Ron, don't you think Peter has enough on his plate negotiating the blowback to his thread without lumbering him with more? He'll need a bigger plate.
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
- Status
As long as you reference what you want in terms of what you have, that can happen. But by Crom, here at WBF you will fit into one of those boxes.
Conjecture: I suspect many get into hifi after hearing a better system If they hear a high-end system they get charmed with the psycho-acoustic effects - "wow I did not know a stereo could lead me to see the Linda Ronstadt and her band on stage". People want comparisons and reviews compare between the review product and another product. The upgrader gets locked inside reproduction, especially if they don't go to concerts, live performances.. Asking "what do I want from my system" usually comes much later. Some not all. Musicians have a fighting chance.
I think upgrading is just pragmatism. The regular guy doesn't have money to change all out. He spends as and when he gets some surplus, often through a spending addiction. Then, the next bigger thing, or when his dealer calls him to turn in older model and get newer upgraded model for "not much", makes practical sense.
Selling off what we have bought as a mistake we realize retrospectively, is a big pain, especially for larger and less liquid products.
That spending keeps the industry alive. Peter made a wholesale change at the system level. Quality components and none of them were new and he is very happy with the choice he made to do that. There is value in vintage. Upgrades can be appealing - sometimes those come through the manufacturer. Component by component is probably not the best way to get to where you want -if- you have a goal beyond 'sounds better'.
Selling off mistakes can indeed be painful. Heck selling off decent gear can be painful. I have no numbers but my sense is the current used market is very tough. First resale tended to be half of msrp, but I don't think people are getting that today unless the component is still hot. The sooner you sell after product release, the more you will recoup. So turn over your mistakes quickly!
Let's be realistic, a lot of buying is just scratching itches. That is the hobby. It is like going to gym or playing a sport is a nice feeling, only few professionals have a long term plan but for the rest it is a regular feel good rush at periodic intervals. Itch of buying can often differ from sonic goals.
Not buying component by component and waiting for too long..wait, that rings a bell.
Upgrading is a consequence of the stereo system. As the standard is poorly defined and the recorded material shows noticeable differences in technical terms and objectives it is always possible to get a "better" system. Listening to stereo involves education - we must fill many gaps. Our stereo education will bias our choices. It is always possible to get an "improved" system. Audio scholars consider this an weak point of stereo sound reproduction, we consider it a fantastic aspect of our hobby.
Yes but many think upgrade is next or bigger model does not necessarily translate to sonic upgrade
How do you re-create the holistic experience of being in concert hall beyond the sound you hear? When listening to the stereo we want to re-create as authentically as possible the sound we here in the concert hall.
What is the rest of the experience that you are trying to re-create? What are the elements that take you from re-creating the sound of live music to re-creating the holistic experience?
I would think these other elements include the feeling of being surrounded by other concert-goers, and the three dimensional physical sense of being in a large venue? But I don't think you mean these other elements.
I think this post displays the error of forgetting that this is a subjective hobby, not an objective hobby. It is the arrogance of believing that the sound you like is in some way objectively correct, and if the upgrading audiophile prefers a different sound, then he/she is objectively incorrect, and has made an arithmetic-type error.
It is correct that an upgrade to the next or to a bigger model does not necessarily translate into a sonic upgrade. But the only barometer by which this gets measured is the ear of the audiophile attempting the upgrade.
Maybe the sound has improved, and the audiophile will keep the upgraded component; maybe the audiophile will feel over time that the sound has taken a step in the wrong direction and he/she will replace the upgraded component.
But if Kedar feels that the sound is not improved that is a subjective opinion by Kedar, not an objective fact which proves the upgrading audiophile to have been incorrect (irrespective of the upgrading audiophile's own perception).
A lot of the talking past each other on the forum occurs, I believe, because even some experienced audiophiles continue to make the mistake of thinking that the sound they want from their stereos is objectively correct sound, and if someone seeks and achieves a different sound then such person has made an objective mistake, a factual error, and has failed to achieve his/her high-end audio objective. This is a fallacy.
Last edited:
Sorry but I have hardly been active in the NS thread backing Peter for people to be frustrated at me. I understand you and many would be lumping us together as guys who like SETs horns and live but that is about it as you guys cannot appreciate the differences beyond that. Please show me other frustrated posts against me here relating to NS. There can be other frustrated posts on other topics that's separate.
Also, I did not refer to the sound I want in the statement you highlighted. That is your misinterpretation, and quite a stretch. Whatever your taste. SETs, Gryphons, horns, planars, etc - the next model in the line or bigger is not necessarily an upgrade. You, for example, prefer the Logan hybrids to CLX. Or, the next cone in line proves too big for the room. These are often mistakes. Big horns in small rooms where they don't sound coherent at short distances. Can go on. Audiophiles realize this only in retrospect, so it is not their barometer. That is what I was referring to
Most of it is just semantics. Some people want to create a new language, giving new meanings to words that are established since decades, both objectively and subjectively. This creates a lot of confusion and contention. Even their definition of "objective" differs from the established one.
Yes; I should not have focused my reply on your involvement in this particular thread. I'm sorry about that. I have edited my post to correct my error.
From our walk three evenings ago. May each of us enjoy his own walk to his own destination. Happy Fourth of July everyone!
