Natural Sound

[hopkins]

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 a side note (which I already mentioned in my thread), it is interesting to note that some also believe that the illusion of "presence" is not linked to the source, or at least not exclusive to either digital or analog (this is also my experience with the Altec).

Here is what Arthur Salvatore - who until recently was quite critical of digital - explains about his latest speakers (Sadurni):

"The Staccato Max's sense of immediacy, which is unparalleled in my experience (regardless of the speaker design), has many favorable sonic advantages; Well recorded records sound more like a good direct-to-disc, or even a Master Tape on occasion. The improvements with digital sources are similar, now possessing a "continual presence" and natural flow I've never observed before, and the closest I've heard to the best analogue. Further, with both analogue and digital sources, was the experience of actually being (temporarily) "fooled" into believing real musicians were literally present in my listening room! This most desirable of experiences, which audiophiles usually only dream of, now occurs at a greater frequency, and with a wider range of software, than I've ever experienced before. While it's still a relatively unusual event, it was almost non-existent prior to arrival of the Staccato Max"

RECENT AUDIO NOTES

 

[Ron Resnick]

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.

This is completely true. A listener can achieve a high level of suspension of disbelief ("illusion") listening to a recording of a voice and a guitar, regardless of whether the sound of that recording is truthful or accurate to the actual sound of a voice and a guitar according to one or more other listeners.

Putting it simply, each of us can target and achieve our own subjective and idiosyncratic sonic illusion -- a sound which may be wholly convincing to us individually, but unconvincing to others.

 

[PeterA]

My experience in audio is not limited to my system and videos!

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!"

Hearing my system in person is not a requirement to join the discussion in this system thread.

I think Milan was referring to your experience with my system as limited to hearing the system videos that I have posted of my system. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[PeterA]

As a side note (which I already mentioned in my thread), it is interesting to note that some also believe that the illusion of "presence" is not linked to the source, or at least not exclusive to either digital or analog (this is also my experience with the Altec).

The degree of “presence” perceived by a particular listener from a given system in a given room, depends on the quality of the information on the recording, the quality of the system, and how well the system is set up and presenting that information to the listener. I think it also depends in part on the listener’s level of experience with live music. All of these things are variable and not exclusive to a particular format.

 

[bonzo75]

So now its the speakers fault .

Yes. Or the designer’s

 

[Rexp]

This is completely true. A listener can achieve a high level of suspension of disbelief ("illusion") listening to a recording of a voice and a guitar, regardless of whether the sound of that recording is truthful or accurate to the actual sound of a voice and a guitar according to one or more other listeners.

Putting it simply, each of us can target and achieve our own subjective and idiosyncratic sonic illusion -- a sound which may be wholly convincing to us individually, but unconvincing to others.

Yes folks hear things differently, you don't think some hear better than others?

 

[hopkins]

The degree of “presence” perceived by a particular listener from a given system in a given room, depends on the quality of the information on the recording, the quality of the system, and how well the system is set up and presenting that information in a particular room. I think it also depends in part on the listener’s level of experience with live music. All of these things are variable and not exclusive to a particular format.

Perhaps. One thing is for sure is that it is not something we can grasp through videos

 

[Ron Resnick]

Yes folks hear things differently, you don't think some hear better than others?

I am sure some people hear better than other people. But that is a different point.

 

[PeterA]

Perhaps. One thing is for sure is that it is not something we can grasp through videos

No one claimed that everyone can grasp a system's ability to present "presence" through a video, but I think some actually can. And some listeners can indeed perceive a sense of immediacy, energy, and other qualities quite easily from videos. Videos are simply a tool and some appreciate their utility, and others do not. They are not a substitute for hearing the actual system. There is no need to revisit that discussion here and now.

 

[Joel27]

---

I did not mean to open up an additional can of worms in Peter's thread. His experience is his alone and I for one am extremely thankful that he has taken the time to articulate his journey.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I am sure some people hear better than other people. But that is a different point.

+1 That some hear better than others is a fairly straight forward, measurable objective fact… that people perceive differently is very much a different thing altogether and probably much more to the point for me.

That anyone perceives in judgment ‘better’ than anyone else is subjective at best and even less valid when experiences aren’t shared… even if we were together hearing the same thing it’d possibly more tied up with hubris and the competing of one over another than anything much more than that I figure.

 

[PeterA]

---

I did not mean to open up an additional can of worms in Peter's thread. His experience is his alone and I for one am extremely thankful that he has taken the time to articulate his journey.

No worries, Joel. It’s the nature of these discussions. Disagreements allow me to reflect and formulate my thoughts.

 

[bonzo75]

I am sure some people hear better than other people. But that is a different point.

They actually know what to listen for better than other people

 

[tima]

... A listener can achieve a high level of suspension of disbelief ("illusion") listening to a recording of a voice and a guitar, regardless of whether the sound of that recording is truthful or accurate to the actual sound of a voice and a guitar according to one or more other listeners.

This is another reason I don't view the so-called 'suspension of disbelief' as a legitimate goal for myself or my system.

 

[tima]

+1 That some hear better than others is a fairly straight forward, measurable objective fact… that people perceive differently is very much a different thing altogether and probably much more to the point for me.

Tests about the mechanics of one's hearing mechanism only take us so far. If your reference to perception is something other than that, then I agree.

That anyone perceives in judgment ‘better’ than anyone else is subjective at best and even less valid when experiences aren’t shared… even if we were together hearing the same thing it’d possibly more tied up with hubris and the competing of one over another than anything much more than that I figure.

