"Natural" Sound

[853guy]

I wish you were being subjective. Throughout this thread I have encouraged using subjective terminology like you really enjoyed the sound. That is subjective. No measurement can eek out that sentence.

Enjoyment is completely able to be measured. Unfortunately, I’m only going to repeat what I’ve said before: Pupil dilation, dopamine receptor activity, heart rate, blood pressure and galvanic skin response are all measurable and indicative of how a person is feeling.

That’s totally different from someone reporting they’re enjoying themselves. That is subjective, of course, and is socio-culturally contextualized depending on many psychological and environmental factors and prone to misidentification/deception/delusion. Nevertheless, whether a person’s brain and body are experiencing enjoyment can be measured objectively, in spite of the person being able to identify and describe the emotions thier body/brain is experiencing, or not.

No, what you are trying to do is actually being objective and technical. A term like "harmonic structure" is term that utilizes technical terms, "harmonic" and "structure." We are desperately trying to add objective support to our listening observation as to make them be more correct. So we have created these terms without ever understanding what they mean.

Was it me who introduced the term “harmonic structure” into this thread, or you? (Hint: It wasn’t me.)

If I were a musicologist, I might say that “harmonic structure” has a very definite meaning, related to the last four centuries of western musical composition apropos the use of simultaneously sounded tones in chords, the construction of chord sequences, the function of chords in establishing tonal organization, and the relationship between harmonic and melodic organization. If I were an auditory neuroscientist, “harmonic structure” would relate to pitch and how periodic sounds (waveforms with repeated patterns or “motivs”) will always only have Fourier spectra consisting soley of harmonics of the fundamental. If I were buying a new PRS, “harmonic structure” would relate to the way the guitar produces individual tones relative to the number of harmonics present at different frets of the neck and how the guitar behaves modally as a whole. Again, it would have a very definite meaning.

If it lacks definite meaning to you, then that’s fine. I feel pretty happy with my understanding of it thus far, but feel free to enlighten me.

You want to be subjective, be subjective. Don't attempt to use objective terminology without any real meaning. In some sense, I would take the use of natural way, way ahead of these terms. At least that word is not trying to be overly technical like "microdynamics."

Be yourselves. Don't try to use objective terms which have nothing to do with objective evaluation of audio. I mean even subjectivists must get tired of reading for the thousands time that some system had great microdynamics, blacker background, etc. What do you get out of the same accolades over and over again? Is there such a desperate need to look like the other camp by using these technical sounding terms???

I don’t have desperate need for anything, other than to post my thoughts relative to my experience, provide a (limited) perspective on the topic under consideration which may change at any given time, hope that it won’t offend anyone, without being forced into a false choice decision to be in a “camp” that is socio-culturally precscribed and generally misused by people who are unable or unwilling to enter into a discussion without recourse to labelling others with gross generalizations and partisan divisiveness.

On reflection - given my post count stands at a lofty one-hundred and forty-eight - I don’t even have a desperate need to do that.

 

[PeterA]

That is why I said we have had this long thread because you all think it means something, and I am saying it means nothing.

Amir, you are a moderator and co founder of this forum. You are not the last authority on all subjective terms used to describe the sound of audio systems.

And you even contradict your own words. Here you say it means "nothing", and elsewhere you say it means that one is enjoying the system and that he likes it. It can not be both, and many here don't think it means any of those things.

We may simply have to accept the notion that we disagree on this subject and move on.

BTW, I have enjoyed systems that I don't think sound natural. A few digital sourced systems fall into this category. And I once heard an incredibly loud digital system full of distortion that sounded just like the live amplified band I heard two hours later at the same venue. They sounded very similar. The system sounded natural in the sense that it was realistic like that awful band, but my ears hurt listening to both and neither was enjoyable.

Remember, my contention is that a few systems SOUND natural. That does not mean they are natural in the same way that the sound of an actual instrument is natural.

 

[bonzo75]

How could I make my system more 'natural' ?
I asked DDK for the suggestions he made in respect of another posters system , genuine question.
Keith.

Get some valves with the Cessaros for a start.

 

[Bill Hart]

Sorry about the winning an argument bit, not what I intended, how about counter argument or response, no offense intended, just fast posting and not taking proper time.

Let me preface that it is what sounds good to you or me in the end that matters. Now, we all come at this hobby from slightly different experiences and ear/brain interfaces. For me, stereo never sounds natural, unless as I said if go down the hall and into another room, where now all the cues of "natural" are all muddied up and therefore I can be fooled that there is a live event down the other room since there are no "natural" cues (such as timing, reverb, vision, physical sensation, etc left but just some sort of "Sound".

