"Natural" Sound
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
- Status
The methodology I picked was to take 10 audiophiles to listen to the system and see how many of them describe it as natural. Isn't that what you say these terms are good for? I routinely see people go to the same room at shows and come back with different impression of the same system in the same room.
Audiophiles accept these terms readily. I am not disputing that. Here Ron is asking us to self-examine if that is the right thing to do. Whether such conduct dabbles in hyperbole or it is descriptive to have meaning. I explained that the meaning it has is that the person has enjoyed the system as "natural" is a positive attribute in all of our minds. Beyond that, it simply does not convey anything specific. An example was given that it means the instruments sounded like real life and I explained how that is impossible. Do you have another specific definition you want to offer?
As to Steve's room, I have been to his old place but not new. I did however just come back from RMAF and post my subjective impression of a few rooms. I did not see any riots in streets over them.
Fortunately "sounding natural" conveys a lot to many people, as shown by this thread. I explained why there is not a clear definition and pointed a specific text and ways interested people can read about the subject. Why do you want to turn any thread in a court session if your opponent does not share your view ?
And sorry to say, your subjective impressions were so minimal and insipid that they were obfuscated by the very good pictures and interesting comments about the happening. No danger of riots at all ...
IMHO visual analogies will only confuse sound thinks are they do not apply directly. "Real" and "natural" can have different meaning in high-end, although as you say they tie to live unamplified music. We can have sound that due to several aspects - dynamics, timbre, lack of colorations, imaging, we find "real" and does not "sound natural". Again , when reading subjective opinions you have to know the writer - there is some variation on applying them. It is why I prefer reviewers with long careers that I know well.
That's a very nice quote, but in subjective reality of his mind, Cordesman finds "natural" and "real" in Wilson/ Pass or Wilson / Boulder. However, his colleagues Valin and Harley despise Wilson and find the subjective "natural" and "real" in Soulution/ Magico. Why not take all of their systems away for a while, send them to many live concerts, and then let them listen to these systems side by side?
I do not agree with your narrow minded and extreme readings of Valin and Harley preferences. BTW, the interesting part of reviews is not exactly what their final opinion, it is why they found it.
I agree with you on the latter part, but Valin and Harley have called Wilson not a "transparency to source" and not an "absolute sound" speaker, but as an "as you like it" speaker, which is a nice way to say that it is badly colored.
Not "perhaps" but for sure!!! We have put aside common sense, or put in a less insulting manner, lay understanding of how audio works. We absolutely do that and is necessary to do so to get to reality of the situation.
You are a doctor so these analogies should resonate with you. Common sense led to people thinking catch colds because of cold weather. Weather would get cold and a lot more people would catch cold. Common sense said that was the cause and effect. But as we know, the cold is caused by a virus and has nothing to do with temperature. The reason we see a lot more of it in winter is because we stay indoor more often and help spread the virus.
Common sense also told surgeons of early years that they did not need to wash their hands, nor sterilize their implements. They could not see the germs and assumed that nothing was there to harm the patient. It took the work of Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister to bring about the standards of washing their hands and tools. There was no common sense that led to getting rid of what could not be seen. It was proper research and science to override lay understanding.
Same is here. I remember hearing the story of a common audiophile acquaintance of both of us Steve, attending a session with my old colleague, "Prof." Keith Johnson of Reference Recording. There, Keith recorded a live session where everyone could hear it then, followed by how he produced a stereo track from it. He plays the final composition to the shock and horror of our friend here, where what he heard had little to do with what he had heard live. So he questioned Keith and he gave the same answer we have been giving: the goal of producing music is not to present a photocopy of the live session as heard by a person. Instead, the final recording is secondary art in the hands of skilled engineers, technicians and music lovers who create an enjoyable experience for us with no goal of recreating the reality of what was recorded.
We need to learn once and for all that we are handed a painting of live music, and not a photograph. Our only duty is to reproduce the best of what is recorded, not anything ahead of that. And even there, there can never be a goal of reproducing what was heard by the talent with different loudspeakers and room than ours. So while we could say something sounds "realistic" to us, we cannot say it is "real." Or that we know what a piano sounds like and all of a sudden, that makes us a judge of high fidelity. It is common sense to think that but absolutely wrong.
