Natural Sound

[Atmasphere]

Of course, but as far as I can tell, Ralph is the only one arguing that a system cannot sound natural to the listener unless it covers the bottom octave accurately.

I think you'll find that those who insist on accurate/natural sound and who also have recordings where they were present at the recording sessions will have similar requirements. It really does make a difference when you know how a recording is actually supposed to sound- what sounds are there in the groove or data stream.

Some bass drums only make a 40Hz fundamental but some go clear down to 25Hz. Organ pedal tones can be 16Hz. I linked an LP earlier which has these tones on it (the Saint Saens).

But I also listen to modern music, such as this LP (from 30 years ago) by Global Communication. The bass lines play a pretty prominent role. This is very laid back, dreamy electro-ambient material BTW. I've often played this LP at shows to show off what a good system can do.

 

[bonzo75]

If I don't want to think about hi-fi (high fidelity) attributes I can turn on my car radio. The concept of high fidelity never crosses my mind when I listen to the car radio -- too compromised for that -- but it's not the most Natural Sound either.
(Even though it may be quite engaging.)

The concept of pitting high fildelity attributes against Natural Sound is flawed. If reproduced sound has no high fidelity, then how can it be natural?

It's quite possible many of us might prefer your car radio to your hifi system. You probably do too.

 

[wil]

Mike, "under everyone's skin"? Really? Are you talking to both me and to Rensselaer (Mark)? You quote both of us but leave out his name.

Some listeners do indeed want their system to draw attention to itself and some listen for specific attributes. I am not criticising that. It is fun, and what some people are after. I AM saying that that is not a characteristic of a natural sounding system, to me, as I think about this stuff. This system thread is my open book exploration and discussion of my approach - one of many possible approaches - to system building and to set up, which I and others refer to as natural sound. You, yourself, have often written that you want to be left with only the music, saying something like: "leaving nothing between me and the music", or "musical message" or "musical intent". And you write at length how your latest upgrade gets you closer. Am I misunderstanding you? It sounds like we have similar goals, but for some reason, this seems personal to you and you seem intent to argue. So here goes:

I am not rationalizing/demonizing anything. It is also not black and white. There are degrees of natural sound. The more hifi attributes are diminished or banished from the presentation in the room, the more natural the system sounds, to me. You are so dramatic with your condescending sighs and your rolling eye emojis. Higher performance, in fact the highest performance, in my view, is a system that disappears and one in which the listener is left in his room with nothing but the music, and being reminded of the live music listening experience. That is my goal. You can talk about Warp 11, limitless headroom, all formats at the "tippy top", and the latest dongles, all you want. That is your game, and I leave you to it, not arguing with you or your world. I am happy with my system, and I am glad you are happy with yours. We have different approaches, but perhaps our goals are not that different. (No sighing or rolling eye emojis)

When describing sound, it’s only natural for audiophiles to use language to try to describe the different aspects of how their system is producing sound.

As a photographer, I can break down the different elements that go into a fine print. Painters can also break down with descriptive elements what makes up the whole.

This doesn’t mean when I look at a photograph or a painting that I don’t see it in it’s whole presentation.

You like to think of an ideal of “natural sound“ that is based on your aural memory of live acoustic music.

Just because someone (like Rex in the post you refer to) uses some descriptive “audiophile terminology” to try to communicate with others does not mean they’re listening to “bits and pieces” or that the sound is not natural.

I have an idea of what natural sound is and I think I’m pretty successful in achieving it in my system.
You obviously think you’re successful with your system. But we might disagree on what we think is natural. One person‘s natural might sound colored to another person, for instance.

 

[PeterA]

If I don't want to think about hi-fi (high fidelity) attributes I can turn on my car radio. The concept of high fidelity never crosses my mind when I listen to the car radio -- too compromised for that -- but it's not the most Natural Sound either.
(Even though it may be quite engaging.)

The concept of pitting high fildelity attributes against Natural Sound is flawed. If reproduced sound has no high fidelity, then how can it be natural?

You missed the point. It’s not that it doesn’t have any attributes of realism or fidelity,, it’s that the system does not accentuate or highlight aspects of its sound. I had thought that distinction was fairly clear, but apparently not.

Sure, you and I can go to the Boston Symphony, and marvel at the clarity and dynamics and timber of the instruments up on stage in front of us. my point is that a good system should disappear and not make one think of the system. The very best systems make it very difficult to identify weaknesses or even describe the sound other than with references to real music.

We have all gone to shows and dealerships where someone plugs in a new cable or something and we immediately hear an attribute. He wiill even describe it as highlighting details, or adding more weight, or listen to the impact of that woofer how cool I don’t want my mind to go to those things when I’m interested in the music and the presentation in my living room.

When I speak of a system disappearing in the room, I’m not simply referring to the listeners in ability to point to the origin of the sound. The hi-fi glossary of terms has little meaning at Symphony Hall and that is something worth aspiring to at home, in my opinion

 

[Ron Resnick]

I think the class D sounds more accurate, more natural than our OTLs on most speakers.

Hello Ralph,

How do you evaluate the accuracy of an amplifier according to the subjective sonic parameters of "liquidity" and of what I call "breath of life"?

 

[PeterA]

When describing sound, it’s only natural for audiophiles to use language to try to describe the different aspects of how their system is producing sound.

As a photographer, I can break down the different elements that go into a fine print. Painters can also break down with descriptive elements what makes up the whole.

This doesn’t mean when I look at a photograph or a painting that I don’t see it in it’s whole presentation.

