Natural Sound

[Atmasphere]

A live event is a fleeting moment. What our brain stores as memories of a live event may not be sufficient to evaluate a system's performance.

If you have a good microphone, and a good pair of headphones, record your system, then compare that recording through headphones to the original. Then listen to your system again to check how different it sounds to your recording or the original on headphones, and so on. Be prepared to weep!

Or you can just listen to your system and ask yourself if you enjoy it.

I got a musician to play in front of a pair of mics and fed those into the system. We then went back and forth between the audio room and the musician's room. This was to get an idea of the tonality and a step in creating a reference. The tricky bit was the room the musician was in was clearly audible in the listening room.

What an entre to Beethoven's 6th Symphony, "The Pastorale". I can't resist - it's one of my very favorites. Here is true program music, illustrative music. B wrote a title at the beginning of each movement.

[snip]

My fav is Cluytens. HMV ASD 433

Mine has always been Bruno Walter since I grew up with that. I'll have to look for a decent press of the Cluytens.

 

[Rensselaer]

Sound is natural when it is reminiscent of the sound of live unamplified instruments.

Accurate is exact reproduction of what is on the recording.

I like this definition, as it shows the difference between the two terms as they relate to audio reproduction.

“Sound is natural when reminiscent of the sound of un-amplified instruments”.
This, IMHO, is exactly what Peter (myself too) is looking for. We want to (please pardon my use of the phrase) “suspend our disbelief”, reproduce the natural tone, timbre, size, dynamics and presence of the acoustic event in our music rooms.

“Accurate is exact reproduction of what is on the recording”.
How well a sound engineer masters a recording, I believe more than the replay equipment, determines whether the music sounds natural or not when played. Who cares if a system accurately plays what was mastered to the recording if the recording engineer messed it up and it sounds crap?

 

[Atmasphere]

I like this definition, as it shows the difference between the two terms as they relate to audio reproduction.

“Sound is natural when reminiscent of the sound of un-amplified instruments”.
This, IMHO, is exactly what Peter (and me) is looking for. We want to (please pardon my use of the phrase) “suspend our disbelief”, reproduce the natural tone, timbre, size and presence of the acoustic event.

“Accurate is exact reproduction of what is on the recording”.
How well a sound engineer masters a recording, I believe more than the replay equipment, determines whether the music sounds natural or not when played. Who cares if a system accurately plays what was mastered to the recording if the recording engineer messed it up and it sounds crap?

Unless you are using a direct microphone feed, you are playing back a recording.

If the recording is purist in nature, perhaps using 2 mics with no extra EQ, limiting, compression or DSP, and if its a recording of acoustic instruments, then if the playback is accurate it will also be natural.

But that does not change regardless of the recording. The best you can possibly do is be true to the recording. If the playback is true to the recording it will be natural because its accurate and accurate because its natural. They are the same thing.

 

[Rensselaer]

If the playback is true to the recording it will be natural because its accurate and accurate because its natural. They are the same thing.

What? You must of studied rhetoric!

Typically these days, the sound engineer collects recordings from musicians recording in different studios, perhaps different countries, and marries them together on a computer.

4 Tips for Marrying Recordings from Different Studios — Pro Audio Files

An article on how to mix audio recorded in multiple locations so it sounds natural together.

theproaudiofiles.com

Timing and key might need serious manipulation in order to get the song to sound like it was recorded in one setting. The final product is finalised as a DSD master and that used to press vinyl or CDs. The vinyl (and CDs once decoded) will likely be very accurate in fidelity to what was finalised to the DSD master, but no matter how much manipulation is done, it will never sound natural. In fact the more manipulation the less likely.


https://theproaudiofiles.com/combining-recordings-from-different-studios/

 

[Atmasphere]

What? You must of studied rhetoric!

Typically these days, the sound engineer collects recordings from musicians recording in different studios, perhaps different countries, and marries them together on a computer.

4 Tips for Marrying Recordings from Different Studios — Pro Audio Files

An article on how to mix audio recorded in multiple locations so it sounds natural together.

theproaudiofiles.com

Timing and key might need serious manipulation in order to get the song to sound like it was recorded in one setting. The final product is finalised as a DSD master and that used to press vinyl or CDs. The vinyl (and CDs once decoded) will likely be very accurate in fidelity to what was finalised to the DSD master, but no matter how much manipulation is done, it will never sound natural. In fact the more manipulation the less likely.


https://theproaudiofiles.com/combining-recordings-from-different-studios/

That might happen and it might not but does not matter because in the end, the best the system can do is be true to the recording. If that is so, it will be accurate and if accurate its also natural. You can't have one without the other because they are the same.