However, as far as whats heard in the room, I think pretty much most audiophiles do not have rooms that get out of the way from the signals the speakers are putting out. Mine does not indeed and I know it. However, WAF rules and I am OK with the illusion presented as I have tone controls on my preamp and level controls on my speakers and I just played with them over time until I got what I wanted in the sweet spot.

Now, however, if I were to dedicate a room to sound, then I would want the room to get out of the way as much as possible, and that could involve passive stuff stuck around the room and or electronic eq. I do shoot for detailed sound as much as possible (that's what I listen for, not width and depth as stereo presents a certain artificiality that well, sound artificial to my ears. But, if we have huge bass modes, then we are stomping all over the midrange and a result the clarity and details that turn me on when listening to music. Soundstage in terms of width is something that I can appreciate in stereo but never does it sound "natural" to my ears.

In short, while of course the recording is the start of the "detail" in the sound, a bass heavy room is going to make the bass louder than it needs to be and therefore acoustically it can take away from other frequencies as Amir pointed out, or emphasize depending if we are increasing or decreasing a certain set of frequencies at any one point. While I don't believe the mix engineer is the final arbiter of good sound, I would like my system to start out as accurate to the source as possible then let my play with it from there as suits me. For example, while I love SET sound, there are many versions of it, some sound clearer than others, and still have the SET effect, I choose the clearer sounding SET effect.

As for EQ, when I listen to my different headphones, typically all electronic EQ is off, and I select the EQ I want by choosing the headphone that best allows me to hear the details I want to hear depending on the genre of music I am going to listen to.

Tom, I find it difficult to disagree with anything you said. How we 'get there' and the markers each of us use to determine that may be different. I wonder if, in person, you and I (or any other two people from the different "schools") would really have much disagreement about the final "product" (the combination of all the variables, from qualities of a particular piece of source material through the gear its performance in a particular room). Analyzing the why of it is a different matter, as is how we describe what we are hearing. I also think we (all?) agree that we are trying to create an illusion that is far from perfect at best. Thanks for responding.
bill hart

 

[amirm]

Enjoyment is completely able to be measured.

So I can play two different systems and measure your level of enjoyment of one versus the other? I don't think so but I am willing to be persuaded. Who all agrees with this and can provide some example measurements?

 

[amirm]

We may simply have to accept the notion that we disagree on this subject and move on.

I suggested that but you specifically protested that the thread stay open so you can keep going. Here we are.

BTW, I have enjoyed systems that I don't think sound natural.

That's not what I asked you about. You said: ""Natural" does not mean "I like it" or "it makes me feel good"." So please give examples of natural systems that you did not like and let's see if there is consensus around that with the membership.

 

[amirm]

The concept of "naturalness", applied to sound, is interesting enough to attract scholars research. This quote comes from the F. Toole book "Sound Reproduction"

When Klippel analyzed the factors that contributed to the perception of
“naturalness,” one of the general measures of quality, he found the following:

¦ 30% was related to inappropriate discoloration (sound quality).
¦ 20% was related to inappropriate brightness (which is explained as a
70% excess of treble and 30% lack of low frequencies).
¦ 50% was associated with the “feeling of space.”

That's right. When you use non-specific, and non-technical lay terms, we wind up having to try to tease out the real meaning. If you say you are an expert in how some system sounds then you should learn to use to the specific terms like the list above. If the system sounds unnatural to you because it has distortion, then say it had distortion. Don't say it was unnatural because I then have to guess as to which of many things may have led you to say that. The list is indeed what I suggested earlier as the specific remarks that you could make that would have real meaning.

I like to hear what is wrong with using proper terms and specific references that convey without ambiguity what you mean about the sound of a system.

Just now Peter says he heard a digital system that was unnatural. Which one of the above factors led to that? If you can't say that then I am afraid your analysis is not proper.

 

[Steve williams]

Subjective, noooooooooooooo.
I would be interested to hear the suggestions that DDK made to Steve's ? system ?
KR Keith.

It's in my system blog. Why don't you look for it

 

[Diapason]

That's not what I asked you about. You said: ""Natural" does not mean "I like it" or "it makes me feel good"." So please give examples of natural systems that you did not like and let's see if there is consensus around that with the membership.

