Natural Sound

[Al M.]

I most humbly disagree with this view as it is expressed above.

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.

On the contrary. I think embracing all aspects is embracing the human experience as a whole, and makes it richer. Here is what I wrote elsewhere, with the second paragraph touching on this very issue:

"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."

From:

My journey through Stockhausen’s music

 

[Rensselaer]

On the contrary. I think embracing all aspects is embracing the human experience as a whole, and makes it richer. Here is what I wrote elsewhere, with the second paragraph touching on this very issue:

"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."

From:

My journey through Stockhausen’s music

Yes, I can see how after repeated listenings to a recording, one might then delve into various aspects of the recording to learn more about it.

What I was commenting upon was in relation to the most recent comments by tima and others about the dichotomy between the Gestalt of the experience and aspects of the sound that makes it "natural". As stated, I feel that when one starts to concentrate on aspects of the presentation, then searches their memory for references of that/those aspects to compare, one is somewhere other than that of experiencing "natural sound". After that attainment, I would agree, one can ignore the whole to concentrate upon aspects for ones' entertainment/enlightenment.

 

[PeterA]

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.

On the contrary. I think embracing all aspects is embracing the human experience as a whole, and makes it richer. Here is what I wrote elsewhere, with the second paragraph touching on this very issue:

"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."

From:

My journey through Stockhausen’s music

These are two interesting posts, Al, especially in my system thread about natural sound. Thank you. As this is my attempt to reflect and share my experiences, I have come to realize with the more listening I do, that, in the end, my goal is really to try to get as close to that listening experience I get at the concert hall, or the jazz club, or the chamber setting. I want that similar experience from my favorite music and artists in my listening room at the convenience of a flip of an LP.

When I reflect on exactly what that live listening experience is, it is holistic, mostly. At times, I can analyze the sound, the melody, the playing. What I do not want from my system, and something I NEVER experience live, is a sound that forces analysis. This is characterized by a sense of balance. The presentation is there for me to experience as I want it. It is the same with a system that sounds natural. I can sit and enjoy the whole. I can sit and follow the melodies or a particular instrument. I can relax and let my mind to where it wants.

I am getting ever closer to reaching this goal from my system. It is what I experienced in Utah too, to an extreme level. In contrast, I have lived with my former systems, and heard others, where the experience is decidedly different. I sit and immediately go into analysis mode, taking apart the sound, the melodies, the bits and the pieces. This is not what I want from my system nor from the hobby any longer.

Your two posts seem at first a bit contradictory. First you are saying that one can not enjoy music without analyzing it. You write it as some universal experience we all have. In the second quote you get more reflective and talk about your own experience and how you personally listen, but you are still writing that you embrace all aspects of the human (listing) experience. I think Rensselaer is respectfully saying that it is possible to simply sit and enjoy the music washing over him, I suspect when in his listening room as well as in the concert hall. I agree with him. It is possible and for me, this is what usually happens. Sure it is even richer if one appreciates what went into the music, the genesis and genius of the composer, the interpretation of the conductor, and the playing of the musicians, the sound of the hall, the components that make up the whole. But it is not necessary to ENJOY. We enjoy things in life at different levels. Whether something is richer for one is for him, not for all.

I respect you perspective, but I can relate to Rensselaer's too. For me, it is about the music listening experience, however it happens, conscientiously, or otherwise. Live music allows for passive or active involvement. I want my system to act similarly, so the presentation of the music does not encourage me one way or the other. The music should just be there, presented to me, live or recorded, in the same natural way.

 

[Al M.]

When I reflect on exactly what that live listening experience is, it is holistic, mostly. At times, I can analyze the sound, the melody, the playing. What I do not want from my system, and something I NEVER experience live, is a sound that forces analysis. This is characterized by a sense of balance. The presentation is there for me to experience as I want it. It is the same with a system that sounds natural. I can sit and enjoy the whole. I can sit and follow the melodies or a particular instrument. I can relax and let my mind to where it wants.

I am getting ever closer to reaching this goal from my system. It is what I experienced in Utah too, to an extreme level. In contrast, I have lived with my former systems, and heard others, where the experience is decidedly different. I sit and immediately go into analysis mode, taking apart the sound, the melodies, the bits and the pieces. This is not what I want from my system nor from the hobby any longer.

In live concerts of unamplified music I immediately analyze the sound. That's the fun of it, getting to know closely the reference against which systems should be judged. You also analyze live sound, Peter; otherwise you could not have written, the way you did, a few pages back the account of the live experience in the church that we enjoyed together.