 

[Rensselaer]

That might happen and it might not but does not matter because in the end, the best the system can do is be true to the recording. If that is so, it will be accurate and if accurate its also natural. You can't have one without the other because they are the same.

Saying the same thing over and over again achieves nothing, try a different approach if you sincerely believe what you are saying.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

What? You must of studied rhetoric!

Typically these days, the sound engineer collects recordings from musicians recording in different studios, perhaps different countries, and marries them together on a computer.

4 Tips for Marrying Recordings from Different Studios — Pro Audio Files

An article on how to mix audio recorded in multiple locations so it sounds natural together.

theproaudiofiles.com

Timing and key might need serious manipulation in order to get the song to sound like it was recorded in one setting. The final product is finalised as a DSD master and that used to press vinyl or CDs. The vinyl (and CDs once decoded) will likely be very accurate in fidelity to what was finalised to the DSD master, but no matter how much manipulation is done, it will never sound natural. In fact the more manipulation the less likely.


https://theproaudiofiles.com/combining-recordings-from-different-studios/

but who among us here use that stuff as any sort of reference?

even the mouth breathing mono brows see that as guilty pleasure stuff.....the cotton candy of music. we do enjoy it plenty when it hits the spot. it is ok to like it.

 

[Argonaut]

“Sound is natural when reminiscent of the sound of un-amplified instruments”.
This, IMHO, is exactly what Peter (myself too) is looking for. We want to (please pardon my use of the phrase) “suspend our disbelief”, reproduce the natural tone, timbre, size, dynamics and presence of the acoustic event in our music rooms.

Ahhhhh … Now I see so clearly now , I simply wasn’t aware of just how special you two truly are , What on earth were the rest of us forum plebeian's thinking of all this time , La !

Well … If nothing else , this outpouring Of ‘Natural Gas’ has given @Rensselaer a new found purpose in life , We can but grip our seats in anticipation of the publishing of his Ghostwritten autobiography of the OP ‘s fascinating life and times .

 

[Argonaut]

Saying the same thing over and over again achieves nothing, try a different approach if you sincerely believe what you are saying.

 

[Rensselaer]

Ahhhhh … Now I see so clearly now , I simply wasn’t aware of just how special you two truly are , What on earth were the rest of us forum plebeian's thinking of all this time , La !

Well … If nothing else , this outpouring Of ‘Natural Gas’ has given @Rensselaer a new found purpose in life , We can but grip our seats in anticipation of the publishing of his Ghostwritten autobiography of the OP ‘s fascinating life and times .

Get over yourself.

 

[Thundersnow]

I may not know much about “natural” vs “accurate” and arguing about the semanthics or whatever, but clearly @Atmasphere comments come from a place of serious knowledge and understanding of both music and music reproduction.

And while most go around in circles arguing over the same interpretation or misinterpretation in this thread, if you have some knowledge of acoustics and engineering (which I do) his are the only posts informative and meaningful enough to actually learn something from for at least the last half a dozen pages of this thread.

While I like “hi fi banter” as much as the next guy let’s just not have the most vocal crowds kill constructive dialogue in this thread by beating a dead horse (e.g. “Horns are God vs. horns are the false prophet” “natural is what bees make vs natural is processed sugar if you look at it under the right light” etc.)

Sorry for getting too high on my horse, but I felt like I had to say this. I’ll shut up now.

 

[Argonaut]

Get over yourself.

Like a move ya mean … Kool

 

[Atmasphere]

Saying the same thing over and over again achieves nothing, try a different approach if you sincerely believe what you are saying.

So how do you suggest to get someone to understand a simple fact, when the first few iterations failed?

 

[Rensselaer]

So how do you suggest to get someone to understand a simple fact, when the first few iterations failed?

Saying tea and coffee are the same thing, over and over again, doesn’t explain the apparent incongruity. The definition of natural, meaning sounds like real, and accurate, meaning what played is identical to that recorded sounds to me as being different. If this definition is incorrect then please enlighten me with a better definition, one that either shows how natural means recording fidelity to the master tape, or accuracy means the recording sounds live.

