Natural Sound

[gian60]

There are many system with natural sound,i can tell that now with my system Ch Precision and my Montagna speaker,after some
Adjustment,Cavle,rack,P20 ecc,i found sound more natural and true that before with all top Kondo,Audiotekne and big WE 555 horn system of my friend and Top Yamamura dionysio system
Could be for high quality driver of my speaker

 

[gian60]

And also much more exciting when i listen at 0.2 peak watt or 500 peak watt with a speaker of 97/98 db

 

[tima]

Looking back over the last ten pages or so it is hard to deny the conversation here has's gotten kinda rough and tumble with talk of 'tribes' and 'haymakers.' I dont understand the heightened passion and more than occasional nastiness.

This is Peter's system thead, a follow-on to his Journey to Utah thread and his subsequent new audio system. Peter has been expessive in telling us about his passage from his beloved SME/Pass/Magico world to his Micro-Seiki/Lamm/Vitavox system. Pretty radical change, don't you think, and done in an open transparent way while also sharing his reasons for what he's done. It's a nice positive contribution to WBF and an entertaining read. He has been forthright in answering all the questions that have been thrown at him.

So what is it about this thread that attracts the kind of comments we're seeing? (That's rhetorical.) Do people come here to see a car wreck? That's not fair to Peter.

Why are people so polarized about what he named his system? Granted it is a rather bold name but hasn't he explained why he gave it? Why is it so difficult to accept a name?

Maybe I missed it - you tell me - where are the blatant criticisms or misrepresentations of other's systems or preferences that are claimed as rationale for coming into this thread and making a mess? Why does digital stuff even come up in an analog system thread?

Why all the faux criticism over the meaning of 'natural sound?' What is it about that idea that causes such discord? Rather than participants saying - "well here is what I think about natural sound" or saying "these things x,y,z are important to me and this is where we differ," or "I don't hear this and that in the concert hall but I hear it in your videos" -- rather than that, interesting questions or constructive critique, we get what we've gotten lately - too much of it is meta-issue froo froo, some of which I'm guilty.

Why don't others make a positive contribution instead of all this snipping and snipeing. Stop pointing fingers. I'm tired of it. We are better than that.

 

[bonzo75]

Looking back over the last ten pages

Wow I wouldn't dare

 

[KeithR]

Lamm is a top brand and probably why it gets attention when mentioned but I talk to many people with modest budgets about gear that won't get any mileage here.

I like Lamm but a top brand is a stretch. No new product in years with few dealers…it’s always been esoteric and will continue to be so. I hope the company has hired a designer and can move forward past Vladimir’s passing. If not, more vintage gear for you to sell

 

[XV-1]

Looking back over the last ten pages or so it is hard to deny the conversation here has's gotten kinda rough and tumble with talk of 'tribes' and 'haymakers.' I dont understand the heightened passion and more than occasional nastiness.

This is Peter's system thead, a follow-on to his Journey to Utah thread and his subsequent new audio system. Peter has been expessive in telling us about his passage from his beloved SME/Pass/Magico world to his Micro-Seiki/Lamm/Vitavox system. Pretty radical change, don't you think, and done in an open transparent way while also sharing his reasons for what he's done. It's a nice positive contribution to WBF and an entertaining read. He has been forthright in answering all the questions that have been thrown at him.

So what is it about this thread that attracts the kind of comments we're seeing? (That's rhetorical.) Do people come here to see a car wreck? That's not fair to Peter.

Why are people so polarized about what he named his system? Granted it is a rather bold name but hasn't he explained why he gave it? Why is it so difficult to accept a name?

Maybe I missed it - you tell me - where are the blatant criticisms or misrepresentations of other's systems or preferences that are claimed as rationale for coming into this thread and making a mess? Why does digital stuff even come up in an analog system thread?

Why all the faux criticism over the meaning of 'natural sound?' What is it about that idea that causes such discord? Rather than participants saying - "well here is what I think about natural sound" or saying "these things x,y,z are important to me and this is where we differ," or "I don't hear this and that in the concert hall but I hear it in your videos" -- rather than that, interesting questions or constructive critique, we get what we've gotten lately - too much of it is meta-issue froo froo, some of which I'm guilty.

Why don't others make a positive contribution instead of all this snipping and snipeing. Stop pointing fingers. I'm tired of it. We are better than that.

