Sure. I found it remarkable that the Technics sounded as good as it did. Impressive.
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
- Status
Sure. I found it remarkable that the Technics sounded as good as it did. Impressive.
Yes the EPC205C’s are very nice MM’s, I ran an EPC205C-S-MKII and the low output EPC205C-L-MKII on a complete Technics SL1000 MKII setup for a while. The later MKIII and MKV could suffer from developing low riding stylus, the TTDD suspension degradation
being to blame resulting in ED.
Better sound with the new electricity routing Peter. The sound presentation of your system is more similar than different to mine. May I ask what label is this 45. I am not picky like you and ddk so I want to buy one. I like the way sound rise and fall and more variation of loudness. Better electricity seems to increase dynamic contrast not just clarity.
I have a video showing what Brian was saying about tendency to raise up volume but as listening some time get shocked by the peak loudness and has to go lower the volume. This after the electricity is cleaner. I will post in his thread instead of here.
thank you Tang. Yes the improved power delivery made quite a difference in terms of clarity and dynamics. The system is much more resolving than my previous systems so that I can hear differences between cartridges like never before. This level of resolution makes it easier to set up cartridges as well.
i’m not sure I can be of much help with the particular record pressing. It is a sample pressing at 45 RPM on clear vinyl. One side is “St. James infirmary“ and the other side is “I ain’t got nobody“. These are from Satchmo plays king Oliver. The number on the label is ST – 91058.
This Technics MM is a superb cartridge and David sent it to me to demonstrate the attribute of nuance. It is impressive indeed, and if I didn’t know about the Colibris, I would be very happy with the Technics as my only cartridge. There is an ease and brightness to the sound.
Solypsa, I appreciate your comment but I wonder if the word “function” is appropriate for your point. I agree that many people consider resolution to be a loaded word, but if you think of resolution meaning information from the recording presented in a natural way, it helps to understand why increased resolution helps with the set up process.
As a simple example, my audiophile power cords “functioned” perfectly well. However they enhanced or altered what I heard in a specific direction making set up a process of compromise to balance what was going on and I ended up chasing my tail. Always compensating for one thing to make up for something else. This resulted in more difficulties and even confusion when trying to properly set up a cartridge, for example, or something like speaker position and orientation. One has to be able to hear what is going on to properly set up a system.
It is a difficult thing to describe and to understand. I had to learn this by experimenting and listening for myself. I think it is no coincidence that I reached the same conclusions as tango and DDK. Others are arrive at different conclusions by following different approaches. It is what is so fascinating about the hobby.
@PeterA I concede its a clumsy substitution.
Fwiw I am not very interested in the wordplay that tends to develop in these threads. To me, by your definition of your goals, it turned out that your 'audiophile power cords' actually did not function well ( at least not at a 'high level' ) because of what you describe as their negative affect on your system...but that's how my brain wraps around this topic
It is nice to read of your ongoing thoughts/experiences/growth with your system.
Fwiw I am not very interested in the wordplay that tends to develop in these threads. To me, by your definition of your goals, it turned out that your 'audiophile power cords' actually did not function well ( at least not at a 'high level' ) because of what you describe as their negative affect on your system...but that's how my brain wraps around this topic
It is nice to read of your ongoing thoughts/experiences/growth with your system.
I was reading bonzo's 'Flow' thread to learn if anyone gave a written/verbal description of the word. Some people used the word 'continuity.' That led me to do a search on 'continuousness' which, among other places, took me here. One has to stay focused as cruising through the forum keeps one finding interesting other topics and there is the temptation to swerve off - which I am about to do.
I think there is a tension between the gestalt of natural and the various sonic 'attributes' (descriptions) that might claim to compose natural sound. 'Natural' is a bit like bonzo's Flow thread - there flow is characterized through examples - music videos that exemplify what is meant by 'flow'. (Unfortunately there were no examples of non-flow, discontinuity, discontinuousness (
) - I suppose Ked would say they are everywhere.) Perhaps the best account of Natural is via demonstration, for example go to Utah and listen - or point at such a system playing for an ostensive definition.I agree that "real instruments in real space" is a way of describing a goal of natural sound, when the latter is used to talk about reproduction. And I agree Pearson did use such language. He also used a lot of attributes.
Here is a Pearson list of attributes from the mid-90s:
Soundstage width
Soundstage depth
Image dimensionality
Layered depth
Character or coloration
Microdynamics
Macrodynamics
Freedom from noise artifacts
High-frequency extension and purity
Ambience retrieval
Authority
Sense of headroom
Bass extension and control
Continuousness
Orchestra gestalt
[ I am no HP apologist, but consider what is not on this list: 'pin-point imaging,' 'black backgrounds,' or 'accuracy'. Those words come with the advent of digital. Those are the words of other writers whose names I will not mention for fear of invoking them. Perhaps we can say digital misleads us.* .]
