Natural Sound

[awsmone]

To me KED has hit the nail,on the head

in this instance Peter’s Natural sound has 3 components

1. To head towards what he and some others‘ view is the sound of instruments live
2. Those instruments are acoustical, usually classical, and unamplified in general
3. This aim is achieved by the deliberate assembling of components and transducers specifically to achieve his/their perception of this aim

Peter’s and others’ “sound “ is very specific whether it is “The Natural Sound “ is an unproven assertion but something he and some others prefer

DDK believes they have a “method” to this end rightly or wrongly with only their own ears and preferences to determine the validity based on their own internal metric, no external metric exists as it’s personal perception based

this is as Ked has pointed out is a less than the usual route that many follow in high end in assembling equipment , in saying this I exclude no-one who has done similarly to achieve a different sonic endpoint

 

[bonzo75]

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

I already had that on Sunday, that is from their lunch menu.

Their full menu is much better. Have the first two starters - lobster ravioli and the Burrata. Awesome flavors. Then for mains the Gnocchi. And for dessert the strawberry elderflower though the berries dessert is as good too, maybe better

 

[Ron Resnick]

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'?

I am no longer willing to indulge you with replies to posts by you which begin with condescension, obnoxiousness or sarcasm. If you choose in the future to comport yourself in a cordial way I will be delighted to respond endlessly to each and every question you ask.

 

[bonzo75]

. If you choose in the future to comport yourself in a cordial way

Tima Just do what comes naturally to you

 

[Argonaut]

I already had that on Sunday, that is from their lunch menu.

Their full menu is much better. Have the first two starters - lobster ravioli and the Burrata. Awesome flavors. Then for mains the Gnocchi. And for dessert the strawberry elderflower though the berries dessert is as good too, maybe better

Yup ,We tried their tasting menu mit vino a couple of weeks back when a friend took us , very nice.

 

[bonzo75]

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

Keep in mind Brad for three most part had underdriven clipping planars, oversized for the room. Now he has his own horns where he was unable to implement Radian drivers properly

 

[morricab]

Keep in mind Brad for three most part had underdriven clipping planars, oversized for the room. Now he has his own horns where he was unable to implement Radian drivers properly

Keep in mind you haven't heard any of my systems and so have no place to comment or judge the sound of any of them...they were and still are highly regarded locally by those exposed to them (where do you think KR, Aries Cerat, Acoustat and horns amongst those in my area all derived from??). My speakers were never clipping and imaged and soundstaged superbly in my room...this is fact. Radian drivers are not the end all be all of drivers and there is room for preference of other drivers, especially because Radians are not really more expensive than a lot of other drivers out there. At least with the horns I have (you do realize that the horn/driver match is arguably more important than the driver itself, don't you?) it was not a great match..or they are not as good as you think they are. I will try other horns in the future and see but for now the Beyma drivers simply sound excellent...and they do, very linear and smooth based on my ears and measurements. Are telling me that I can implement other drivers with no problem but Radians are somehow different and need special skill to implement? You wouldn't know the first thing about implementation of drivers...you have a collection that you will have someone else assemble into a set design for you...maybe someday...

 

[microstrip]

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.

Well, IMHO the 3D is one the most important aspects of sound reproduction. Surely my preference, but we should not forget the nick stereo comes from stereoscopic, implying 3D.

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.

We agree on these aspects, but IMHO this energy should be considered both as a global energy and as a local energy, emanating from the sound sources. This distribution of energy in our virtual soundstage helps creating a 3D feeling.

I am less concerned by the accuracy in timbre. I once listened to a few recordings of the same instruments - violin and piano - carried by different sound engineers with different microphones. Timbre was very different and in the absence of the real instruments we could not say which was more accurate, just what sounds more realistic or enjoyable in our systems. However I also find proper dynamics (macro and micro) are extremely critical.

 

[morricab]

Well, IMHO the 3D is one the most important aspects of sound reproduction. Surely my preference, but we should not forget the nick stereo comes from stereoscopic, implying 3D.



We agree on these aspects, but IMHO this energy should be considered both as a global energy and as a local energy, emanating from the sound sources. This distribution of energy in our virtual soundstage helps creating a 3D feeling.