You like to think of an ideal of “natural sound“ that is based on your aural memory of live acoustic music.

Just because someone (like Rex in the post you refer to) uses some descriptive “audiophile terminology” to try to communicate with others does not mean they’re listening to “bits and pieces” or that the sound is not natural.

I have an idea of what natural sound is and I think I’m pretty successful in achieving it in my system.
You obviously think you’re successful with your system. But we might disagree on what we think is natural. One person‘s natural might sound colored to another person, for instance.

I’m not talking about describing sound, I’m talking about designing a system and setting it up in a room so your mind goes to the music not the sound of the system or certain aspects of the sound of the system.

I have made an effort to describe what I think natural sound is. You can do the same if it somehow differs.

Black backgrounds and pinpoint imaging are hi-fi attributes defined in the glossary of terms. The irony is that if your goal is fidelity to actual instruments, I don’t hear those things.

 

[Al M.]

You missed the point. It’s not that it doesn’t have any attributes of realism or fidelity,, it’s that the system does not accentuate or highlight aspects of its sound. I had thought that distinction was fairly clear, but apparently not.

Sure, you and I can go to the Boston Symphony, and marvel at the clarity and dynamics and timber of the instruments up on stage in front of us. my point is that a good system should disappear and not make one think of the system. The very best systems make it very difficult to identify weaknesses or even describe the sound other than with references to real music.

We have all gone to shows and dealerships where someone plugs in a new cable or something and we immediately hear an attribute. He wiill even describe it as highlighting details, or adding more weight, or listen to the impact of that woofer how cool I don’t want my mind to go to those things when I’m interested in the music and the presentation in my living room.

When I speak of a system disappearing in the room, I’m not simply referring to the listeners in ability to point to the origin of the sound. The hi-fi glossary of terms has a little meaning at Symphony Hall and that is something worth aspiring to at home, in my opinion

No, I did not miss the point, Peter. I was just highlighting the problem with, and danger of, the argumentation and the absurdity it can lead to.

Wil explained the issue very well above, in the post before yours.

To talk about clarity, tone, bass, detail etc. does not mean that they should distract from the whole and that they are, or should be, unnaturally highlighted in the sound.

"Adding more weight" in the example you mentioned is not necessary an actual addition, or a highlighting of an aspect of sound. On the contrary, it may well be that in the presentation with less weight the lack of weight highlights a deficiency that distracts precisely from what you want, listening to the music as a whole and its gestalt. "Adding more weight" then refills the music to be a whole again, as it were.

 

[PeterA]

"Adding more weight" in the example you mentioned is not necessary an actual addition, or a highlighting of an aspect of sound. On the contrary, it may well be that in the presentation with less weight the lack of weight highlights a deficiency that distracts precisely from what you want, listening to the music as a whole and its gestalt. "Adding more weight" then refills the music to be a whole again, as it were.

Yes, of course. In this example, a lack of weight is a deficiency and draws attention to itself just like adding excessive weight draws attention to itself.

It’s all relative. I pass judgment on what I hear from the system when referencing my memory of the way real instruments sound.

The ideal system to me should disappear so that it is very difficult to describe its sound and one is left with describing what one hears from the recording. But mostly, I just want to listen to the music in my room and I suspect you do too.

I don’t really go to dealerships or Audio shows much anymore. When I did, I found it surprising that many of the salesman went on and on about the sound of a particular component as we should be listening for something specific. The best demonstrations I find are those where nothing is said and the music is simply played for judgment.

 

[Atmasphere]

Hello Ralph,

How do you evaluate the accuracy of an amplifier according to the subjective sonic parameters of "liquidity" and of what I call "breath of life"?

I have no idea what you mean by the 'breath of life' so you'll have to explain that before I can answer.

Regarding 'liquidity' that is a function of the lower ordered harmonics and a lack of unmasked higher orders, along with very low IMD (I've read that if there is high THD there will also be high IMD, but I've found that isn't true). IMD robs the system of a smooth organic presentation. You don't have to have any great deal of the lower orders for liquid sound BTW, what is important is the higher orders are inaudible (which usually means they are masked by lower orders).

Black backgrounds and pinpoint imaging are hi-fi attributes defined in the glossary of terms. The irony is that if your goal is fidelity to actual instruments, I don’t hear those things.

Black backgrounds are the result of low IMD and inharmonic (which is a subset of intermodulations) distortions (both very audible to the ear) along with low actual noise, all forming the noise floor. If feedback is inappropriately applied, quite literally the noise floor of the amp will be intermodulations and inharmonic information intertwined with the innate noise of the circuit. Norman Crowhusrt wrote about this 65 years ago and its still a thing. I've no doubt that is why many prefer zero feedback amplifiers, as their noise floor tends to be noise without any of the other artifact. The ear can hear detail below this latter kind of noise floor since it has a lot in common with wind sound. Apparently the ear is not able to penetrate the kind of noise of the former, which might be why a lot of zero feedback tube gear seems to be more detailed than traditional solid state.

But its also correct that if you have less distortion you'll have a blacker background. There is disagreement about what a black background actually is, so my interpretation is: If the music is splashes of light on the palette, the palette itself is the background and should have a complete absence of color.

Yes, of course. In this example, a lack of weight is a deficiency and draws attention to itself just like adding excessive weight draws attention to itself.

A lack of weight is a lack of low frequency bandwidth, usually accompanied by phase shift (group delay) that colors what is actually present in the low end. This is why I really want the bottom octave right.