Greedy reductionism : greedy reductionism occurs when "in their eagerness for a bargain, in their zeal to explain too much too fast, scientists and philosophers ... underestimate the complexities, trying to skip whole layers or levels of theory in their rush to fasten everything securely and neatly to the foundation."[1] (from Wikipedia)
"Natural" Sound
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
- Status
Greedy reductionism : greedy reductionism occurs when "in their eagerness for a bargain, in their zeal to explain too much too fast, scientists and philosophers ... underestimate the complexities, trying to skip whole layers or levels of theory in their rush to fasten everything securely and neatly to the foundation."[1] (from Wikipedia)
Bill, are you saying that if look at audio reproduction through the eyes of audio science, you can't be a music lover? I hope you are not
. Few people rise up to the knowledge and breath of music appreciation than Ron Party. Yet he looks at audio performance a scientific endeavour. So clearly both attributes can and does exist in one person. I consider myself that too. I have spent thousands of dollars building up my music library from recommendations of gods of music here, in the last couple of months alone. How could the fact that I follow the audio research invalidate me as a music lover???To be this way is to not be human. Everyone whether audiophile or not has love for music. They can listen to a track and melt in the chair. It is not something you can lose. When listening to my system, an hour does not go by before I say to myself, "man that sounds great!"
That does not at all distinguish us. What distinguishes us is what goes after that as we try to describe the reason for greatness. I may say you have loudspeakers that produce reflections that are similar to their direct sound and hence the reason they sound good without covering your walls with absorbers. Another person says, that is because you changed the stands under your amplifier. Neither one of these disputes the fact that we both have many moments where we absolutely cherish the music we are hearing on our system and that of others.
Amir, with all due respect, I find your comment in BOLD very condescending. I am not here to prove anything. I am engaged in what I think is an interesting discussion about a term used to describe how some systems sound.
Discussions that I have had with people over many years about reproduction gives me the sense that they know what the term "natural" means. That is how I learned this. I have two children. They both took piano lessons and listen to my stereo system. They have an opinion about how natural my system sounds when playing a recording of a piano. My wife does also. One daughter has a good friend who is learning how to play the cello. I asked the cellist if she wanted to hear me play one of Bach's Six Sonatas for Unaccompanied Cello. She said "sure" as my daughter rolled her eyes. It turned out that this young girl was learning how to play the 2nd Sonata, so we played that. She listened with her eyes shut to the entire sonata in complete silence. She moved her fingers mimicking playing notes as she listened. I was surprised by her focus.
When the piece ended, I asked her specifically how it sounded. She remarked that it was very realistic sounding except that one note sounded very slightly flat. The rest sounded real. She even remarked on the scale and distance of the image of the cello in the room. I was as astonished by her remarks as I think she was by hearing my system. I think that she knows what a cello sounds like, and I think she compared her memory of that with what she heard from my system.
This and other discussions with kids and people about iPod buds, stereos and high end systems tell me that people have a general sense of whether or not something sounds natural. I am not asking you or anyone to accept this. I also did not claim that "such people have superior knowledge of knowing what the word natural means." I claimed that those people have superior knowledge of what instruments sound like.
My view is that everyone has a sense of what the word natural means. In the context of music reproduction, the sound of systems and the sound of instruments, I mentioned people attending live concerts and parents of kids learning instruments as examples because it all goes back knowing what real instruments sound like. My sense is that they listen to instruments live perhaps more than other people do and so they are in a better position to know what a cello or other instrument sounds like. I did not say they better know what "natural" means. They know what instruments sound like. If someone has not heard a live violin, he is not in a very good position to say whether or not a particular system playing a recording of a violin sounds natural.
The people who use this term in this thread and to describe systems seem to also attend live concerts of acoustic instruments.
If you want evidence, proof, surveys or measurements, perhaps you could start your own thread in the science forum.
bonzo- i appreciate your point, but would like to go further.
orchestra players isn't where it ends (morricab on this forum i believe has a wife that plays violin professionally - and she likes his SETs most)- but what about guitar players? (a audiophile friend of mine has played acoustic for 40 years, but not professional- what does that make him?) i have an audiophile friend who played bass with Counting Crows back in the day - he's an SS guy. what about vocalists? (I heard Anne Bisson say a SET-based setup at a recent show sounded like her voice more than others).