Your two posts seem at first a bit contradictory. First you are saying that one can not enjoy music without analyzing it. You write it as some universal experience we all have. In the second quote you get more reflective and talk about your own experience and how you personally listen, but you are still writing that you embrace all aspects of the human (listing) experience.

The posts are not contradictory. In the first post you cited, the sentence after the one that you put in bold letters reads:

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...

So there is always analysis by the mind.

 

[PeterA]

That's all fine Al. I am just saying that I personally don't have to analyze sound when it is live to enjoy the experience. I am not sure it makes it richer for me or not. Perhaps, but that is not the point for me. Sometimes I choose to and do, but certainly not always. Same at home. Some people do that more. Some systems force analysing. My old ones did, the new one does not. That is my personal goal with my system. Live music does not. This is the mark of live music and of a system that presents recorded music naturally, in my opinion. I want my system to reflect a similar experience for me. I am not talking about what you choose to do to enrich your experience. That is for you to do. It seemed from your first post that you implied that we, all of us, have to analyze the music to enjoy it. I included the whole post and highlighted the part for clarity. Rensslaer disagreed with this, and so do I. I can enjoy without analyzing and it seems he can too. It is as simple as that. I understand if you disagree. That is fine.

 

[caesar]

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.

Respectfully disagree... I think we need to separate the different processing performed by the brain... There is a visceral side (making quick judgments about the environment in order to survive) and a reflective side (cognitive).

What puts humans in the state of flow to enjoy music (or art, architecture, design, etc.) is the immediate, visceral response. And then , as humans, we can analyze the experience afterwards. But maybe long-time audiophiles are different because all they do is analyze sounds.

 

[caesar]

PS. Just randomly jumped into this thread. I wonder if anyone who hasn't visited DDK's place really understands what is meant by Peter's use of the term "natural". (The answer is they don't.)

 

[PeterA]

PS. Just randomly jumped into this thread. I wonder if anyone who hasn't visited DDK's place really understands what is meant by Peter's use of the term "natural". (The answer is they don't.)

Tang understands it but never visited. Others understand also. Just look at old threads on this very forum and you will see people using the term natural all over the place with no pushback or confusion.

David started talking about it as an approach to system building and set up. He had guidance and the Lamm ML2 was the first exposure, but he figured a lot out on his own. He has since enjoyed helping others and me. People who visit him will hear a variety of system combinations that exhibit a similar character. Some visitors will understand it and some will not. Much of it depends on what one wants. There are many different approaches, all valid.

 

[Al M.]

PS. Just randomly jumped into this thread. I wonder if anyone who hasn't visited DDK's place really understands what is meant by Peter's use of the term "natural". (The answer is they don't.)

Have you visited DDK's place then?

 

[caesar]

Tang understands it but never visited. Others understand also. Just look at old threads on this very forum and you will see people using the term natural all over the place with no pushback or confusion.

David started talking about it as an approach to system building and set up. He had guidance and the Lamm ML2 was the first exposure, but he figured a lot out on his own. He has since enjoyed helping others and me. People who visit him will hear a variety of system combinations that exhibit a similar character. Some visitors will understand it and some will not. Much of it depends on what one wants. There are many different approaches, all valid.

Tang understands because he is a customer, I believe, and they spent time together to create that share understanding. I’m sure his Understanding would be enhanced further if he did the pilgrimage

 

[caesar]

Have you visited DDK's place then?

No, I am too time constrained.

Would love to, but I’m focusing on stuff I can actually acquire and be able to play within my real estate constraints . But I have no doubt it’s one of the best systems in the world

 

[Al M.]

No, I am too time constrained.

Would love to, but I’m focusing on stuff I can actually acquire and be able to play within my real estate constraints . But I have no doubt it’s one of the best systems in the world

So I suppose, by your own words, you don't really understand either what Peter means by "natural".

 

[PeterA]

Tang understands because he is a customer, I believe, and they spent time together to create that share understanding. I’m sure his Understanding would be enhanced further if he did the pilgrimage

I am not quite sure what you mean by “pilgrimage”, Caesar. Others refer to David’s listening room as Mecca were you drink Kool-Aid at the feet of a guru. None of that has anything to do with reality. He offers great tea and is a wonderful chef, but it is more of a relaxed friendly atmosphere where one goes to enjoy himself and marvel at hearing what is possible in the hobby.

Mike Lavigne has many visitors. He too has started many threads about his system and people report on what they hear. Do people think they are making some kind of a pilgrimage to go out to Seattle to hear Mike’s system?

These are just two guys who have a lot of experience and who are willing to share it with others. You can’t get to Utah without an invitation, like with most other home visits. Once they are there, visitors seem to have a similar listening experience. When they write about it, common themes tend to come up. For me, it was just such a fundamentally different listening experience, and it was with all four of the systems, that I stayed an entire week soaking it all in and learning as much as I could.

