrange. I respect the choice to avoid DSP in that regard.
My ask is to consider it for bass region where it does most good and any artifacts are simply inaudible compared to the good it can do.
I am not Amir, but I can say equivocally yes, after what I have heard at the Linn Event (see my previous post).
The midrange incredibly improved by digital room correction as well (see my report of the Linn event). The funny thing is that there the correction was just in the bass!
EDIT: Just saw that I cross-posted with Amir.
I can tell you what the measurements reveal , that above 300hz , the measured curve of my speakers is pretty good at listening position , below that some shocking bass artefacts...but they are not all room driven , the wild variances are also partially due to 2 subs being plonked down without proper calibration.
In essence my correction is really only radical below the schroeder freq..as it should be.
I do do a full freq correction and that is mainly to equalise both speakers individually.
At an rate , uncorrected the bass has no definition , little slam and a huge lf one note hump , it also masks all other freqs
corrected bass is tight and tuneful , perhaps a little overblown level wise , but it sounds wonderful , mids and treble improve radically.
What it doesnt show is the dynamic ability of the system , its amazing 3d staging and imaging and the "musicality" of the system or its ability to present what the artist intended , the microdynamics and so on..
The graphics show very little as to the true sound of the system...
As to predicted vs actual response , its a bit of a mission for me to change to REW and have the mic in the exact position , which I did do .. very close to the green ..
If you have never used modern DRC in the low bass, you should, there is really no downside and a zillion upsides
I am awaiting delivery of another 2 subs to further smooth the bass , A swarm system...
In essence my correction is really only radical below the schroeder freq..as it should be.
I do do a full freq correction and that is mainly to equalise both speakers individually.
At an rate , uncorrected the bass has no definition , little slam and a huge lf one note hump , it also masks all other freqs
corrected bass is tight and tuneful , perhaps a little overblown level wise , but it sounds wonderful , mids and treble improve radically.
What it doesnt show is the dynamic ability of the system , its amazing 3d staging and imaging and the "musicality" of the system or its ability to present what the artist intended , the microdynamics and so on..
The graphics show very little as to the true sound of the system...
As to predicted vs actual response , its a bit of a mission for me to change to REW and have the mic in the exact position , which I did do .. very close to the green ..
If you have never used modern DRC in the low bass, you should, there is really no downside and a zillion upsides
I am awaiting delivery of another 2 subs to further smooth the bass , A swarm system...
Thank you Amir. That was very informative and that plot explains much about what we might expect his system to sound like. Do you think it tells us everything, or would some subjective terms help to complete the description of what his system sounds like? I think we have discussed in the past that such a plot can not tell us everything.
I wonder what a frequency response graph taken at seat G22 in Boston Symphony Hall would look like. And how would it differ from one taken in the center seat, first row of the first balcony? I presume they are not as ideal as some of those target curves. And they effect how the instruments sound. Could we describe the sound of a performance through measurements alone? I hardly think so. I would like to know additional information that might come from the use of those "pretend terms."
I heard a cello overload a 20X30 room once. I was sitting right in a room node and when he played certain notes, the bass bump was very noticeable. And yet, that cello sounded very natural to me in a room that I'm sure would not measure that well.
I guess I could not really convey what it sounded like with out showing you an actual frequency plot.
I agree this is not all semantics. I do not think this is a nihilistic exercise.
Words are useful only to the extent they help us to distinguish certain things from other things. I think it is interesting and worthwhile to explore whether we can arrive at meaningful and useful definitions of terms which do have have inherently clear meaning.
Words are useful only to the extent they help us to distinguish certain things from other things. I think it is interesting and worthwhile to explore whether we can arrive at meaningful and useful definitions of terms which do have have inherently clear meaning.
Thank-you, thoughtful and sympathetic to my views, which are always being refined, in part by what I learn from others.No, I am trying to do my best to avoid it
I will say one thing though: I care next to nothing about correctness of time. If that is important in loudspeakers, the designer needs to have dealt with it. I am not going to use DSP to change that.
No, you can do serious damage with room EQ. Not all of them are created equally. You would have to do careful AB testing to make sure it gives subjective improvement. The ear is critical in that. Unfortunately mass market EQ systems don't make that easy or possible and without it, I usually turn them off.
I sympathize with that. I can appreciate that someone who avoids digital systems would not want to stick an ADC and DAC in the path especially in midrange. I respect the choice to avoid DSP in that regard.
My ask is to consider it for bass region where it does most good and any artifacts are simply inaudible compared to the good it can do.
- This is a separate matter, I'm not arguing that better in room bass response isn't desirable but that end result of digital EQ won't sound "Natural". Here's what I said;
"IME digital EQ is the furthest thing from "Natural" as argued by us here. Eq'ing a system has nothing to do with the room, you're only messing around with the system's frequency response"
- "Room correction, when done properly……" Room correction is a misnomer to begin and none of this article is relevant to my comment on digital EQ in reference to "Natural" sound.
- Dampening is but one way, there are other methods to change the room's qualities, I agree that the end result shouldn't be dead.
- There's no point in arguing in circles, for example you look at an ordinary room differently that I do. For me an ordinary room means fewer issues and is a good thing. We both accept that good bass response is important but we have different methods for getting it because our end value and definition for better isn't the same. What I've defined as better i.e., "Natural" IMO can't be achieved with digital EQ. You should understand and accept my "Natural" first then show me where I'm wrong, but don't ignore it.
david
We have an entire thread where we took the position that "natural" is a lay term that has little insight coming with it. Now you are saying I have to accept that descriptor to have a meaning??? It has no meaning. I don't know what it means to have natural bass in your mind. I do know what is correct bass when I create it and a bunch of people in a listening test give it thumbs up. And I can correlate that with measurements of the same. Naturally
, remedies fall out of that, i.e. correcting the response.Natural as a term of enjoyment or good feeling about a system doesn't yield any analysis or response.
Yep, and if we are talking about the same speaker, that one hasn't gone to the digital X over, room correction versions yet. I think those speakers are effectively the end of the line for that model.
We have an entire thread where we took the position that "natural" is a lay term that has little insight coming with it. Now you are saying I have to accept that descriptor to have a meaning??? It has no meaning. I don't know what it means to have natural bass in your mind. I do know what is correct bass when I create it and a bunch of people in a listening test give it thumbs up. And I can correlate that with measurements of the same. Naturally
Natural as a term of enjoyment or good feeling about a system doesn't yield any analysis or response.
You can have ten more threads, that's just your position not mine Amir. You have a thumbs up for one sound vs another, that's all, it quantifies nothing at all.
"Correct" is just another lay word, what does it mean anyway? What do you mean by creating it, don't you have correct bass, whatever that is? Do you have a measured and universally accepted recording of this "correct"? Shall we start a "correct" thread and see how much correction we're going to have? What meaningful analysis or response does "correct" and thumbs up bring to the table?
I can go on but you get the point. It doesn't take much to be dismissive and I can play the game just as well as anyone else here
!david
Ok, here's a question to all: One of my friends the other day said to me; "Bob, I like my women au naturel".
What did he mean by that..."au naturel" ?
* And please, don't draw any comparison of naturel women with "natural sound", ...just don't.
...Now go ahead, give it your best shot. :b
What did he mean by that..."au naturel" ?
* And please, don't draw any comparison of naturel women with "natural sound", ...just don't.
...Now go ahead, give it your best shot. :b
- Status
Similar threads