What about some industry folks? JA has been recording live, unamplified performances for 30+ years - isn't he similar to a musician due to his experience? He's an SS-guy typically. Steve Hoffman is a recording engineer who loves tubes at home and in the studio while Bob Ludwig lives in a studio and has an all SS system. I know that recording giant Warner Chappel has big Wilsons and big VTL tubes in one of their offices.
i haven't found a single "standard" that is adhered to by musicians, nor industry folks so why bother. i'm sure some musicians own Wilson (Dave Wilson developed with help from the Vienna Philharmonic), while others have Magicos - what does that mean since they sound 180 degrees different? when someone totes out some musician they know approved their gear, it has no meaning to me. its just another opinion.
i believe the reason is that we all have different ears and are sensitive to different kinds of harmonic distortions. in the end, its all preference as "mep" once proclaimed in one of the longest threads this forum ever had. people need to lighten up and just enjoy what they enjoy.
This is a caricature which presents a false dichotomy and I for one reject it and the Audiophile folklore giving rise to it. The two stated categories of *natural* are neither exhaustive of all the possibilities, nor are they mutually exclusive.
The OP (not OPer) is antagonistic, whether one has the intellectual honesty to realize it or not.
What is it about Audiophiles that they must conflate opinion with fact? Amir's position is dead on. He's asking for something, anything, that is more than just an opinion or expression of one's favorite flavor. Member ddk posits that something can be and is, as a matter of fact, more natural. So if another member disagrees, who's right? Both? Neither? How is it to be determined? A poll of people belonging to the 50s, 60s and 70s clubs whose hearing loss virtually disqualifies them from voting?
Believe whatever you want to believe. Attribute whatever adjectives you wish to the sound you hear and emotion you feel. Let the spirits move you to your core, to let you know there's a roof to your being. And by all means enjoy it like it may be the last chance you'll ever get. BUT, please have the humility and intellectual honesty to recognize that the sum total of your experience extends no further than the tip of your nose. It is and always will be a feeling, an opinion ... call it what you will, but it is only that.
Why isn't that good enough?
Bill, are you saying that if look at audio reproduction through the eyes of audio science, you can't be a music lover? I hope you are not
To be this way is to not be human. Everyone whether audiophile or not has love for music. They can listen to a track and melt in the chair. It is not something you can lose. When listening to my system, an hour does not go by before I say to myself, "man that sounds great!"
That does not at all distinguish us. What distinguishes us is what goes after that as we try to describe the reason for greatness. I may say you have loudspeakers that produce reflections that are similar to their direct sound and hence the reason they sound good without covering your walls with absorbers. Another person says, that is because you changed the stands under your amplifier. Neither one of these disputes the fact that we both have many moments where we absolutely cherish the music we are hearing on our system and that of others.
Fair points, Amir.
As I said, to a certain extent I am an objectivist too, and I have learned a lot from your technical explanations and graphs. Also, for example with acoustic room treatment I follow the scientific knowledge of Acoustics Sciences (ASC) by applying their products in my room. As you know, I am open to digital correction as well, see my thread on the Linn event at Goodwin's.
In fact, I am scientist myself, a biochemist, but precisely because I am a scientist I am very skeptical about claims that we know how to measure most of what is relevant to good reproduction of music. On the other hand, I see your point about unknown knowns.
It is hard to know what you are saying Peter. This is again what you said:
Seems like a pretty clear reference to this class of people being able to do something that presumably people not in that group can't.
Again I appreciate the thread is long and memories short
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?
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.
I believe that this has been answered and in the context of sound reproduction the master tape, CD, file, LP, cassette, radio transmission, etc. is a given. I can't speak for Ron but the context that Steve & I use "Natural" is referring back to a "realistic" representation of "a" musical instrument, voice, environment, etc. with minimum of coloration and embellishment as it exists in the software and not an exact reproduction of the event when it doesn't exist.
david
Bill, are you saying that if look at audio reproduction through the eyes of audio science, you can't be a music lover? I hope you are not
To be this way is to not be human. Everyone whether audiophile or not has love for music. They can listen to a track and melt in the chair. It is not something you can lose. When listening to my system, an hour does not go by before I say to myself, "man that sounds great!"
That does not at all distinguish us. What distinguishes us is what goes after that as we try to describe the reason for greatness. I may say you have loudspeakers that produce reflections that are similar to their direct sound and hence the reason they sound good without covering your walls with absorbers. Another person says, that is because you changed the stands under your amplifier. Neither one of these disputes the fact that we both have many moments where we absolutely cherish the music we are hearing on our system and that of others.
