Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Thank you Salectric. I have been adjusting furniture and the wooden slats covering my windows. Right now, the hobby for me is about listening to music and continuing to fine tune the room acoustics. The gear part of the hobby is basically done for me. I have lived with the system for a couple of years now, adding only a couple of cartridges, the new turntable and an upgraded phono stage.
It takes time to understand what is going on with the information retrieved from the records and how the system presents it, and then what the room is actually doing. The energy and information is here, now it is about fine tuning it for a more natural presentation. It takes time, and I am still learning. The key seems to be to identify issues, understand them, and figure out how to address them without loosing the energy and information that is in the room. I am doing this through furniture and window treatment adjustments, not by adding audiophile acoustic treatments to the walls or ceiling. For me, the room needs to be in harmony as a listening room and a formal and comfortable living room in which people want to hang out. That balance is the challenge.
There has been a bit of discussion lately about rooms and how to treat them. I have also come across three specific videos which are very revealing, at least in my opinion: the Dallas Rhapsody video, Robert Harley's new room video, and now Jay's Audio Lab new room video. I have noticed how the rooms all have a sound which comes across clearly in these videos.
Managing the energy and information from the system in my particular room context is now my focus. I am pleased with the results and am sharing it through these videos. I continue to be impressed with just how much these videos can tell us and how powerful a tool they can be to convey what is happening.
Last edited:
I agree Joe. Speaker and listening seat locations are critical. Those were done a while ago. This is the fine tuning after living with the system for a while to fully understand what is happening and then adjusting. Furniture, rug, paintings, and window treatments are what I am now focusing on. I tried absorption panels which had an effect I personally did not like.
The windows themselves are historic true divided six over six wooden sashes with thick/heavy laminated glass. They sound better than what they replaced. Over those, I have wide painted maple wood slats which can be adjusted to reflect sound up to the low, flat plaster ceiling, or down to the carpet. When fully open, they sound different too. It is about directing and managing the energy in the room, not removing it. Once removed, then that musical information is lost forever.
People have different approaches to this. It depends on goals and values. This is where it gets subjective and about personal preferences. One's guide or reference also varies, so results are very diverse.
I don't know if this has been noted before. One thing that has struck me recently, in addition to the list you provide here, and not in contradiction to "No analysis of the sound into bits and pieces, music experienced as a whole", is how the "individualization" of instruments increases as we reach higher quality sound and greater enjoyment:
- each instrument sounds unique in a particular recording
- and each instrument is perfectly delineated from the others, while preserving (and probably reinforcing) the feeling that we are listening to a cohesive whole. This is paradoxically, also an impression you get when listening to a solo instrument (even in mono)...
I find this is to be an important aspect.
Last edited:
P.S. I was reminded of this while listening to an Art Tatum 1941 recording ("Sweet Georgia Brown") in a Harlem club:
Too much emphasis is often placed on recording quality!
Too much emphasis is often placed on recording quality!
Hopkins, this is an interesting post. When I wrote that nothing stands out when listening to a natural sound presentation, I mean nothing stands out in a negative way drawing attention to itself and distracting one’s mind from the music. Instruments in a performance can stand out for their unique sound and for a better understanding of their contribution to the composition as a whole. My comment about breaking things into bits and pieces is about a conscious analysis and listening to the sound as an audio file exercise. Natural sound does not lend itself to this because I am engaged and even overwhelmed by the listening experience.
It is the constant play between the instruments, how they relate to each other and to the whole, that I noticed then at David’s when I wrote that list and now in my room. Nothing is emphasized per se, and there is an overall balance. One can follow along, jump from one thing to another, or simply get lost in the experience. My mind is it at ease and I can relax going where the music leads.
Did you hear something from my videos that prompted your post? If so, could you relate your post to a specific example of what you hear in one of the recent videos that I posted so that I can more fully understand what you mean?
Last edited:
I understood what you meant and feel that is important as well. As I mentioned, my comment is not in contradiction with this (on the contrary).
It was prompted by my own experience, reflecting on the progress made in the past months (and years), as one thing that struck me - though the quest is far from over!
When comparing videos on your YouTube channel of your old system (Magico) to the more recent ones, that is certainly something that sticks out.
Your latest - "Piano and Clarinet, 8/7/23" - seems to be convincing on that aspect, but it is hard to assess with videos.
I listened again to the Bach Partita II Chaconne on my computer speakers. This is *really good*. I hear a naturally sounding balance of tone, dynamics, fluidity, and articulation across Kuijken's top-notch performance. These are not attributes you mention because listening does not lead you to them, but they are there for the having if one chooses to analyze. To put it differently, this does not lack -- its all there. Congratulations.
Thank you for this update, Peter.
What differences in sound are you hearing from the wood panels we see in the photo?
The wood panels on the sides of the fireplace structure seem to be held off from being flat against the wall with little blocks. What is the acoustic purpose of these air gap panels?
What differences in sound are you hearing from the wood panels we see in the photo?
The wood panels on the sides of the fireplace structure seem to be held off from being flat against the wall with little blocks. What is the acoustic purpose of these air gap panels?
Couldn't disagree more. That clip you posted isn't poor quality, it's the aesthetics of it that were chosen or partly partial to the times that people think is "poor". A little tape hiss and some crackle and pop? Not indicators of how good the music itself sounds. Modern engineers think those are the things that matter but they must be deaf.
I was at the record store the other day and when we was playing Aretha Franklin, an old issue, the sound was magical. The tonality was very pleasing, it was alive. When he switched to a modern record it was dead despite the "quality" of it. See I'd argue the quality of the Aretha Franklin stops the modern one into the ground. BTW he uses a natural sounding receiver with a particular amplification device that's the big brother to small Denons that DDK was found of... partly because I haven't told him I later discovered how to get it out of CD mode but can't bare to have him swap it out. Speakers are older Cornwalls (but not 60's).
Don't think so. Can you elaborate as to why you think too much emphasis is placed on recording quality? What are your priorities when trying to achieve good sound for example?
perhaps Hopkins can answer these questions about his priorities and what he thinks about recordings in his own system thread and relate them to his own system videos. Those things are a bit off topic in my system thread.
Similar threads