The sooner we accept this, the sooner we will be down the path of understanding audio reproduction. Until then, we are living in the domain of imagination and fantasy.
So yes, we do need to damn common sense. It is behind a ton of wrong beliefs we have in audio.
Keith- i said subjectively. i mean, you really need to understand that life and audio isn't about a FR curve always (despite giving you an objective impression just for you!).
when I talk about tonality, 99% of people on this forum understand what I mean. if you refuse to and instead act dumb, that's fine, but enough is enough. don't read reviews or anything people write except for a measurement section- but please stop doing the passive aggressive thing on others for using broadly accepted terms to describe sound reproduction.
My view? It is not my view. It is the view of the entire audio engineering and science. Here is Dr. Toole from his book which you have a copy of:
"The point here is that “reproduction does not really separate copies from
originals but instead results in the creation of a distinctive form of originality:
the possibility of reproduction transforms the practice of production” (Sterne,
2003, p. 220). Knowing that the production process will lead to a reproduction
liberates a new level of artistic creativity. Capturing the total essence of a “live”
event is no longer the only, or even the best, objective."
He quotes Glenn Gould saying:
"Pianist and famous Bach interpreter Glenn Gould much
preferred the control he could exercise in a recording studio to the pressures of
performing live. He would rather be remembered for “perfect” massively edited
recordings than, in his mind at least, imperfect, evanescent performances before
audiences. He went so far as to predict that “the public concert as we know it
A Philosophical Perspective today [will] no longer exist in a century hence, that its functions [will] have been
entirely taken over by electronic media” (Gould, 1966).
He goes on to nail the point thusly:
"During a recording, microphones can sample only a tiny portion of the
complex three-dimensional sound field surrounding musical instruments in a
performance space. What is captured is an incomplete characterization of the
source. During playback, a multichannel reproduction system can reproduce
only a portion of the complex three-dimensional sound fi eld that surrounds a
listener at a live performance. What is reproduced will be different from what
is heard at a live event.
Audiophile fans of “high culture” music have repeatedly expressed disappointment
that what they hear in their living rooms is not like a live concert,
implying that there is a crucial aspect of amplifi er or loudspeaker performance
that prevents it from happening. The truth is that no amount of refinement in
audio devices can solve the problem; there is no missing ingredient or tweak
that can, outside of the imagination, make these experiences seem real. The
process is itself fundamentally flawed in its extreme simplicity. The miracle is
that it works as well as it does. The “copy” is suffi ciently similar to the “original”
that our perceptual processes are gratified, up to a point, but the “copy” is not
the same as the “original.” Sterne (2003) explains that “at a very basic, functional
level, sound-reproduction technologies need a great deal of human assistance
if they are to work, that is, to ‘reproduce’ sound” (p. 246)."
Guys, this is really a simple concept and the logic if it super strong. We need to get past lay feelings about this and get on board. No amount of believing otherwise makes these notions we have true. Tell me that you have been to a dozen live concerts and then heard them in your home and they sounded the same and we can talk. Until then, no amount of insisting otherwise amounts to anything.
Of all the things we argue about, this one should be something we become unified on. I went there. I completely changed my mind and so have many others. Allow the message to sink in for just a moment.
Hi Amir, no one is saying they sounded the same at home as in live. We are saying you need a live reference to know if system A is 10% close or 50% close to a live event. While you will never get an exact tonality of a violin in your home, it will be easy for you to know what is a fake tone if you go to enough live concerts.
Why do you think panel lovers like that illusion of fake soundstage from the rear wave? Not because it provides the same 3d in a live show, but because it gives the illusion of that live 3d much better than a speaker which doesn't throw a soundstage. However, one would need to have been to some concerts to know why that stage is important, or rather, why that lack of stage can be a dealbreaker. As Toole says, if microphones can sample only a tiny percent of that complex 3d, why would I be satisfied with an 'accurate reproduction of the recording'.
Why do you think panel lovers like that illusion of fake soundstage from the rear wave? Not because it provides the same 3d in a live show, but because it gives the illusion of that live 3d much better than a speaker which doesn't throw a soundstage. However, one would need to have been to some concerts to know why that stage is important, or rather, why that lack of stage can be a dealbreaker. As Toole says, if microphones can sample only a tiny percent of that complex 3d, why would I be satisfied with an 'accurate reproduction of the recording'.
