Natural Sound

[bonzo75]

Who's right and who's wrong?

Those who like it probably do so in spite of the shortcomings, and those who don't like it won't be able to go beyond those shortcomings and appreciate some of the qualities that others find.

Who's right & who's wrong is easy to say, depending on the person's background of both live and audio experience and past experiences, which people have.

As to shortcomings, sure it has a few, like many. You could have shortcomings on many factors in different systems, naturalness is just one of them. I can completely understand if someone says the above has a shortcoming on extension, or if they require even more detail, more space behind, etc. This is totally understandable. Naturalness of that is not. You can improve systems along the natural axis, or keep them on the artificial axis throughout your journey, e.g. just upgrade afoo speaker from the 30k model to the 300k model with 2 subs and dCS Apex spinning patricia barber.

 

[tima]

'Natural sound' is not about ontology.

It is a perfectly natural human activity for people to hear and listen to music.

'Natural sound' qua audiospeak is a characterization of listening to a stereo that is evocative of listening to live music. It's about the listening experience.

 

[hopkins]

Who's right & who's wrong is easy to say, depending on the person's background of both live and audio experience and past experiences, which people have.

I should have seen that coming from a mile away. It's not surprising that with these types of comments audio discussions so often turn into cockfights.

 

[Rensselaer]

I should have seen that coming from a mile away. It's not surprising that with these types of comments audio discussions so often turn into cockfights.

Kedar’s comment, IMHO, was not a provocative comment. He is simply saying what many of us believe, that one with enough experience of live music will certainly be able to appreciate which of two or more sounds more “natural”.

 

[hopkins]

Kedar’s comment, IMHO, was not a provocative comment. He is simply saying what many of us believe, that one with enough experience of live music will certainly be able to appreciate which of two or more sounds more “natural”.

There are audiophiles with plenty of experience of live (unamplified) music, or who are musicians themselves, choosing very different systems. How do you explain that?

 

[wil]

I am certain it makes no sense to embark upon a discussion like this without a clear understanding of each other's definitions. I would have to understand your definition of accuracy and your definition of natural to make any progress toward mutual understanding.

When it comes to sound, I see them as being one and the same. So there’s no need to parse out definitions of the two terms.

And trying to corner the concept of accurate into the realm of measurements seems strange. Another audiophile agenda?

Just take a walk in the woods or listen to the surf beating on a beach. These are infinitely natural/accurate sounds that we can only try to get a vague notion of through a stereo. But it’s the reference, as is live acoustic music.

 

[Rensselaer]

There are audiophiles with plenty of experience of live (unamplified) music, or who are musicians themselves, choosing very different systems. How do you explain that?

There is a million reasons why people own different systems, but that doesn’t negate the experienced, regardless of what equipment they own, being able to audition two systems and declare which is more “natural”.

 

[bonzo75]

There are audiophiles with plenty of experience of live (unamplified) music, or who are musicians themselves, choosing very different systems. How do you explain that?

This is such an intellectually dishonest comment. Same for the bot that liked those

 

[Al M.]

Let's take one of bonzo75's recent videos:

Some people would listen to the system and be ecstatic at how "natural" it sounds, because they feel it provides a life like sound with texture, etc...

Others will hear a gross misrepresentation of the tonality of instruments.

Who's right and who's wrong?

Those who like it probably do so in spite of the shortcomings, and those who don't like it won't be able to go beyond those shortcomings and appreciate some of the qualities that others find.

Exactly, it depends on which standard you apply.

Even if you have experience with unamplified live music.

 

[Al M.]

There is a million reasons why people own different systems, but that doesn’t negate the experienced, regardless of what equipment they own, being able to audition two systems and declare which is more “natural”.

Another simplistic statement. Everyone emphasizes different priorities in their listening, and thus even two people who are experienced, including when it comes to listening to unamplified live music, can come to different conclusions about two systems.

 

[hopkins]

This is such an intellectually dishonest comment.

Would you care to explain why?

 

[bonzo75]

Another simplistic statement. Everyone emphasizes different priorities in their listening, and thus even two people who are experienced, including when it comes to listening to unamplified live music, can come to different conclusions about two systems.

Yes, no one said it would be exact, but those two people would be much more similar than someone who either had not done live or did not have sufficient exposure to systems, videos, and analog (oh wait...)

 

[bonzo75]

Would you care to explain why?

If you don't already know why some musicians listen to music on airpods, some on small radio, some on bookshelf speakers on small home theater systems, I have zero interest in explaining.

 

[Al M.]

Yes, no one said it would be exact, but those two people would be much more similar than someone who either had not done live or did not have sufficient exposure to systems, videos, and analog (oh wait...)

....analog and/or proper digital, yes (I have exposure to both).

I agree with your point. They would be much more similar in their assessment.

 

[hopkins]

If you don't already know why some musicians listen to music on airpods, some on small radio, some on bookshelf speakers on small home theater systems, I have zero interest in explaining.

I'm not referring to those types of "modest" systems.

The inconvenient truth is that there is absolutely no correlation between musical tastes and experience and the choice of systems.

 

[Argonaut]

being able to audition two systems and declare which is more “natural”.

The more “accurate” representation of their aural memory then ?

 

[hopkins]

I'm not referring to those types of "modest" systems.

The inconvenient truth is that there is absolutely no correlation between musical tastes and experience and the choice of systems.

In a similar way, there is no correlation between music tastes and "media" (analog vs digital). There are plenty of classical music lovers and experts who listen to digital. Are they all death according to your criteria?

 

[Al M.]

In a similar way, there is no correlation between music tastes and "media" (analog vs digital). There are plenty of classical music lovers and experts who listen to digital. Are they all death according to your criteria?

Of course they are deaf. There was never any doubt.

 

[Rensselaer]

The more “accurate” representation of their aural memory then ?

Do you mean that no matter how much you have spent on your playback system, it still doesn't sound "natural". So, IMHO, to protect your own self esteem you substitute "accurate" for "natural" so that you can argue your system sounds "natural" because it is, in your opinion, more "accurate". Semantics, but if it helps you from having a mental breakdown ...

 

[Ron Resnick]

I think that I "get" what people like and dislike about different systems, having experienced a variety of systems myself (though not this one). It's largely a matter of taste. Our ability to convince people that they should not like what they are hearing based on argumentation is limited.

+1