Natural Sound

[bonzo75]

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.

Ok, so two things:
1. You have now narrowed it down to regular listeners of unamplified music. Of which there are very very few on this forum
2. Of the ones in point 1, those who listen to gear too. By your own admission, you are not convinced (to whatever percentage of convince) about SETs horns because you have heard Volti at a show, and corner horns.

 

[DaveC]

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.

I'd mostly agree.

IME people are sensitive to certain system attributes which differ greatly. Some are super sensitive to high frequencies and have made great comments about the tweeter I used and how it integrates when I was working on my speaker design. Others don't notice obvious flaws. This holds for a multitude of aspects of system performance.

OTOH, there is one thing everyone notices, and that's a sense of immersion. If the system can psychoacoustically convince people they are listening to the recording in the recording venue, the "you are there" presentation, everyone comments on that and IME that is the real driver of system preference. Harman's contention that it's smooth frequency response is not wrong, esp off-axis, but what it really does is make for a speaker that produces reflected sound that isn't so far off the on-axis sound that the brain interprets it as spatial cues from the room. This allows the spatial cues in the recording to dominate and create that sense of immersion, the "you are there" presentation. So to really do preference testing I think the speakers need to be setup with electronics and a room that allows it to work as designed, this is the main flaw with Harman's testing and why it doesn't get down to what the real drivers of preference are. They just found one major contributor that helps achieve the preferred presentation.

So, if you can get your system to a point it'll produce a convincing 3-D soundstage with that sense of immersion, that will be preferred as long as there aren't other issues that distract from it. The problem is you never know what issues may distract, that is the thing that varies greatly from person to person.

Luckily, if the system can produce a "you are there" presentation than it can generally also produce accurate and distinct timbre, which is right behind immersion in preference.

 

[Al M.]

I'd mostly agree.

IME people are sensitive to certain system attributes which differ greatly. Some are super sensitive to high frequencies and have made great comments about the tweeter I used and how it integrates when I was working on my speaker design. Others don't notice obvious flaws. This holds for a multitude of aspects of system performance.

OTOH, there is one thing everyone notices, and that's a sense of immersion. If the system can psychoacoustically convince people they are listening to the recording in the recording venue, the "you are there" presentation, everyone comments on that and IME that is the real driver of system preference. Harman's contention that it's smooth frequency response is not wrong, esp off-axis, but what it really does is make for a speaker that produces reflected sound that isn't so far off the on-axis sound that the brain interprets it as spatial cues from the room. This allows the spatial cues in the recording to dominate and create that sense of immersion, the "you are there" presentation. So to really do preference testing I think the speakers need to be setup with electronics and a room that allows it to work as designed, this is the main flaw with Harman's testing and why it doesn't get down to what the real drivers of preference are. They just found one major contributor that helps achieve the preferred presentation.

So, if you can get your system to a point it'll produce a convincing 3-D soundstage with that sense of immersion, that will be preferred as long as there aren't other issues that distract from it. The problem is you never know what issues may distract, that is the thing that varies greatly from person to person.

Luckily, if the system can produce a "you are there" presentation than it can generally also produce accurate and distinct timbre, which is right behind immersion in preference.

I personally find presenting such a 3-D soundstage far from being the most important aspect of reproduction (even though I enjoy my system's ability in that regard). Again, it is all personal preferences and listening priorities, in my opinion.

Another thing entirely is the ability of a system to energize the room, enveloping the listener with sound. This is more important to me. So is accurate and distinct timbre, and dynamics.

 

[Sampajanna]

I like this thread and have learned a lot from Peter’s journey. It means something that he shared it here. I am grateful for the time and effort spent posting. Thank you Peter and keep it up! There are certainly others lurking and learning.

One thing rarely discussed here or elsewhere in terms of goals is musical preferences. For example, does the “I want it to sound like live music” value apply to electronic music? It is much easier to make a nice system when you have clear musical preferences. I love most everything and listen to tons of ambient and electronica as well as world, jazz, rock, classical, etc. I am sure I am not alone in my eclectic tastes. I am not sure the “you are there” applies to Stars of the Lid or Hammock… maybe, but not in the same way surely.

