"Natural" Sound

[bonzo75]

Trouble is Ked, almost all horns need a box to fill in the lower bass. The lowest note on a piano is around 27.5hz, which *very* rarely is reproduced by horns. Even the beloved WE monsters at Munich have no extension anywhere near that. Full range panels but not hybrids like Martin Logan (other than cls) would work.

Hybrids are not good at it, which is why I said Analysis. Logan full range goes nowhere so low. Around 55hz if I remember right. The Amphitryon goes to 25 or 22. But that's not the only thing, the ribbon tone is great. The bass horns can do it, not as smoothly as analysis but good enough

 

[microstrip]

(...)
In any case, I think this thread has derailed because the two "sides" are talking about different things and trying to argue against positions that the other side doesn't even hold.

Yes, I think you are right about this. No one said that when he uses the word "natural" to describe a system that he means it sounds identical to the real instrument or original musical performance, so I don't understand why that is being argued. Perhaps I started this mess when I wrote that "natural" means it sounds similar to a real instrument and that we know what a guitar or piano or voice sounds like. That statement must have been quite controversial because the poster demanded that I prove how I know that people know what instruments sound like. There was some mention of memory types and how nothing ever sounds the same and how mics can't capture the original sound, etc. etc.
(...)

Diapason and Peter,

Exactly. I still do not understand why the many quotes of Toole in blue. We know that all crusades used to carry a flag, but I found it completely displaced.

 

[KeithR]

unpopular opinion: being a musician doesn't mean that much. musicians themselves disagree on sound reproduction - for instance, many have SS systems while others have tube systems

 

[Al M.]

unpopular opinion: being a musician doesn't mean that much. musicians themselves disagree on sound reproduction - for instance, many have SS systems while others have tube systems

Of course most musicians have SS systems: they are not audiophiles and have budget rigs, which are invariably SS. They don't even have anything to disagree on.

 

[bonzo75]

unpopular opinion: being a musician doesn't mean that much. musicians themselves disagree on sound reproduction - for instance, many have SS systems while others have tube systems

That is possibly because they don't care for sound reproduction, doesn't mean they think it's better. So what you need to look for is a musician who is keen on this hobby of trying to reproduce music. Orchestra players are not well-paid

 

[amirm]

Yes, I think you are right about this. No one said that when he uses the word "natural" to describe a system that he means it sounds identical to the real instrument or original musical performance, so I don't understand why that is being argued. Perhaps I started this mess when I wrote that "natural" means it sounds similar to a real instrument and that we know what a guitar or piano or voice sounds like. That statement must have been quite controversial because the poster demanded that I prove how I know that people know what instruments sound like. There was some mention of memory types and how nothing ever sounds the same and how mics can't capture the original sound, etc. etc.

I know the thread is long and it is easy to forget what was said. So allow me to quote what you said:

The non audiophile who attends acoustic concerts or has a child taking piano lessons, knows what a piano sounds like and he will know how to answer the question of whether or not a stereo sounds natural.

Can you share any survey or research that shows this?

I am just asking where you learned this. I would even accept as starting poll a simple survey that says such people have superior knowledge of knowing what the word natural means. If none exists and this is what you think, that's cool. That is all you had to say.

I do not understand the strong reaction. At least there are no posts on Steve's or David's system threads asking for clarification of their use of the term "natural". I wonder if Ron thought his OP would be so lively. He may be chuckling about all of this.

He will have to speak to that. But we did have a recent discussion of musicians and he post this: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...s-Trained-Listeners-What-does-the-Science-Say

There are so many examples of musicians having crappy stereo systems that I think it is almost axiomatic. It seems that musicians can listen "through" the technically poor (from an audiophile point of view) sound to the underlying essence of the music.

Do you agree with him?

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Of course most musicians have SS systems: they are not audiophiles and have budget rigs, which are invariably SS. They don't even have anything to disagree on.

Absolutely spot on!

 

[Bobvin]

I'm a musician of a pretty high standard. I don't do it exclusively for a living, but I regularly play recitals where people pay in to hear me. Does this make my opinion more valid? I don't think it does.