Rather than judgement, hubris or competition, I think there may at least be as large a difference in priorities and in abilities to express or describe what is heard. For example, there appears a goodly number for whom the sine qua non is imaging. The stock-in-trade check list of 'audiophile attributes' strikes me as holding us back.

 

[hopkins]

This is another reason I don't view the so-called 'suspension of disbelief' as a legitimate goal for myself or my system.

Do you relate at all to this sense of "presence" that Salvatore talks about? I find it relevant, having experienced it myself (not with all systems), and to varying degrees. We can certainly enjoy music without it but I think achieving it does imply that some things are being done right, and that there is some level of accuracy of the sound experienced in the room to the recording material.

 

[morricab]

Do you relate at all to this sense of "presence" that Salvatore talks about? I find it relevant, having experienced it myself (not with all systems), and to varying degrees. We can certainly enjoy music without it but I think achieving it does imply that some things are being done right, and that there is some level of accuracy of the sound experienced in the room to the recording material.

IMO, you cannot say your system is channeling "live" without a good dose of 3D presence. It is not the only thing that make sound realistic but I think it is an important component. I have heard systems that do it well but tone is icy cold and or dynamics are flat...this is not correct but likewise a system that has nice tone and dynamics but can't produce a convincing 3D imaging/soundstaging experience (recording permitting of course) is also not correct for other reasons.

 

[hopkins]

IMO, you cannot say your system is channeling "live" without a good dose of 3D presence. It is not the only thing that make sound realistic but I think it is an important component. I have heard systems that do it well but tone is icy cold and or dynamics are flat...this is not correct but likewise a system that has nice tone and dynamics but can't produce a convincing 3D imaging/soundstaging experience (recording permitting of course) is also not correct for other reasons.

I would tend to agree with this. There are varying degrees, and it is not the only aspect, as you underline, but it does generally allow for a more involving listening experience, providing a sense of transparency into the recording.

 

[tima]

Do you relate at all to this sense of "presence" that Salvatore talks about? I find it relevant, having experienced it myself (not with all systems), and to varying degrees. We can certainly enjoy music without it but I think achieving it does imply that some things are being done right, and that there is some level of accuracy of the sound experienced in the room to the recording material.

Given listening to stereo, our seemingly inate ability to geo-locate is naturally invoked. We have a sense of the location of sounds. If there is familiarity with, for example, orchestral arrangement, it is fairly simple to map a picture in our head of an orchestra performing before us in a general dimensional sense. I believe the microphone placement used for recording can influence that: compare recordings made with the Decca tree and the heavily multi-mic'ing approach of DG mixed to highlight indivdual musicians. I tend to prefer the former as a more realistic representation. I don't hear three-dimensional musicians in the concert hall or from my stereo although I've written in the past about musicians in bas-relief when an individual is brought to the fore in a reproduction.

All that is not included in my use of the word "presence".

In my writing I sometimes talk about venue context or 'the sense of an orchestra in a hall'. This is what I mean by presence. I believe it comes from room or hall acoustics with reflected sound -- that ever so slight timing delay between direct and reflected sound. As most halls tend to have a fair amount of height above an orchestra, reflections include that space to yield a dimensional enclosure of air with sound waves moving through it that yields 'the sense of an orchestra in a hall'. Depends on the venue. Smaller recording studios with trios and quartets tend to yield less presence although place a group on a stage on in, for example, a church and the venue may be heard.

However I don't take that sense of presence as 'an illusion' or as a thought that there actually are performers before me. I understand 'illusion' as a deception -- sonic stimuli that represents what is perceived differently from the way it is in reality. That deception is not a goal for me.

In what I call 'limbic listening' -- a wholly non-analytical experience -- I find a much more amorphous involvement where a sense of space with musicians in it is largely non-structured.

 

[Lagonda]

Given listening to stereo, our seemingly inate ability to geo-locate is naturally invoked. We have a sense of the location of sounds. If there is familiarity with, for example, orchestral arrangement, it is fairly simple to map a picture in our head of an orchestra performing before us in a general dimensional sense. I believe the microphone placement used for recording can influence that: compare recordings made with the Decca tree and the heavily multi-mic'ing approach of DG mixed to highlight indivdual musicians. I tend to prefer the former as a more realistic representation. I don't hear three-dimensional musicians in the concert hall or from my stereo although I've written in the past about musicians in bas-relief when an individual is brought to the fore in a reproduction.

All that is not included in my use of the word "presence".

In my writing I sometimes talk about venue context or 'the sense of an orchestra in a hall'. This is what I mean by presence. I believe it comes from room or hall acoustics with reflected sound -- that ever so slight timing delay between direct and reflected sound. As most halls tend to have a fair amount of height above an orchestra, reflections include that space to yield a dimensional enclosure of air with sound waves moving through it that yields 'the sense of an orchestra in a hall'. Depends on the venue. Smaller recording studios with trios and quartets tend to yield less presence although place a group on a stage on in, for example, a church and the venue may be heard.

However I don't take that sense of presence as 'an illusion' or as a thought that there actually are performers before me. I understand 'illusion' as a deception -- sonic stimuli that represents what is perceived differently from the way it is in reality. That deception is not a goal for me.

In what I call 'limbic listening' -- a wholly non-analytical experience -- I find a much more amorphous involvement where a sense of space with musicians in it is largely non-structured.

You do have a way with words Tim ! You are a great example of why written words reviews still have their merits, you make those you tubers look like clumsy clutses trying to sell us vacuum cleaners.