For me personally, my goal is to forget the system, drop the critical mind and lose myself in the music. I want the emotional/spiritual touch to dig into me and move me. I want to bob my head, make air guitar strums or raise my hands up involuntarily and begin conducting the orchestra (even though I don’t know how). In this month’s Stereophile review of a phono stage, Alex poses a criticism to the measurement crowd that I thought was spot on. He says something like “I don’t care if it sounds ‘correct’; I care if it sounds good.” I feel the same. I want good not ”correct,” whatever the standards of correct are, natural or otherwise…. For me, and YMMV, “correct” is too mental—it involves the mind too much. No matter what “correct” I use as a standard, I have to get mental, analytical, critical and therefore separate from the experience in order to evaluate. I want to drop the evaluatory mind, in other words. If anything, that is my “correct.” Sounds paradoxical, but I hope you get what I mean. In a quirky way, I am saying that the less “correct” it is the better, because it means I have forgotten “right” and “wrong,” natural or otherwise and fallen into the music. Perhaps a system is only natural when there is no longer any natural vs unnanatural?

 

[Al M.]

One thing rarely discussed here or elsewhere in terms of goals is musical preferences. For example, does the “I want it to sound like live music” value apply to electronic music? It is much easier to make a nice system when you have clear musical preferences. I love most everything and listen to tons of ambient and electronica as well as world, jazz, rock, classical, etc. I am sure I am not alone in my eclectic tastes. I am not sure the “you are there” applies to Stars of the Lid or Hammock… maybe, but not in the same way surely.

I am a musical omnivore as well. My criterion for making electronica sound good:

1) make sure the system sounds good with classical music and jazz
2) in addition, make sure you have well integrated subwoofer(s) that can produce floorshaking deep bass when the music calls for it.

 

[PeterA]

 

[PeterA]

I like this thread and have learned a lot from Peter’s journey. It means something that he shared it here. I am grateful for the time and effort spent posting. Thank you Peter and keep it up! There are certainly others lurking and learning.

Thank you Sampajanna. I appreciate the kind words. I continue to learn the longer I live with this system.

 

[tima]

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.

Ron, you're starting to sound like a confused Julian Hirsch.

Your claim is that even some experienced audiophiles confuse their beliefs with facts and in doing so those audiophiles have made an "objective mistake" or "factual error."

You won't come right out and say it, but given the thread we're in you are appear trying to claim that those who advocate for a system that sounds more like live music are guilty of confusing facts and beliefs because they think live acoustic music is real and by claiming one's system sounds that way, their system is, to use your words, "objectively correct sound." I don't know what that phrase means but you claim doing so is arrogance.

Okay, I'll issue the same challenge to you that Peter did to Al M. Give us examples in the form of direct quotes that exemplify what you are charging. Quotes you think imply your conclusion do not count.

By the way, using phrases like "objective fact" and "subjective opinion" is redundant or word misuse. By using those words in that way you try to make your post sound authoritative. Apparently it does fool some people. Why not just say 'fact' versus 'belief' or 'opinion'?

 

[bonzo75]

This thread continues to astound
As we go round and round
On this battleground
Each other do we pound
As we try to expound
On what should be the background
To achieve .. (TM)

 

[tima]

One thing rarely discussed here or elsewhere in terms of goals is musical preferences. For example, does the “I want it to sound like live music” value apply to electronic music? It is much easier to make a nice system when you have clear musical preferences. I love most everything and listen to tons of ambient and electronica as well as world, jazz, rock, classical, etc. I am sure I am not alone in my eclectic tastes. I am not sure the “you are there” applies to Stars of the Lid or Hammock… maybe, but not in the same way surely.

Typically we refer to live acoustic music, that ideally is unamplified. Live electronic music is amplified. I suspect a fair amount of electronica is made in a studio using computers with tracks layered on top of one another. Some electronica groups perform live - I know Kraftwerk does (or did) but I've not seen a live album of their music. Unless you heard a lot of their concerts, probably not the opportunity to develop a firm template of their sound to carry in your head. Without knowing more I'd say the answer to your question about electronic music is 'no'. That gives you the advantage that as long as you enjoy what you hear it doesn't matter what it sounds like.

As to your other comments I think there is enjoyment and evaluation and for the most part they are not the same. Less cerebeal cortext or more. Sometimes I refer to what you're after as limbic oriented listening. It's possible I think to enjoy listening while thinking about it but that is not the same as you describe about separating from the experience. Likewise one can enjoy natural sound without analysing it as such. When I was at David's listening to his Lamm/Bionor system, the music simply took me - it was immediate - if I was thinking it was only how enjoyable was what I heard.