I am less concerned by the accuracy in timbre. I once listened to a few recordings of the same instruments - violin and piano - carried by different sound engineers with different microphones. Timbre was very different and in the absence of the real instruments we could not say which was more accurate, just what sounds more realistic or enjoyable in our systems. However I also find proper dynamics (macro and micro) are extremely critical.

Agree with you regarding 3D. I never could understand how Art Dudley considered it unimportant to sound reproduction...

Also agree regarding macro and micro dynamics...very important to having a "live" feeling.

Disagree regarding timbre... for example, real violins also sound quite different tonally... and I have even measured various ones with a real-time analyzer and found their energy distribution is quite different in the relative level of the overtones (harmonics)...so one could SEE the difference that one also hears rather easily. However, the timbre of the instruments was all clearly a violin timbre... On recordings, I would be surprised if you could possibly know what kind of instrument is being played, nevermind the deviation of the recording conditions. HOwever, one doesn't question the real timbre of real instruments even if they can sound quite different. That basic character should be coming through clearly.

I have a cd that has recordings of the same piece played by the same violinist on 7 different violins (from modern to rare Guarneri and Stradivari). They sound totally different but the timbre is still clearly that of a violin in all instances.

 

[Al M.]

I am less concerned by the accuracy in timbre. I once listened to a few recordings of the same instruments - violin and piano - carried by different sound engineers with different microphones. Timbre was very different and in the absence of the real instruments we could not say which was more accurate, just what sounds more realistic or enjoyable in our systems.

Sure, I should probably say believable timbre, rather than accurate. You can never know if a reproduction of a recording is accurate. And, live instrumental timbres can vary wildly, depending on the instrument itself and its playing, acoustics of the venue, and distance to the instrument. Yet reproduction of a well recorded event should fall within that range of timbres to have believability. I would say that we should take the agglomerate of timbres on different recordings to judge a system's timbral believability, rather than just picking one or two.

Edit: As Brad said, posted while I wrote.

 

[morricab]

Sure, I should probably say believable timbre, rather than accurate. You can never know if a reproduction of a recording is accurate. And, live instrumental timbres can vary wildly, depending on the instrument itself and its playing, acoustics of the venue, and distance to the instrument. Yet reproduction of a well recorded event should fall within that range of timbres to have believability. I would say that we should take the agglomerate of timbres on different recordings to judge a system's timbral believability, rather than just picking one or two.

Believability is a good term...the brain can interpolate and understand the differences without compromising the believabiltiy.

 

[Kingrex]

Is this thread working its way around to Peter needs to sell his horns and get some Wilsons instead.

 

[morricab]

Haven't heard this yet but will try at home soon:

Album recording - Janine Jansen, 12 Stradivari - J&A Beares

12 different strads! Can you tell the difference on your system??

 

[Ron Resnick]

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

Yes, then I misinterpreted what you meant. I am sorry.

I agree with you that before getting to subjective matters of sonic preference there are actual mistakes which can be made when attempting to upgrade. Locating in a small room a large speaker whose drivers do not sound coherent at the listening position I agree is simply an objective mistake.

Powering a speaker with too weak of an amplifier with the result that one hears clipping at the desired SPL is simply an objective mistake.

 

[DaveC]

Well, IMHO the 3D is one the most important aspects of sound reproduction. Surely my preference, but we should not forget the nick stereo comes from stereoscopic, implying 3D.



We agree on these aspects, but IMHO this energy should be considered both as a global energy and as a local energy, emanating from the sound sources. This distribution of energy in our virtual soundstage helps creating a 3D feeling.

I am less concerned by the accuracy in timbre. I once listened to a few recordings of the same instruments - violin and piano - carried by different sound engineers with different microphones. Timbre was very different and in the absence of the real instruments we could not say which was more accurate, just what sounds more realistic or enjoyable in our systems. However I also find proper dynamics (macro and micro) are extremely critical.

All of the drivers of preference I mentioned in my previous post are related because they are all based on the resolution of the system, including the room as part of the system.

I agree on timbre, you can't know exactly what it should sound like, but I do agree with @Al M. it needs to be believable and distinct in that a a saxophone doesn't sound like a trumpet, just for a crude example. There needs to be enough resolution to make timbre sound as close to what we'd expect to hear in real life as possible.

Dynamics are also a bit like timbre, the system needs to be capable but the recording is always going to be compressed and exactly how that is done and how much is unknown.

