Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
I thought it was the absence of color.
Edit: perhaps we can agree it is a distorted background?
Last edited:
You just need a digital engine with more bit depth To realize the more Natural sound.
Wow - I just noticed this: with 28,000 views in less than a month I trust we can agree Peter's new system thread certainly is interesting! 
We have all the vocabulary to communicate "quiet" and "noise free", "low distortion" is something else. I agree with you that "black and/or velvet background" used by reviewers and manufacturers to describe a different attribute that they hear from a component. Has anyone actually put their ear to a quiet machine and claim that it's black or describe noise level with that term? Anyone here walk into an empty space and think that it's black. Even if it's dark inside it's not called a black room without it being being painted that color. What I see is people arguing just for the heck of it. I agree with you that reviewers use the term to describe a tangible quality rather than absence of noise.
Black background isn't absence of anything for me it's the presence particular sound, wether it's in the back, middle or foreground it's part of the overall sound. Wether one likes black sound or not is a separate conversation which I see as pointless as arguing any other preference.
david
Last edited:
I see the girls walk by dressed in their summer clothes
I have to turn my head until my darkness goes.
The Rolling Stones- Paint it Black
We need a forum curator or librarian. A year ago we generated a 98 post thread entitled Blackness/Black Background.
Let me draw your attention to a post therein that quotes Roger Skoff from his Positive Feedback column "What isn't Black? Roger Skoff Writes about the Real Sound of Sound"
That was after we had an 102 post thread that started in 2018 and carried through April of 2021: Is a Lower Noise Floor, are "Blacker" Blacks, Consonant With the Music?
Did we forget about all that ... or are we just bored and need to argue
I see people turn their heads and quickly look away.
Like a newborn baby, it just happens every day.
- ibid
Today I go to the dentist and you guys are still talking about black backgrounds. And Francisco has further brought reviewers into the discussion, including moi. Easy target, why not?
For the record, in that second thread I did say: "heh - I blame reviewers."
Imo there seems to be a what? Bit of confusion to the current discussion? Confusion between what we hear in hear in the concert hall and what we hear in our listening room. The side discussion about acoustics in performance spaces seemed to rise up after Peter made this remark:
A wee bit of pushback - I don't read here at WBF or in reviews where writers make a claim for black backgrounds in the concert hall. The question as I understand it is whether the black backgrounds observed in listening rooms from stereo components are representative of what is heard from live acoustic music. (Not whether you like it.) Naturalists say "No" - black backgrounds are a product of some (not all) electronic stereo components and/or cables... or something like that. "Velvety-black backdrops", as one reviewer likes to describe them (Cf. quotes) are not a part of natural sound.
In mock defense of my fellow reviewers, many of whom I read but with whom I do not always agree, are describing components - not live music. The problem (for some) is proclaiming a component's manufacture of a black background is a virtue, a positive quality, something desirable from that component or all components. It's not usually stated that way but you don't find reviews saying the display of a black background is a negative.
I'm not clear about the point of Francisco's quotes from reviewers describing sound with black backgrounds. Yes, there are such descriptions. The fact or belief that black backgrounds are not representative of what we hear in the concert hall has nothing to do with the reviewer's description of what they heard - or are trying to describe of the component.
I agree that it is rarely clear what a writer or reviewer means by an observation of a component's black background. Is he describing a lower noise floor, lower distortion, a quality of music? Is "black background" short hand for something else? Or is it simply the best, or appropriate description at hand? Is it clearer or more obvious to the reader than some other description?
And yes, mea culpa, I have used the phrase myself, although my view on the virtuosity of black backgrounds from stereo systems has 'evolved' over the years. Yes I had accepted them as a positive quality though I've come to different thinking. But as a descriptor or component sound, I find the phrase acceptable. Here's some examples - tell me if they are not expository or if I fail to convey what I heard.
"Nobody snaps off an electronic transient like Ralf und Florian mit den kling-klang boys. Consider "Telephone Call" from Kraftwerk’s Electric Café [EMI EMD 1001] Together, the Premier 140 and the Avanti Centuries demonstrate how easy it is for this pairing to stop and start on a dime -- and do so at any point across the speaker’s bandwidth with drive and energy. Full stop. Silence. Fast attack. Voices and electronic ephemera pop and crackle instantaneously into and out of black three-dimensional space." 2004 Soundstage (my first review)
"These are Desi Arnez big-band kind of tunes, which include a variety of rattlers, shakers, scratchers and congas, and feature guitar, flute, and horns. Each instrument emerges one by one from a pitch-black backdrop until there is a dense tapestry of Latin sound from a band going full tilt." 2005 Soundstage
"It was easy to hear how Aaron Neville used his mouth and throat to form notes and words throughout his album Warm Your Heart (LP [Classic Records/A&M Records RTH 5354]), but the lack of reflective information led to a sense of sonic suckout that made clear he sang from a booth. I had the impression of a dimensional Aaron Neville head, but no amount of post-production reverb could add the cues that placed it on a body in a live room with other musicians. And yet when I heard paintballs of tone color pop with reverberation then recede into a dead flat-black background at the start of his "Everybody Plays the Fool," and despite knowing that was a studio-engineered effect, the result was sheer musical delight as my system rendered notes actively moving back to front within the soundstage." 2013 The Audio Beat
I write what I hear.
