Natural Sound

[cdk84]

@DaveC wrote:

"And how is recorded music supposed to equal the energy and dynamics of a live show given every recording is dynamically compressed? Have you ever heard uncompressed recordings on your system? I have and it's an entirely different experience."

Would you care to comment further on the experience of listening to uncompressed recordings in your system, to include an introduction to your system?

While this is Not my thread, I believe those observations might contribute to a fuller discussion of ‘Natural Sound’, PeterA’s theme for these pages.

I am most interested to learn your thoughts, but what say You, Peter?

 

[the sound of Tao]

What you describe as "better resolution" could be described by someone else as "blacker background". Simple as that.

I don’t really see it as simple. It depends on of if that proposed ‘blacker background’ was artificially imposed or not…or a lack of resolution of some low level signal on the recording. Signal, noise and the boundary of signal or any perceived void beyond that boundary could just be an unresolved part of low level natural atmosphere from the performance… so ultimately really a failed resolution.

 

[microstrip]

What you describe as "better resolution" could be described by someone else as "blacker background". Simple as that.

Yes, if you use the words in sense Michael Fremer and most audiophiles use.

Not if you use it like Peter and a few people in WBF re-defined it.

 

[hopkins]

Yes, if you use the words in sense Michael Fremer and most audiophiles use.

Not if you use it like Peter and a few people in WBF re-defined it.

A few weeks ago I attended a Magico M5 demo here in Paris. I did not really like the sound. The instruments/vocals were very clear, however something was missing. The vocals, especially, sounded "un-natural" to me. Someone could conclude from their knowledge/experience of that system and my description that a "black background" is not a good thing. I suspect, for reasons I don't know, that the system lacked some resolution - the small nuances that bring life to music. Those small nuances, in my opinion, are what you hear when you have a "black background". So what does that tell us? Is it "how you use the word"? How am I using the word?

 

[AudioLibertarian]

A few weeks ago I attended a Magico M5 demo here in Paris. I did not really like the sound. The instruments/vocals were very clear, however something was missing. The vocals, especially, sounded "un-natural" to me. Someone could conclude from their knowledge/experience of that system and my description that a "black background" is not a good thing. I suspect, for reasons I don't know, that the system lacked some resolution - the small nuances that bring life to music. Those small nuances, in my opinion, are what you hear when you have a "black background". So what does that tell us? Is it "how you use the word"? How am I using the word?

Since you are in Paris, have you had a chance recently to listen to the Klinger Favre horn topology loudspeakers? Those supposed to be "natural" type sounding, so to speak.

 

[tima]

I agree @PeterA that a live performance, whether intimate or large scale, can be holistic wrt the intertwining/integration of sounds from different instruments. Perhaps moreso with chamber music where you sit closer to a small group.

Last night I attended a performance of Srauss pieces and the Mozart Requiem. We sat in the back of the mezzanine and the entire orchestra was laid out before us. I heard brass and lower strings on the right with harp, celeste and violins on the left with woodwinds in the middle, etc. The standard orchestra setup.

I did not hear individual performers separated from one another in space so much as. I could hear the distinct timbre and pitch of different instruments. I did hear sounds emanating from left, right and center. To me it is a matter of where one chooses to focus or not focus. Not focusing, intentional or otherwise, is to mitigate the visual, either with your eyes or in your head and let the sound of the orchestra take you. Focusing is more analytical, not focusing is more limbic.

Listening to our stereos, I think there is natural tendency to geolocate sound in our head in the absence of visual location, then 'project' that into a mental image.. If you know instruments by their timbre we may accompany that geolocation with mental images in an effort to create a visual 'explanation' of what we hear.

Likely that experience and maybe culture influence the visual of the orchestra (or band, etc.) that we conjure up. Separating sounds/performers/instruments is an active process -- we are not simply hearing the space or separation, we create it through imag-ination.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Yes, if you use the words in sense Michael Fremer and most audiophiles use.

Not if you use it like Peter and a few people in WBF re-defined it.

