Natural Sound

[PeterA]

I first saw this LP on @Tango ’s system thread and watched the video there. Then Bonzo endorsed the recording, so I knew it was pretty good. I found a copy and listened to it over the weekend. Here is a system video to share the music and hint (in a flawed way) at my goal of natural sound and the experience of hearing one of the great singers perform in my listening room. Schubert Lieder Recital (No. 4) , Fischer-Dieskau:

 

[Cellcbern]

I first saw this LP on Tango's system thread and watched the video there. Then Bonzo endorsed the recording, so I knew it was pretty good. I found a copy and listened to it over the weekend. Here is a system video to share the music and hint (in a flawed way) at my goal of natural sound and the experience of hearing one of the great singers perform in my listening room. Schubert Lieder Recital (No. 4) , Fischer-Dieskau:

Can’t tell from this video how natural or musical your system is, or what the quality of the recording is. Don’t believe that the videos posted at WBF can convey enough of the nuances of a system or room to make such determinations.

 

[microstrip]

Yes, this seems to have been the premise on which he based his philosophy. However it evolved to goals of pitch black backgrounds, pinpoint imaging, image outlines, tight fast bass, continuousness, and air between instruments. These are bits and pieces as David Karmeli describes them. They are distractions and confusing and lead people to search for sonic attributes from their gear in their listening rooms rather than music presented naturally the way we hear it in the concert hall.

In my opinion, Harry Pearson lead us astray. Music is not an assemblage of sonic attributes. I do not hear these things when sitting in front of the orchestra or jazz trio.

Natural Sound is about balance and information and music being presented naturally and filling the listening room. It involves conscious gear selection and specific set up decisions. The wrong cable or powercord, filter, acoustic panel, or tweak will ruin it, but it may get you closer to the type of sound for which HP was advocating.

Peter,

HP wrote great essays and reviews in more than one hundred TAS magazines. How much of it did you read? IMHO you are strongly misrepresenting HP work and sound intentions.

And yes, surely someone who communicates high-end impressions using youtube videos and defines "Natural Sound" using "balance and information and music being presented naturally and filling the listening room" does not need an audio glossary. However reviewers and people needing to communicate in an effective and reliable way need it. Improving audio communication was the intention of Gordon Holt when he created his Audio Glossary, accesible online at the Stereophile site.

 

[ddk]

Peter,

HP wrote great essays and reviews in more than one hundred TAS magazines. How much of it did you read? IMHO you are strongly misrepresenting HP work and sound intentions.

And yes, surely someone who communicates high-end impressions using youtube videos and defines "Natural Sound" using "balance and information and music being presented naturally and filling the listening room" does not need an audio glossary. However reviewers and people needing to communicate in an effective and reliable way need it. Improving audio communication was the intention of Gordon Holt when he created his Audio Glossary, accesible online at the Stereophile site.

This glossary of hifi terms have no musical relevance and little to an actual live venue. Use of this glossary doesn't make concepts particularly accessible as we've seen in many of our conversations here, reliability is a depends on the source of the information not this glossary of hifi terminology.

Using only a single words like "natural" might not sell reviews but it is a powerful descriptor and if it's understood and valued as the ultimate achievement of a system there's nothing else to say, the component/system is either natural or it isn't no matter how many words one uses to describe it.

david

PS Between 1981 to late mid 90's I read every TAS issue from cover to cover so I'm quite familiar with HP's writing abilities on this topic, sadly most of it turned out to be nothing but misinformation and his ramblings. I visited Sea Cliff several times and heard the HP sound, rereading the same articles again with that knowledge and more actual experience that I gained over that period I see them for what they are, worthless.

 

[bonzo75]

Reissues sounded wonderful because they were quiet and full of contrast.

I don't get why contrast has a negative connotation here or if by contrast we mean the same thing. I assume you wanted to convey something else when you wrote this. Music is about contrast more than anything. Contrast in dynamics, in timbre, in tones. That is where we get the intra note nuances, inflections, and differences in instruments in large orchestra. Without contrast it sounds homogenised.

