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.
I see your point. The system isn't responsible for the recording- you are. I am only talking about the system itself and not the recording because other than having a copy or not, we don't have control over the recording.
They have the lowest sound-floor and also are the best "organized" (and music is simply "organized sound")."
What do you suppose he meant by that? 'Sound floor' isn't a thing. Usually in audio when a 'floor' is mentioned if anything to do with an amp or preamp, its a noise floor and SETs are not particularly good at that. 'Organized' does not make sense either (synonymous with 'nonsense'). No idea what he's trying to get across.
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.
If the recording does not sound live neither will its playback. So it sounds to me as if you have to stay away from most studio recordings and stick to those only done with 2 or 3 mics (if the 3rd mic is part of a Decca stereo tree or a 3rd omni spaced equally with 2 other omnis).
That comment about an LP next to your ear is common to all media. Its irrelevant.
If you don't accurately portray what is in the recording regardless of source, you have exactly zero hope of it sounding natural. It will always have an electronic quality- whatever that might be (much of what I've already mentioned in prior posts so will not repeat myself here).
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?
If there is no recording of a live event
then it is not a reference for
anything. That is why I was talking about direct microphone feeds earlier- that is the only way you can get around this issue!
Since this issue is apparently at the heart of this discussion can we discuss that first and get it put to bed?
I'm wondering what you think of Saint Saen's Organ symphony with Louis Fremaux conducting. Have you heard it?
Yes natural and accurate are not always the same. Do SET/Horns make unnatural recordings sound more natural, probably.
I've always thought that SETs got their start in the 1990s because CD players sounded so dry back then. But as it turns out trying to compensate one distortion (of the CD; the brightness of them was distortion) with another doesn't work. Of course that idea I had about their origins is probably bunk.
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).
If you have PP class A then the distortion is inherently lower. If you have fully differential class A its even lower than that. Again, SETs produce a quadratic non-linearity which results in a prodigious 2nd harmonic with succeeding harmonics falling off on an exponential curve. But if you have a fully differntial PP amp the non-linearity is cubic due to even ordered cancellation. Now the 3rd is dominant with succeeding harmonics falling off at a faster rate on an exponential curve based on a different exponent.
In both case the lower orders are significant enough to mask the higher orders. But the fully differential PP class A amp may well have less than 1/10th the distortion making it more revealing. FWIW all preamp outputs including phono sections are class A. Some are fully differential and class A.
C cont. I think (but am not sure) that Ralph adds the condition "and when the reproducing equipment is designed in conjunction with the rules of human hearing." I don't how those rules are codified or described in measurement. If the test of conformity to the rules of human hearing is Natural Sound then okay, but it seems the argument (natural=accurate) becomes circular or tautological.
The rules of human hearing are not taught to EEs. You have to sort that out on your own so some designers have quite a grasp of them and others do not. From my discussion on this topic with Vladimr Lamm, it seemed we were on the same page as to the end result but of course had/have different ways of going about it. Toole has expressed similar viewpoints as have a variety of others.
Anyone not familiar with the Radiotron Designer's Handbook, 3rd edition might be interested to know that the significance of distortion components was known back before WW2. John Curl mentioned this once in one of his talks. Its a useful tome despite its age. And interesting that none of this is all that new.
Not if the increased detail from one system is exaggerated or heightened or sounds artificial. It’s just more information presented unnaturally. I completely disagree with your assertion. To know what a tympani actually sounds like one must have heard it live.
All your scenario tells the listener is that the two systems sound different and that they present different information.
I'm curious: how do you exaggerate detail?
A lot of solid state amps are very detailed due to low distortion, but they are also bright due to distortion rising with frequency, causing some higher ordered harmonics to not be masked. I think a lot of audiophiles have come to associate that brightness with detail when they are quite different!
