Natural Sound

[PeterA]

I made a new video of Peggy Lee's Fever with the AS2000 and vintage Ortofon cartridge. It presents a bit more of the heft and bass quality I heard from David's system in Utah than did my SX 80000II and vdH Colibri.

 

[Ron Resnick]

What is Natural Sound?
​

Hearing David’s four systems play music over seven days allowed me to understand the qualities of a “Natural Sound” system. I came up with this list to describe what I heard.

• No aspect of the sound calls attention to itself
• The sound is balanced
• The system sound is absent from the presentation
• Wide listening window: able to enjoy most/all genres of music
• Portrays the character of each recording, nuanced venue information
• Allows a wide range of volume adjustment for what is most appropriate for a particular recording and still be engaged
• Superior information retrieval
• Natural resolution, not “detail”
• Able to scale up and down, large to small
• No “sound”, only music
• Room is energized and music is “alive”
• Enjoyable outside of listening sweet spot
• Images are stable as listener moves around the room
• Draws listener into the music
• Relaxing, zero fatigue
• Open, effortless, and dynamic sound
• No need to crank the volume
• No added or artificial extension
• No analysis of the sound into bits and pieces, music experienced as a whole
• Result is beauty and emotion.

David discusses different degrees of natural sound. Surely more modest systems will not sound like his Siemann Bionor speakers. However, the four systems I heard all exhibited these characteristics, to a greater or lesser degree. The systems simply sounded right. Lesser natural sounding systems will still have these characteristics, but to a lesser extent.

After spending a week listening to David’s system and grasping the true meaning of Natural Sound, . . .

Peter,

I believe the “Natural Sound TM” concept arose originally from your capitalization of “Natural Sound” in this post, and from your subsequent posts about this list. Your original capitalization of “Natural Sound” drove a lot of the debate. It animated a lot of the “subset“-type discussions.

You even had me confused for a while, as I asked you questions about whether your concept here is a subset of the generally understood adjective “natural.” You and David both replied that no, there is no intention to create a subset of the generally understood adjective “natural.”

Along the way you repudiated your capitalization of “natural sound.” I think several members don’t realize this.

In Post #205 in the CH Precision 10 series thread you wrote: “Natural simply means natural, as in real life. The sound of real instruments.” I agree with this.

Now that you have come full circle, and I think you now mean (and David always meant) “natural” in the generally understood sense, I think “Natural Sound TM” is no longer a reasonable or necessary foil to your early postings about “Natural Sound.”

My hope for this post is that each side will find here enough to agree with that we can achieve a cease-fire on “Natural Sound TM.”

 

[tima]

The adjective 'natural' in essence when applied to 'sound' means or intends 'of the world'. Does it sound natural asks does it sound of the world? Natural Sound is a proper name for the collection of characteristics and related in the list suggested by Peter. Those characteristics are an attempt at capturing or describing in words sound of the world reproduced. Peter does not own those characteritics -- it is his way of describing what is sound of the world in reproduction.

The appendage 'TM' is an attempt by some to claim a list of characteristics of realistic sound, belevable sound, in reproduction is somehow proprietary. But it is not proprietary. It is only in virtue of the refusal of others to participate in the discussion of those words, those characteristics, that the proprietary claim is made. No one is excluded from participation except by their own imagination. Neither is anyone excluded from offering an alternative goal to believable sound in reproduction, but only one has come forth and not from those with their TM appendage.

 

[djsina2]

I feel dumber by the day reading this forum.

 

[ddk]

Peter,

I believe the “Natural Sound TM” concept arose originally from your capitalization of “Natural Sound” in this post, and from your subsequent posts about this list. Your original capitalization of “Natural Sound” drove a lot of the debate. It animated a lot of the “subset“-type discussions.

You even had me confused for a while, as I asked you questions about whether your concept here is a subset of the generally understood adjective “natural.” You and David both replied that no, there is no intention to create a subset of the generally understood adjective “natural.”

Along the way you repudiated your capitalization of “natural sound.” I think several members don’t realize this.

In Post #205 in the CH Precision 10 series thread you wrote: “Natural simply means natural, as in real life. The sound of real instruments.” I agree with this.

Now that you have come full circle, and I think you now mean (and David always meant) “natural” in the generally understood sense, I think “Natural Sound TM” is no longer a reasonable or necessary foil to your early postings about “Natural Sound.”

