Natural Sound

[PeterA]

you introduced 'outlines'. i added 'cookie cutter' since that term is used to indicate the same negative idea. outlines = cookie cutter.

so is everyone else speaking about locating sounds in the reproduced soundstage.

what i copied was you responding to Hopkins describing your system experience, not you describing your live concert experience.

It is clear to me that our values differ, our goals differ, and our language differs. I am not surprised that we disagree about this subject.

We should celebrate the fact that each of us is very happy with the choices he has made. How we talk about it is much less important.

 

[treitz3]

If one wants precise pinpoint imaging, there is only one spot this happens too with every human walking this Earth. That is between the ears of the listener.

No recording will sound like what you hear. Case in point...have you ever spoken into a mic and had that sound broadcast through two speakers?

You don't sound like you. You never will. You hear the pinpoint imaging, as it is heard through your own internal vibrations as you speak and through your own ears.

A playback system goes through many, many generations before it gets back to your ears as a reproduced "image" of your own voice.

Knowing this, why would you expect whatever your definition of pinpoint imaging is to be exactly what you hear through your system?

It's going to be different, no matter what. Whether the sound is natural to you or not, when it comes to reproduced music or whether or not the pinpoint images you hear are what you think it should be?

At the end of the day, it's just an approximation. That's the wonderful thing about this hobby. There are many choices in which one can achieve their own preference as to what is a very personal reproductive effort.

Reproduction will never be exacting. Extracting (out of your own rig) the best approximation of what you perceive is the best of your preferences is the best we all could hope for.

Just have fun listening.

Tom

 

[Mike Lavigne]

It is clear to me that our values differ, our goals differ, and our language differs. I am not surprised that we disagree about this subject.

We should celebrate the fact that each of us is very happy with the choices he has made. How we talk about it doesn’t really matter.

honestly, 'it doesn't matter' is a very un-Peter like thing to say. you always ask me the deepest questions and i try to answer as best i can. i know you are genuine, so i take you seriously.

i think your disdain for others enjoying imaging in their systems is miss placed. you simply rebrand it into something desired, and then call it something different.

anyway, we move on.

 

[PeterA]

honestly, 'it doesn't matter' is a very un-Peter like thing to say. you always ask me the deepest questions and i try to answer as best i can. i know you are genuine, so i take you seriously.

i think your disdain for others enjoying imaging in their systems is miss placed. you simply rebrand it into something desired, and then call it something different.

anyway, we move on.

Which is why I edited my post to read: “How we talk about it is much less important.”

No distain for others, Mike. Yours is a different path, involving different choices and different references. It is fine with me. You seem to prefer recorded music while I listen to live and judge my choices against it. I am not really re-branding. I just choose not to use the language because as I, Al M and others have tried to explain, we don’t hear it live.

 

[Rexp]

Which is why I edited my post to read: “How we talk about it is much less important.”

No distain for others, Mike. Yours is a different path, involving different choices and different references. It is fine with me. You seem to prefer recorded music while I listen to live and judge my choices against it. I am not really re-branding. I just choose not to use the language because as I, Al M and others have tried to explain, we don’t hear it live.

If you're blindfolded and someone walks across the room, singing, you don't 'see' an image of them? You're not aware of their location?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I am not really re-branding. I just choose not to use the language because as I, Al M and others have tried to explain, we don’t hear it live.

how does this language differ from others talking about imaging?

My ability to know the location of the instrument creating the sound within the sound field is very good. For me it is about being able to locate the origin of the sound relative to the other sounds and the context in which the instruments are being played. And it’s about feeling as though I am in the presence of the musicians.

the above is how you described listening to your system to Hopkins. what is that other than imaging by another name? you are localizing sounds, and interpreting the performers and instruments in space (presence of musicians).

is this also what you hear live? if not, what is different than what you hear in your room?

I M A G I N G.

 

[Al M.]

If you're blindfolded and someone walks across the room, singing, you don't 'see' an image of them? You're not aware of their location?

