Natural Sound

[hopkins]

Concerning SET amps, it is interesting to note that Arthur Salvatore, a big fan of (some) SET amps, has recently changed his speakers to Sadurni Acoustics Staccato horn speakers. A few things to note:
- those speakers have active subwoofers
- he's been fairly critical of many horn speakers, some of which are mentioned in this thread

This is what he has to say about SET amps:

"SET amplifiers have important and fundamental sonic advantages in the midrange and highs over any other amplifier design in my experience, especially with acoustical music. They have the lowest sound-floor and also are the best "organized" (and music is simply "organized sound")."

I find that to be an interesting way to present things.

His point of view is not based on "theory" and technological supremacy, it just reflects his experience.

I quoted his ideas about sound reproduction (what he calls his "audio philosophy") at length in one of my modest reviews and he wrote back:

"It now appears that the interest in the ideas, concepts and theories I discuss in my reviews will outlast the performance details of the actual components. This is not an accident. I’ve always believed the components are reference points only, which are still required to provide a common perspective, but not as important, in the long run, as the ideas."

That's a positive attitude!

 

[morricab]

Concerning SET amps, it is interesting to note that Arthur Salvatore, a big fan of (some) SET amps, has recently changed his speakers to Sadurni Acoustics Staccato horn speakers. A few things to note:
- those speakers have active subwoofers
- he's been fairly critical of many horn speakers, some of which are mentioned in this thread

This is what he has to say about SET amps:

"SET amplifiers have important and fundamental sonic advantages in the midrange and highs over any other amplifier design in my experience, especially with acoustical music. They have the lowest sound-floor and also are the best "organized" (and music is simply "organized sound")."

I find that to be an interesting way to present things.

His point of view is not based on "theory" and technological supremacy, it just reflects his experience.

I quoted his ideas about sound reproduction (what he calls his "audio philosophy") at length in one of my modest reviews and he wrote back:

"It now appears that the interest in the ideas, concepts and theories I discuss in my reviews will outlast the performance details of the actual components. This is not an accident. I’ve always believed the components are reference points only, which are still required to provide a common perspective, but not as important, in the long run, as the ideas."

That's a positive attitude!

Largely agree with Arthur but I like to delve deeper into the why SET has the advantages Arthur (and myself) observes.

 

[Ron Resnick]

'Natural' and "Accurate' are exactly the same thing as I described earlier. Synonymous in every way. If its not accurate its not natural and if not natural certainly not accurate. What we cannot do is be truthful to the musical event. That is because whatever it was, the recording is all we have. But we can be truthful to that, so however the recording is, the reproduction will be as true to the recording as possible if its 'accurate' or 'natural'.

I think we are talking past each other, perhaps because you are not recognizing that my objective of high-end audio is different than your objective of high-end audio. I believe your objective is: Objective 2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played.

My objective, for the purpose of this discussion, is: Objective 4) create a sound that seems live.

I cannot put a vinyl LP up to my ear and hear music. I take the recording as a starting point. I am not trying to maximize the fidelity of what comes out of my stereo to what is encoded on the LP. Is this what you mean by accuracy? That is your objective, correct?

I am taking that LP and doing whatever I have to do to extract from it the particular sonic cues which subjectively for me cause my stereo to output a "sound that seems live" to me. Whatever I do with the signal extracted from the grooves and amplified by my system to achieve a sound that is most natural to me -- a sound that seems live to me -- is what I want my stereo to do. If I achieve for my ears a sound that seems the most live -- a sound that seems the most natural to me -- by running the signal through a distortion generator and by having an oompa-loompa whistle at the same time through a piece of woo-woo wood then I am happy. To me this has little to do with a notion of "accuracy" from the medium.

 

[hopkins]

Largely agree with Arthur but I like to delve deeper into the why SET has the advantages Arthur (and myself) observes.

He's got more to say about the topic in his section about dynamics, which he sees as the main limitation of audio systems ("their inability to produce lifelike dynamics"):

"Most audio systems are simply pathetic when it comes to imitating what occurs in real life. Any live concert, even for a solo flute, or just a passing high school band, makes this unavoidably clear."

He identifies the following limitations:

"The causes are many and various, but the two main culprits are amplifiers and speakers. For an amplifier to reproduce IDR, it must have high voltage and power swing, and this gives the advantage to tube designs, which should be no surprise to experienced audiophiles. However, amplifiers with truly high voltage swings are very rare because of their extra difficulty and expense to build."

Some other factors may be in favor of tube amps, such as the absence of "thermal memory distortion" or the speaker steering mechanism (from what I understand).

 

[PeterA]

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??

The reference for natural sound is one’s memory of a live acoustic music event.

The reference for accurate sound is a recording of a music event or assembly.

The discussion started out being about how closely a signal at the output of an amplifier compares to the input signal. We were told that an SET can not sound natural because of the distortion to that signal. We were then told that a system could not sound natural if the speakers do not reproduce accurately the bottom octave.

Ralph has tried to prove that my system does not sound natural and therefore that the title is nonsensical. I disagree. Does that about cover it, or would Ralph like to expand the discussion to why a belt drive turntable can not sound natural?

 

[PeterA]

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.