My hope for this post is that each side will find here enough to agree with that we can achieve a cease-fire on “Natural Sound TM.”

Natural Sound is same as natural sound just with some emphasis for ultimate quality of the system in discussion. It's a sonic attribute, goal, aesthetic or whatever you want to call it and it's always been in use. There's nothing to rationalize here, TM isn't a concept just a phrase to denigrate. Please stop rationalizing the TM bullshit as if it has value, it doesn't and it has nothing to do with post by me or Peter!

david

 

[microstrip]

Peter,

I believe the “Natural Sound TM” concept arose originally from your capitalization of “Natural Sound” in this post, and from your subsequent posts about this list.

You even had me confused for a while, as I asked you questions about whether your concept here is a subset of the generally understood adjective “natural.” You and David both replied that no, there is no intention to create a subset of the generally understood adjective “natural.” I accepted that.

Your original capitalization of “Natural Sound” drove a lot of the debate. It animated a lot of the “subset“-type discussions. Along the way you repudiated your capitalization of “natural sound.” I accepted that, also.

In Post #205 in the CH Precision 10 series thread you wrote: “Natural simply means natural, as in real life. The sound of real instruments.” I agree with this.

Now that you have come full circle, and I think you now mean (and David always meant) “natural” in the generally understood sense, I think “Natural Sound TM” is no longer a reasonable or necessary foil to your early postings about “Natural Sound.”

Ron,

Most of us agree on this list on nice epithets that Peter wrote in the post you are quoting - in fact I think no one will tell he does not want any of them for his system.

Disagreement only showed when we were told on what made sound not natural - artificial, as coined by Peter. Particularly as several times he mischaracterized others preferences and vocabulary of stereo sound reproduction to enhance his views.

 

[ddk]

Ron,

Most of us agree on this list on nice epithets that Peter wrote in the post you are quoting - in fact I think no one will tell he does not want any of them for his system.

Disagreement only showed when we were told on what made sound not natural - artificial, as coined by Peter. Particularly as several times he mischaracterized others preferences and vocabulary of stereo sound reproduction to enhance his views.

So it's all Peter's fault now! !

Ron, you should have left it in CH thread let this shit spread everywhere and not just in this and related threads, why did you bring it back here?

david

 

[microstrip]

So it's all Peter's fault now! !

Ron, you should have left it in CH thread let this shit spread everywhere and not just in this and related threads, why did you bring it back here?

david

So it's all Ron's fault now! !

 

[ddk]

So it's all Ron's fault now! !

Never said that as usual you twist it when you're caught, it's you and your TM flunkies who's twisting everything and started this.

david

 

[PeterA]

Peter,

I believe the “Natural Sound TM” concept arose originally from your capitalization of “Natural Sound” in this post, and from your subsequent posts about this list. Your original capitalization of “Natural Sound” drove a lot of the debate. It animated a lot of the “subset“-type discussions.

You even had me confused for a while, as I asked you questions about whether your concept here is a subset of the generally understood adjective “natural.” You and David both replied that no, there is no intention to create a subset of the generally understood adjective “natural.”

Along the way you repudiated your capitalization of “natural sound.” I think several members don’t realize this.

In Post #205 in the CH Precision 10 series thread you wrote: “Natural simply means natural, as in real life. The sound of real instruments.” I agree with this.

Now that you have come full circle, and I think you now mean (and David always meant) “natural” in the generally understood sense, I think “Natural Sound TM” is no longer a reasonable or necessary foil to your early postings about “Natural Sound.”

My hope for this post is that each side will find here enough to agree with that we can achieve a cease-fire on “Natural Sound TM.”

You know Ron, I think it is in your nature to attempt to smooth things over and keep the peace. It is your prerogative and you can post anything you want wherever you want, but I do not think this attempt will do anything. I’ve never understood the trademarking thing. At this point, it’s all just personal, nothing to do with the intent or content of this thread.

My mistake was failing to realize a year and a half ago that this thread and the sharing of my new system was going to cause such a contentious reaction. I never anticipated that I would be debating with a high school debating champion about the effect of capitalizing words or with someone on another continent who leads a group by jokingly trademarking the naming of an approach to reproducing sound.

I also failed to appreciate that my enthusiasm for what I was doing and my new friendships with those who have a similar approach to reproducing music was going to cause a rift that would expel me from what was once a very enjoyable local audio group.

Being referred to as a shill and disciple of some guy who others brand as a guru and receiving compensation because of dealer customer relationships and business it’s simply laughable. And based on what exactly? Pure speculation.

