Could you frame that question in a more condescending way?
I see no substantive difference between my sentence and your second sentence.
Last edited:
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
- Status
Could you frame that question in a more condescending way?
I see no substantive difference between my sentence and your second sentence.
Ron, you do understand the difference between what I said and what you said, don't you?
Probably.
My goal was to get you think about how you shifted the meaning of my words when you were interrogating Peter.about what I said. Obviously I did not succeed.
... So, how was that rejoinder-- more condescending or less?
The difference is you are talking about what people hear. I am talking about what people mean by the term natural sound. The difference between listening or hearing versus describing.
I've said this before. I tend to think we hear more similarly than different. We can tell the difference between live music and a recording. We can hear the difference between a trombone and cello when both play at the same pitch. We differ more in how we describe what we hear.
Exactly. Be in a state of flow while you are doing it - whether it's a musical performance, a movie, a book, or being mesmerized by a great work of art. Afterwards, reflect, discuss and analyze.
Reaching the state of flow is highly correlated with human happiness. If something doesn't one to the state of flow, no point doing it in my opinion.
Yes, meaning and hearing are two different things. Because people mean what they say when they describe what they hear I think these effectively collapse into a distinction without a difference in this context.
In this context of understanding natural sound I do not perceive a substantive difference between what somebody "means" about natural sound and what natural sound "sounds" like to such person.
Or is your point that peoples' ears hear similarly but that their brains activate their mouths to describe what is heard with greater variance than what the ears are actually hearing?
Last edited:
Interesting. I thought it was one of the more intellectually dishonest things I've read in a long time.
It was condescending, it was willfully ignorant and delegitimizing of other people's POV. This is just a rehash of stuff that's been said before and tima knows EXACTLY why other people have had issue with Natural Sound(tm).
Anyways, ddk's way of communicating reminds me of some former president we saw a pic of recently in this thread or some similar one, which of course wasn't political at all. He's the T&$%*% of audio, lol.
Anyways, the thought that Natural Sound(tm) can vary from person to person or system to system has been totally shot-down and is WRONG. Lest I remind you that one "Audiophile" power cable, whatever that even means, will ruin your natural sound. Like ALL "Audiophile" PCs are the same, lol. What you need is one particular cord that isn't available to actually buy anywhere anymore. And the statement that others that have not experienced a certain system have no idea what Natural Sound(tm) is has been made abundantly clear many times.
I have no idea why this is even being discussed unless folks really love to repeat the same crap over and over. I suggest "Natural Sound(tm)" have it's own forum where there are rules against the continuous argumentation of it's definition and questioning of it's gear and tweaks that make up the Natural Sound(tm) experience. The forum should have the terms defined for all to be clear about, and then WBF will never argue about Natural Sound(tm) ever again. We also have to acknowledge the fact that Natural Sound(tm) and natural sound are two DIFFERENT terms, and imo it would help a lot to have the capitalization and (tm) applied when it's about ddk's system of gear and tweaks.
It's abundantly clear that something needs to be done as WBF has far too much arguing on the subject, and unsurprisingly it's dividing it's membership in unhealthy ways. Some see this as a healthy exploration of the audio hobby but I disagree, the circular arguments are doing more harm than good imo.
Huh? Perhaps a category mistake. When I talk about meaning, I'm talking about descriptive communication, not intent. I'm a bit tired so forgive my powers of condescension not being at full strength. You are more on track with yr third paragraph.
Not sure why "means" is in quotes. Bit of a tussle here. I suggest the word 'describes'.
Your talk is of a single person. I don't think there is an issue of internal consistency but rather what we have here on the forum speaking to others, each other.
Describing sound is difficult. From our use of different descriptions upon hearing the same reproduction on the same system it does not follow that we heard it differently. We may have a difference in focus or what we listen for or what we like. We may a different capacity in vocabulary or ability to describe effectively. This may explain the oft heard words "I don't how to say it but I know it when I hear it." I thought Peter made a valiant effort in putting together his characteristics of natural sound.
We do the best we can. The difficulty is partly why there is so much power behind the simplicity of the word 'natural.' Yet even that can suggest different things to different people. Thus we struggle.
As I said before, there is nothing wrong with unbridled enthusiasm for a particular approach, and I applaud such enthusiasm.
It becomes problematic when expressing this enthusiasm entails disparaging other approaches with a righteousness of having found "the truth", in this case Natural Sound(tm).
I understand that, and that is why my target in the hobby is no longer on the list of those objectives. My thinking about my own approach has changed quite a bit in the last two years.
I wrote that today. I don’t recall that you wrote the same thing often. Is that actually your goal with your system?
I sometimes listen to live music with my eyes closed and sometimes to my system with my eyes closed. For me the experience is not very different than it is with eyes open. It used to make more of a difference with my old system but not now. And not in Utah. I can’t really explain why, but when I was listening to Ella Fitzgerald and Joe Pass perform together in David’s listening room with Tim a few weeks ago, my eyes were wide open and I saw them there in front of us. I will never forget that.
In fact we discussed it several times, I just confirmed it googling in this thread. You seem to forget many things in WBF - Marc system, my posts. No problem, my point was clear and I was addressing just live music and building a reference, not listening to our systems.
BTW, Nick Marshal called the audiophile feeling of seeing people in reproduced music the "active eye" syndrome - you are not unique. I have experienced it with the WAMMs and will not forget, in some demos carried at very large spaces, sometimes in my system at a lesser degree. The Soundlab's are great in this aspect, but not with complex music.
Al, could you please support this claim with a few examples? Thank you.
I was addressing not just live music but also listening at home. That is the whole point. I want the experiences to be similar. You quoted what I wrote today and claim you said it too many times the same since you used quotes, yet you will not show me these exact words from you. Thank you anyway.
This does not make any sense to me.
"similar to the experience when listening to live music"
and
"create a sound that seems live"
are substantially, if not exactly, the same. I see no change in objective.
The first is a holistic experience. The second is simply listening to sound.
I understand now. I think the second is a subset of the first. I agree with you that the first is a more comprehensive objective.
So, does this mean you think all approaches lead to equivalent outcomes…that all amp types and all speaker types and all source, wire etc. types can result in a sound that closely resembles the real thing (aka natural sound)?
I think you explained your POV quite clearly in your first paragraph here Peter. It is clear to me anyway. And cheers to you for patiently and kindly answering those herein who just want to argue for the sake of it.
I don't think most people have objective 4. Most get into hifi just buying stuff and from there on they upgrade/trade in to bigger and more expensive stuff.
Of those who do have that objective, I agree there is more than one way. But at least we can filter out people who did not put their system together for 4, and that number is much higher because very few are going to come out and announce their system and objective have nothing to do with real music.
I think of those who try objective 4, there are two approaches:
1. To have a system that throws stage, bass, highs, etc. Reissues sound good
2. System gets out of the way to play recordings. This can even be achieved with small simple systems, .e.g. Devore Orangutan with NAF 2a3 integrated, which can play the soundstage and ambience of records better than many larger speakers with more bass weight. However this approach is rarer than 1 and imo more advanced.
As for rest of the thread,
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