Not strictly true. Learning from empirical data, Ignaz Semmelweis in Hungary advised the practice of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics before medical acts before there was a microbiological evidence for it. He is known as an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures and was nicknamed as the "mothers savior". Although his outstanding results were published, it was the established medical science of that time that caused the medical community to reject his findings. Fortunately the work of Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister confirmed his findings and lead to a much faster spread of these life saving practices.
As other people have already noted, I was not telling that it sounds the same. I know it since long. You look like D. Quixote de la Mancha attacking windmills that he believes to be ferocious giants.
But yes we disagree fundamentally - some of us believe that there is a missing ingredient or tweak that can make these experiences seem more natural and more real.
And the problem is that the tweak may have done absolutely nothing, or made it worse. Strange that your frame of mind on such things is an improvement, not allowing equal probability to other choices.
As I said, the recording was made and approved by talent in a different room and music system. How on earth do you assume you made things more real when you made a change? You are wondering in the dark yet saying you are acting like a compass. You are not. It is a fantasy that makes us feel good talking about our systems. But there is no logical foundation to support it hence the insistence that you are right, not any explanation of why you might be.
When I visited Steve in his prior residence(I still grieve over the lost of that listening room)I had to overcome several biases. Nias against WIlson Audio,Digital SETs and my dislike Fathom subs. When auditioning a friends system I always fell some trepidation. That is especially true when someone has expended the amount of time. money and effort Steve has. At first I di not like it.As time passed my predisposition eroded. Then he put on a recording of Hall and Oates. While some systems may do some things better.It was overall the best system I ever heard.
Fascinating discussion. Amir has a point, but so do the other participants who argue against his position.
My frame of mind assumes that most changes and tweaks are simply changes, some are detrimental and others are improvements. And yes some tweaks have no action at all in some systems. You love to assume things for others and then change ownership.
Different room and different music system do not change our reference system of real music, created along many years of experience.
Nice to know that today you are enjoying fantasy, poetics and compasses. IMHO you are the one acting with a wrong compass, assuming it is perfect and systematically going wrong because you only see in one direction. You are so persuaded that your compass is perfect that you do not look around you, listening to those great sounding wonderful high-end systems around you. Audiophiles assume they have no compass and use the pole star, knowing that it can not be used in cloudy days and is not the perfect direction. They go slowly,and they enjoy their journey.
No. As I said, I used to believe as you do. After all, as Steve said, it is common sense. You turn on your stereo, turn the volume up and average person says, "oh wow, that sounds like a real orchestra." So we believe.
It is only when you study the science and the process of recording which most audiophiles don't get to do that the house of card collapses. You learn that when you are sitting in a live concert, you have two ears. The two ears pick up different signals above a few hundred hertz. Sound from right for example get their high frequencies filtered before they arrive at the left ear. And of course there is longer delay. Likewise sound reflects from your torso and arrives at each ear differently. The brain is constantly analyzing the two varying signals in order to assess what is being heard.
Replace the above with a single microphone and all bets are off. You are only recording one sound, not two. And of course you eliminated the role of the brain. No way on earth that single microphone is capturing what you would have heard. No amount of "experiencing" the live music gets you there. Nor any amount of hearing recorded music does that either. It is a physical impossibility.
It also flatly denies the important role the recording, mixing and mastering engineers play in creating art. It assumes they are just robots spinning knobs. When in reality what we hear is through their art.
Look at painting on the left and the photograph on the right (assume the painting comes from that):
Each can and are attractive. But if I just give you the picture on the left, no way would you be able to guess how correct the blue color is on the head scarf she is wearing. Heck in your system it may be showing up as green. No amount of seeing thousands of head scarfs gives you the knowledge in this instance of what the original color was on the right.
As I said, you are clinging to a dream that makes us feel good but as a matter of process, engineering, and how our hearing works, it is heresy.
We need to accept that a recording is art in itself, and that it can bring us immense joy with no need whatsoever to be "real." One day we will have technology to virtually place us in a concert but it is not here today in any form or fashion.