For me it's the title " Natural Sound " which can be seen as elitist BS.

It seems to imply exclusivity vs inclusivity.

Would " Realistic Vintage Sound " create such a stir? No

 

[gian60]

3 years ago my friend living 5 km from my home,few years experience in hiend.
He had Wilson Alexandria,amp Krell Evo One mono 4 stack and Micro 5000 with dynavector and Air tight cartridge
Sure a good sound
I brought to him to try
Leak Tl 12 plus amp and one way speaker my friend did with a good driver but very cheap,with good stand and audiotekne cable
He was shocked and told me
How natural is this sound much natural than my system

 

[christoph]

3 years ago my friend living 5 km from my home,few years experience in hiend.
He had Wilson Alexandria,amp Krell Evo One mono 4 stack and Micro 5000 with dynavector and Air tight cartridge
Sure a good sound
I brought to him to try
Leak Tl 12 plus amp and one way speaker my friend did with a good driver but very cheap,with good stand and audiotekne cable
He was shocked and told me
How natural is this sound much natural than my system

I blame the Krell

 

[tima]

For me it's the title " Natural Sound " which can be seen as elitist BS.

It seems to imply exclusivity vs inclusivity.

Would " Realistic Vintage Sound " create such a stir? No

Shane, I liked your post because you're being honest and straightforward in giving your view - you've always been a straight shooter. I don't align with it because I do not see your interpretation in those two words, I do however see where you're coming from. I have no problem with "Realistic Vintage Sound". Looking at the hub-bub after the fact, another title could be "A Natural Sound" suggesting it is an example, perhaps ameliorating what some might read into it as an archetype or singular model. But I think Peter is entitled to name his system thread anything he wants.

Having met Peter, spent time in conversation with him, and from reading his posts here at WBF I can tell you he is not an elitist guy - he is an open friendly guy with passion for music who liked what he found at David's. When David is queiried about assessing a stereo, he will ask "Does it sound natural?" Pretty straightforward. I will suggest not taking your dislike of the title and channeling that onto anyone - which I note that you did not do!

Imo, natural sound is for, or available to. anyyone if that is their preference. And what it means can vary from person to person or system to system. To me, the underlying idea that makes it what it is derives not from another stereo system but from listening to actual performances - it means that live acoustic music is its basis or its goal. That idea does not strike me as inclusive or exclusive. But I will say some systems sound more natural than others - that is my opinion. It strikes me as silly (polite word) that there can be rancor over making the choice to pursue a natural sounding system. ymmv.

 

[PeterA]

There is an audio dealership located near me called Natural Sound. https://natural-sound.com/

Judging from the curfuffle caused by my thread title, I am surprised the local Goodwin’s High End customers don’t picket the place with charges of false advertising and elitism. Why aren’t they outraged and offended? How could they claim that the gear they sell there sounds more natural than the SOTA gear Goodwins sells: the latest, greatest, and most expensive?

Come to think of it, they were my Transparent Audio dealer. No one screams that calling a cable brand Transparent denigrates all other cables as colored and inferior.

The owners of these businesses chose these names because they reflect the companies goals and values. I did the same.

 

[gian60]

I blame the Krell

Yes but Evo One is no bad

 

[wil]

Shane, I liked your post because you're being honest and straightforward in giving your view - you've always been a straight shooter. I don't align with it because I do not see your interpretation in those two words, I do however see where you're coming from. I have no problem with "Realistic Vintage Sound". Looking at the hub-bub after the fact, another title could be "A Natural Sound" suggesting it is an example, perhaps ameliorating what some might read into it as an archetype or singular model. But I think Peter is entitled to name his system thread anything he wants.

Having met Peter, spent time in conversation with him, and from reading his posts here at WBF I can tell you he is not an elitist guy - he is an open friendly guy with passion for music who liked what he found at David's. When David is queiried about assessing a stereo, he will ask "Does it sound natural?" Pretty straightforward. I will suggest not taking your dislike of the title and channeling that onto anyone - which I note that you did not do!

Imo, natural sound is for, or available to. anyyone if that is their preference. And what it means can vary from person to person or system to system. To me, the underlying idea that makes it what it is derives not from another stereo system but from listening to actual performances - it means that live acoustic music is its basis or its goal. That idea does not strike me as inclusive or exclusive. But I will say some systems sound more natural than others - that is my opinion. It strikes me as silly (polite word) that there can be rancor over making the choice to pursue a natural sounding system. ymmv.