You really want to have this every which way, don't you? It may indeed be the case that "natural" implies "I like it", but it doesn't follow then that "I like it" implies "natural". This is not an isomorphism. I know you understand this, Amir, so I feel compelled to ask: what are you now trying to achieve here? I'm still not clear why it bothers you so much that some people use the word and it means something to them. Is it purely that the meaning isn't 100% well-defined? If so, fine, I think we're all in agreement.

I like to hear what is wrong with using proper terms and specific references that convey without ambiguity what you mean about the sound of a system.

Just now Peter says he heard a digital system that was unnatural. Which one of the above factors led to that? If you can't say that then I am afraid your analysis is not proper.

Once again, it looks like you're trying to dictate the exact way in which we interact here. Frankly, I don't care what you "like to hear" in terms of descriptions of audio equipment, and I can't imagine why the rest of us should stop using whatever language we want merely to ensure that we fall into your preferred framework. For what it's worth, I like to see threads that aren't littered with references to Toole, but we can't always get what we want.

Is it your hope that we all say "you're right, Amir, we erred in using the word 'natural' to describe audio"? Is that the goal? The way I see it, there are plenty of people here who continue to claim that they find the word useful. If I may borrow the phrase that has been used a couple of times upthread: why isn't that good enough?

 

[amirm]

You really want to have this every which way, don't you? It may indeed be the case that "natural" implies "I like it", but it doesn't follow then that "I like it" implies "natural".

You are actually making the same point I did to Peter. It was him that tried to give an example of a system that he liked but was unnatural. That question was not asked. The question that was asked is if a system is said to be natural, in which cases the person did not like it.

I have heard these accolades many times and as far as I can tell, it is just superfluous words to say the same thing as they had a wonderful time there. It is an effort to add meat to the review but in reality it says no more.

 

[microstrip]

That's right. When you use non-specific, and non-technical lay terms, we wind up having to try to tease out the real meaning. If you say you are an expert in how some system sounds then you should learn to use to the specific terms like the list above. If the system sounds unnatural to you because it has distortion, then say it had distortion. Don't say it was unnatural because I then have to guess as to which of many things may have led you to say that. The list is indeed what I suggested earlier as the specific remarks that you could make that would have real meaning.

I like to hear what is wrong with using proper terms and specific references that convey without ambiguity what you mean about the sound of a system.

Just now Peter says he heard a digital system that was unnatural. Which one of the above factors led to that? If you can't say that then I am afraid your analysis is not proper.

No Amir. The subjective concept of "natural" is so important people debate it seriously. BTW, I have enough of your argumentation "If you say your are ..." to change the direction of the debate.

No one says using proper objective terms is wrong. What we say is that they are not enough to fully describe some systems performance and although not very precise natural is a good descriptor for specific purposes. And please do not distort Peter sayings taking them out of context.

 

[amirm]

Once again, it looks like you're trying to dictate the exact way in which we interact here. Frankly, I don't care what you "like to hear" in terms of descriptions of audio equipment, and I can't imagine why the rest of us should stop using whatever language we want merely to ensure that we fall into your preferred framework. For what it's worth, I like to see threads that aren't littered with references to Toole, but we can't always get what we want.

This is why I wanted to close the thread .

I am making the comments because the question was asked by Ron in the first post. If you don't want to hear my answers then you should not read them, or question me about them.

I reported that I found that Steve's system playing vinyl sounded very "natural." As our self-designated hyperbole and introspection control policeman am I guilty of hyperbole when I describe a system's sound as "natural"?

What do we mean by "natural" when we say an audio system sounds "natural"? Does natural have any inherent, determinate, generally accepted meaning? Or when we use the word "natural" are we, as usual, simply expressing our subject preference for smooth, warmish and non-fatiguing sound as opposed to detailed and analytical sound?

Doesn't describing reproduced music as "natural" simply beg the question "natural as compared to what?" and circle us back to the fundamental question of the hobby: are we seeking to recreate an original musical event or are we seeking to recover with as little adulteration as possible what is on the master tape?

How do we know if something sounds natural? And how do we know if one type of sound is more natural than another type of sound?

Is "natural" a sonic attribute on a continuum which begins on one end at "completely unnatural" and ends on the other at "completely natural"? How can sound become more natural?

So does "natural" mean anything clear and knowable, or is it simply another word we use to describe something completely subjective and which is not susceptible of any ubiquitous understanding?