 

[tima]

Let's see how this goes ...

Music is not an assemblage of sonic attributes. I do not hear these things when sitting in front of the orchestra or jazz trio.

In it's pure form, listening to music is not a process of assembling sonic attributes.

The orchestral musician assembles a set of instructions about what notes to play, when to play them, how loud to play them. The conductor interprets a score and guides a set of musicians into a performance - as the master clock for the performance he rules over a group of instrument players across time. From many elements, the conductor assembles a performance. Identifying and knowing what elements are necessary is not the same thing as listening to music.

When we hear and listen, the assemblage of sonic and performance attributes has, in a way, been done for us. As listeners we are not asked to assemble sonic attributes, we take in what our senses give us and whatever naturally happens, given the bodies we have, happens holistically, organically. We enjoy the final product of the composer and his artisan's performance art - not the elements and attributes that make it up.

When we talk about our stereo systems we talk about the components used to put together a system sound. In a somewhat dull analogy, components are necessary to reproduction as musicians with different instruments are neccessary to a performance. Although they play the same notes in following the score and conductor, each musician-instrument pairing is unique in their talent. Just as each component has its own unique talent. There are junior and amateur groups and there are semi-pro tours and professional symphonic orchestras, etc. The language used to evaluate an instrument-musician pairing talks about their abilities in terms of how they create music, how they perform the technical and stylistc aspects of playing their instrument, but that is not music. Likewise we can evaluate components in a language of re-production (assembling the pieces) but that is not the same thing as a reproduced performance, nor is it music.

Listening - the holistic, organic experience of enjoying live music or a stereo - is not diminished or compromised by having a language for describing components. Our ability to assess the degree to which a goal of naturally sounding reproduction is attained is not hindered by having a language for describing components.

Where we have difficulty is knowing where to put our emphases and our values - these are the bases of our preference for choosing the sound we want. Vocabulary is not the problem - how we use it is and how we are influenced by it is what is important. What do we value?

Pearson did several things. He broke away from evaluating equipment based on measurement and flat response to encourage evaluation based on listening. He identified and created a vocabulary for psycho acoustic effects that can obtain during reproduction listening - his vocabulary was about components, not music. That one can hear (supposedly) tight musician-instrument outlines or inky black backgrounds when listening to certain components and systems is not invalidated by not hearing those things in the concert hall. Where I think Pearson was misguided was in placing emphasis and value on the artifacts of reproduction that are not part of natural sound - in the end he did not hold true to his self-set ideal of live acoustic music as the basis for making choices. Most of those artifacts are unique to reproduction and many audiophiles, manufacturers and audio press latched onto them, became infatuated with them.

I believe most many audiophiles don't know what they want beyond emotional satisfaction. They have not established a set of values that guides their choices and they are led to choices that are not based on a set of values. They are led by promises of satisfaction (this year's girl), they are led by the herd mentality they share with fellow audiophiles, they are led by what is on the market, by dealers, manufacturers and press. Allowing oneself to be led - in the absence of one's own values and the absence of a reference for guidance - became the default state of audiophilery.

Listening to music is not a process of assembling sonic attributes, or listening for sonic attributes. The language of reproduction is not the language of music or the music listening experience. For some it is difficult to separate the two. Just as musicians have a technical language they use in order to create music, that language does not describe their product. The language of reproduction (componentry, systems, rooms) can be used to make choices and put together systems based on what we choose to value, but the language of reproduction is not the language of music or listening to music.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Listening to music is not a process of assembling sonic attributes, or listening for sonic attributes.

Listening to music is simple , if you like it you stay , if you dont you go .
Same as in a concert / music venue.
One doesnt need a reviewer to tell him / her what to like

 

[bonzo75]

I first saw this LP on @Tango ’s system thread and watched the video there. Then Bonzo endorsed the recording, so I knew it was pretty good. I found a copy and listened to it over the weekend. Here is a system video to share the music and hint (in a flawed way) at my goal of natural sound and the experience of hearing one of the great singers perform in my listening room. Schubert Lieder Recital (No. 4) , Fischer-Dieskau:

Peter, are you using the mm cart here or still the vdh

 

[tima]

Listening to music is simple , if you like it you stay , if you dont you go .
Same as in a concert / music venue.
One doesnt need a reviewer to tell him / her what to like

You write a lot of posts.