One guy wrote me about my new turntable that it was just a copy of something old and could not possibly be any good. Again, pure speculation and based on no experience. I referred him to my direct comparison of the three best turntables I’ve ever had in my system, the only discussion with videos of these three turntables in one place anywhere available.

I am sitting here at the airport in Lisbon waiting for my flight back to Boston and reflecting on the last few years of my audio education. I’ve got a couple great bottles of port from the duty-free shop, and I am grateful for the wonderful week I had with my family and visit to a beautiful country seeing new things and meeting wonderful people.

In the last few years, my audio education has been in hyperdrive. I know where I want to go and I have a good idea of how to get there. The experience of listening to music in my living room has never been more enjoyable or engrossing. I have made a couple good friends in the process, friendships based on more than just audio. At the same time, my eyes have been opened to a nasty side of the hobby and human nature. This has been quite surprising.

 

[tima]

My mistake was failing to realize a year and a half ago that this thread and the sharing of my new system was going to cause such a contentious reaction.

What I cannot understand is the motivation behind that reaction.

 

[Carlos269]

What I cannot understand is the motivation behind that reaction.

I have a theory of why the approach that Peter has chosen to take is “preposterous” to some.

First, it is the equipment that Peter has chosen. Many cannot fathom to think that “vintage” equipment can generate the “magic” that multi-thousand dollar modern equipment strives for but fails to achieve. I had a well know audiophile on here, Mikel, use the word “vintage“ as derogatory as it related to his “latest and greatest” equipment. To me it is more about the system’s make up than the age or vintage of the components. I personally feel that “1980 to 2007” was the golden age of audiophile equipment. It seems to me that there was an actual ”pure” pursuit of excellence during that period as opposed to the pursuit for profit that has become the norm. Some “Vintage” systems and components can compete, and in some cases exceed, their contemporaries if they are special in their design, execution and sound reproduction. The flavor of the day components rarely stand the test of time. Well designed “vintage” systems can hold their own against the latest magazine and forum darlings. Listen and you will know. To me, the artistry is in the putting together a system that is more than the sum of its parts; very much like in cooking, it is not about the ingredients but how the recipe is prepared and served.

Secondly, it is about DDK, the guru. Peter has taken the bait, hook, line, and sinker. Peter is all in, he has dove face first into what some think is an empty pool. When someone follows a person so blindly, he is a disciple. Now is Peter wrong for doing this? If David is leading Peter to his audio utopia, then I say not. David has managed to provide Peter a “vision”. “A Vision” like William Butler Yates‘ vision that everything is cyclic. Rather than float around aimlessly or being directed by the whims of the opinions of magazines or forums, Peter now has a reference and datum, David’s systems in Utah. Peter very much liked what he heard and he is now striving to achieve it. I don’t think that David is unique or special in any form. Peter could have run into any other experienced and well seasoned audiophile that has discovered that Audiophila as we know it is nothing other than Scientology and a total sham and swindle, and he would have found a different niche or faction of the hobby to set his direction.

As an explorer of the different audio factions, I can tell you that there is no winning walk. There are many ways to achieve audio nirvana. No path is all right or wrong. Each approach is a different vantage point to the same musical performance. Audio utopia is what you make of it, if contentment is compromise, then what is chasing that elusive audio hologram?

Don’t be mistaken, it is human nature to mistreat those that are not aligned with us. The truth hurts, but even more so after you discover that your system is nothing special, no matter how much money you have put into it, because it is not about the money, but rather it is about knowledge and that my friend you cannot buy.

 

[PeterA]

What I cannot understand is the motivation behind that reaction.

Tim, I think there is more. I have been told privately a few times by quite a few people that I am too secretive about what I have learned. David has taught me an unbelievable wealth of audio knowledge, much more than I have shared publicly. I have learned about proper cartridge set up to power delivery, from turntable design to what to listen for. I do not share it because this is stuff David has learned over many years and it is not my place to do so. We discuss many things as friends with mutual respect and trust.

 

[dcathro]

I have a theory of why the approach that Peter has chosen to take is “preposterous” to some.

