Natural Sound

[hopkins]

You can experience pinpoint imaging -- meaning the psycho-acoustic idealization of precise location of different sound sources relative to one another and sometimes cashed out as outlined performer images -- you can experience this during the stereo experience, although its not a given. In the concert hall with your eyes closed, not so much. Try it.

Relative to the live experience pinpoint imaging in the stereo room is an artificiality. Some people embrace these types of psycho-acoustic 'virtues' of the stereo experience. Within the context of natural sound it is de-emphasized as something sought after or as a requirement when putting a system together in a room.

This perfectly illustrates the reason why this "natural sound" approach - at least in the way you frame it - makes no sense.

If a recording offers precise instrument location and your system/room does not, then something is wrong. End of story.

 

[Amir]

A friend sent me a link to this video last night. I just finished watching it. I actually found this video a bit easier to follow along than some of his other videos. Perhaps it is the topic that interests me.

Romy is a funny guy, full of sarcasm. He says right near the beginning of the video when discussing "The Absolute Sound" approach: "Hello Michael Fremer. How are you doing?" That is too funny right after his previous video about reviewers. I find Romy's delivery a bit difficult to follow, but the content is very interesting. Within 24 hours of my posting on his website some comments about the MF video, Romy records this new video after reading the beginning of my system thread. He clearly has these thoughts in his mind and is able to articulate and to share them quickly, off the cuff. I find that very impressive.

Romy identifies and describes three approaches which I will try to summarize:

1. The Absolute Sound.
The first part of the video is a condemnation of the industry: the gear, the magazines, the reviewers. He describes this approach as an endless search for and promotion of sonic properties. The goal is to maximize these properties in the presentation. I kept thinking of the audiophile glossary of terms. He does not think this has anything to do with what one hears from live music. These properties are viewed as positives, and the more you can get, the better.

2. Neutrality/naturalness
This approach is viewing these properties as negative, because they are not heard in live music, and rejecting them. The more absent the properties are from the presentation, the better. One is left listening to the music and the emotions will follow. The problem with this approach, as I understand it, is that one is left with a system that may sound beautiful, but is not flexible, so it will allow an emotional connection to come through, but it can not be tailored to maximize different emotions for different music and performances. It is a passive approach.

3. Expressivity (His 3rd Way)
This third approach allows the listener to shape his own experience to maximize emotional involvement and enjoyment. I think Romy likes to experiment, play, and tinker. He is always searching and thinking for new ways. He is obsessed in a good way. Others have described their obsessions as a sickness. I get that and I respect it. I particularly appreciate that Romy thinks deeply about this, shares his approach and thinking, and actually experiments trying to improve his experience. This is a deep approach to the hobby.

Now, I think a lot of us think about the hobby and want to improve our systems. So in that sense, perhaps we all follow a bit of all three approaches. I disagree with Romy somewhat because people in all three approaches seem to want to shape or tailor their listening experience. This is done in the first two approaches through the careful selection of gear, and the setting up of the room and system, and finally by the music and recording choices they make. I am talking about active hobbyists. Certainly some audiophiles go and buy what they read about and have someone else set it up for them, and then they are satisfied and listen, not changing, exploring, or experimenting. That is a fine approach too.

Romy reminds me of Carlos269 here. Each takes a more active role in wanting to shape the presentation after the gear has been bought. Their approach is in choosing the gear for its flexibility. They seem to enjoy working to create a presentation that maximizes the emotion they are trying to get when listening. Their approach is more as an active participant. My approach is to try to closely resemble the listening experience I have when listening to live music. I do this by choosing specific gear and setting it up in a particular way.

What I find refreshing about Romy is his insatiable curiosity, and his willingness to share with anyone interested in listening. His approach is a bit different, both the videos, and in his listening room. I happen to think the hobby benefits from thinkers like him.

Peter, Thank you for sharing.

I always said before (many times) we should respect expert audiophiles like David and Romy.
These smart and expert audiophiles spend more than 10,000 hours for audio.

We can learn from their experience.

 

[Amir]

In most senses yes, and in one sense no; but certainly more yes than no.

Neither Steve nor I has anything to do with moderation or suspensions or discipline. But moderation is only one aspect of running the site.

