Natural Sound

[Ron Resnick]

To me, accuracy allows the system to sound natural. If its not accurate, its unnatural. The two are synonymous.

"Accuracy" and "natural" are not synonymous to me. They are independent variables.

I would have to understand your definition of accuracy and your definition of natural to make any progress toward mutual understanding. But I think that philosophical and definitional discussion is not appropriate for Peter's system thread.

My hypothesis is that those that think 'accurate' isn't 'natural' are associating something amusical with 'accurate'.

Accurate is not necessarily amusical. But accurate is not necessarily musical.

 

[bonzo75]

Those I know who have the most successful SET-based systems only use the SET for mids and highs. That way the amp isn't challenged by the bass it can't play and that allows a much larger amount of usable power.

That does not make it any less good. Biamping is an acceptable strategy where it works, if they can get it coherent.

The best systems I have heard have used 46 SET and in parallel, Yamamura used current based SS amps made for single driver that saw off Kondo and Shindo 300b because the amp was best matched to his speaker, two 300b systems with class D for bass, 833c biamped with 100w push pull, 833c 20w SET, 304 TL 80w, single ended pentode 10w and Kaneda solid state 15w (a lot of Hiraga followers use Kaneda). there have also been great systems with Kondos which are not SE.

The good thing is if the speaker is easy to drive and efficient, all these low watt SS, biamping, push pull, or single ended strategies work.

 

[Ron Resnick]

SETs don't work

Considering this substantially is a subjective hobby seeking to achieve emotional engagement with the music we love, and not about bench testing electronics, and considering many audiophiles find SET amplifiers to allow them most effectively to achieve the sound they seek, I would not want to have to defend this assertion.

 

[Atmasphere]

"Accuracy" and "natural" are not synonymous to me. They are independent variables.

I would have to understand your definition of accuracy and your definition of natural to make any progress toward mutual understanding. But I think that philosophical and definitional discussion is not appropriate for Peter's system thread.



Accurate is not necessarily amusical. But accurate is not necessarily musical.

I'm really curious about this Ron!!

How can it be natural if not accurate? How can it be accurate if not natural? I really don't understand how the two are not the same. Can you elucidate?

 

[Ron Resnick]

I'm really curious about this Ron!!

How can it be natural if not accurate? How can it be accurate if not natural? I really don't understand how the two are not the same. Can you elucidate?

Please feel free to start a new thread on this topic. I may very well be wrong, but I would assume Peter would not want this discussion to continue here. Peter please advise.

 

[Atmasphere]

I would not want to have to defend this assertion.

Its actually very easy. The more you dig into the idea, the more evidence you find to support it.

Any SET designer knows you face a choice in the output transformer design- get it to play bass or highs, but not both. The more power you try for, the harder this is. This is the reason why type 45 based SETs are the best sounding: they have the widest bandwidth.

When you don't have feedback to correct for phase shift at the extremes. the phase artifacts at the cutoff frequency extend to 10x or 1/10th the cutoff (-3dB point) frequency. The ear interprets phase shift like this as tonality. A rolloff at 20Hz is thinness, a rolloff at 20KHz is a darkness. I don't see how that could ever be interpreted as 'natural' nor is it accurate.

Its phase shift why bandwidth has been so important over the decades and especially with anything zero feedback. So to eliminate the coloration you get, the bandwidth with zero feedback has to be a lot wider. Stu Hegeman was a big early proponent of wide bandwidth. Back then it was the sort of thing you could hear but hard to measure. Now its easy to measure.

Please feel free to start a new thread on this topic. I may very well be wrong, but I would assume Peter would not want this discussion to continue here. Peter please advise.

I do not understand. Natural sound is the title of this thread. So it not OK to discuss it here??

 

[bonzo75]

The more power you try for, the harder this is. This is the reason why type 45 based SETs are the best sounding: they have the widest bandwidth.

Yes so don't try for more power. Why do you assume people with SETs are always trying for high power? that's silly.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Its actually very easy. The more you dig into the idea, the more evidence you find to support it.