Reviewers I know will tell you to listen for yourself.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I believe most many audiophiles don't know what they want beyond emotional satisfaction.

????
So basically they are idiots you re saying ?

 

[tima]

????
So basically they are idiots you re saying ?

You don't need a reviewer to answer your questions.

 

[bonzo75]

You don't need a reviewer to answer your questions.

They will become idiots if they engage

 

[Al M.]

Let's see how this goes ...



In it's pure form, listening to music is not a process of assembling sonic attributes.

The orchestral musician assembles a set of instructions about what notes to play, when to play them, how loud to play them. The conductor interprets a score and guides a set of musicians into a performance - as the master clock for the performance he rules over a group of instrument players across time. From many elements, the conductor assembles a performance. Identifying and knowing what elements are necessary is not the same thing as listening to music.

When we hear and listen, the assemblage of sonic and performance attributes has, in a way, been done for us. As listeners we are not asked to assemble sonic attributes, we take in what our senses give us and whatever naturally happens, given the bodies we have, happens holistically, organically. We enjoy the final product of the composer and his artisan's performance art - not the elements and attributes that make it up.

When we talk about our stereo systems we talk about the components used to put together a system sound. In a somewhat dull analogy, components are necessary to reproduction as musicians with different instruments are neccessary to a performance. Although they play the same notes in following the score and conductor, each musician-instrument pairing is unique in their talent. Just as each component has its own unique talent. There are junior and amateur groups and there are semi-pro tours and professional symphonic orchestras, etc. The language used to evaluate an instrument-musician pairing talks about their abilities in terms of how they create music, how they perform the technical and stylistc aspects of playing their instrument, but that is not music. Likewise we can evaluate components in a language of re-production (assembling the pieces) but that is not the same thing as a reproduced performance, nor is it music.

Listening - the holistic, organic experience of enjoying live music or a stereo - is not diminished or compromised by having a language for describing components. Our ability to assess the degree to which a goal of naturally sounding reproduction is attained is not hindered by having a language for describing components.

Where we have difficulty is knowing where to put our emphases and our values - these are the bases of our preference for choosing the sound we want. Vocabulary is not the problem - how we use it is and how we are influenced by it is what is important. What do we value?

Pearson did several things. He broke away from evaluating equipment based on measurement and flat response to encourage evaluation based on listening. He identified and created a vocabulary for psycho acoustic effects that can obtain during reproduction listening - his vocabulary was about components, not music. That one can hear (supposedly) tight musician-instrument outlines or inky black backgrounds when listening to certain components and systems is not invalidated by not hearing those things in the concert hall. Where I think Pearson was misguided was in placing emphasis and value on the artifacts of reproduction that are not part of natural sound - in the end he did not hold true to his self-set ideal of live acoustic music as the basis for making choices. Most of those artifacts are unique to reproduction and many audiophiles, manufacturers and audio press latched onto them, became infatuated with them.

I believe most many audiophiles don't know what they want beyond emotional satisfaction. They have not established a set of values that guides their choices and they are led to choices that are not based on a set of values. They are led by promises of satisfaction (this year's girl), they are led by the herd mentality they share with fellow audiophiles, they are led by what is on the market, by dealers, manufacturers and press. Allowing oneself to be led - in the absence of one's own values and the absence of a reference for guidance - became the default state of audiophilery.

Listening to music is not a process of assembling sonic attributes, or listening for sonic attributes. The language of reproduction is not the language of music or the music listening experience. For some it is difficult to separate the two. Just as musicians have a technical language they use in order to create music, that language does not describe their product. The language of reproduction (componentry, systems, rooms) can be used to make choices and put together systems based on what we choose to value, but the language of reproduction is not the language of music or listening to music.