What I think I now realize is that we do not need to consider Natural versus attributes as a dichotomy. We talk about attributes all the time and we recognize a natural sounding system when we hear it just as we recognize live music when we hear it. We can do both without contradicting or apostasizing ourselves but we should recognize what comes from the concert hall and what comes from a stereo system. We still have two ears, but stereophony and concert hall listening are not the same.
*
Hi Tima, the thread title uses both the words flow and continuity. They are not synonyms for natural or real but just an important attribute of real sound.
Yes you are right, ideally an example would be shown where it was not continuous and then a change made it so.
But then I think anyone who has been to a live show should understand the continuity of music. Unless they cannot hear well or just want to be difficult and constantly argue
Yes you are right, ideally an example would be shown where it was not continuous and then a change made it so.
But then I think anyone who has been to a live show should understand the continuity of music. Unless they cannot hear well or just want to be difficult and constantly argue
Last edited:
Why was there ever a dichotomy between "Natural Sound" (as practiced by David and as written about by Peter) and the attributes of Natural Sound listed by Peter?
You can’t ignore his choices for gear, AS was and is a gear centric audio magazine. HP actively promoted certain brands and demoted others while keeping some others away and out of the magazine for personal reasons. Real instruments in real space was the paradigm or companies who developed high end long before he showed up.
HP was a very good writer and managed to get people excited about high end but all these attributes can be found/heard in very artificial sounding systems. I no longer remember where and if he used pinpoint imaging or black backgrounds but I believe pinpoint imaging came from his cable and wire reviews, MIT rings a bell or maybe Transparent.I was reading bonzo's 'Flow' thread to learn if anyone gave a written/verbal description of the word. Some people used the word 'continuity.' That led me to do a search on 'continuousness' which, among other places, took me here. One has to stay focused as cruising through the forum keeps one finding interesting other topics and there is the temptation to swerve off - which I am about to do.
I think there is a tension between the gestalt of natural and the various sonic 'attributes' (descriptions) that might claim to compose natural sound. 'Natural' is a bit like bonzo's Flow thread - there flow is characterized through examples - music videos that exemplify what is meant by 'flow'. (Unfortunately there were no examples of non-flow, discontinuity, discontinuousness (
I agree that "real instruments in real space" is a way of describing a goal of natural sound, when the latter is used to talk about reproduction. And I agree Pearson did use such language. He also used a lot of attributes.
Here is a Pearson list of attributes from the mid-90s:
Soundstage width
Soundstage depth
Image dimensionality
Layered depth
Character or coloration
Microdynamics
Macrodynamics
Freedom from noise artifacts
High-frequency extension and purity
Ambience retrieval
Authority
Sense of headroom
Bass extension and control
Continuousness
Orchestra gestalt
[ I am no HP apologist, but consider what is not on this list: 'pin-point imaging,' 'black backgrounds,' or 'accuracy'. Those words come with the advent of digital. Those are the words of other writers whose names I will not mention for fear of invoking them. Perhaps we can say digital misleads us.* .]
What I think I now realize is that we do not need to consider Natural versus attributes as a dichotomy. We talk about attributes all the time and we recognize a natural sounding system when we hear it just as we recognize live music when we hear it. We can do both without contradicting or apostasizing ourselves but we should recognize what comes from the concert hall and what comes from a stereo system. We still have two ears, but stereophony and concert hall listening are not the same.
*
I agree with that! The brain to interpret what ears hear is often the missing link
!david
If we take away the 'why' word and de-capitalize 'natural sound' I can address your question.
The 'breaking sound into pieces' and the 'only word you need is "natural"' memes/concepts are well established as different viewpoints in the broader discussion of natural sound, since way before Peter's system name. I worded the former pejoratively relative to those who would call it 'analysis' in order to draw a contrast from the perspective of natural. I believe that much is descriptive of the broader conversation we've been having across several years.
Editorally I'm saying that talk of specific attributes can be done without disruption to the notion of a musical whole being more than the sum of its parts. We must keep in mind that analysis is a somewhat artificial activity that we 'put upon' music.
Yes, I think we agree. I do believe that the conductor is held at least partially responsible for continuity. It would be interesting if we did have a recorded example of poor flow and play it with one of the queen-of-flow speakers, what would we hear?