 

[hopkins]

Saying tea and coffee are the same thing, over and over again, doesn’t explain the apparent incongruity. The definition of natural, meaning sounds like real, and accurate, meaning what played is identical to that recorded sounds to me as being different. If this definition is incorrect then please enlighten me with a better definition, one that either shows how natural means recording fidelity to the master tape, or accuracy means the recording sounds live.

I don't think anyone would dispute the idea that recording/production quality varies immensely, and that some recordings could not be qualified as "natural sounding". We are able to agree on this because all our systems have some degree of transparency (and accuracy).

Perhaps a less passionate debate would be to discuss "natural sounding" recordings?

What does a piano sound like in a good concert hall, and what recordings capture it best?

You may find it difficult to do. To start with, there are different sounding pianos (I'll let the specialists explain...).

 

[Atmasphere]

Saying tea and coffee are the same thing, over and over again, doesn’t explain the apparent incongruity. The definition of natural, meaning sounds like real, and accurate, meaning what played is identical to that recorded sounds to me as being different. If this definition is incorrect then please enlighten me with a better definition, one that either shows how natural means recording fidelity to the master tape, or accuracy means the recording sounds live.

Like I said before, unless you are playing a live mic feed your source is a recording. Since you are complaining that I'm saying things over and over I won't repeat myself. I do think that you need to think about the fact that you can't get to the musical event- only the recording of it. Are you failing to understand that bit??

 

[RCanelas]

Saying tea and coffee are the same thing, over and over again, doesn’t explain the apparent incongruity. The definition of natural, meaning sounds like real, and accurate, meaning what played is identical to that recorded sounds to me as being different. If this definition is incorrect then please enlighten me with a better definition, one that either shows how natural means recording fidelity to the master tape, or accuracy means the recording sounds live.

I don't see any incongruence if one admits that the recording is all we have, and the only actual reference. Under those terms, natural and accurate are the same thing, no space for debate, it is a direct derivation of the logical proposition.

As much as I take my bearings from concert halls and flesh and blood musicians, I don't think this premise is wrong, just an unfortunate side effect of reality.

 

[Rensselaer]

Like I said before, unless you are playing a live mic feed your source is a recording. Since you are complaining that I'm saying things over and over I won't repeat myself. I do think that you need to think about the fact that you can't get to the musical event- only the recording of it. Are you failing to understand that bit??

No, I understand that bit. I think what you are saying is that the system doesn’t make music sound natural, but that a good recording will sound most natural from a system that is most accurate (least distortion), right?

But, if I get that part correctly, having an accurate system will not make a crap recording sound natural (as in the sound of real acoustic instruments in situ), but will accurately play what was recorded. That is where I have trouble reconciling your comment that natural and accurate are the same thing.

I accept that a natural sounding system must necessarily be an accurate system if the naturalness is in the recording. That is if it is only heard when accurately pulled from a stellar recording and not something in the combination of analogue front end, DH SET’s and certain horn speakers putting out some sort of auditory clues similar to live recordings so that even lesser quality recordings somehow sound more real, some psychoacoustic effect of the system on the listener.

 

[hopkins]

By the way, getting back to a previous topic: how the experience of live music is important to us "audiophiles"... Are some "audiophiles" more expert than others as a result? Would a musician have more legitimacy in selecting the best sounding system ?

Our skills as listeners can definitely be "honed" by listening to recordings. I have friends who can't always tell the difference between a trumpet and a trombone, though they have listened to many recordings and may have heard these instruments live. I'll admit it's not always that obvious, but I've learned to recognize the instruments that I listen to regularly, and even identify some musicians - not always that easy either. I would not be able to identify a Steinway from a Bosendorfer, though I think I would be able to explain how they each sound if I were to compare recordings of each. Does all this make them or me less qualified as "audiophiles"?

I don't see recording engineers agreeing on what the best system is - and they are supposed to be experts. Sometimes they'll even have fairly modest systems in their homes. Same goes for musicians. And audiophiles...

 

[PeterA]

but who among us here use that stuff as any sort of reference?

even the mouth breathing mono brows see that as guilty pleasure stuff.....the cotton candy of music. we do enjoy it plenty when it hits the spot. it is ok to like it.

I understood his point to be something different.