 

[tima]

This thread continues to astound
As we go round and round
On this battleground
Each other do we pound
As we try to expound
On what should be the background
To achieve .. (TM)

It's good we can poke fun of ourselves.

 

[bonzo75]

It's good we can poke fun of ourselves.

Ok when I posted I was more thinking of me poking fun at the rest of you

 

[tima]

Ok when I posted I was more thinking of me poking fun at the rest of you

Yeah, but your poem said "we" - you cannot break free - you're a partcipant whether as poker or pokee.

 

[Rensselaer]

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,

Regardless of my thoughts on other postings from you, this one reveals information from your expertise/experience that I believe is of the greatest value, a nugget the likes of which I have searched for since joining this forum, specifically:

“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.”

By his comment, bonzo75 has just saved me endless time and money by telling me how I can get (IMHO “natural sound” ) with a specified synergistic pairing (that doesn’t use horns or Lamm electronics) without spending a fortune.

Thank you, and to be fair, could you also reveal those opposite combinations of speakers and amplification you know of that will give the less “natural“ but equally argued for audio-fireworks (scintillating trebles, sharp clean transients, bass slam and dynamics) for those who prefer that sort of “audiophile “ sound?

 

[bonzo75]

Regardless of my thoughts on other postings from you, this one reveals information from your expertise/experience that I believe is of the greatest value, a nugget the likes of which I have searched for since joining this forum, specifically:

“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.”

By his comment, bonzo75 has just saved me endless time and money by telling me how I can get (IMHO “natural sound” ) with a specified synergistic pairing (that doesn’t use horns) without spending a fortune.

Thank you, and you could also reveal those other combinations of speakers and amplification you know of that will give the less “natural“ audio-fireworks (scintillating trebles, sharp clean transients, bass slam and dynamics) that those who prefer that sort of “audiophile “ sound will want?

Thanks for your post and actually surprised you picked that up. For example one regular reader keeps picking up how Devore top end is a bit woody toned and rolled off (which it is) which is besides the point of what makes it a very good speaker. The point you picked up is why it is an excellent speaker.

I will write more later. I have to go for lunch now. Fyi for Londoners, Kitchen W8 in Kensington has a very nice seasonal menu.

 

[Al M.]

For example one regular reader keeps picking up how Devore top end is a bit woody toned and rolled off (which it is) which is besides the point of what makes it a very good speaker. The point you picked up is why it is an excellent speaker.

Beside the point? I have auditioned at home small Devore monitors, and I couldn't live with the sound. I want the warm, wooden resonances of instruments in a string quartet to come from competent reproduction of the recording, not from wooden coloration by the speakers themselves.

Yet everyone's tastes differ.

 

[bonzo75]

Beside the point? I have auditioned at home small Devore monitors, and I couldn't live with the sound. I want the warm, wooden resonances of instruments in a string quartet to come from competent reproduction of the recording, not from wooden coloration by the speakers themselves.

Yet everyone's tastes differ.

Which amp and recordings?

 

[Argonaut]

Kitchen W8 in Kensington

No wonder you cannot afford to put together a HiFi system I would go with the Salt Cod Croquettes followed by the Linguine … English Berries desert if I had any room left

 

[morricab]

Regardless of my thoughts on other postings from you, this one reveals information from your expertise/experience that I believe is of the greatest value, a nugget the likes of which I have searched for since joining this forum, specifically:

“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.”

By his comment, bonzo75 has just saved me endless time and money by telling me how I can get (IMHO “natural sound” ) with a specified synergistic pairing (that doesn’t use horns or Lamm electronics) without spending a fortune.

Thank you, and to be fair, could you also reveal those opposite combinations of speakers and amplification you know of that will give the less “natural“ but equally argued for audio-fireworks (scintillating trebles, sharp clean transients, bass slam and dynamics) for those who prefer that sort of “audiophile “ sound?

Keep in mind he has never actually lived with such a system...

 

[Al M.]

Which amp and recordings?

Parallel push-pull 2A3 triode amps (15 W/ch, 4 tubes per channel), ANY recording; right away audible on vocals, but also on anything else. My Ensemble Reference monitors at the time (similar load on the amps) had no such problems.