If this many people had a problem with the title, it’s probably worth considering why. I think the reasoning has been explained numerous times. “A Natural Sound” would have gone over without a peep I bet. The thread contains a lot of good content nevertheless.

 

[rando]

If this many people had a problem with the title, it’s probably worth considering why. I think the reasoning has been explained numerous times. “A Natural Sound” would have gone over without a peep I bet. The thread contains a lot of good content nevertheless.

Paraphrasing what was once told me at the height of an intrigue.

Peter, you must be doing something right to upset so many people.

 

[ddk]

For me it's the title " Natural Sound " which can be seen as elitist BS.

It seems to imply exclusivity vs inclusivity.

!
This notion was floated earlier in this thread I see it now! Natural is exclusive to the fake and the phony and elitist in a forum called What’s Best!

Would " Realistic Vintage Sound " create such a stir? No

Please define vintage sound so we know what you mean otherwise it can be seen as prejudicial against some of our members. Isn’t realistic and real still naturally exclusive to the fake and the phony?

david

 

[Mike Lavigne]

"Sublime Sound II" TM

 

[spiritofmusic]

"Why Was My Old Sound So Unnatural?" lol

 

[andromedaaudio]

Peter can i call my next speaker model TNS
Assuming it will create an enourmous amount of controversy , which is basically free advertising

 

[andromedaaudio]

Peter i think it has nothing to do with the name .
Its merely the fact how its presented , that some in the horn community act as they have found some secret philosophers stone regarding sound reproduction that other people are unable to hear
Sets / Horns ..., look it might all be true that this is exactly the way unamplified music( "recorded" ) can be trucefully reproduced in the living room .
As i havent heard it , it can all be true .
What off course makes it difficult to verify these claims is that these systems are very scarce and are most likely music ( your music ) choice dependant .

 

[Ron Resnick]

And what [natural sound] means can vary from person to person or system to system.

Hello Peter,

It is interesting that Tim wrote this. Because I think this goes to the core of the kerfuffle.

Peter, in your view, is what you mean by "natural sound" something that can vary from person to person or system to system?

 

[microstrip]

Looking back over the last ten pages or so it is hard to deny the conversation here has's gotten kinda rough and tumble with talk of 'tribes' and 'haymakers.' I dont understand the heightened passion and more than occasional nastiness.

This is Peter's system thead, a follow-on to his Journey to Utah thread and his subsequent new audio system. Peter has been expessive in telling us about his passage from his beloved SME/Pass/Magico world to his Micro-Seiki/Lamm/Vitavox system. Pretty radical change, don't you think, and done in an open transparent way while also sharing his reasons for what he's done. It's a nice positive contribution to WBF and an entertaining read. He has been forthright in answering all the questions that have been thrown at him.

So what is it about this thread that attracts the kind of comments we're seeing? (That's rhetorical.) Do people come here to see a car wreck? That's not fair to Peter.

Why are people so polarized about what he named his system? Granted it is a rather bold name but hasn't he explained why he gave it? Why is it so difficult to accept a name?

Maybe I missed it - you tell me - where are the blatant criticisms or misrepresentations of other's systems or preferences that are claimed as rationale for coming into this thread and making a mess? Why does digital stuff even come up in an analog system thread?

Why all the faux criticism over the meaning of 'natural sound?' What is it about that idea that causes such discord? Rather than participants saying - "well here is what I think about natural sound" or saying "these things x,y,z are important to me and this is where we differ," or "I don't hear this and that in the concert hall but I hear it in your videos" -- rather than that, interesting questions or constructive critique, we get what we've gotten lately - too much of it is meta-issue froo froo, some of which I'm guilty.

Why don't others make a positive contribution instead of all this snipping and snipeing. Stop pointing fingers. I'm tired of it. We are better than that.

The usual disguised condescendence, but you say it all when you write "faux criticism" in your post. For you any argument that disagrees with you is "faux". But yes, you seem to miss 90% of the activity of this forum.

And surely I do not subscribe your moving call dividing the WBF community between those who make positive contributions according to your view and those who write "snipping and snipeing" posts.

Sorry, I have little patience for faux catechism. IMHO we are older than that .