Peter tends to say "resolution" when he really means realism or natural sound. (This has been litigated extensively previously.)

 

[microstrip]

Peter tends to say "resolution" when he really means realism or natural sound. (This has been litigated extensively previously.)

The real source of disagreement:



From the book "Classical Recording: A Practical Guide in the Decca Tradition"

 

[PeterA]

A few weeks ago I attended a Magico M5 demo here in Paris. I did not really like the sound. The instruments/vocals were very clear, however something was missing. The vocals, especially, sounded "un-natural" to me. Someone could conclude from their knowledge/experience of that system and my description that a "black background" is not a good thing. I suspect, for reasons I don't know, that the system lacked some resolution - the small nuances that bring life to music. Those small nuances, in my opinion, are what you hear when you have a "black background". So what does that tell us? Is it "how you use the word"? How am I using the word?

In my opinion, language should clarify the writer’s intent, not confuse the reader. If you mean low noise floor when you write “black background”, why not simply write “low noise floor”?

If you mean something other than low noise floor, please explain what you mean.

 

[PeterA]

Peter tends to say "resolution" when he really means realism or natural sound. (This has been litigated extensively previously.)

No, not really Ron. I tend to use a more comprehensive definition of the word. “resolution“ then you do. You tend to equate it to number of pixels or bits. If a cello sounds warm on a particular recording, or a drum is very dynamic, I tend to describe the system as being resolved if that warmth or dynamic is fully expressed or presented by the system to the listener at the listening seat. If it is not, the system does not resolve fully or completely the information on the record recording. For me, the concept of resolution goes way beyond the number of pixels or bits.

Another example is a system that resolves spatial relationships, or the sense of balance between instruments captured in the recording. Same with the ability to portray the scale captured on the recording convincingly at the listening seat. That is resolving the information on the recording.

 

[PeterA]

I do wonder at times, @PeterA, do you only listen to recordings that are intended to sound like you're in the audience at a live performance?

The relation of recorded music to a live performance is only valid if you use a simple 2-mic recording placed among the concert-goers, and unless you were actually there and sitting near those mics, you really have no point of reference. And if the recording is anything other than a simple 2-mic recording, then the intent of the person making the recording is something other than to make it sound just like a live performance and how do you possibly know and understand this intent? What about studio recordings? Avoid entirely?

And how is recorded music supposed to equal the energy and dynamics of a live show given every recording is dynamically compressed? Have you ever heard uncompressed recordings on your system? I have and it's an entirely different experience.

It seems to me that expecting every recording to sound live is just setting yourself up for disappointment and/or drastically limiting the recordings you enjoy. Why not simply enjoy the recording for what it is? If your system can uniquely present different recordings for what they are, presenting the intent and vision of the recording engineer with the least editorializing possible, isn't that enough? Or do you want to your system to alter the recording in such a way that makes it sound closer to your unique experiences of live music?

I think if you really want music that sounds live you're going to have to get into the recording business and do it yourself. Such recordings would require a very high-end, large-scale system capable of portraying the dynamics and energy of a live concert, but would go a long ways toward a playback system that sounds live. I think we often focus far too much on the system rather than the recording, wishing for the recording to be something it just isn't.

Dave, when I describe my system, and some other systems, as sounding natural, I mean that they are capable of sounding natural, depending on the recording. Some systems I have heard do not sound natural on those same recordings, and I would guess are incapable of sounding natural, in large part because their presentation does not have the qualities I described in one of the early posts in this thread defining what I mean by natural sound.

Of course the individual recording contributes to what we hear through our systems. The recording is where it all starts. I prefer a system which presents different recordings differently. The more transparent a system is, the better. If the recording captures what one might hear when sitting in the audience of a live performance, and the system sounds natural, then the listener is likely to have an experience similar to, or at least be reminded of, the live performance.