Ralph, we are talking two different languages here.

Measurements and theory cannot be used to prove to a subjective listener that SET amplifiers are not achieving for him/her the emotional connection and suspension of disbelief he/she is experiencing with them.

 

[wil]

"Accuracy" and "natural" are not synonymous to me. They are independent variables.

I would have to understand your definition of accuracy and your definition of natural to make any progress toward mutual understanding. But I think that philosophical and definitional discussion is not appropriate for Peter's system thread.



Accurate is not necessarily amusical. But accurate is not necessarily musical.

How would natural not be accurate? That makes no sense to me.

If that were the case, “natural“ would be, by definition, colored and Un-natural.

That said, I I think many audiophiles might be looking for a more colored presentation.

Most of us listen to music in a very unnatural environment, that is, a small room with its inherent distortions.

My ultimate natural sound reference is what I hear outdoors in a natural environment , unencumbered by walls. The closer we can get to that purity and depth of sound in our systems the better!

 

[Atmasphere]

Yes so don't try for more power. Why do you assume people with SETs are always trying for high power? that's silly.

7 Watts is already to the point where the bandwidth is challenging to be 'hifi'. I don't know of any 300b amp that can make full power at 20Hz. On top of that don't forget that only about 20-25% of SET power is actually usable before the higher ordered harmonics show up and make it sound 'dynamic'.

That 20-25% limit is one of the reasons I say SETs don't work. Almost any PP tube amp has 90% usable power by comparison. Most people using SETs are using them on speakers that lack the efficiency to really show off what the SET can do. That's why you read so often about how SETs are so dynamic...

Ralph, we are talking two different languages here.

Measurements and theory cannot be used to prove to a subjective listener that SET amplifiers are not achieving for him/her the emotional connection and suspension of disbelief he/she is experiencing with them.

If you think that then you have either not read what I wrote earlier or totally missed the point.

Emotional connection to the music is caused when the limbic system of the brain is processing the music. That's the source of the desire to move, toe tapping and the ability of the system to evoke tears.

When the brain detects something that isn't right, the music processing moves to the cerebral cortex and much of the emotional impact is lost. That also happens when you are comparing equipment. So its vital for the system to sound natural and therefore accurate. You literally cannot have one without the other.

 

[Al M.]

I do not understand. Natural sound is the title of this thread. So it not OK to discuss it here??

Agreed. Per the thread title, discussion of the topic should be considered legit.

 

[hopkins]

Emotional connection to the music is caused when the limbic system of the brain is processing the music. That's the source of the desire to move, toe tapping and the ability of the system to evoke tears.

When the brain detects something that isn't right, the music processing moves to the cerebral cortex and much of the emotional impact is lost. That also happens when you are comparing equipment. So its vital for the system to sound natural and therefore accurate. You literally cannot have one without the other.

Expectations come into play as well, and that's why people can feel emotionally involved when listening to music with their phones (even audiophiles will admit to this).

Perhaps it would be helpful if you could refer to a system that you've heard and consider to be (sufficiently) "accurate"? Have others heard it? Do they like it?

I hear your points, but it's easy to find faults in any one of our systems. So which one do you personally recommend?

 

[Atmasphere]

Expectations come into play as well, and that's why people can feel emotionally involved when listening to music with their phones (even audiophiles will admit to this).

Perhaps it would be helpful if you could refer to a system that you've heard and consider to be (sufficiently) "accurate"? Have others heard it? Do they like it?

I hear your points, but it's easy to find faults in any one of our systems. So which one do you personally recommend?

Expectation plays a huge amount! I can hardly even talk about Furtwangler conducting the Four Last Songs (which is a transcription from 78s) without having to gulp back tears. Furtwangler's version is so much more musically coherent its hard to listen to other versions. He knew Struass personally so knew how to make the orchestra really do what the composer intended.

It might be easier to talk about equipment I've heard rather than complete systems. Asking a manufacturer something like this seems a pretty loaded question to me.

