We seem to have different goals and approaches to the hobby. That is what makes it all so fascinating.
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
- Status
We seem to have different goals and approaches to the hobby. That is what makes it all so fascinating.
Yes, but we are also faced with the difficulty of expressing our preferences and qualifying the sound that we appreciate. It's not easy to talk about sound, and it is very possible that we could be in complete agreement in our evaluation of systems...
The tittle says " Natural Sound .
Which is an open point of discussion .
If you simply stated " Peters System " we wouldnt have all these discussions
The premises from which we view the hobby and from which we build our approaches seem divergent. You start by describing reproduced music as being far removed from live music. I start by being impressed and motivated by how similar the two listening experiences can actually seem. For you it seems to come down to the inherent limitations of recordings. For me, I am astonished by how much is actually captured on some recordings. My goal is to retrieve the vast information embedded in the grooves and to then not corrupt it by selecting certain gear and working on setting it up to the best of my ability so that the presentation at my listening seat comes as close as possible to what I experience when hearing live music.
I do not know how that all translates into complete agreement in our evaluation of systems. Our respective systems are a reflection of our approaches and choices. And they seem to be quite different. As I say, that is what is so fascinating about this hobby.
OK, Andro. I suppose this thread and the various discussions that have followed might not have attracted the attention they have if I had simply called it "Peter's System". But then, my first system thread was called "Sublime Sound".
We can listen to our respective systems and bask in knowing that our approaches are attempts to achieve our goals. And we can certainly judge the success of those approaches, and those of others. This is a thread for discussions and learning. I describe my approach as natural sound. I started with my amps. I then chose my speakers to pair with those amps to achieve what I describe as natural sound. The title describes an approach to the hobby and the target I hope to reach. I did not choose your speakers to use with my amps. I agree with you that my amps, or perhaps any SET would not produce the natural drive of live music if paired with your speakers. And I would not describe the result as natural sound. I do not know what more there is to discuss about poor amp/speaker pairings.
“It is about sound, but more so about emotion and response to what we are hearing in the comfort of our listening rooms.”
@PeterA I can’t agree more with this statement. In fact, a small dive into the research literature quickly reveals how nonsensical comments some reviewers make when comparing components heard years apart. Our aural memory is incredibly fleeting - a few seconds at best. So when someone describes “the sound” of a component or system heard in the past, their memories are in fact recalling the feeling the music conveyed, not the sound. Perhaps unwittingly, that feeling then gets translated into sound attributes that are, when described in minute detail, humanly impossible to recall.
@PeterA I can’t agree more with this statement. In fact, a small dive into the research literature quickly reveals how nonsensical comments some reviewers make when comparing components heard years apart. Our aural memory is incredibly fleeting - a few seconds at best. So when someone describes “the sound” of a component or system heard in the past, their memories are in fact recalling the feeling the music conveyed, not the sound. Perhaps unwittingly, that feeling then gets translated into sound attributes that are, when described in minute detail, humanly impossible to recall.
Last edited:
Agreed on those differences.
We agree here as well!
See above
While you may have found your "end game" system, mine (at least the speakers) is a compromise, given a number of constraints: budget, space, room acoustics, esthetics, complexity, availability...I enjoy it a lot, and I would not consider spending more given my current room.
Hi Tangram, this is an interesting post. I have difficulty separating sound from the experience I want to achieve. We know the sound of a violin when we hear it playing around the corner or right in front of us through an audio system. That knowing can only come from aural memory.
The other day I cleaned the connections in my system for the first time since I bought it two years ago. I then sat down and listened to how the sound changed. It was easy to hear. Sometimes, when I listen to a solo bass, trombone, or soprano, I marvel at just the sound, focusing on just what I hear. That is all at and in that moment, and I judge the accuracy based on my memory of how they sounded over the years of hearing them live. And yet, there is more to it. Listening to an audio system can be a richer experience.
This is where the experience of listening, the emotions, the anticipation, the air pressure, the music, the sheer gestalt of it all, comes together. For me, it starts with the references of live music, the sound and all that comes along and together with it. I suspect if varies from listener to listener. Each of us has different priorities and experiences, and different abilities and interest levels, so the results vary. I have heard a handful of systems that simply astonished me, the ones that make me forget where I am, and make me feel, really feel, as though Ella Fitzgerald and Joe Pass are right there singing in the studio or jazz club, and I am there sitting at a specific seat in the audience. To achieve that, one must know the sound of a voice and a guitar and of sound in a space. The emotions and rest of the experience follow from there.