Certainly, if you were describing to me why you thought one piece of gear produced a more realistic sound, I would weight your opinion more heavily than something a reviewer offered. If you were offering critique of my own rig upon hearing it, I'd likely 'hear' your comments differently than someone who only hears music through mechanical reproduction. Does not mean I would agree, or necessarily make a change, but if you demoed a rig you considered more accurate to live music I would then happily compare that sound to the sound of my system and see where I might improve.

If my cousin the conductor told me my systems' piano reproduction was way off the mark, I would certainly value his opinion more than many on this forum.

So yes, your opinion weighs more (in my opinion!)

 

[Audiophile Bill]

That is possibly because they don't care for sound reproduction, doesn't mean they think it's better. So what you need to look for is a musician who is keen on this hobby of trying to reproduce music. Orchestra players are not well-paid

True on all fronts.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Certainly, if you were describing to me why you thought one piece of gear produced a more realistic sound, I would weight your opinion more heavily than something a reviewer offered. If you were offering critique of my own rig upon hearing it, I'd likely 'hear' your comments differently than someone who only hears music through mechanical reproduction. Does not mean I would agree, or necessarily make a change, but if you demoed a rig you considered more accurate to live music I would then happily compare that sound to the sound of my system and see where I might improve.

If my cousin the conductor told me my systems' piano reproduction was way off the mark, I would certainly value his opinion more than many on this forum.

So yes, your opinion weighs more (in my opinion!)

I think your open mindedness is very sensible. I have always done the same with musician friends and family.

 

[steve williams]

When I read Peter's statement I thought he made a harmless post by giving an example of people who attend concerts or take their kids for piano lessons know what a piano sounds like (why is this difficult to grasp) and suddenly now we are doing polls and surveys. At no time did anyone ever suggest that "natural" was real so lets try to stick to Ron's OP. IMO David summed it up nicely by saying that it isn't real but it is realistic enough that for that listening session the listener is able to suspend all disbeliefs and be transported to that place in time. A very harmless but nonetheless meaningful statement. There is no arrogance or elitism as several members suggest. As for the notion of HiFi, KeithR nailed it when he said that some systems are just so overly analytic that his mind is paying attention to the needle drop. This is not "natural" per my definition

 

[Audiophile Bill]

When I read Peter's statement I thought he made a harmless post by giving an example of people who attend concerts or take their kids for piano lessons know what a piano sounds like (why is this difficult to grasp) and suddenly now we are doing polls and surveys. At no time did anyone ever suggest that "natural" was real so lets try to stick to Ron's OP. IMO David summed it up nicely by saying that it isn't real but it is realistic enough that for that listening session the listener is able to suspend all disbeliefs and be transported to that place in time. A very harmless but nonetheless meaningful statement. There is no arrogance or elitism as several members suggest. As for the notion of HiFi, KeithR nailed it when he said that some systems are just so overly analytic that his mind is paying attention to the needle drop. This is not "natural" per my definition

I personally think that a "realistic" system would by definition sound "natural" and vice versa. A realistic system can't sound unnatural. An unnatural system can't sound realistic.

 

[steve williams]

I personally think that a "realistic" system would by definition sound "natural" and vice versa. A realistic system can't sound unnatural. An unnatural system can't sound realistic.

I agree. So what are the problems that are creating havoc short of some people feeling that others have suggested that "natural" reproduces the live event. No one in these 144 posts has intimated that

 

[amirm]

When I read Peter's statement I thought he made a harmless post by giving an example of people who attend concerts or take their kids for piano lessons know what a piano sounds like (why is this difficult to grasp) and suddenly now we are doing polls and surveys. At no time did anyone ever suggest that "natural" was real so lets try to stick to Ron's OP. IMO David summed it up nicely by saying that it isn't real but it is realistic enough that for that listening session the listener is able to suspend all disbeliefs and be transported to that place in time. A very harmless but nonetheless meaningful statement. There is no arrogance or elitism as several members suggest. As for the notion of HiFi, KeithR nailed it when he said that some systems are just so overly analytic that his mind is paying attention to the needle drop. This is not "natural" per my definition

Again I appreciate the thread is long and memories short . So please allow me to quote part of Ron's post:

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?