Without analysis you cannot enjoy music. Even those who only want to listen with their emotions (their "heart") recognize melodies that they then enjoy. It is a normal analytical activity of the mind; if you raise it more clearly from the unconscious to a conscious activity you can recognize even more melodies, themes, and their mutual connections, including variations through a piece (I am mainly talking classical and jazz here), as well as harmonic connections and progressions -- and in the process, enjoy the music even more
.So, no, analysis is not a somewhat artificial activity that we 'put upon' music.
(...) What I think I now realize is that we do not need to consider Natural versus attributes as a dichotomy. We talk about attributes all the time and we recognize a natural sounding system when we hear it just as we recognize live music when we hear it. We can do both without contradicting or apostasizing ourselves but we should recognize what comes from the concert hall and what comes from a stereo system. We still have two ears, but stereophony and concert hall listening are not the same.
*
You are welcome - some of us have been telling the same about this absurd dichotomy for a some time. Unfortunately diabolization of the classical sound attributes used by the press was part of the "natural sound TM" speech.
HP writings spread for several decades and he often changed his perspective and opinions along time. His best writings were made inside reviews, when addressing some particular equipment - every time we re-read one of his reviews we find something to thing about. But TAS was a lot more than HP - we had great texts by great reviewers, surely most times showing some influence from the master. Opening an old issue is a risky affair - usually I finish spending too much time reading it, reducing the listening time available to music.
An often referred point is that HP found that most audiophiles systematically listen significantly louder than real music - he carried a soundmeter to concerts.
And yes, what you call "Freedom from noise artifacts" is what most audiophiles call "black background" - if you have doubts read Michael Fremer on the subject. And he often referred to pinpoint - referring to is as "precisely focused" . IMHO just semantics, YMMV.
That list of attributes is solely from Pearson, not me. He will say a new or updated vocabulary is needed because of 'new generations' of equipment. This to me demarks a vocabulaty split between live and reproduced music that is somewhat incongruous with "the absolute sound". I'm unclear if he ever resolves that. (This not the same thing as I describe as the tension between natural sound and attributes - both of those are in the domain of reproduction.) And yes, it is MF who explicitly uses the language of black backgrounds and pin-point imaging.
Ron, what do you mean by a dichotomy between these two things? One is a simple all encompassing concept and the list is an attempt to better describe it to those who ask for specifics.
It was I who used the word 'dichotomy' in the last paragraph of my message #2809.
Natural Sound
Excellent comparison videos Peter, whilst the Technics is pretty good my vote goes to the Colibri. Sure. I found it remarkable that the Technics sounded as good as it did. Impressive.
www.whatsbestforum.com
Ron questioned why I said 'dichotomy.' My answer to Ron is in message #2813.
Natural Sound
Excellent comparison videos Peter, whilst the Technics is pretty good my vote goes to the Colibri. Sure. I found it remarkable that the Technics sounded as good as it did. Impressive.
www.whatsbestforum.com
[note: the forum software is limited to quoting the first msg on a page, but the links do go to specific posts. somewhat confusing. the forum software used to quote the post pointed at.]
Ron narrowed my response to your writing where you laid out the qualities of natural sound in your post #5 of this thread , but I was talking about the overall discussion on natural sound including all that was written before you started your newest system thread. There was plenty of discussion that pitted 'all that needs be said is "fidelity or infidelity" versus "lots of meanings to the word 'natural' - it needs to be spelled out'.
I most humbly disagree with this view as it is expressed above.Without analysis you cannot enjoy music. Even those who only want to listen with their emotions (their "heart") recognize melodies that they then enjoy. It is a normal analytical activity of the mind; if you raise it more clearly from the unconscious to a conscious activity you can recognize even more melodies, themes, and their mutual connections, including variations through a piece (I am mainly talking classical and jazz here), as well as harmonic connections and progressions -- and in the process, enjoy the music even more
So, no, analysis is not a somewhat artificial activity that we 'put upon' music.
I believe most is gained by not concentrating on aspects of the sound (analysis), but by simply allowing absorption without concentration.
Once you concentrate on variations, themes, etc., you have selected an aspect of the whole experience, at the expense of the experience of the whole event. Trying to concentrate on "melodies, themes, mutual connections or variations" during music playback, is the same as trying to determine where an individual aspect of sound reproduction (bass extension, slam, sound stage, etc.) stands in comparison with some reference (which must be drawn from memory while concentrating on that aspect), totally distracting the listener from the musical experience as a whole.
The phrase "can't see the forest from the trees" comes to mind.
- Status
Similar threads