All of the elements of immersion, 3-D soundstage, "you are there" presentation and believable timbre all rely on resolving fine detail, especially capturing decay properly.

Having a speaker that has a flat frequency response and smooth off-axis response, which has been identified by Harman as the main driver of speaker preference, simply makes it much easier for the room to get out of the way so the aforementioned performance can be achieved. I believe it can be achieved by speakers that do not have Harman's ideal polar plots, but this would have to be compensated for in setup, which is not part of Harman's testing procedure, and this is what has confounded their conclusions on preference. OTOH, it has lead to them to designing speakers which will be easier to setup in order to achieve these things but it misses other contributing factors.

 

[bonzo75]

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?

Ok I had some wine at lunch but will try to write. Most big full range speakers are capable of doing one of more of what you have mentioned in your parentheses. Some of these even may lead to realistic sound in the right room. Just because you get more bass or more treble does not a better speaker make. I wrote about transparency to recordings back in 2018 often after which others confused it with see-through transparency (like electrostats), detail, or just justified their way of having a constant big soundstage and bass was the way to go.

For me, the way is you should first have some good recordings...from very good performers. I choose older Deccas, EMIs, RCAs, etc for this with some reissues. If you know the music, you will know when you change LP to LP if you are getting the feel for a different concert or not. It does not then matter if one is toppy, one is rolled off, one is midhall, one is airier than the other. Each one is getting reflected in playback differently, and you should be able to recognize that if you are familiar with it. I think if you ignore rest of the post and keep this para in mind that is all. While some SETs horns do very well at this, my friend's Avalon system started doing extremely well on it once he sandwiched the Soultion preamp between Allnic phono and poweramps (he can do with a more powerful amp but does not want to spend). He is blessed with an excellent room though. SETs horns I have already mentioned. Electrostats can do it.

But my reply to you was on simplicity, so not big speakers. At Anamighty Sound I had heard the smallest Joachim Garrard cones, with a Thrax integrated. Each of the recording and multiple analog changes showed through. I actually did not prefer going up to the size which had more weight but too much room interaction. Devore NAF 2a3 was another example. It is amazing how simple 2a3, 45 amps are compared to the bigger boys, thus increasing transparency and purity. Things just become so clear. Yes they are often restricted in what they can drive, but changes show through extremely well. These can be blocked by cables. However Some of the systems I heard do it were/are at dealers, so they definitely used audiophile cables as what dealers sell.

Yes sure it gets to be a pretty competitive sport where a very very small set of systems can do it all, the extension, the fireworks, the transparency to recordings, but unfortunately their recommendations which rest of the forum follows should come with the caveat don't try this at home.

The Audiophile Sound works because of what people use for audition. If you use audiophile LPs like Stockfish, Diana Krall, etc for example, where they have big cuddly sound, it is very difficult to ascertain the sound, which is why people often buy, live with it, get bored after a few weeks, write good things about it on the forum before they sell it off.

That's why if other people claim they are into natural sound, just check how they audition. They cannot be, and should not claim to be, if they are carrying audiophile music to audition. They should just say they are into audiophile sound.

But often just reacting to attributes like weight or extension is not the way to go for me, if it stays constant across LPs, though it is required for the ultimate systems . Also just like LPs, when you compare gear, differences should be obvious and both components should not sound similar else something is coloring.

 

[microstrip]

Sure, I should probably say believable timbre, rather than accurate. You can never know if a reproduction of a recording is accurate. And, live instrumental timbres can vary wildly, depending on the instrument itself and its playing, acoustics of the venue, and distance to the instrument. Yet reproduction of a well recorded event should fall within that range of timbres to have believability. I would say that we should take the agglomerate of timbres on different recordings to judge a system's timbral believability, rather than just picking one or two.

Edit: As Brad said, posted while I wrote.

With such change we agree 100%. My concern was just for the accuracy. i also look for believability in timbre, but is more a feeling than an analytical finding.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Ok I had some wine at lunch but will try to write. Most big full range speakers are capable of doing one of more of what you have mentioned in your parentheses. Some of these even may lead to realistic sound in the right room. Just because you get more bass or more treble does not a better speaker make. I wrote about transparency to recordings back in 2018 often after which others confused it with see-through transparency (like electrostats), detail, or just justified their way of having a constant big soundstage and bass was the way to go.