I do not think a recording can capture completely the sound of a performance. I do not think a system can sound like live music. However, I can be mesmerized and haunted by the experience of listening to some systems, and they do remind me of the sound of live music. The two are not the same, and I recognize differences in recording technique and quality. I have identified the qualities that I think allow a system to remind me of that live listening experience, of course depending on the recording. I have and enjoy a variety of recordings, and I understand well that some recordings will simply not provide the same live music experience. That is fine, I can still enjoy the music. Sonny Rollins' Way Out West does not like instruments on a stage, but that music is wonderful, and those instruments sound great.

Tonight I played two different recordings of Britten's Violin Concerto for a friend. The recordings and performances certainly sounded different, but I thought they both sounded quite natural.

I have not listened to an uncompressed recording on my system. I selected my system and set it up in a way to try to approach the sound and experience I have when listening to live music, mostly acoustic music. I realize it will never be the same, but that is the target for me. I realize that some recordings will get me further toward that goal than others. The recording is where it all starts, but the music and performance is what I care most about, and how the system presents the music on the recording. Sometimes they all line up for one moving and memorable experience. That is natural sound.

 

[PeterA]

How close did you sit to the performers? Please remember that recordings are made with microphones placed much closer to the performers than the audience usually sits. So, unless you sit very close some degree of blurring in purely auditory terms is expected…your vision helps your brain compensate.

This means a recording should show better image separation and clear auditory space between performers…by design. As you have no visuals, the recording is made to make a mental image for you.

If a stereo system doesn’t provide that separation on recordings where it should be obvious then there is something not quite right with that system. Again, pinpoint doesn’t literally mean a tiny image, it means very precisely placed images.

Brad, I had written that we were sitting 15-20 feet away from the center of the trio. The cellist was a bit closer to us. We were in the first row. I know the sound captured by the mic is not exactly what we hear from our seats, and the experience of hearing the musicians live is not the same as what we hear in our living rooms from the reproduction through our systems. My goal is an approximation, a reminder of something similar to what I have when listening to live music. And yes, it depends on the recording, the system and how it is set up, and the room in which the listener is sitting.

I do hear separation between musicians on some recordings. My system does a pretty good job of presenting this type of information from the recording. Some recordings enhance this separation, and some systems enhance it further. I simply made the observation in that post that I did not hear that separation in space at either the large orchestral concert or the string trio performances. The musicians do occupy different spaces, and their instruments do sound distinct from each other, but the sense of separation was not as strong as some recordings would have me believe.

Regarding pinpoint images, I hear musicians with their instruments in space relative to each other, but I would not describe their images as very precise. And in general, I find them less precise in reality than I do from some recordings and systems. This also relates to my notion of natural sound.

 

[tima]

I do hear separation between musicians on some recordings. My system does a pretty good job of presenting this type of information from the recording. Some recordings enhance this separation, and some systems enhance it further. I simply made the observation in that post that I did not hear that separation in space at either the large orchestral concert or the string trio performances. The musicians do occupy different spaces, and their instruments do sound distinct from each other, but the sense of separation was not as strong as some recordings would have me believe.

Hearing the spatial arrangement of musicians laid out before us, and hearing, as some report, dimensional images or outlined images is one area where the live acoustic experience and the listenng room experience are different, perhaps radically different.

Imo this should come as no surprise. Think about the locution "hearing images" -- it is almost a category miskate.

Part of it comes from hearing real music played live versus hearing an electro-mechanical reproduction, both in wholly different venues.

I suspect the larger factor comes from the differening visual experiences. In one we see live musicians with moving bodies, in the other we see ... what ... largely static stereo speakers and stereo equipment. And what our ear/brain system does with that information in the two different scenarios creates a gap between the listening experiences that likely cannot be bridged with even the most naturally sounding stereos.

The listening room experience can evoke the concert hall experience -- this I believe is "the reminder" that Peter speaks about. The concert hall experience can be a basis for gauging how life-like is the reproduction. Knowing this, Natural Sound advocates recognize what is happening but tend not to, imo, place an emphasis on the self-manufactured psycho-acoustic phenomenon when assessing their systems.