A good friend of mine used to do a lot of listening to his own system and to the various iterations of my system. He then moved and kept the old house so he never moved his audio system to the new place. His only listening was then at friends’ houses. He visited me fairly often and took part in some of the experiments I was making with my former sublime sound system. He heard my new turntable and decided to contact David and order one for himself.

When I set up my new system he came to listen. He came back when David came out to fine tune the new system. He listened to my system some more and was inspired to take up his guitar again. He then bought the same LAMM preamp. After some more contact with David, he decided to go visit him. He stayed for five days a month after I went out there with Tima.

He may one day write about that visit, but in the meantime he has found and bought some vintage speakers that he heard at David’s house and is getting more LAMM electronics.

I suspect everybody leaves a visit to Utah thinking different things. But no one seems unchanged. The experience is likely the result of both meeting a wonderful gentleman who wants to share his vast experience and then hearing for one’s self the results of that experience. What one does afterwards is up to him.

 

[Folsom]

This thread is getting to be a bit of a word salad. People just need to try changes, see if they like it.

 

[tima]

I am not quite sure what you mean by “pilgrimage”, Caesar. Others refer to David’s listening room as Mecca were you drink Kool-Aid at the feet of a guru. None of that has anything to do with reality. He offers great tea and is a wonderful chef, but it is more of a relaxed friendly atmosphere where one goes to enjoy himself and marvel at hearing what is possible in the hobby.

Earlier I used 'pilgrimage' in reference to visiting Utah. I thought of people on the Mayflower coming to the new world.

Bonzo called David's a learning mecca and I picked up on that as well. There is no Kool-Aid drinking a la Jim Jones or feet sitting in adoration -- I know you know that and I say so only for the benefit of others. Guru? That kinda smacks of George Harrison but I don't think it is too far off track though not in any sort of didactic or lecturing way. That is not his style. David's breadth of experience, knowledge, integrity and talent earns my respect and I have learned a lot from paying attention to him.

 

[tima]

Unless any conscious awareness is considered analysis, the notion that recognizing a melody is analysis does not work for me. To me analysis is intentional. Recognition is not intentional, it simply happens.

 

[microstrip]

PS. Just randomly jumped into this thread. I wonder if anyone who hasn't visited DDK's place really understands what is meant by Peter's use of the term "natural". (The answer is they don't.)

As far as I understand it, "Natural Sound" includes inserting Lamm gear in a system. The best explanations of it existed in the Lamm site, that is now inaccessible. Michael Fremer review of the Lamm ML3 touches some aspects of it.

 

[PeterA]

As far as I understand it, "Natural Sound" includes inserting Lamm gear in a system. The best explanations of it existed in the Lamm site, that is now inaccessible. Michael Fremer review of the Lamm ML3 touches some aspects of it.

A natural sounding system does not require specific brands to be “inserted”. If this is what you understand, you seem to have missed the point entirely. Of course, having Lamm electronics never hurts.

 

[Al M.]

A natural sounding system does not require specific brands to be “inserted”. If this is what you understand, you seem to have missed the point entirely.

What then is the point? I am still having trouble understanding that. It seems that only certain system types can qualify, horns or other high efficiency speakers, and low wattage SETs.

Or maybe not, even though it seems to be so in practice. Your list of things in post #5 of this thread (first page) is so vague that anything could and should qualify.

This point though is problematic:

"No analysis of the sound into bits and pieces, music experienced as a whole"

That is simply not how I experience music, period. And I never want to, it would make music utterly boring for me. I always look for musical lines that are interesting to consciously follow, which is also to analyze. Fortunately, all great classical music, jazz and a lot of rock, among others, has that. This is what makes music great and interesting for me. This is also what separates the great classical composers from the myriads of lesser composers that have been forgotten and dispersed by the winds of time towards the obscure corners of history.

Sure, this conscious following of all the happenings in the music hopefully is able to synthesize the music back into a whole at a higher level, as it reveals all the connections within it that create the overarching narrative that the composer (or improviser) intended. But this doesn't seem to be what you had in mind, since in your words your "experience of the whole" eschews analysis.

Thus I will probably never qualify for the experience of Natural Sound (TM).

So be it.

 

[Ron Resnick]

If we take away the 'why' word and de-capitalize 'natural sound' I can address your question.

Why de-capitalize it? "Natural Sound," as practiced by David and as adopted and written about by Peter and by Tim, means something deliberately more specific than merely sound which is generically natural. In other words "Natural Sound" is a subset of natural sound.