The first really accurate and therefore musical preamp I ever heard was a heavily modified ARC SP3a with an outboard power supply that was built up over 5 years by a local technician for Warren Gehl who, a decade later or so, started working for ARC.

The next such preamp was a CAT which I heard at a local dealer.

Both were innocuous in the system in which they played such that for the first time I felt I was listening to the recording rather than the electronics.

The first Class D amp I heard that really convinced me class D was more than just a rising star was a Digital Amplifier Company amp. This was at AXPONA about 8 years ago. I was drawn into the room because I thought someone was playing a real trumpet, perhaps for comparison purposes but of course no-one was.

I've been fooled by headphones a good number of times. One time I was recording a college choir on location using an old Ampex 350 tape transport with 351 electronics (all refurbished). The mics were Phillips small diaphragm condenser mics using a tiny tube also used in hearing aids of the early 1960s. After intermission, the choir gathered by the other door backstage as they were going to be singing as they entered. My recording setup was by the other backstage door. Suddenly someone right behind me started singing! I whirled around but of course no-one was there; I'd missed that the soloist had entered ahead of everyone else. I'm glad I started the tape rolling in time.

That was when I realized that microphones, preamps and headphones had reached the point we all crave. I could never get the actual tape feed to do as well but the direct mic feed was/is killer!! I'm pretty sure anyone who has heard a direct microphone feed on 'phones knows what I'm talking about.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, I know you will reply "yes," that the ML2 is uniquely natural-sounding, and that that is why you adopted the philosophy of selecting that particular amplifier first, and then selecting matching speakers and building a system around it. I totally respect that approach.

What do you hear from the ML2 in contrast to other similar-power SET amplifiers which causes you to find the ML2 uniquely natural-sounding and convincing?

Ron, your assumption is unfounded. I have heard other tube electronics but never compared them directly to form any such conclusion. It would be far more accurate to say that I have preferred the sound of the systems that had Lamm in them to other tube systems that had other tube brands.

I also have never claimed that I think Lamm is uniquely natural sounding. It is natural and convincing, but perhaps not uniquely so. I really do not know.

I have simply written in this thread that the four systems I did hear in Utah and now a fifth system here at home, are the most natural sounding systems I have heard. There are degrees of natural sound and it is relative. I tried to be very clear in my posts but regrettably, they continue to be misunderstood.

I would switch brands if I heard a brand that sounded as or more natural, always possible, if they were less expensive and available. I have not heard any yet. Better still would be solid state for less heat and no tubes, but again, I have not heard them nor, honestly, am I searching for an alternative.

 

[hopkins]

Expectation plays a huge amount! I can hardly even talk about Furtwangler conducting the Four Last Songs (which is a transcription from 78s) without having to gulp back tears. Furtwangler's version is so much more musically coherent its hard to listen to other versions. He knew Struass personally so knew how to make the orchestra really do what the composer intended.

It might be easier to talk about equipment I've heard rather than complete systems. Asking a manufacturer something like this seems a pretty loaded question to me.

The first really accurate and therefore musical preamp I ever heard was a heavily modified ARC SP3a with an outboard power supply that was built up over 5 years by a local technician for Warren Gehl who, a decade later or so, started working for ARC.

The next such preamp was a CAT which I heard at a local dealer.

Both were innocuous in the system in which they played such that for the first time I felt I was listening to the recording rather than the electronics.

The first Class D amp I heard that really convinced me class D was more than just a rising star was a Digital Amplifier Company amp. This was at AXPONA about 8 years ago. I was drawn into the room because I thought someone was playing a real trumpet, perhaps for comparison purposes but of course no-one was.

I've been fooled by headphones a good number of times. One time I was recording a college choir on location using an old Ampex 350 tape transport with 351 electronics (all refurbished). The mics were Phillips small diaphragm condenser mics using a tiny tube also used in hearing aids of the early 1960s. After intermission, the choir gathered by the other door backstage as they were going to be singing as they entered. My recording setup was by the other backstage door. Suddenly someone right behind me started singing! I whirled around but of course no-one was there; I'd missed that the soloist had entered ahead of everyone else. I'm glad I started the tape rolling in time.