I think of Julian as running the site from an IT administration and technology point of view.

Ultimately Steve and I are responsible for the site.

Ron,
As a member of WBF I would like to ask you and Steve to return David to WBF.

Thank you

 

[bonzo75]

Ron,
As a member of WBF I would like to ask you and Steve to return David to WBF.

Thank you

I think like 15 times before they have explained David is not banned, he chooses not to visit. What do you want them to write to make sure you remember it

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron,
As a member of WBF I would like to ask you and Steve to return David to WBF.

Thank you

Based on your post I can only assume that David, apparently, has propagated the false narrative that he was banned from WBF. Your post suggests that you think David was banned from WBF. This is false.

When this whole thing happened a couple of years ago, completely unbeknownst to me (I have nothing to do with moderation or suspensions or banning or discipline) David was banned for three days by the moderators on a Friday. I had numerous communications with David over that weekend.

David was welcome to return to WBF on that next Monday (three days later). The suspension expired on that next Monday.

Over the weekend I encouraged David to return. I suggested to David that if he returned on Monday hardly anybody -- if anybody at all -- would even have been aware that he was gone for the weekend. I suggested to David that he should come back on Monday like nothing ever happened.

But David was completely incensed and offended that he was suspended in the first place. David refused to be subject to the moderators to which each of us -- including me -- is subject. David himself chose not to return on Monday.

David is not on WBF today solely of his own volition and decision not to be here.

You should examine forensically what you have been told and who told it to you that causes you to believe the falsehood that David was banned from WBF.

 

[treitz3]

David is not on WBF today solely of his own volition and decision not to be here.

At the end of the day, (in this case, year?), this is the case. David is more than welcome to join back in the discussions on this site.

Tom

 

[tima]

Based on your post I can only assume that David, apparently, has propagated the false narrative that he was banned from WBF. Your post suggests that you think David was banned from WBF. This is false.

But David was completely incensed and offended that he was suspended in the first place. David refused to be subject to the moderators to which each of us -- including me -- is subject. David himself chose not to return on Monday.

From what I know this is the MS* version. As Ron claims he had no involvement and likely is unaware of what happened behind the scenes. Better to follow Steve's lead on this and not talk about him since David is not here to respond.

Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

I'm sad I've spent so much time reading this thread. At least I listened to some 20 year old electronic albums I haven't heard in a very long time.

www.whatsbestforum.com

 

[Rexp]

We've been talking about how the stereo experience is different from the concert hall experience for some time now, so not so much "all the sudden". There are several threads that go into some depth on this.

Thread topics:

Search results for query: imaging

www.whatsbestforum.com

and particularly, this one, but don't get disuaded by the initial discussion on PRAT:

SPACE: THE FINAL FRONTIER

I haven’t been in a rush to discuss the final frontier of space because imaging and soundstage are hot buttons in the hi fi world, and the concept of “space” that I will describe here requires a total recalibration of the concept of space as it is widely accepted in the hi fi world. Before we...

www.whatsbestforum.com

You can experience pinpoint imaging -- meaning the psycho-acoustic idealization of precise location of different sound sources relative to one another and sometimes cashed out as outlined performer images -- you can experience this during the stereo experience, although its not a given. In the concert hall with your eyes closed, not so much. Try it.

Relative to the live experience pinpoint imaging in the stereo room is an artificiality. Some people embrace these types of psycho-acoustic 'virtues' of the stereo experience. Within the context of natural sound it is de-emphasized as something sought after or as a requirement when putting a system together in a room.

If you're in room with, say, piano on the far left and singer far right and close your eyes, you will be able to identify the position of said musicians.
If this spatial info has been captured on the recording of these musicians, you will hear it on playback if your speakers /system is resolving enough.

 

[Amir]

Based on your post I can only assume that David, apparently, has propagated the false narrative that he was banned from WBF. Your post suggests that you think David was banned from WBF. This is false.

When this whole thing happened a couple of years ago, completely unbeknownst to me (I have nothing to do with moderation or suspensions or banning or discipline) David was banned for three days by the moderators on a Friday. I had numerous communications with David over that weekend.

David was welcome to return to WBF on that next Monday (three days later). The suspension expired on that next Monday.