Great post, Tim.

There is one thing that I disagree with:

"We enjoy the final product of the composer and his artisan's performance art - not the elements and attributes that make it up."

Enjoying the elements and attributes that make it up can very much deepen the emotional impact of music. As I wrote elsewhere:

I do not go out of my way to explore all intellectual aspects of the music. Yet to a certain extent, for me personally emotional impact and intellectual understanding go hand in hand. My favorite example, out of many possible ones, to explain why this is the case: If you do not intellectually recognize a variation of a melody as such, that is, in its relation to the original melody, how can you emotionally appreciate its beauty – as variation, not just as melody in itself?

Understanding of music thus can considerably heighten its emotional impact. The human experience is a whole. One cannot neatly compartmentalize it into 'rational' and 'emotional' parts. Attempts to do so miss out on the richness of life.

 

[tima]

Great post, Tim.

There is one thing that I disagree with:

"We enjoy the final product of the composer and his artisan's performance art - not the elements and attributes that make it up."

Enjoying the elements and attributes that make it up can very much deepen the emotional impact of music. As I wrote elsewhere:

I do not go out of my way to explore all intellectual aspects of the music. Yet to a certain extent, for me personally emotional impact and intellectual understanding go hand in hand. My favorite example, out of many possible ones, to explain why this is the case: If you do not intellectually recognize a variation of a melody as such, that is, in its relation to the original melody, how can you emotionally appreciate its beauty – as variation, not just as melody in itself?

Understanding of music thus can considerably heighten its emotional impact. The human experience is a whole. One cannot neatly compartmentalize it into 'rational' and 'emotional' parts. Attempts to do so miss out on the richness of life.

Why thank you Al. a high compliment from you that is appreciated.

Of course I agree with you that understanding music can heighten its emotional impact. Knowing about a composer and the context wherein he wrote his composition, knowing about a conductor's style, the event where/when the music was recorded, grasping the themes and motifs of the composition, understanding certain musicological notions such as sonata form - all that and more can bring richness to listening and overall music appreciation.

I do think we can and do listen at different levels and those can (not always) happen without any intentional compartmentalizing. I know this because I have experienced it and I have read of similar experiences from others. There is what I might call active listening where we consciously aware of multiple aspects of the music under performance, augmenting our enjoyment with intellectual awarenes of things like structure, style, and history. It's great fun.

There is also a plane of listening that is for the most part intellectually passive - we are aware of what we hear but we are not thinking about what we hear. I describe as a state of non-inferential immediacy. It is not compartmentalizing, not really a choice or intention to enter this plane of listening. I call it limbic listening. It's easier for me to explain by quoting part of a review that expounds on Vladimir Lamm's take on assessing sound quality:

"If you ask him about assessing sound quality, Vladimir will tell you first that "It is important . . to know how the real orchestra sounds. We choose a reference point based on live music and compare to this point," then, once so prepared, "the problem of sound-quality assessment is almost completely solved in the first 10-15 seconds of listening at the intuitive level."

The experience we have listening to music at that "intuitive level" is rooted in primitive limbic functions of awareness -- deep in our lizard brain. McGill University scientists observed that consonance and dissonance will light up the limbic systems responsible for pleasurable and negative emotions appropriately. The non-cognitive experience of music can trigger areas in the brain sufficient to cause the release of endorphins; when they reach the limbic system’s opioid receptors, feelings of satisfaction ensue. In his book What to Listen for in Music, American composer Aaron Copland talks about this in different terms, describing how a fundamental aspect of enjoying music takes place on a "sensuous plane," which is "a kind of brainless but attractive state of mind [that] is engendered by the mere sound appeal of music." [it goes on ...]

That is not listening to elements or thinking about elements; really it is not thinking about anything - it is having experience without active processing of that experience while we are having it. We autonomically synthesize what our senses give and do so without effort. It's not wholly dissimilar from telling live music from reproduction without effort. You may recall I opened the post you quoted with the words: "In it's pure form, listening to music is not a process of assembling sonic attributes." Some of what I write here refers to that 'pure form'.