Here is more from Dr. Toole and his references:
"Sound reproduction is therefore significantly about working with the natural
human ability to “fill in the blanks,” providing the right clues to trigger the
perception of a more complete illusion. It is absolutely not a mechanical “capture,
store, and reproduce” process. In addition to the music itself, there is now, and
probably always will be, a substantial human artistic, craftsmanship, component
to the creation of musical product.
Sterne (2003) goes on to explain that “as many critics of film and photography
have shown us, reality is as much about aesthetic creation as it is about
any other effect when we are talking about media” (p. 241). And, in the context
of sound recording, “far from being a reproduction of the actual event, the recording
was a ‘re-creation’” (p. 242). The goal is not imitation but the creation of
specific listener experiences. This certainly exists dramatically in the directional
and spatial experiences in reproduced sounds.
[...]
In terms of sound quality—fidelity—there have been claims of perfect sound
since the very beginning of sound reproduction. In the earliest days, it seems
that audiences were simply so amazed to be able to recognize pitch, tunes, and
rhythm that they ignored huge insults to sound bandwidth, spectrum, dynamics,
and signal-to-noise ratio. Now we do much better, of course, but then, as now,
according to Sterne, “sound reproduction required a certain level of faith in the
apparatus and a certain familiarity with what was to be reproduced” (p. 247).
Expectations are a part of our perceptions—a fact well used by advertisers of
audio appliances from the earliest times, and today. A 1908 advertisement for
Victor Talking Machines asserted, “You think you can tell the difference between
hearing grand-opera artists sing and hearing their beautiful voices on the Victor.
But can you?” (Sterne, 2003, p. 217). The formula must work because, as this
is being written 100 years later, boasts of sound quality still abound: “Everything
you hear is true”; “Pro sound comes home” (www.jbl.com); “True sound” (www.
bowers-wilkins.com); “Pure, natural, true-to-the-original performance™” (www.
bostonacoustics.com). The suggestion that audio hardware is capable of a kind
of acoustical transmigration is clearly attractive.
Only in audio it seems we celebrate in granting marketing folks their wishes to promote their products to us.
"Sound reproduction is therefore significantly about working with the natural
human ability to “fill in the blanks,” providing the right clues to trigger the
perception of a more complete illusion. It is absolutely not a mechanical “capture,
store, and reproduce” process. In addition to the music itself, there is now, and
probably always will be, a substantial human artistic, craftsmanship, component
to the creation of musical product.
Sterne (2003) goes on to explain that “as many critics of film and photography
have shown us, reality is as much about aesthetic creation as it is about
any other effect when we are talking about media” (p. 241). And, in the context
of sound recording, “far from being a reproduction of the actual event, the recording
was a ‘re-creation’” (p. 242). The goal is not imitation but the creation of
specific listener experiences. This certainly exists dramatically in the directional
and spatial experiences in reproduced sounds.
[...]
In terms of sound quality—fidelity—there have been claims of perfect sound
since the very beginning of sound reproduction. In the earliest days, it seems
that audiences were simply so amazed to be able to recognize pitch, tunes, and
rhythm that they ignored huge insults to sound bandwidth, spectrum, dynamics,
and signal-to-noise ratio. Now we do much better, of course, but then, as now,
according to Sterne, “sound reproduction required a certain level of faith in the
apparatus and a certain familiarity with what was to be reproduced” (p. 247).
Expectations are a part of our perceptions—a fact well used by advertisers of
audio appliances from the earliest times, and today. A 1908 advertisement for
Victor Talking Machines asserted, “You think you can tell the difference between
hearing grand-opera artists sing and hearing their beautiful voices on the Victor.
But can you?” (Sterne, 2003, p. 217). The formula must work because, as this
is being written 100 years later, boasts of sound quality still abound: “Everything
you hear is true”; “Pro sound comes home” (www.jbl.com); “True sound” (www.
bowers-wilkins.com); “Pure, natural, true-to-the-original performance™” (www.
bostonacoustics.com). The suggestion that audio hardware is capable of a kind
of acoustical transmigration is clearly attractive.
Only in audio it seems we celebrate in granting marketing folks their wishes to promote their products to us.
- Status
Similar threads