I did not create a thread demanding that you all say or not say anything. Ron asked a wonderful question, as a person in your camp, whether usage of such terms is appropriate. A bunch of you have said it is, and I have said that to me, they read like the same thing as heavily enjoying the experience.

Do you have answers to his questions??? Do you think he is dictating something bad to you?

 

[andromedaaudio]

You cant measure beauty you cant measure natural , to me this whole discussion seems point less , the only way one could defeat the other in the argument is to listen to both each others systems and then make up your mind

 

[Diapason]

You are actually making the same point I did to Peter. It was him that tried to give an example of a system that he liked but was unnatural. That question was not asked. The question that was asked is if a system is said to be natural, in which cases the person did not like it.

I have heard these accolades many times and as far as I can tell, it is just superfluous words to say the same thing as they had a wonderful time there. It is an effort to add meat to the review but in reality it says no more.

So if I like a system, but I don't find it natural, I would generally say "I like this system, but I don't find it natural". A system that I do like, and that also sounds "natural" to my ears, has a quality (or set of qualities) that I refer to as natural. To that end, "natural" is not the same as "I had a wonderful time there". You can twist it whichever way you want, but the point being made repeatedly is that natural != I like it. Incidentally, Quad 57s are often described as having a very "natural" midrange, and while I can hear the point being made, I don't like the sound from Quad 57s. Does that help?

Now, I would love to be having a conversation about the quality or set of qualities that allows us to use the term "natural", but to get that far, 40 pages later, would require an agreement that a word can have usefulness and meaning even if it's not scientifically defined. It seems we're a long way from that.

 

[Steve williams]

You cant measure beauty you cant measure natural , to me this whole discussion seems point less , the only way one could defeat the other in the argument is to listen to both each others systems and then make up your mind

I have said that all along

YOU MUST LISTEN!!!

I described what I heard at David's house and encouraged others to do the same. Sadly this has become another one of those threads where we subjectivists are being forced to cower but this is not happening here. I guess we are all nuts and only one is correct. Happy Monday everyone

Go hear his system and then let's talk because for someone to tell us we are all crazy is just not going to sit well with the majority of the readers of this thread who feel there is meaning in the word natural when applied to an audio system

 

[amirm]

So if I like a system, but I don't find it natural, I would generally say "I like this system, but I don't find it natural". A system that I do like, and that also sounds "natural" to my ears, has a quality (or set of qualities) that I refer to as natural. To that end, "natural" is not the same as "I had a wonderful time there". You can twist it whichever way you want, but the point being made repeatedly is that natural != I like it. Incidentally, Quad 57s are often described as having a very "natural" midrange, and while I can hear the point being made, I don't like the sound from Quad 57s. Does that help?

There you go again talking about liking a system that is *not* natural. No one is discussing the situation where the term natural is NOT used. We are discussing where it is used that doesn't imply simply that there was great enjoyment.

And no your example does not qualify. You are saying a subset of the system, the midrange, had natural sound but presumably the rest did not. So once again I am not asking whether a partial-natural system is likable. I am asking for examples of finding a completely natural system to not be likable.

 

[Steve williams]

So because we like a system it must be natural and if we don't like a system it is not natural. IOW we only like systems that are natural ??????

 

[andromedaaudio]

As i said before if david wouldnt live so far away i would be surely asking him for a visit , not in the least to hear what older technology does bring to the table.
I suggest amir should take a listen to davids system , and then report because without it this discussion will continue lightyears form now

 

[amirm]

I have said that all along

YOU MUST LISTEN!!!

I described what I heard at David's house and encouraged others to do the same. Sadly this has become another one of those threads where we subjectivists are being forced to cower but this is not happening here. I guess we are all nuts and only one is correct. Happy Monday everyone

Go hear his system and then let's talk because for someone to tell us we are all crazy is just not going to sit well with the majority of the readers of this thread who feel there is meaning in the word natural when applied to an audio system

But we can't all go to his house Steve. The purpose of writing a review is to inform of us as to what was heard instead of being there.

And no one remotely has said anyone is crazy. On the contrary. I have said repeatedly that the word says you had an incredible time there. And that is what you said in one of your first posts. The argument seems to be with folks wanting it to mean something technical and specific.

Anyway, I suggested we close the thread many pages back. We should have taken that opportunity before yet another thread like this has become personal. I will go ahead and leave it for good this time.

 

[Diapason]

The argument seems to be with folks wanting it to mean something technical and specific.

Despite repeated comments that this is not what we mean.