Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
This was on a Strad at Tonhalle Kleinsaal in 2004 on a Sony handycam... played through my stereo and then recorded on an Iphone...
Last edited:
Hello everyone,
Although I think some of the recent discussion over the last few pages is interesting, it really is a bit off-topic for my personal system thread. I respectfully request that you please move the discussion elsewhere or onto new threads dedicated to those topics. Thank you very much.
Although I think some of the recent discussion over the last few pages is interesting, it really is a bit off-topic for my personal system thread. I respectfully request that you please move the discussion elsewhere or onto new threads dedicated to those topics. Thank you very much.
As often happens when a subject compresses so wide of claims they become instantly refutable and can be found irrefutable only by staying the course. Meaning has been lost. I hoped that by establishing a basic nous some of the accumulated tedium would be left by the wayside.
Peter did quite well judging by outward appearances. I'd hope to see you, or any other member faced with unexpected analog influences potentially unsettling their local group, find a riposte in the digital realm where so much more is possible and unexplored. This hobby is about the people. About finding fresh ways of enjoying music with them.
Rando what sort of counterstroke you think might be found? It is suggested that those who do not choose live acoustic music as their basis of preference offer up what they use to base their systems or at least their goals for it. I'm happy to read those but have not seen them. Forget about stuffing one's basis of preference into pre-established boxes - vague generalizations only get us arguing over what they mean.
I suppose an example could, but does not need to, have appeal to either digital or analog. If you think there is more possibility and potential in the digital realm for finding a direction, it would be great to learn what that is. Imo, opting for and implementing a system capable of natural sound is not dependent on some specific gear but perhaps some other kind of sound might be.
Happily some of us have found a gear specific path that works for us. That appears to draw what I consider the false criticism that those choices are elitist rather than criticizing those choices as somehow incorrect or not delivering what we think they do.
Intrigingly Tim, I have been playing in the digital realm on the timbre naturalness aspect of acoustic instruments with interesting results
this has included minor but specific equalisation as used by recording engineers for acoustic instruments
multiband judicious compression and use of R2R dacs
i have at this stage being mildly surprised with the results though a “father always loves his children “
i think Peter likes the tension and a-ttention that his chosen system thread name brings. understandable. it makes for a fun ride and it can played many ways. keeps the fires burning. he could extinguish it anytime, but he has not done that. 3087 posts and counting. i don't see it ebbing any time soon.
i'm not judging, just observing.
i'm not judging, just observing.
Sorry Peter, I was just trying to give examples of different violin sounds as a natural sound evaluation piece , wI’ll return to original programming now ….
It is interesting that many in the “Natural Sound“ camp have chosen Lamm amplifiers
one of the main engineering goals, was to keep the distortion flat across the frequency spectrum and the intermodulation distortion low
that means the harmonic structure is constant across frequency , this is an interesting data point
one of the main engineering goals, was to keep the distortion flat across the frequency spectrum and the intermodulation distortion low
that means the harmonic structure is constant across frequency , this is an interesting data point
Mike, I have not pulled the plug just yet. I do not need any fire burning. Nor does ddk’s “tribe” need to be riled up as you claimed earlier. I have no idea what you are even talking about. I would actually prefer it if this thread were only twenty pages long full of on-topic content. Regretfully, there has been too much noise and distraction lately. I’ve actually had much more interesting discussions off-line about my system and natural sound.
LOL. exclusive Natural sound vs inclusive Realistic sound.
Goes back to my original comments about this threat, no such thing as Natural Sound as it's not formed from nature.
Perhaps Peter is trying to have his system be classified as the 8th Natural wonder of the world
Last edited:
Yes, that sounds right.
Here is how I understand it: Testing his circuit designs, Vladimir Lamm started with empirical observation taken from hundreds of listeners. From his tests he learned only a few circuit topologies yielded desired results given the human physiology -- we are created in a certain way and cannot change how we perceive sound, regardless of good specs.
From his experiments he developed a set of constructs on how an amplifier should measure in order for it to be congruent with the way people naturally perceive sound. He called those constructs the Absolute Linearity of a System. The basic high-level idea is this: as gain is applied the amplifier should preserve the harmonic structure and spectral balance of the musical source signal. He also emphasized the types and values of feedback utilized in an amplifier.
Sure, man creates music that is naturally heard. The idea is to get close to that in reproduction. As mentioned above we cannot change the way we hear so we are dependent on source and gear to get close to that same natural hearing. Some combinations seem to get closer than others.
I don’t understand why we are still having semantic arguments rather than talking audio
Natural has many synonyms that reflect the sense
I can see just as much debate about any adjective we use to convey audio reproduction qualities such as neutral , realistic , accurate , organic, continuous etc
In the end of the day this isn’t what we hear it’s what we perceive and desire
Peter is talking about a desire
Somehow his desire is conflated to elitism because he aspires to his desire ,
He uses a methodology he believes in to attempt to achieve his desire
Secondly
if their were no natural sounds then the antonym unnatural sounds would have no meaning also but most people understand what this also conveys
Tim. Reproduction is correct imo. Not natural.
Hearing a fart from your partner is natural.
Listening to a reproduction on your hifi is not.
Sure, the systems that seem to get closer are more realistic, not more natural.
If one is looking for the most accurate reproduction is for their hifi to sound like what it sounded like in the studio.
Me too…but I’m not sorry
…we are 155 pages into your thread now……it had at least tangential connection to natural sound.I think this is a good point to discuss. I would put myself into that camp but I don’t own Lamm. I do own SET and horns…but not vintage horns (ok 20 years old but not 50 or 60). I think modern horns and SET with similar level of thought and execution can at least equal Lamm. Modern horn execution can be worse or better than vintage from the examples I have heard.
For source, I think there is digital out there that can sound natural but I have found it needs tube output and usually R2R converters.
I think there is a point to be made in differentiating between "natural sound" and "precise reproduction" of what is on the medium.
In the first case, we have set up the system so as to approach our perception fo live music.
In the second case we aimed at getting the system to extract and present the information contained on the medium in as precisely as possible, regardless of whether the original recording sounds natural or not.
Okay - I will not quibble if you want to use the word 'natural' in that way. and I cannot dispute that reproduction is not reality. Listening to a record and listening to a live concert will never be the same thing.
Nonetheless we use our own natural hearing for both and we hear in a very specific way. Music travels as vibrations in the air. That is the same whether live or reproduced. Now if we want to qualify those vibrations by their source - a person playing a drum kit versus a recording of a person playing a drum kit, okay fine. We have no problems telling which is live and which is recorded - that's easy.
If you want to characterize a recording as more or less realistic, no problem. I use the word 'believable'. I know the recording is not reality. I don't think we're that far apart in what we're trying to get at and the word choice should not stand between us in getting there.
My concern is not so much on a specific word and saying the word is right or wrong. My emphasis is what it is we are comparing. If we say "that reproduction is realistic" or "that reproduction is not very believable" the question is compared to what? My personal answer is "compared to live acoustic music." Your answer might be compared to "that Who concert I heard yesterday - I Can See for Miles was amazing" which would be live amplified music. We have different references but at least we have something to compare against and perhaps use to guide our system building.
When you talk about 'in the studio' I can appreciate that if I am listening to the artists perform as they are recorded. If you mean the sound captured on tape used by the engineer, I will never hear that until I play the record but I have no way to compare the sound from playing the record to what's on the tape whereas I can compare the sound of the musicians performing to what I hear when I play the record.
Similar threads