Last edited:
Hello Ron,
You are correct. I am not talking about being surrounded by the fellow concert-goers, their noises and smells or their charms. The three dimensional physical sense of being in a large venue, or a smaller chamber, or a jazz club, is important though. This is often captured on the recording and presented by a well set up system.
I am talking about the way the listening experience makes me feel. I can be relaxed, energized, or somewhere in between, both in the music venue or in my listening room. My mind can be free to wander, get absorbed, or be free to focus. It is about what the listening experience does to one's body and to his mind.
Some systems preclude this sense of freedom and abandonment to the music. Others do not. It is about how the music is retrieved and then presented which creates an atmosphere in which the listener is free to react to what he hears and where the music takes him. This happens to me at the live music venue. I want the same freedom to react to the music at home. It is more than the sound one hears. It is the connection to the music and where that leads one's mind, and how he physically feels. I want the system and the set up to allow these things to happen, not to hinder them.
It sounds pretty simple, and just like hearing natural sound from a system, it is a goal that perhaps many other people have. I really do not know. This is about my thoughts and goals and not about anything else. Wanting a system that sounds natural was the easy part. The listening experience part of it, beyond the sound, took me years to fully recognize and to understand. I am only now learning how to express this distinction, its true importance, and how to go further in this direction.
This is my own reflection and explanation of what I am doing with my system and set up. I make no claims or commentary for anyone else. I respect and appreciate that others have different ideas and goals and go about achieving them in their own way. That is what makes this hobby so fascinating.
Last edited:
Hello,
I am Alex Yoon, Wavetouch audio.com. I make audio cables and speakers. This is my 1st post in here. I am eager to learn more from fine members of whatsbest.
I think this is what natural sound in reproduction audio.
Audiophile Junkie (youtube ID) recorded many rooms at The SHOW 2022 Long Beach last month.
You can hear all of them in his youtube channel.
1) From 5:00 of below AJ’s video, AJ’s (& people) voice is clear and normal.
2) At this moment, you pinch your nose and blow to equalize your ears. Many ears are covered up due to harsh hi-fi sound.
3) From 7:50 the music starts and what you hear is different kind from AJ's voice. It is an unreal and abnormal sound. Your ears will try to adjust to this sound asap. And the sound becomes barely OK. Then AJ’s voice becomes abnormal now. While hi-fi music is on, every times there is human voice (any real sounds), your ears will adjust to the sound. Your brain must switch between real and unreal sound. This is a hard work and energy consuming. This is a reason we get the listener fatigue. Almost all sound systems including super expensive audio setups emit this unreal sound.
In below AJ’s video, listen to AJ’s voice and WT speaker sound. They are almost same. WT sound is real and normal. Your ears don’t get tired from WT’s sound. WT sound makes you comfortable unlike others. This is I believe natural sound in audio.
Cheers,
Alex/Wavetouch
I am Alex Yoon, Wavetouch audio.com. I make audio cables and speakers. This is my 1st post in here. I am eager to learn more from fine members of whatsbest.
I think this is what natural sound in reproduction audio.
Audiophile Junkie (youtube ID) recorded many rooms at The SHOW 2022 Long Beach last month.
You can hear all of them in his youtube channel.
1) From 5:00 of below AJ’s video, AJ’s (& people) voice is clear and normal.
2) At this moment, you pinch your nose and blow to equalize your ears. Many ears are covered up due to harsh hi-fi sound.
3) From 7:50 the music starts and what you hear is different kind from AJ's voice. It is an unreal and abnormal sound. Your ears will try to adjust to this sound asap. And the sound becomes barely OK. Then AJ’s voice becomes abnormal now. While hi-fi music is on, every times there is human voice (any real sounds), your ears will adjust to the sound. Your brain must switch between real and unreal sound. This is a hard work and energy consuming. This is a reason we get the listener fatigue. Almost all sound systems including super expensive audio setups emit this unreal sound.
In below AJ’s video, listen to AJ’s voice and WT speaker sound. They are almost same. WT sound is real and normal. Your ears don’t get tired from WT’s sound. WT sound makes you comfortable unlike others. This is I believe natural sound in audio.
Cheers,
Alex/Wavetouch
I have decided to discuss this issue with Peter in private.
As a result of our exchange, I wish to offer you, Peter, my apologies for a false and careless generalized accusation.
Brad,
Also regular listeners to unamplified live music diverge greatly in their system approaches. Why is that? Because each listener has different preferences and priorities with respect to which aspects of live music they want to have expressed best. All system approaches have inherent compromises, and the individual listener is choosing which compromise fits them best. So no, not all approaches lead to equivalent outcomes, but different audiophiles choose the outcome that they like best.
What most closely resembles the real thing will differ for each listener. Unlike what you claim, while regularly disparaging other system types that you do not like, there is no universal "truth" in that, with one particular approach necessarily being superior (unfortunately you are not the only one on WBF who does that, BTW). Not every listener values in the same way the same things you do, and unlike you appear to claim, there is no objective standard as to what to value most in reproduction, in relation to the real thing that has it all. It is up to the individual listener's preferences and biases. You have your personal biases, others have theirs. Where one prefers to sit in the concert hall will lead to its own biases regarding what to expect from reproduction, by the way.
- Status
Similar threads