That was when I realized that microphones, preamps and headphones had reached the point we all crave. I could never get the actual tape feed to do as well but the direct mic feed was/is killer!! I'm pretty sure anyone who has heard a direct microphone feed on 'phones knows what I'm talking about.

I often record my speakers, and they pick up noise around the house while doing so, especially my cats. When listening back to the recordings, I've been fooled into thinking the noise I heard was actually happening behind me or to my side (a cat meowing, a door being shut, etc...). But that does not mean the recording is "accurate" either. It's just the result of an unexpected sound. Listening with headphones will trick you when the sound has a precise location.

I had a similar experience walking into a supermarket and hearing an actual piano playing that was hidden, and thinking "the sound system in this supermarket is awesome". So it can go both ways.

I would not rely on these types of instances to determine whether a system is pleasing and/or accurate.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, your assumption is unfounded. I have heard other tube electronics but never compared them directly to form any such conclusion. It would be far more accurate to say that I have preferred the sound of the systems that had Lamm in them to other tube systems that had other tube brands.

I also have never claimed that I think Lamm is uniquely natural sounding. It is natural and convincing, but perhaps not uniquely so. I really do not know.

I have simply written in this thread that the four systems I did hear in Utah and now a fifth system here at home, are the most natural sounding systems I have heard. There are degrees of natural sound and it is relative. I tried to be very clear in my posts but regrettably, they continue to be misunderstood.

I would switch brands if I heard a brand that sounded as or more natural, always possible, if they were less expensive and available. I have not heard any yet. Better still would be solid state for less heat and no tubes, but again, I have not heard them nor, honestly, am I searching for an alternative.

I apologize for assuming that your decision to select the Lamm ML2 as the starting point of your entire system, and as the foundation for your system building approach, was based on a listening comparison between the ML2 and some other amplifier.

 

[Argonaut]

of course instruments are not inherently from nature either

Bullseye , Which is fundamentally why the whole descriptor ‘Natural’ In the context of this thread is a total fallacy where Instrumental works are concerned, If the series of complex sound waves emanating from say a Viola Da Gamba , in and of itself a man made construct , comprised of inert woods ,glue , horn and gut strings, fails to satisfy that simple “Inherently from nature” ‘rule’ how can anything that is produced by it be considered as “Sounding Natural” and be used as a litmus test for “Natural Sound” .

Extrapolate this further and we arrive at an even more absurd consideration such as . Does Amplifier X or Y replicate the
‘Not Found In Nature‘ sound wave patterns as emanating from the aforementioned ‘Not Found In Nature’ Viola Da Gamba, “Sound Natural” .

We can however consider whether the arbitrary Amplifier has or has not replicated the sound waves ‘Not Found In Nature’ that emanated from the man made instrument *Accurately* or otherwise… We can even get a little bit carried away and consider whether we might like the particular wave pattern sounds as replicated by Amplifier X more than Amplifier Y , what we cannot say being whether Amplifier X “Sounds More Natural“ than Amplifier Y when conveying sounds produced by man made Instruments .

Of course the above only applies to Anthropogenic works Viz :

Bach, J S: Cello Suites Nos. 1-6, BWV1007-1012. DG Archiv: 4776724

And not Recordings of the Human voice , Individually / Solo or Duet or a choral work etc , recordings of which by their intrinsic nature qualify as ‘Natural Sounds’ ergo Amplifier X and Y might be assessed for an ability to amplify in this case a ‘Natural Sound’ , more or less ‘Naturally’ , the same would apply to Bird Song , A Dog Fox barking in the woods , A waterfall or a Herd Of Cattle Passing Gas ( No reflection upon this forum intended) etc etc etc .