 

[PeterA]

Peter,

HP wrote great essays and reviews in more than one hundred TAS magazines. How much of it did you read? IMHO you are strongly misrepresenting HP work and sound intentions.

And yes, surely someone who communicates high-end impressions using youtube videos and defines "Natural Sound" using "balance and information and music being presented naturally and filling the listening room" does not need an audio glossary. However reviewers and people needing to communicate in an effective and reliable way need it. Improving audio communication was the intention of Gordon Holt when he created his Audio Glossary, accesible online at the Stereophile site.

Fransisco, I started reading TAS and Harry Pearson‘s essays in 1994 and I stopped when I decided not to renew my subscription sometime around 2012.

I understand the need to communicate because this is an audio discussion forum. Words like dynamics, tone, presence, and many others are simple to understand and useful to describe things. I agree that reviewer‘s have the challenge of communication.

I have enjoyed reading Tim’s posts over the last few years where it seems to me he is searching for a different way to communicate about audio and what we hear. Karen Sumner also seems to recognize and is suggesting that we need a new way to communicate about audio and what we hear.

I see a growing effort to refocus language on what we hear from actual live music rather than using language that describes things we hear from certain components that have little to nothing to do with the music experience.

I understand that some people do not grasp the meaning of the term natural when describing what we here from our systems. And I understand that my ramblings on my system blog have no meaning to them. This system thread is mainly so that I can record my thoughts and learn how to express them in writing. I appreciate that some want to follow along and comment.

 

[PeterA]

I don't get why contrast has a negative connotation here or if by contrast we mean the same thing. I assume you wanted to convey something else when you wrote this. Music is about contrast more than anything. Contrast in dynamics, in timbre, in tones. That is where we get the intra note nuances, inflections, and differences in instruments in large orchestra. Without contrast it sounds homogenised.

Kedar, I see the confusion and did not express it clearly. It is not that originals or early pressings don’t have contrast also. This is indeed essential to music. What I mean is that my new system is considerably more resolving than my old one and with that resolution I now hear how many/most of my reissues sound different from my earlier pressings.

Whether it is remastering that enhances or increases the balance at frequency extremes or the loss of very low level information in the form of ambience or energy missing from old tapes or mastered out for some reason or the thicker, deader vinyl formulations, I do not really know. The result, and what I hear, is a sound with more contrast and less nuance and subtle shadings.

The relatively less information gives me the impression of greater and starker contrast. It seems more black and white with fewer shades of grey, especially at the lowest levels. Some friends and I did a recent comparison of three pressing of Kind of Blue. The original had the most information while the most recent reissue had that starkest contrast and least amount of life/energy/content. The reissue sounded a bit dull and less engaging. I heard this same result with the one jazz reissue I brought to Utah. I enjoyed it in my Pass/Magico system but it sounded plain dull and lifeless at David’s .

I also made the comment that you quoted based on how the reissues sounded in my old system. I enjoyed them through that system. I did not hear or I could not recognize what the reissues lacked compared to earlier pressings. I can now hear the differences more clearly both because of the increase resolution of the new system and because I now know better what to listen for. I can see how my description can be confusing and misleading. I am sorry for that.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, are you using the mm cart here or still the vdh

Bonzo, this is with the low output Master Signature. Do you hear something that reminds you of the Technics MM?

 

[bonzo75]

Peter unfortunately I hear much lesser nuance and variation as compared to the 2 that I posted from the same system and compared to Tang's. I know this video was not playing in the US but you can easily download a VPN like Nordvpn or expressvpn and connect to anothere country to listen. If you have Norton that also has vpn you can use

That's why I thought it was the technics. If it is happening due with the MS, then it is probably the cables. It would be interesting if we could hear the same video with Al's or Ian's cables.

The reason I say it is the cables is because Tang has Lamm, and while his TAD drivers are highly nuanced, the other 2 videos have either JBL or Altec (he owns both and alternates), no special amps, and the analog is EMT direct drive, which is much less nuanced than yours. His carts on one are Neumann DST and on the other is an EMT TSD 15 modded by VDH

 

[morricab]

Why thank you Al. a high compliment from you that is appreciated.