I am not saying that audio science and love for music can't be enjoyed together - that is why I put the statement in about people being somewhere on the continuum.
Audio science at the level that you are indulging in the context of musical reproduction does categorically not represent the norm - you are most certainly at the far end of the distribution and represent an unusual case. Most people inhabiting a forum of this ilk are going to be at the end of the distribution only you are further than most. I mean that respectfully not as an insult.
Unfortunately there is a lot of "inhuman" behaviour recalled on this very forum and among audiophiles. Not everyone loves music and melts into their chair - you are very mistaken. Music for many nowadays is a background noise that exists - I know it is hard to believe as audio fans. I hardly meet anyone who actually takes time out of their life and stops and only listens and "melts." So many use music to do exercise to, have in the background to drive to - the days of actually only listening to music as an activity is rare among my demographic and others that I know in very different demographics.
If I may be as bold - I totally disagree with what you think distinguishes us - your argument makes no sense as written - it is a string of statements.
It's perfectly good enough, but it doesn't mean that we can't subjectively use the word "natural" among groups large and small, to convey a concept that's meaningful within the group. As I said earlier in the thread, my best audiophile buddy and I have been listening to systems together for 20 years. When he calls something "natural", I know roughly what he means, and often tallies with my sense of "natural" too. This is a subjective response, I'm not for one second trying to suggest that it means anything in absolute terms, it's merely a means of communication of an idea.
Now, over time, and with experience of the views of others, it seems that this sense of the word "natural" extends a little further than conversations with my friend. It seems some other people use the term (not always, but often enough) to convey the same kind of subjective response to a component or system. That's it! That's all there is to it! Nobody is saying anything is objectively superior, or that it's reality or anything other than discussing a shared subjective response. Not everyone has to share the view, not everyone has to agree with these terms, but for those that do it's a meaningful expression that conveys information. That's all. Nothing expressed as fact, no absolute statements made, no disagreements about measurements or frequency responses or any other thing.
It struck me last night as I ate dinner that if I said one sauce tasted more "tomatoey" than another, many others might know what that means and share that view without the need to produce a gas chromatograph. It's an imperfect analogy certainly, but I wouldn't know the exact tomato or tomatoes that went into the sauces, I wouldn't necessarily care whether one was truer to the original tomato or not, but I'd definitely know which tasted more like some internalised view of the taste of tomatoes to me, and it's not unlikely that many others would find it matched their own internalised sense of "tomatoeyness" too. These things aren't well-defined, but they're not without meaning.
Don't understand why you're on the attack Ron and are purposely demeaning folks here? Why bother replying when you have this much contempt? Maybe you should take some of your own advice on humility instead of preaching it to others!
What is Amir's position on what is "Natural" and what isn't? All I read from him is that things can transform in the recording process and end result will be different from the original event. No one has disputed this fact, but that doesn't mean that the reproduction can't be "Realistic" and "Natural".
For me, both these portraits, different, are "Natural" and "Realistic" representations of a young lady sitting in for a session, take your poll if there's any doubt.
This portrait is also a representation of young woman sitting for a session, would you call this "Natural" or "Realistic?
david
I didn't read it that way. Ron was just expressing his preferences, even though I may not agree with him. The sound of unamplified live music, on which 'natural' is modeled, mostly is very detailed. It's just not the etched hi-fiyish detail that you hear from some systems. And it is often also not smooth at all, as I pointed out in my posts on the first page of the thread. And what is fatiguing to one person is exciting to another.
Where you analogy doesn't work there Keith is that you insinuate that the art (music) itself was captured perfectly on the recording. We all know how pants so many recordings are so reproducing it faithfully is a disservice to the art.
Because it is not only that . Many people feel, think and rationalize in similar terms with us, although not always fully agreeing. Since our many noses are far apart, the sum of our experiences extends much further than the tip of our noses.
I think we try to be intellectual honest in our debates and I do not see the purpose of pious calls asking for humility. We joined WBF, not the Foreign Legion.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
I agree as well. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about the OP whatsoever
So if one is a member of an extraordinarily small club, if one speaks Audiophilese, one understands it. If one is not a member of the club, if one does not speak Audiophilese, one does not get it. Um, OK.
Sadly, I guess, I'm not a club member. Steve did not limit his post to state merely that he enjoyed ddk's system more than any other he has experienced in a few decade's worth of being an audiophile. Again, why isn't that good enough? The fact of the matter is, he went further. He stated, in no uncertain terms, that ddk's system not only is the most *natural* he's experienced, but that anyone who would take the time to visit ddk would come away with the same feeling.