Yes, of course you are aware, our evolutionary history takes care of that . But there is never a sharp, etched outline in that aural image, unlike the artifact that you hear in some stereo systems. And while location is precise (our forefathers' lives depended on that), it is never a 'small', i.e. "pinpoint" image.

Let's just once and for all dispel the myth that those who oppose artificial pinpoint imaging are against proper imaging.

We are for proper imaging.

Let me repeat again:

We are for proper imaging.

Is that clear now?

To riff on Mike's last post:

We love I M A G I N G.

But not the crappy artifact of sharply etched pinpoint imaging.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Yes, of course you are aware, our evolutionary history takes care of that . But there is never a sharp, etched outline in that aural image, unlike the artifact that you hear in some stereo systems. And while location is precise (our forefathers' lives depended on that), it is never a 'small', i.e. "pinpoint" image.

Let's just once and for all dispel the myth that those who oppose artificial pinpoint imaging are against proper imaging.

We are for proper imaging.

Let me repeat again:

We are for proper imaging.

Is that clear now?

To riff on Mike's last post:

We love I M A G I N G.

But not the crappy artifact of sharply etched pinpoint imaging.

but who is in charge of assigning any reproduction experience to the artificial category? where is the line?

who is the imaging police? where do they live and how do they point fingers? who made the rules for that?

it's all a construct.

Peter's description of his system reminds me of any decent system. nothing wrong. recordings ought to determine degrees of location specificity. nothing new about that. systems should be capable of laying it out.

 

[Rexp]

but who is in charge of assigning any reproduction experience to the artificial category? where is the line?

who is the imaging police? where do they live and how do they point fingers? who made the rules for that?

it's all a construct.

Peter's description of his system reminds me of any decent system. nothing wrong. recordings ought to determine degrees of location specificity. nothing new about that. systems should be capable of laying it out.

Yes and most systems do not lay it all out. I've been to a few high end dealers recently looking for a Streamer DAC. They put their best systems together but none offered well resolved imaging.

 

[PeterA]

If you're blindfolded and someone walks across the room, singing, you don't 'see' an image of them? You're not aware of their location?

of course I am aware of their location but I do not see an image of the singer. More precisely I’m aware of where his or her mouth is singing and how that sound interacts with the room. The last thing I would do is to describe it as “pinpoint“. It is actually larger than the actual mouth and not super precise. There’s no sudden transient like a drum stick. You hear the sound expanding outward and into the space and a trace or general sense of where it originated.

 

[treitz3]

Yes and most systems do not lay it all out. I've been to a few high end dealers recently looking for a Streamer DAC. They put their best systems together but none offered well resolved imaging.

Dealers don't offer one thing. They usually offer what they can sell.

Tom

 

[PeterA]

how does this language differ from others talking about imaging?



the above is how you described listening to your system to Hopkins. what is that other than imaging by another name? you are localizing sounds, and interpreting the performers and instruments in space (presence of musicians).

is this also what you hear live? if not, what is different than what you hear in your room?

I M A G I N G.

The difference in the language is that I don’t refer to it as “pinpoint“. That’s why I keep asking other people to define what they mean. I am actually doing that both with the live experience the other night and describing what I hear in my listening room. I’m being very specific and describing what I actually hear. Locating the origin of the sound is different language from “pinpoint imaging“.

All you’re talking about is the cello is to the right of the piano, just say that. Why do you have to use this audio file language that is confusing? I am after clarity to improve understanding and meaning as we discuss these things.

It is just like that other confusing expression “black background“. Whatever the background is, the stage, the edges of the stage, the back of the stage, the overall ambience of the stage, whatever it is, it is not black and it is not silent. It is full of reverberant energy and atmosphere. If you’re talking about noise floor and lowering noise, just say that.

 

[PeterA]

Yes and most systems do not lay it all out. I've been to a few high end dealers recently looking for a Streamer DAC. They put their best systems together but none offered well resolved imaging.