Last edited:
This doesn't seem simple to me. Are you talking about setting up a recording studio in one's home and recording one's wife's voice, or the voices of friends or a local singer with a guitar?
What are you proposing here, exactly?
I'll add one more comment here: listening to the Altec 755A, for example, I had a similar impression of "presence", and it was striking.
In that specific case, I attribute it to a number of factors:
- a single point source (no timing issues between overlapping drivers...)
- good resolution/clarity (no crossover, driver with low distortion)
- focus on a limited frequency range, with lack of bass (which does not muddy the rest of the signal) and lack of high frequency extension
- favorable acoustics/room interaction (especially due to the fact that I was listening to a single speaker).
Perhaps there are speakers that can recreate this illusion so strikingly and with less compromises - I have not heard any (yet). Regardless, I do not believe that you "must know the sound of a voice and a guitar and of sound in space" to experience this "illusion". It remains an illusion which you can recreate without being completely "truthful" to the original "live" performance. Those speakers (Altec) were able to do this even though they have significant limitations in terms of frequency response. Moreover, when you listen to more complex music they may not do such a good job.
Last edited:
This point was made in reference to "imaging". You could make your own recording (not necessarily in a studio), and I believe there are also recordings out there that let you test this, giving you precise indications of the different sound locations.
I never used the word "must", nor did I write about "experiencing an illusion." I do think we know the sound of a violin, voice, or trombone because we have heard it live. How would we know the sounds of those instruments if we have never heard them before? What we experience through our systems is the information captured on the recording as it is presented to us at our listening seats.
Last edited:
I was referring specifically to the sense of "presence", what you referred to in your post as the sense that "Ella Fitzgerald is right there".
I know you don't think it is an illusion - I do...
You can be struck by how a system sounds, but it will still be very different than a live performance.
We may end up going around in circles here. In a sense, live music is always a reference because we hear sound all the time (we can never block it out). Everyone is able to make the difference between a speaker playing a recording in another room and a person speaking - our ears are able to perceive sound with a higher resolution (and capturing more dynamics) than what recordings/systems are capable of producing. Let us know when you find a speaker that can prove me wrong...
Last edited:
Being able to map what is heard live onto a reproduced framework in order to be able to assess the proximity to live is a skill most audiophiles don’t have. So, it’s easy to pay lip service to but very hard for most to tell in reality where they are. Lots of live experience (and I mean unamplified acoustic instruments and voice) helps but not so much as people think because of the mapping required to make it a usable tool for evaluating the absolute sound quality of a system.
People like comparing because the direct AB is easier to tell which is closer to what they like.
And maybe, just maybe there is a world of difference when it comes to recreating music, between your system and Peters !
Yes, but my experience in audio goes far beyond listening to my own system.And maybe, just maybe there is a world of difference when it comes to recreating music, between your system and Peters !
We are talking about Peters system in this thread, your experience is limited to snippets on video, not the real thing. His source component alone make such a tremendous difference to how music is presented, that you only get it after hearing it in person.
As I said, live music or "natural" sounds inevitably inform us. Peter chooses to explains his tastes in a certain way - which is fine. I've seen audiophiles with vastly different systems use the same analogy to describe the sound they hear. I suspect we are sensitive to different aspects - no system being perfect we can easily equate the sound to live performance in both cases. Where one hears "natural sound", another may hear distortions, and vice versa. In both cases, these can be audiophiles with extensive experience of live performance of unamplified acoustic instruments. Where is the truth?
But between Peter's description of the sound, and his videos, I think we can get an idea of what he appreciates, and that's all that matters.
But between Peter's description of the sound, and his videos, I think we can get an idea of what he appreciates, and that's all that matters.
Last edited:
My experience in audio is not limited to my system and videos!We are talking about Peters system in this thread, your experience is limited to snippets on video, not the real thing. His source component alone make such a tremendous difference to how music is presented, that you only get it after hearing it in person.
Obviously, I have not heard Peter's system in person. If that's a requirement to discuss things here, fine, let him make that decision and explain it clearly in the thread: "don't comment unless you have heard my system!"
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