Over the weekend I encouraged David to return. I suggested to David that if he returned on Monday hardly anybody -- if anybody at all -- would even have been aware that he was gone for the weekend. I suggested to David that he should come back on Monday like nothing ever happened.

But David was completely incensed and offended that he was suspended in the first place. David refused to be subject to the moderators to which each of us -- including me -- is subject. David himself chose not to return on Monday.

David is not on WBF today solely of his own volition and decision not to be here.

You should examine forensically what you have been told and who told it to you that causes you to believe the falsehood that David was banned from WBF.

Ron, Thank you for description. I did not say you or Steve banned David, I just asked you to return David to this forum. David did not say you banned him and also no other one said you banned David. I think this forum will be much more interesting if you return him.

 

[tima]

If you're in room with, say, piano on the far left and singer far right and close your eyes, you will be able to identify the position of said musicians.
If this spatial info has been captured on the recording of these musicians, you will hear it on playback if your speakers /system is resolving enough.

seems obvious to me -- we have a seemingly inate ability to geo-locate. simpler with fewer sources. i'm talking about the differences between live and reproduction and priorities. of course we hear the violins on the left and the basses/cellos on the right in both, but that is not pinpoint imaging. read the threads i referenced.

 

[Argonaut]

Better to follow Steve's lead on this and not talk about him since David is not here to respond.

Excellent advice … Perhaps have a word with your particular confederate who has “talked about him” incessantly before and after that member chose to cease posting here !

Search results for query: DDK

www.whatsbestforum.com

 

[PeterA]

Actually, Romy has a point. If you look at Peter's list of bullet points in post #5 on the first page of this thread, it is striking how many times you find the word "no" (there is also one "not" and one "absent").

That list in post #5 is a description of the sonic characteristics I heard from all four of David Karmeli’s systems. Those systems exist in stark contrast to what Romy describes as the Absolute Sound approach.

Those systems are also two or three way systems which are not designed to be tailored to different music and moods at the owners discretion to maximize expressiveness.

Designing a five or six way horn system for easy shaping of the sound with different amplifiers is a completely different approach to the hobby.

I heard Romy‘s system in his previous house, and I heard all of David’s systems. The listening experience from each approach is quite different. I know they both had many long and interesting discussions with Vladimir Lamm.

 

[PeterA]

This perfectly illustrates the reason why this "natural sound" approach - at least in the way you frame it - makes no sense.

If a recording offers precise instrument location and your system/room does not, then something is wrong. End of story.

I don’t think so. It simply means that that recording does not sound natural and will give a different listening experience through the system.

The idea is that a natural sound system does not emphasize or create that artificial sense of pinpoint imaging or stark outlines around the musicians precisely because that is not something one experiences when listening to live music. In other words, such effects are not natural. One’s ability to locate the relative position and scale of the instruments to each other is retained just as it is observed at a live performance.

 

[hopkins]

The idea is that a natural sound system does not emphasize or create that artificial sense of pinpoint imaging or stark outlines around the musicians precisely because that is not something when experiences when listening to live music. One’s ability to locate the relative position of the instruments to each other is retained just as it is observed at a live performance.

A natural sound system or a natural recording? I think you are confusing the two.

 

[PeterA]

A natural sound system or a natural recording? I think you are confusing the two.

Here is the distinction I would make: a natural sounding system does not emphasize attributes or call attention to itself. If a recording has pinpoint imaging with stark image outlines, the system will present that. What the system does not do is emphasize that and make every recording sound like it has pinpoint imaging with stark image outlines. The system has other attributes that tend to remind one of live music, namely, realistic rendering of tone, high dynamic contrast, weight and mass.

Pinpoint imaging has been discussed elsewhere. It is not a characteristic of a natural sounding system. It is a hifi atribute. Appropriate rendering of relative scale and sound source location on a virtual soundstage is information I want to hear from the system presentation, BUT ONLY if that information is on the recording. I never hear it live, so if I hear it on my system, it is from the recording, not the system. The other way around, where the system tends to create that effect, is what I do not want.

 

[Lagonda]

Based on your post I can only assume that David, apparently, has propagated the false narrative that he was banned from WBF. Your post suggests that you think David was banned from WBF. This is false.