First, it is the equipment that Peter has chosen. Many cannot fathom to think that “vintage” equipment can generate the “magic” that multi-thousand dollar modern equipment strives for but fails to achieve. I had a well know audiophile on here, Mikel, use the word “vintage“ as derogatory as it related to his “latest and greatest” equipment. To me it is more about the system’s make up than the age or vintage of the components. I personally feel that “1980 to 2007” was the golden age of audiophile equipment. It seems to me that there was an actual ”pure” pursuit of excellence during that period as opposed to the pursuit for profit that has become the norm. Some “Vintage” systems and components can compete, and in some cases exceed, their contemporaries if they are special in their design, execution and sound reproduction. The flavor of the day components rarely stand the test of time. Well designed “vintage” systems can hold their own against the latest magazine and forum darlings. Listen and you will know. To me, the artistry is in the putting together a system that is more than the sum of its parts; very much like in cooking, it is not about the ingredients but how the recipe is prepared and served.

Secondly, it is about DDK, the guru. Peter has taken the bait, hook, line, and sinker. Peter is all in, he has dove face first into what some think is an empty pool. When someone follows a person so blindly, he is a disciple. Now is Peter wrong for doing this? If David is leading Peter to his audio utopia, then I say not. David has managed to provide Peter a “vision”. “A Vision” like William Butler Yates‘ vision that everything is cyclic. Rather than float around aimlessly or being directed by the whims of the opinions of magazines or forums, Peter now has a reference and datum, David’s systems in Utah. Peter very much liked what he heard and he is now striving to achieve it. I don’t think that David is unique or special in any form. Peter could have run into any other experienced and well seasoned audiophile that has discovered that Audiophila as we know it is nothing other than Scientology and a total sham and swindle, and he would have found a different niche or faction of the hobby to set his direction.

As an explorer of the different audio factions, I can tell you that there is no winning walk. There are many ways to achieve audio nirvana. No path is all right or wrong. Each approach is a different vantage point to the same musical performance. Audio utopia is what you make of it, if contentment is compromise, then what is chasing that elusive audio hologram?

Don’t be mistaken, it is human nature to mistreat those that are not aligned with us. The truth hurts, but even more so after you discover that your system is nothing special, no matter how much money you have put into it, because it is not about the money, but rather it is about knowledge and that my friend you cannot buy.

That old biblical line is so true:

"Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces"

You have to be careful about what you share and with whom.

 

[tima]

Tim, I think there is more. I have been told privately a few times by quite a few people that I am too secretive about what I have learned. David has taught me an unbelievable wealth of audio knowledge, much more than I have shared publicly. I have learned about proper cartridge set up to power delivery, from turntable design to what to listen for. I do not share it because this is stuff David has learned over many years and it is not my place to do so. We discuss many things as friends with mutual respect and trust.

I understand that and respect the dealer-customer relationship. Why your not violating that manifests as someone calling you a shill leaves me shaking my head.

 

[microstrip]

(...) My mistake was failing to realize a year and a half ago that this thread and the sharing of my new system was going to cause such a contentious reaction. I never anticipated that I would be debating with a high school debating champion about the effect of capitalizing words or with someone on another continent who leads a group by jokingly trademarking the naming of an approach to reproducing sound. (...)

No Peter, I am serious in my intents, as many others. The trademark was an effort and need to separate concepts and clarify the discussion of preferences. A pity you want people to stay in the ignorance , avoiding interesting discussions, and just claiming to be a victim of those who do not agree with you in particular aspects. Surely I regret that some people use it to as a weapon to insult or denigrate your preference and surely I disaprove such practice.

The trademark is simply a tool to separate what I and others consider your particular preference from the thousands of other uses of the word "natural sound" or "natural" since sound reproduction started.

And sorry, hiding behind the dealer-customer relation is acceptable to protect private information, such as prices paid, sources or intellectual property, but not to create an aura of mystery. Al always, all IMHO, YMMV.

 

[PeterA]

No Peter, I am serious in my intents, as many others. The trademark was an effort and need to separate concepts and clarify the discussion of preferences. A pity you want people to stay in the ignorance , avoiding interesting discussions, and just claiming to be a victim of those who do not agree with you in particular aspects. Surely I regret that some people use it to as a weapon to insult or denigrate your preference and surely I disaprove such practice.

Francisco, the trademark thing is a joke. You never defined it. You make a mockery of the actual trademark process where something is defined and described and has meaning. You are a professor and you like to lecture others. Instead of providing clarity and new ideas all you do is distract and confuse and avoid debate. You do not respect other people’s opinions. You denigrate them.