We could not know what instruments captured on the recording sound like unless we had the reference of the actual sound of those real instruments heard live in a space. Without that reference, how could we possibly know if the recording is being presented naturally, or realistically, or convincingly? Even Ralph when making a recording is referring to the actual sound of the instruments that he is recording to judge if the recording is any good or not.

 

[Rexp]

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.

Yes natural and accurate are not always the same. Do SET/Horns make unnatural recordings sound more natural, probably.

 

[the sound of Tao]

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.

Mvmnt 1: Awakening of cheerful feelings on arrival in the countryside
Mvmnt 2: Scene by the brook
Mvmnt 3: Merry gathering of country folk
Mvmnt 4: Thuder, storm
Mvmnt 5: Shepherd's song. Cheerful and thankful feelings after the storm

Beethoven writes: "One leaves it to the listeners to discover the situations."

The 2nd's 'Scene by the brook' and the 4th's 'Thunder, Storm' are the most memetic of the piece.

You can hear the murmur of the brook in the repeated triplets of strings. Trills and melodic figures in higher registers speak of birds flying across the scene. B even names the birds -- solo flute is the nightengale, the oboe is the quail, and two clarinets play the cuckoo.

The storm that chases the merry gatherers to shelter develops realistically. Tremolo from lower register strings sound distant thunder. The music builds as the storm comes closer, you can almost feel the rain drops pelting you. A timpani roll and raspy trombones signal the thunder and heavy rain which passes. Sunshine breaks out and the peaceful pastoral feeling is restored.

Böhm on DG is excellent. DG 2530 142

My fav is Cluytens. HMV ASD 433

View attachment 133786

Fantastic stuff thanks Tim… and yes it was extra kind of LVB to provide us with his Natural Sound Symphony. Love it when we get the chance to talk about the music, much appreciated… Cluytens Berlin is a benchmark in the 6 for sure and so for me is Klemperer and the Philharmonia. For those looking for a strangely still natural but contemporary LVB 6 Fischer and the Budapest do a fabulous take…

Ivan Fischer in an interview in Gramophone added his thoughts on the LVB 6 and the freedom of the natural…

Most of Beethoven’s works have the dual theme of tragedy and jubilation; and he was, of course, very preoccupied with ideas of freedom and liberation. The end of the Fifth Symphony is akin to the end of Fidelio, but this is a visionary, green symphony. It represents a different type of liberation, from beginning to end: a liberation by and through nature. The final happiness is a bit pantheistic, influenced perhaps by the philosophy of Spinoza.

Beethoven stepped out of the Classical tradition between his Second and Third Symphonies, but there is a relationship here with the ‘pastoral’ musical forms of the 18th century, a century that was just coming to its close. The Ninth Symphony is about the continuation of the French Revolution; and Beethoven found a way of putting into music what the crowd felt, the sense of freedom that came with storming the Bastille and throwing away the aristocracy and the feudal system. The aspiration of being freed involved overturning the social order. That was freedom in the city; this symphony is about the very different freedom we can experience by leaving the city altogether. The Ninth Symphony literally did change the world by being so grand, so jubilant: it steps out of the boundaries of music. In the Sixth Symphony Beethoven explores a simpler kind of freedom, one involving total harmonic happiness.

The Pastoral Symphony happens inside us. There is an internal, mental exercise at work, as the simplicity of nature creates strong feelings – and Beethoven was interested in those feelings that nature awakens in us.

For those looking more for whole cycles of the Beethoven Symphonies (which is an extraordinary way to view the lifetime growth and interrelationships within the composers output within a discipline) I’d suggest there are some marvellous 6’s below in these Beethoven symphony cycles as well… for analogue and digital options on highly recommendable LVB cycles … amongst others…

Gunter Wand NDR

Szell Cleveland

Eugen Jochum Concertgebouw/BPO/Rundfunks

Barenboim Staatskapelle

Kletzki and the Czech Phil

 

[the sound of Tao]

Freedom from reason… the half human half beast gods, the satyrs like Pan (as a god of music) are representations that we are more than just obvious Apollonian reason (Apollo as another god of music) and in the importance of letting go to explore the experiential Dyonesian and instinctual natures within the simpler natural landscape of music.

In Peter’s world of experience of his sound and within his own system he is the only truly real and valid expert. This isn’t ultimately about engineering… it is about experientiality… Peter’s experience of his own system. Peter’s not lying to us or making this up… this is his experience of his system and that’s the only validity that there is ultimately in this. As much as some have spent three years trying to pound Peter into letting go of his sound world view within his own system thread to accept and be bound to their particular experiences of what sound can be like. We do seem to share huge common grounds in perceptions but these perceptual abstracts are very fine distinctions within the rough and ready reason and within the greater schema of things. Only Peter can say what those fine distinctions are ultimately for him.

 

[Amir]

If you look at preamplifiers, dacs, phonostages you will see the output stage is almost class A.
The most linear topology is Class A.
Low/zero feedback SET tube amplifiers are Class A (very simple and linear).
Compression drivers for horns (like vitavox s2) are fast.
Horns like impedance matching devices need less power than direct drive speakers.

When you use SET with Horns you will have maximum speed plus maximum linearity.
I think good horns have wider dynamic range and are also fast (live sound).