When this whole thing happened a couple of years ago, completely unbeknownst to me (I have nothing to do with moderation or suspensions or banning or discipline) David was banned for three days by the moderators on a Friday. I had numerous communications with David over that weekend.

David was welcome to return to WBF on that next Monday (three days later). The suspension expired on that next Monday.

Over the weekend I encouraged David to return. I suggested to David that if he returned on Monday hardly anybody -- if anybody at all -- would even have been aware that he was gone for the weekend. I suggested to David that he should come back on Monday like nothing ever happened.

But David was completely incensed and offended that he was suspended in the first place. David refused to be subject to the moderators to which each of us -- including me -- is subject. David himself chose not to return on Monday.

David is not on WBF today solely of his own volition and decision not to be here.

You should examine forensically what you have been told and who told it to you that causes you to believe the falsehood that David was banned from WBF.

I write with David occasionally, and he has never claimed that he is banned from WBF.

 

[Lagonda]

Ron, Thank you for description. I did not say you or Steve banned David, I just asked you to return David to this forum. David did not say you banned him and also no other one said you banned David. I think this forum will be much more interesting if you return him.

And how is Ron going to do that ? Force David ? David has chosen not to participate anymore for various reasons. I find it regrettable too and wish he would decide to come back, as i value his input and humor. Ron got caught up in the whole situation as a innocent bystander.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I just asked you to return David to this forum.

I honestly totally did not understand that you were not implying by this post that David was banned from WBF. Since David was never banned, I have no ability to "return David to this forum."

I apologize that my misinterpretation of your post led me to suggestions which were not correct.

David did not say you banned him

Thank you for correcting my incorrect assumptions based on your post.

 

[Al M.]

So we're back to a “natural sound” system sounds like Peter thinks it should, NOT like what the recording dictates. This is the ultimate expression of ego-driven hifi. I'm with hopkins and want no part of it.

Hold on, wait a minute, slow down. It seems to me you're a bit dogmatic here.

I would never pursue pinpoint imaging as a hifi "virtue". Some two-way stand mount monitors that I listened to in the past, especially the Ensemble Reference, very much emphasized pinpoint imaging. My current floorstanders don't. Are they worse speakers? Of course not. I like the deemphasis of pinpoint imaging; like Peter I prefer a more natural soundstage presentation. And soundstaging is what my current speakers can do, brilliantly so. Everything is nicely separated, by depth as well as width, and images have a palpable 3-D character. Without excessive pinpoint imaging, thank you very much.

Similarly, I have noticed that I get smaller, a bit more pinpoint-y, images with SS amplification. With my tube amps images are larger, which I prefer. Should I switch to an SS amp just to get "better" pinpoint imaging? What a foolish thought.

My system presents images the way it does, and it is what is. Bonus: I very much happen to like it! I am not going to chase a recording artifact, pinpoint imaging, just to emphasize it.

And who the hell decides that it's on the recording in the first place? What if it's an artifact of the gear that reproduces the recording? From a logical and logistic perspective, you simply cannot make the distinction where it comes from. You need reproducing gear to listen to the recording, so if the artifact arises from that, you never can conclude that it's actually in the recording. You just don't know -- you will never know.

Let's not fool ourselves and believe everything that "esteemed" hifi gurus, in that case originally from The Absolute Sound and Stereophile, tell us about their perceived virtues of how soundstaging should be and that it's in the actual recording. Let's engage in some independent thinking, not bowing to cultish "authority", shall we?

 

[Al M.]

That list in post #5 is a description of the sonic characteristics I heard from all four of David Karmeli’s systems. Those systems exist in stark contrast to what Romy describes as the Absolute Sound approach.

Those systems are also two or three way systems which are not designed to be tailored to different music and moods at the owners discretion to maximize expressiveness.

Designing a five or six way horn system for easy shaping of the sound with different amplifiers is a completely different approach to the hobby.

I heard Romy‘s system in his previous house, and I heard all of David’s systems. The listening experience from each approach is quite different. I know they both had many long and interesting discussions with Vladimir Lamm.

Peter, you are avoiding to address the point that Romy made, aren't you?

I think his point is valid to some extent. Your list does contain a lot of negative references, of what sound should *not* be.