 

[hopkins]

In my opinion, language should clarify the writer’s intent, not confuse the reader. If you mean low noise floor when you write “black background”, why not simply write “low noise floor”?

If you mean something other than low noise floor, please explain what you mean.

Yes, the two are pretty much interchangeable in my opinion. Both of them have to be understood figuratively, just like "natural sound" (which is both always and never true, depending on the writer's intention).

 

[hopkins]

Since you are in Paris, have you had a chance recently to listen to the Klinger Favre horn topology loudspeakers? Those supposed to be "natural" type sounding, so to speak.

I have never heard them. They only sell direct and their showroom is in eastern France. I only rarely audition loudspeakers but will make a note of these.

 

[hopkins]

I agree @PeterA that a live performance, whether intimate or large scale, can be holistic wrt the intertwining/integration of sounds from different instruments. Perhaps moreso with chamber music where you sit closer to a small group.

Last night I attended a performance of Srauss pieces and the Mozart Requiem. We sat in the back of the mezzanine and the entire orchestra was laid out before us. I heard brass and lower strings on the right with harp, celeste and violins on the left with woodwinds in the middle, etc. The standard orchestra setup.

I did not hear individual performers separated from one another in space so much as. I could hear the distinct timbre and pitch of different instruments. I did hear sounds emanating from left, right and center. To me it is a matter of where one chooses to focus or not focus. Not focusing, intentional or otherwise, is to mitigate the visual, either with your eyes or in your head and let the sound of the orchestra take you. Focusing is more analytical, not focusing is more limbic.

Listening to our stereos, I think there is natural tendency to geolocate sound in our head in the absence of visual location, then 'project' that into a mental image.. If you know instruments by their timbre we may accompany that geolocation with mental images in an effort to create a visual 'explanation' of what we hear.

Likely that experience and maybe culture influence the visual of the orchestra (or band, etc.) that we conjure up. Separating sounds/performers/instruments is an active process -- we are not simply hearing the space or separation, we create it through imag-ination.

That's all fine, but you (and PeterA) seem to be implying that some systems can somehow over-emphasize individual instruments - if I understand correctly. If so, how do they achieve that, and which systems in your experience do that?

 

[morricab]

Brad, I had written that we were sitting 15-20 feet away from the center of the trio. The cellist was a bit closer to us. We were in the first row. I know the sound captured by the mic is not exactly what we hear from our seats, and the experience of hearing the musicians live is not the same as what we hear in our living rooms from the reproduction through our systems. My goal is an approximation, a reminder of something similar to what I have when listening to live music. And yes, it depends on the recording, the system and how it is set up, and the room in which the listener is sitting.

I do hear separation between musicians on some recordings. My system does a pretty good job of presenting this type of information from the recording. Some recordings enhance this separation, and some systems enhance it further. I simply made the observation in that post that I did not hear that separation in space at either the large orchestral concert or the string trio performances. The musicians do occupy different spaces, and their instruments do sound distinct from each other, but the sense of separation was not as strong as some recordings would have me believe.

Regarding pinpoint images, I hear musicians with their instruments in space relative to each other, but I would not describe their images as very precise. And in general, I find them less precise in reality than I do from some recordings and systems. This also relates to my notion of natural sound.

Ok, this is not very close for a chamber performance. Still, it should have been easy to audibly locate the individual players with your eyes closed.

Please also read what Micro posted from Decca. They sought to recreate more of the visual aspects in the recording than you would get live with your eyes closed because when you listen live with eyes open you have a lot of other input to guide you on where the sound emanates from. The recordings are enhanced on purpose to give more precise localization.

 

[tima]

That's all fine, but you (and PeterA) seem to be implying that some systems can somehow over-emphasize individual instruments - if I understand correctly.

?? Show me a sentence from my post you quote that suggests this.

 

[hopkins]

?? Show me a sentence from my post you quote that suggests this.

This was not suggested by the post I quoted.
Did I misunderstand the essence of "natural sound"?

 

[tima]

https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Recording-Practical-Tradition-Engineering/dp/0367312808/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0