Well, I'm happy that Steve enjoyed his time with ddk. Sharing time with fellow music lovers is great. And I'm happy that ddk is kind enough that he would open his doors and share his labor of love with Steve.
But what am I supposed to do with Steve's contention? Take it on faith? Is that what being an Audiophile is... faith? Or, heaven forbid, is it a sin to ask, as Amir has done, is there something more? Will Amir (and I) be admitted into the Audiophile heaven in the sky, not by insisting one rejects his/her faith, but instead by asking one to acknowledge it as such, to acknowledge one's own boundary, by asking one to know where the tip of one's nose is?
Look, I've spent more hours listening to music with Steve over the last 15 or so years than perhaps any other WBF member, save Marty. I've got a pretty good handle on what kind of sound Steve enjoys, be it gear, genres, favorite artists, or storage formats. I know to a reasonable degree of audiophile certainty what is (are) his favorite flavor(s).
So now, guess what? I have a different favorite flavor. So now I guess I post on WBF that my favorite flavor (which is, of course, based on the sum total of all of my experiences which I described hereinabove) is, to be (to use ddk's terminology), more natural.
If I'm going to state it as a fact, which at least some members here have done, then I'm going beyond the tip of my nose. Facts are pesky little things.
And, ddk, please, spare me. I do have contempt, contempt of arrogance, lack of humility and intellectual dishonesty. If you don't care for my observations, don't read them. Indeed, blocking members (me) will set you free. Please do so forthwith.
Sadly, I guess, I'm not a club member. Steve did not limit his post to state merely that he enjoyed ddk's system more than any other he has experienced in a few decade's worth of being an audiophile. Again, why isn't that good enough? The fact of the matter is, he went further. He stated, in no uncertain terms, that ddk's system not only is the most *natural* he's experienced, but that anyone who would take the time to visit ddk would come away with the same feeling.
Well, I'm happy that Steve enjoyed his time with ddk. Sharing time with fellow music lovers is great. And I'm happy that ddk is kind enough that he would open his doors and share his labor of love with Steve.
But what am I supposed to do with Steve's contention? Take it on faith? Is that what being an Audiophile is... faith? Or, heaven forbid, is it a sin to ask, as Amir has done, is there something more? Will Amir (and I) be admitted into the Audiophile heaven in the sky, not by insisting one rejects his/her faith, but instead by asking one to acknowledge it as such, to acknowledge one's own boundary, by asking one to know where the tip of one's nose is?
Look, I've spent more hours listening to music with Steve over the last 15 or so years than perhaps any other WBF member, save Marty. I've got a pretty good handle on what kind of sound Steve enjoys, be it gear, genres, favorite artists, or storage formats. I know to a reasonable degree of audiophile certainty what is (are) his favorite flavor(s).
So now, guess what? I have a different favorite flavor. So now I guess I post on WBF that my favorite flavor (which is, of course, based on the sum total of all of my experiences which I described hereinabove) is, to be (to use ddk's terminology), more natural.
If I'm going to state it as a fact, which at least some members here have done, then I'm going beyond the tip of my nose. Facts are pesky little things.
And, ddk, please, spare me. I do have contempt, contempt of arrogance, lack of humility and intellectual dishonesty. If you don't care for my observations, don't read them. Indeed, blocking members (me) will set you free. Please do so forthwith.
Is it hard to know what I am saying? You seemed to be very sure of what I was saying a few posts ago. Now you seem less sure.
Yes, I think what I wrote is pretty clear. But as I pointed out before, you said that I wrote this group better understands what "natural" means. I did not. What I wrote that that group better understands what instruments sound like. That is because they listen to live acoustic instruments more than the group who doesn't listen to live instruments. I wrote that he "knows what a piano sounds like." So, because he knows what a piano sounds like, he is in a better position to know whether or not a stereo sounds natural than is the person who does not know what a piano sounds like. I did not write that he is in a better position to know what "natural" means. That is what you incorrectly claimed that I wrote.
A person who has seen a real apple is in a better position to say whether or not a plastic, fake apple in a store window looks natural than is the person who has never seen a real apple before. I never wrote that one person is in a better position to be able to understand what "natural" means. I agree with 385guy that this is a pretty universal concept that has been around for thousands of years.
I can only try to explain to you what I meant. I can not make you understand it. Please don't ask for a survey or poll to see what others think. Just reread the quote you keep posting.
- Status
Similar threads