For me, the way is you should first have some good recordings...from very good performers. I choose older Deccas, EMIs, RCAs, etc for this with some reissues. If you know the music, you will know when you change LP to LP if you are getting the feel for a different concert or not. It does not then matter if one is toppy, one is rolled off, one is midhall, one is airier than the other. Each one is getting reflected in playback differently, and you should be able to recognize that if you are familiar with it. I think if you ignore rest of the post and keep this para in mind that is all. While some SETs horns do very well at this, my friend's Avalon system started doing extremely well on it once he sandwiched the Soultion preamp between Allnic phono and poweramps (he can do with a more powerful amp but does not want to spend). He is blessed with an excellent room though. SETs horns I have already mentioned. Electrostats can do it.

But my reply to you was on simplicity, so not big speakers. At Anamighty Sound I had heard the smallest Joachim Garrard cones, with a Thrax integrated. Each of the recording and multiple analog changes showed through. I actually did not prefer going up to the size which had more weight but too much room interaction. Devore NAF 2a3 was another example. It is amazing how simple 2a3, 45 amps are compared to the bigger boys, thus increasing transparency and purity. Things just become so clear. Yes they are often restricted in what they can drive, but changes show through extremely well. These can be blocked by cables. However Some of the systems I heard do it were/are at dealers, so they definitely used audiophile cables as what dealers sell.

Yes sure it gets to be a pretty competitive sport where a very very small set of systems can do it all, the extension, the fireworks, the transparency to recordings, but unfortunately their recommendations which rest of the forum follows should come with the caveat don't try this at home.

The Audiophile Sound works because of what people use for audition. If you use audiophile LPs like Stockfish, Diana Krall, etc for example, where they have big cuddly sound, it is very difficult to ascertain the sound, which is why people often buy, live with it, get bored after a few weeks, write good things about it on the forum before they sell it off.

That's why if other people claim they are into natural sound, just check how they audition. They cannot be, and should not claim to be, if they are carrying audiophile music to audition. They should just say they are into audiophile sound.

But often just reacting to attributes like weight or extension is not the way to go for me, if it stays constant across LPs, though it is required for the ultimate systems . Also just like LPs, when you compare gear, differences should be obvious and both components should not sound similar else something is coloring.

very good posting, Ked - wine seems to suit you

 

[Kingrex]

I highly doubt Howard Swanes big Altec driven by a Tom Tutay modded 1570B on the woofers and 1659 on the Chela Multicell horn were timberally correct. I bet there were all sorts of peaks and valleys. The ground and tube issues added a very loud hum and hiss.

With all that bad, it was the most immersive system I have ever been in front of. It was totally different than the sound stage every other system I have heard creates. Some might say its wrong. That the stage should be in front with depth. With Howards, you were a part of the stage. I cried. It was that full of emotion.

In a round about way I am saying, I think people go far to deep in trying to make music reproduction require some level of perfection for it to be accepted as real. Some systems, for me, evoke an emotional reaction. Most don't.

The other that made me cry was a Line Magnetic integrated pushing Lanshe audio Plasma tweeter speakers. The system has a DSP unit to match it to the room. That system had no where near the immersion Howards did. It had an amazing top end. It made Elvis voice magically real.

Maybe I am also saying you can make a system "Natural" sounding. That may be what you like. I don't know that makes it something that emotionally connects to others. It makes it something you like. It might actually be wrong to strive for a Natural sound if that is not what allows you to be taken by the music. It might cause you to sit on edge, listen intently and never relax. A good old Mcintosh with Sonus Faber may be the ticket for some. A glass of burbon in hand and the days stresses slip away.

 

[andromedaaudio]

KED why dont you post this on your " Zero distortion " blog




In most respects, the Orangutan O/93's measured performance shows the same careful balance of behavior that John DeVore achieved with his Orangutan O/96. Nor was there anything obvious that correlated with HR's later comment that he felt there was something like "a hole in the response." Herb's room is relatively small, so I don't think it was the response's slight depression in the presence region that bothered him. However, I was concerned by the port resonances and that lively cabinet—perhaps it was those that led him to request that I measure the speakers. Next time I visit Herb, I'll listen for myself.—John Atkinson