 

[Atmasphere]

I often record my speakers, and they pick up noise around the house while doing so, especially my cats. When listening back to the recordings, I've been fooled into thinking the noise I heard was actually happening behind me or to my side (a cat meowing, a door being shut, etc...). But that does not mean the recording is "accurate" either. It's just the result of an unexpected sound. Listening with headphones will trick you when the sound has a precise location.

I had a similar experience walking into a supermarket and hearing an actual piano playing that was hidden, and thinking "the sound system in this supermarket is awesome". So it can go both ways.

I would not rely on these types of instances to determine whether a system is pleasing and/or accurate.

By that metric, none is. Do you have a good set of microphones you can work with? The better they are, the more you get fooled by them. The mics I use these days (which I had to get a loan for in 1981 while still in college) is a set of Neumann U67s which are fully refurbished. At the time of the loan it seemed they might be a really frivolous purchase on my account but they have proven to be one of my better investments.

Bullseye , Which is fundamentally why the whole descriptor ‘Natural’ In the context of this thread is a total fallacy where Instrumental works are concerned, If the series of complex sound waves emanating from say a Viola Da Gamba , in and of itself a man made construct , comprised of inert woods ,glue , horn and gut strings, fails to satisfy that simple “Inherently from nature” ‘rule’ how can anything that is produced by it be considered as “Sounding Natural” and be used as a litmus test for “Natural Sound” .

Extrapolate this further and we arrive at an even more absurd consideration such as . Does Amplifier X or Y replicate the
‘Not Found In Nature‘ sound wave patterns as emanating from the aforementioned ‘Not Found In Nature’ Viola Da Gamba, “Sound Natural” .

We can however consider whether the arbitrary Amplifier has or has not replicated the sound waves ‘Not Found In Nature’ that emanated from the man made instrument *Accurately* or otherwise… We can even get a little bit carried away and consider whether we might like the particular wave pattern sounds as replicated by Amplifier X more than Amplifier Y , what we cannot say being whether Amplifier X “Sounds More Natural“ than Amplifier Y when conveying sounds produced by man made Instruments .

Of course the above only applies to Anthropogenic works Viz :

Bach, J S: Cello Suites Nos. 1-6, BWV1007-1012. DG Archiv: 4776724

And not Recordings of the Human voice , Individually / Solo or Duet or a choral work etc , recordings of which by their intrinsic nature qualify as ‘Natural Sounds’ ergo Amplifier X and Y might be assessed for an ability to amplify in this case a ‘Natural Sound’ , more or less ‘Naturally’ , the same would apply to Bird Song , A Dog Fox barking in the woods , A waterfall or a Herd Of Cattle Passing Gas etc etc etc .

Hm. So we can't have musical instruments because that isn't natural?

Humans are here through natural circumstances. As far back as we've been able to find artifacts, one that that always seems to turn up is evidence of music, such as drums or fragments of flutes. So music seems to me a pretty important part of being human and very natural.

 

[hopkins]

By that metric, none is. Do you have a good set of microphones you can work with? The better they are, the more you get fooled by them. The mics I use these days (which I had to get a loan for in 1981 while still in college) is a set of Neumann U67s which are fully refurbished. At the time of the loan it seemed they might be a really frivolous purchase on my account but they have proven to be one of my better investments.

I don't have microphones as good as the Neumann but agree the illusion can be stronger with better mics. My point remains that we can be fooled temporarily by something unexpected. Anyway, I did not want to provoke you by asking you to refer to a system - I was just curious.

 

[morricab]

How would natural not be accurate? That makes no sense to me.

If that were the case, “natural“ would be, by definition, colored and Un-natural.

That said, I I think many audiophiles might be looking for a more colored presentation.

Most of us listen to music in a very unnatural environment, that is, a small room with its inherent distortions.

My ultimate natural sound reference is what I hear outdoors in a natural environment , unencumbered by walls. The closer we can get to that purity and depth of sound in our systems the better!

Accurate to the listener is also natural. Accurate to the measuring tools often does not sound natural. What humans hear and perceive is not the same as direct readings from spectrum analyzers. You have to process the raw data with an appropriate model and then you approach what is accurate and natural…for the listener.