An audio friend and former member here specifically told me he was not interested in imaging from his system. He focuses on tone or accurate timbre. He goes to the Boston Symphony a lot. His son plays a horn instrument and his neighbor is a violinist. He listens to a lot of live music of different scales. He’s not interested in imaging from his panels.

 

[PeterA]

Peter's description of his system reminds me of any decent system. nothing wrong. recordings ought to determine degrees of location specificity. nothing new about that. systems should be capable of laying it out.

Yes, a good system should be capable of laying it out. How natural that presentation is depends on the set up and the owner’s values and goals.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

The difference in the language is that I don’t refer to it as “pinpoint“. That’s why I keep asking other people to define what they mean. I am actually doing that both with the live experience the other night and describing what I hear in my listening room. I’m being very specific and describing what I actually hear. Locating the origin of the sound is different language from “pinpoint imaging“.

All you’re talking about is the cello is to the right of the piano, just say that. Why do you have to use this audio file language that is confusing? I am after clarity to improve understanding and meaning as we discuss these things.

It is just like that other confusing expression “black background“. Whatever the background is, the stage, the edges of the stage, the back of the stage, the overall ambience of the stage, whatever it is, it is not black and it is not silent. It is full of reverberant energy and atmosphere. If you’re talking about noise floor and lowering noise, just say that.

so this is a language issue and not a performance issue? let's go with that for a minute.

why is the term "artificial" brought into the discussion then? if one man's pinpoint is another man's reverberant energy and presence?

the rub is the inference of some sort of superior approach to soundstage performance. something less a part of the recording and more real musical truth. that's where we have the conflict. we can use different terms, but there is the idea where one is right and one is not quite right that we seem to be reading. do we have that wrong? set us straight.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Yes, a good system should be capable of laying it out. How natural that presentation is depends on the set up and the owner’s values and goals.

that's fair. not every system is tuned for optimal sound staging, or maybe not every room has equal potential for equal sound staging. a matter of right or wrong? or a matter of preference?

personally i find that optimal sound staging also organizes the frequency response and tonal density to the image and brings the most realism. the sound staging is a side benefit of ultimate musical cohesion and flow, immersion.......not an artifact. does this follow 100% of the time? mostly it does.

 

[Rexp]

An audio friend and former member here specifically told me he was not interested in imaging from his system. He focuses on tone or accurate timbre. He goes to the Boston Symphony a lot. His son plays a horn instrument and his neighbor is a violinist. He listens to a lot of live music of different scales. He’s not interested in imaging from his panels.

If your friend's system doesn't resolve imaging information correctly, it's unlikely to reproduce correct tone and timbre.

 

[PeterA]

that's fair. not every system is tuned for optimal sound staging, or maybe not every room has equal potential for equal sound staging. a matter of right or wrong? or a matter of preference?

personally i find that optimal sound staging also organizes the frequency response and tonal density to the image and brings the most realism. the sound staging is a side benefit of ultimate musical cohesion and flow, immersion.......not an artifact. does this follow 100% of the time? mostly it does.

It is not a matter of right or wrong Mike. It’s about perception and values and choices one makes and then whether or not he happens to achieve his goals with his system. What is wrong for one person might be right for another person. This is an individual hobby.

A lot of things work together. That’s why I have one reference and judge performance on the basis of whether or not my system sounds natural. It is an holistic approach. Imaging is part of it. Others have different values and make different decisions and that’s just fine. We all try to enjoy our music.

 

[treitz3]

We all try to enjoy our music.

Isn't that the point?

Tom

 

[Mike Lavigne]

It is not a matter of right or wrong Mike. It’s about perception and values and choices one makes and then whether or not he happens to achieve his goals with his system. What is wrong for one person might be right for another person. This is an individual hobby.

A lot of things work together. That’s why I have one reference and judge performance on the basis of whether or not my system sounds natural. It is an holistic approach. Imaging is part of it. Others have different values and make different decisions and that’s just fine. We all try to enjoy our music.

thanks Peter.

i suppose we will leave the question about the use of the term "artificial" as an open issue and move along.