Everything we are discussing is absolutely in the context of the super important questions Ron is asking. Getting on the same level will reduce friction between us and help us communicate far better.

If you say we have already agreed, then what are the answers to Ron's question? Let's start with the highlighted one. I know that is what I have been discussing and my answer is the medium you are playing in your system. Not the master tape before it, and certainly not anything that happened live.

As to Peter's post being harmless, I hope all of the posts are that way . Anyone who is getting frustrated, angry, upset or whatever should leave the thread. Only be here if this is what you like to do, i.e. discuss these points back and forth. If you are going to make strong statements as to certain group of people being this way or that way, then be prepared to be asked about that.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

I agree. So what are the problems that are creating havoc short of some people feeling that others have suggested that "natural" reproduces the live event. No one in these 144 posts has intimated that

I have not seen this "havoc" - apologies but I only joined this "party" today and did not revisit the entire chain of events.

 

[steve williams]

once again, no one is implying nor should you infer that natural is the real event. Once everyone gets by that notion then what's the issue?

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Again I appreciate the thread is long and memories short . So please allow me to quote part of Ron's post:



Everything we are discussing is absolutely in the context of the super important questions Ron is asking. Getting on the same level will reduce friction between us and help us communicate far better.

If you say we have already agreed, then what are the answers to Ron's question? Let's start with the highlighted one. I know that is what I have been discussing and my answer is the medium you are playing in your system. Not the master tape before it, and certainly not anything that happened live.

As to Peter's post being harmless, I hope all of the posts are that way . Anyone who is getting frustrated, angry, upset or whatever should leave the thread. Only be here if this is what you like to do, i.e. discuss these points back and forth. If you are going to make strong statements as to certain group of people being this way or that way, then be prepared to be asked about that.

My opinion on the bolded/underlined fwiw:- there is no answer to this question as we differ in our goals for this hobby. There are those for whom this hobby is virtually a scientific experiment and reproducing what they feel as being on that master tape is the desideratum. Others are music lovers who care about hearing a realistic enough facsimile of what they perceive as how the event would have sounded to them and the reproduction connects with their emotions.

Yes - I have stereotyped but people lie somewhere on this continuum imo. I do think there is this absurd radical movement of people who seemingly have lost touch with music and don't trust what they like the sound of - instead relying on a piece of paper saying their product measured fantastically.

 

[Al M.]

once again, no one is implying nor should you infer that natural is the real event. Once everyone gets by that notion then what's the issue?

What is the issue indeed?

 

[Al M.]

My opinion on the bolded/underlined fwiw:- there is no answer to this question as we differ in our goals for this hobby. There are those for whom this hobby is virtually a scientific experiment and reproducing what they feel as being on that master tape is the desideratum. Others are music lovers who care about hearing a realistic enough facsimile of what they perceive as how the event would have sounded to them and the reproduction connects with their emotions.

Yes - I have stereotyped but people lie somewhere on this continuum imo. I do think there is this absurd radical movement of people who seemingly have lost touch with music and don't trust what they like the sound of - instead relying on a piece of paper saying their product measured fantastically.

Well said.

 

[bonzo75]

Amir, I interpreted the point you highlighted from Ron's post to mean, Should we have an accurate reproduction of what the recording engineer recorded, or should we try to create a sound that brings us closer to the live event? Even though he used the word recreate, I am quite sure no one here is trying to recreate a concert hall. They are trying to recreate elements that bring them the illusion of the concert hall. Which is why I gave the analogy of the soundstage built by the rear wave of a planar. If some on this forum says that it gives me the feeling of the openness of a concert hall, we shouldn't read it as he is actually recreating that soundstage, but creating something that brings him closer to that real soundstage than, say, a speaker that sounds very closed in.

=========

Ron's post as quoted by Amir: "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?"