What are you talking about me wanting people to remain ignorant? I shared more information about three extremely rare turntables and provided videos. That has never been done on the Internet before with these three. I exposed people to these extremely rare items and my speakers. I posted the first ever videos of David Karmeli‘s system. I discussed them, I photograph them, and I share videos of their sound. I do not share with others what I’ve been told in confidence.

I have never considered myself a victim. I am grateful for the incredible opportunities and freedom I’ve had to pursue my interests. It is a privilege to learn from others and share what I am doing here on this forum. I do not get offended easily and I am happy to defend my opinions.

The trademark is simply a tool to separate what I and others consider your particular preference from the thousands of other uses of the word "natural sound" or "natural" since sound reproduction started.

Here you are again trying to tell me what to say and how to say it. I have defined what I mean by my use of these terms. It is not unique.

And sorry, hiding behind the dealer-customer relation is acceptable to protect private information, such as prices paid, sources or intellectual property, but not to create an aura of mystery. Al always, all IMHO, YMMV.

I am not hiding behind anything. I’m not interested in you telling me what is acceptable and not acceptable. I decide what information I want to share or not. I find it very ironic that the people who do not respect David’s opinions about anything suddenly care whether or not I tell them what David has taught me.

Your TM crap is simply an attempt to shut a different opinion down. It is a weapon that you created and allow others to use. It does not seem like you regret anything because you certainly do not criticize how this aberration is polluting and infecting lots of good discussions.

This is all simply personal nothing more. It would be great if we could get back to actually discussing some substance and the ideas that I am introducing in this thread.

 

[PeterA]

What I cannot understand is the motivation behind that reaction.

@Mike Lavigne wrote then deleted this:

when prolific strongly felt posting is combined with the idea of winners and losers.......reaction is inevitable for balance. one can choose to ignore the forces involved, but it's a hard sell to convince that it's not an obvious consequence. the Sublime Sound never went there. never identifies losing methods. nothing to react to or defend. only positives. i do agree that Ron's post was just saying 'hey everyone; remember, you're pissed? right?' why drag it out now? not going to change anything. ddk and Peter are not suddenly going to change. and i'm not claiming they need to change anything. they just have to live with the reactions to their actions. and indignation that there is a reaction is also fine. Tma has to be Tima too. hope everyone is having a relaxing Labor Day Weekend.​

Mike,

I sold off my entire system in two weeks and replaced it with a new one. That is surely choosing a winner and a loser. But it is my winner and my loser, no one else's. I did not denigrate other gear or other people's choices.

The Sublime Sound thread went there many times too. Every time I experimented and learned, I chose a winner and a loser. The pneumatic isolation platforms lost. The audiophile cables, cords, fancy in wall wires and fancy connectors lost. The acoustic panels and distribution box lost. The toed-in speaker orientation lost. Lessons in basic set up and standard industrial power delivery won. These were my lessons without comment about others, their systems, or their choices.

I disagree with your characterization of my Sublime Sound system thread. There were plenty of winners and losers. I got push back from people privately. They questioned and they disagreed, but I moved forward based on what I was learning and choosing as better. There was not much contention on the WBF thread, that is true. I agree with you that it is different on the Natural Sound thread. The rejection of my old preference became complete in favor of a new preference. The naming of the target and the approach to achieve it became more explicit. The reaction became more pronounced. But again, there was no denigration of other people, their gear, their choices, their preferences.

This is not unlike what you are doing with the WADAX DAC. You chose a winner and a loser based on your preferences. You did not denigrate others for their choices, you simply made yours, and you talked about it. People react. Part of the DAC story is the price. Part of my system story is the rarity and difficulty of hearing or getting the stuff. This is just the way it is.

I am not indignant about the reactions. I am frustrated by what I perceive as a mischaracterization of how I shared my enthusiasm for the choices I made. Changing gear and rejecting an approach for a new one is a personal decision. It is a reflection of what I have learned and where I want to go. This is rooted in the confidence of knowing what I want. I am sure you can relate to that. What I do not understand is why others have made it so personal. It is not about them, it is about the choices I made for myself. Indignation it is not. I am not annoyed as much as confused. The treatment is not unfair, it is curious. And I am with Tim in trying to understand the motivation behind the reaction.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Peter,

why am i now having to respond to a deleted post 2 days later after i deleted it (within minutes of posting it).

why do you think i deleted it? are you just looking for a fight?

i'll have no further comment.

 

[adyc]

It is not very nice to copy a deleted post and post it on public. it is better to response in PM.