Of course I agree with you that understanding music can heighten its emotional impact. Knowing about a composer and the context wherein he wrote his composition, knowing about a conductor's style, the event where/when the music was recorded, grasping the themes and motifs of the composition, understanding certain musicological notions such as sonata form - all that and more can bring richness to listening and overall music appreciation.

I do think we can and do listen at different levels and those can (not always) happen without any intentional compartmentalizing. I know this because I have experienced it and I have read of similar experiences from others. There is what I might call active listening where we consciously aware of multiple aspects of the music under performance, augmenting our enjoyment with intellectual awarenes of things like structure, style, and history. It's great fun.

There is also a plane of listening that is for the most part intellectually passive - we are aware of what we hear but we are not thinking about what we hear. I describe as a state of non-inferential immediacy. It is not compartmentalizing, not really a choice or intention to enter this plane of listening. I call it limbic listening. It's easier for me to explain by quoting part of a review that expounds on Vladimir Lamm's take on assessing sound quality:

"If you ask him about assessing sound quality, Vladimir will tell you first that "It is important . . to know how the real orchestra sounds. We choose a reference point based on live music and compare to this point," then, once so prepared, "the problem of sound-quality assessment is almost completely solved in the first 10-15 seconds of listening at the intuitive level."

The experience we have listening to music at that "intuitive level" is rooted in primitive limbic functions of awareness -- deep in our lizard brain. McGill University scientists observed that consonance and dissonance will light up the limbic systems responsible for pleasurable and negative emotions appropriately. The non-cognitive experience of music can trigger areas in the brain sufficient to cause the release of endorphins; when they reach the limbic system’s opioid receptors, feelings of satisfaction ensue. In his book What to Listen for in Music, American composer Aaron Copland talks about this in different terms, describing how a fundamental aspect of enjoying music takes place on a "sensuous plane," which is "a kind of brainless but attractive state of mind [that] is engendered by the mere sound appeal of music." [it goes on ...]

That is not listening to elements or thinking about elements; really it is not thinking about anything - it is having experience without active processing of that experience while we are having it. We autonomically synthesize what our senses give and do so without effort. It's not wholly dissimilar from telling live music from reproduction without effort. You may recall I opened the post you quoted with the words: "In it's pure form, listening to music is not a process of assembling sonic attributes." Some of what I write here refers to that 'pure form'.

I am with Vlad!...

 

[morricab]

Kedar, I see the confusion and did not express it clearly. It is not that originals or early pressings don’t have contrast also. This is indeed essential to music. What I mean is that my new system is considerably more resolving than my old one and with that resolution I now hear how many/most of my reissues sound different from my earlier pressings.

Whether it is remastering that enhances or increases the balance at frequency extremes or the loss of very low level information in the form of ambience or energy missing from old tapes or mastered out for some reason or the thicker, deader vinyl formulations, I do not really know. The result, and what I hear, is a sound with more contrast and less nuance and subtle shadings.

The relatively less information gives me the impression of greater and starker contrast. It seems more black and white with fewer shades of grey, especially at the lowest levels. Some friends and I did a recent comparison of three pressing of Kind of Blue. The original had the most information while the most recent reissue had that starkest contrast and least amount of life/energy/content. The reissue sounded a bit dull and less engaging. I heard this same result with the one jazz reissue I brought to Utah. I enjoyed it in my Pass/Magico system but it sounded plain dull and lifeless at David’s .

I also made the comment that you quoted based on how the reissues sounded in my old system. I enjoyed them through that system. I did not hear or I could not recognize what the reissues lacked compared to earlier pressings. I can now hear the differences more clearly both because of the increase resolution of the new system and because I now know better what to listen for. I can see how my description can be confusing and misleading. I am sorry for that.

So, you are saying your new system gives you more contrast between recordings than the previous one? In that case, congrats!