Natural Sound

[hopkins]

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.

While I cannot explain this well, I believe that we are sensitive to sound attributes that give us clues as to the relative accuracy or "naturalness" of a system, without necessarily needing specific reference to the original sound that was recorded, or extensive experience of live music. This is the result of how our brain works in identifying "patterns".

As an example, we have no trouble identifying synthetic (computer generated) versus actual recorded voices, even if we have never heard the person's voice "live". Think about that...

At the end of the day, none of this matters too much. How you arrive to the conclusion that you enjoy your system is not that important. Describing a system as "natural" is probably simply a shortcut or summary. It is not that easy to describe sound.

 

[PeterA]

Different violins played in different settings sound different, but they all sound like a violin. We do not need to hear the actual performance to judge if a recording through our systems in our rooms sounds realistic. We just need to have some memory of having heard live performances with violins, or any other instrument. They all make a range of sounds and our systems need to get close to the range to sound realistic.

 

[hopkins]

Different violins played in different settings sound different, but they all sound like a violin. We do not need to hear the actual performance to judge if a recording through our systems in our rooms sounds realistic. We just need to have some memory of having heard live performances with violins, or any other instrument. They all make a range of sounds and our systems need to get close to the range to sound realistic.

I would not argue with that...

 

[RCanelas]

Will you please share your syllogism?

Technically it is not a syllogism as there is either only one proposition, or several more, if you consider truisms propositions.

I believe Ralph did a good job at arguing for the equivalence of accuracy and natural over the last few pages, when we feed system A with recording B, trying to reproduce event C (that we don't have access to), these are effectively one and the same, because C is effectively virtual and exists only encoded in B. I won't be adding to that and repeating things.

This simple equivalence doesn't imply more than just that, at a minimum natural sounding reproduction and accuracy are joined at the hip, ideally they are the same thing. It doesn't imply zero distortion (very much on the contrary), it doesn't imply formulaic approaches and singular solutions to the problems at hand. It doesn't disregard our experiences, our taking of references from our concert halls, the distinction between Natural Sound and sounding natural. It's all fair game, but there is an underlying reality that demands respect at all times. I think we all understand it, proof is that we all strive for better sound in our own ways, but we get lost in semantical fantasia and the supper cool online gotcha games.

 

[Argonaut]

This states (as a matter of fact) that Lamm designs are based upon how (siq: accurate) it’s playback is compared to the input (said audio signal), verified by measurements (not listening). Would you please site your reference from Lamm that states this (otherwise it looks like something you made up)?

Oh dear , Oh dear … Lamm was referenced because that is the manufacturer used by the OP , the same functionality applies to A.N Other manufacturer.

 

[Rensselaer]

Oh dear , Oh dear … Lamm was referenced because that is the manufacturer used by the OP , the same functionality applies to A.N Other manufacturer.

The OP uses Lamm equipment as one piece, of many, in a system which he says gives him “Natural Sound”. I do not believe he ever said that he chose Lamm equipment because of it being “designed” to limit damage of the “source signal”, that’s your opinion.

Again, site your sources for making the claim that Lamm (and now Audio Note) state their products are specifically “designed” “to limit damage to the “source signal”. If you can’t, just be honest and admit you made that up to support your views.

 

[ssfas]

Different violins played in different settings sound different, but they all sound like a violin. We do not need to hear the actual performance to judge if a recording through our systems in our rooms sounds realistic. We just need to have some memory of having heard live performances with violins, or any other instrument. They all make a range of sounds and our systems need to get close to the range to sound realistic.

If that were the case, all this expensive hifi is a waste of time and money.

Where I live I get to hear many performers live and their recordings. Often it starts with the live performance and then I start listening to their recordings. Obviously many listeners are aware of differences in interpretation, but they are also very familiar with an individual performer's sound and the acoustic of the recording venue. So many performers often try and use the same venue, engineer etc. so as not to annoy their listeners.

So, for example, I heard Igor Levit play the Beethoven piano sonatas in a series of 8 recitals at Wigmore Hall, but the recordings that followed fairly soon after were done in Germany (three different venues). The acoustics are different and a bit off-putting. How much is the recording and how much my stereo I don't know.

If we weren't sensitive to these nuances in sound, we might just as well stick to some dusty old recording made in the 1970s.

 

[hopkins]

If that were the case, all this expensive hifi is a waste of time and money.

Where I live I get to hear many performers live and their recordings. Often it starts with the live performance and then I start listening to their recordings. Obviously many listeners are aware of differences in interpretation, but they are also very familiar with an individual performer's sound and the acoustic of the recording venue. So many performers often try and use the same venue, engineer etc. so as not to annoy their listeners.

So, for example, I heard Igor Levit play the Beethoven piano sonatas in a series of 8 recitals at Wigmore Hall, but the recordings that followed fairly soon after were done in Germany (three different venues). The acoustics are different and a bit off-putting. How much is the recording and how much my stereo I don't know.

If we weren't sensitive to these nuances in sound, we might just as well stick to some dusty old recording made in the 1970s.

There's nothing incompatible with how you frame your experience of music and how peterA does. You are talking of two different things, which can coexist.

 

[Argonaut]

The OP uses Lamm equipment as one piece of many in a system which he says gives him “Natual Sound”. I do not believe he said that he chose Lamm equipment because of it being “designed” to limit damage of the “source signal”, that’s your opinion.

Again, site your sources for making the claim that Lamm (and now Audio Note) state their products are specifically “designed” “to limit damage to the “source signal”. If you can’t, just be honest and admit you made that up to support your views.

Do I need to comment upon this *Epic Fail* … I think Not :0}}

 

[ssfas]

There's nothing incompatible with how you frame your experience of music and how peterA does. You are talking of two different things, which can coexist.

They might be mutually exclusive. I read here mostly references to recordings by conductors and orchestras who long since turned to dust. I hardly listen to classical recordings more than say 5 years old and any older than that are by orchestras or people who are still performing. The oldest classical recording I've got that I remember hearing live is from 1984, Emil Gilels played the Beethoven op. 106 sonata. I bought the CD on the way out of the Festival Hall in London. I also have the Tendstedt Mahler cycle on CD that I heard live (all of them except 8), around that time. Basically I forget what records I had before the CD era. The earliest rock concert I can remember was Genesis in 1976, can't remember which tour (Trick of the Tail?)

Older Jazz recordings are another matter, although I listen to a lot of current Jazz recordings. I have more subscriptions to Jazz magazines (1 - Jazzwise) and Classical magazines (1 - Gramophone) than audio magazines (0).

On the SET discussion, I had a 23w Art Audio Jota (300B-XLS). I was lovely for the music it reproduced, but ultimately it was bass-limited with 90dB speakers and I moved on to modern hifi.

 

[Rensselaer]

Do I need to comment upon this *Epic Fail* … I think Not :0}}

Like I said, you made it all up. Fake!

 

[Al M.]

There's nothing incompatible with how you frame your experience of music and how peterA does. You are talking of two different things, which can coexist.

In my view this is correct. I don't see the alleged contradiction either.

 

[PeterA]

In my view this is correct. I don't see the alleged contradiction either.

Al, you and I have had many long discussions about violins or other instruments sounding realistic or not. I think we also agree there is no singular absolute sound, but rather a variety of sounds from real instruments, but the listener can recognize whether the result at the listening seat sounds like a real instrument or something synthetic and artificial.

I happen to think the closer we get to something that sounds realistic, the better. No one has to have listened to Starker play his cello live to recognize whether or not one of his recordings played back in his room sounds realistic or not as long as we have heard a number of real cellos in different settings.