Again, Tim - reviewers and most of our members clearly address sound reproduction in their posts. "Black background" it is an attribute of sound reproduction system. Looking for it in reality and telling we do not find it there is almost as naive as arguing using the physical definition of black in this discussion. For most of us "black background" is an attribute of systems that are able to reproduce specif aspects of real music. It is a figurative definition, defined with the help of descriptions and consensus. Also IMHO Introducing natural and artificial reverberation in the subject only adds confusion.
Stereo sound reproduction is an illusion. Reality is physical. We do not need to hypothesize on reality, but our perception of it is subjective. Musicians exist in space with real events in pinpoint positions, playing in group in a space. Our perception of it is subjective. The sound reproduction industry creates a two channel representation of the event, using all kind of tricks and techniques to fool us. We try to create systems for our enjoyment, playing this extremely limited signal. Although each of us has its unique perception of reality, some groups share common objectives and have common preferences. But no one can be the holder of the natural sound. Surely he can use "Natural Sound" as a label for his preferred type of sound.
My quotes are not endorsements - I only used them to show that reviewers used these words with a specific meaning, something that Peter seemed to ignore. Mea culpa - they were the first that showed in google. I considered quoting from the WBF thread you refer, but found it would be just a repetition. We have great essays on the "black background" subject in old TAS issues, unfortunately they are in paper and subjected to copyright.
I think everyone agrees that no one want's anything to obscure low level detail and ambiance that exists on the recording.A lot going on here...
I wrote a review of the Monaco 1.5 and then another of the Monaco 2.0 and the genuinely startling differences I heard between them made by the latter's increased speed accuracy and low noise. Personally these are two of my favorite pieces of writing and you are invited to read my take versus others.
With regard to black backgrounds re the Monacos, I said this in my 1.5 review:
"The Monaco 1.5’s silent accuracy cashed out musically as eliminated distortion. With the Monaco 1.5 in my system music poured forth from records with confident purpose and authority as if emerging from a black-granite foundation." The black-granite reference was more of a bolster to the table's authority and solid foundation. I believe that is my only use of the word "black" in either article.
I do not believe either table generates or manufactures anything other than signal and maybe some v. low mechanical noise. Both do very well at revealing recording differences across records. I haven't heard the Bardo or the Rockport but I believe the Monaco 2.0 may be the best direct drive table in current production - certainly the best DD I've owned.
And now to the main part of your thread:
Thank you Peter; I enjoyed your response as well. I cannot speak to what Roy Gregory wrote or why he wrote it though I think highly of both of his reviews in terms of the writing and do appreciate his overall assessments for the tables which are close to my own. Some people can't tolerate him. ymmv
Fwiw, 'black background' is not in Holt's glossary.
Anyway... the more I think about all this black background stuff, the more I realize the phrase is confusing. Yes, at first blush it seems intuitive and it has lots of use and people don't seem to need an explanation.
From your post and others I see two understandings of the phrase 'black background':
1. Black background means low distortion or low noise floor or quiet sufficient to reveal additional information on a recording.
2. Black background is the absence of sound. It is distinct from sound and, as some write, it is from whence sound emerges. It exists between the notes and separates them.
[ aside: I use Sartre's ontological essay Being and Nothingness as a very poor analogy.
Being = Sound, Music. Nothingness = No sound, no music. Both are required for the other to exist. (But not in the sense of the dualism of phenomena and noumena.)]
I believe your take on the words 'black background' when used to describe what is heard via componentry is closer to #2. It is the destruction of revelation, the absence of sonic information, it obscures. We certainly don't find it in the concert hall which brims with sonic artifacts and ambience. I think that last sentence is all we need to agree upon.
I suspect some go back and forth with 1 & 2 without really giving it much thought. Review (and forum) writers are often not clear or they are sloppy with the phrase or allow its ambiguity to subsist.
There are 'spaces' between notes otherwise they are not differentiated - which any score will tell your they certainly are. Speakers can blur or smear notes in a variety of ways. Some components are better at differentiating notes in terms of pitch/tone, frequency, dynamic and length. Perhaps 'black background' is a way to express that rather than expressing the killing of information. I'm (only) guessing that could be what Roy meant. Again, only guessing, since a turntable and cartridge are where notes (signals) are created (manufactured?), perhaps that is where note differentiation happens.
P.S. I do enjoy engaging with you on this topic.
The interesting question to me is whether the designers of components and cables, in their quest to eliminate unwanted noise, are also filtering out some of the recordings low level information.
As tima posted, black is not a color, it is the absence of color, which is what an audio system should seek. Few if any recordings are "black", so that shouldn't be something that is heard in a well-functioning audio system. The goal is to hear what is on the recording, not to have an audio system color it and all recordings in one set way.
I'm sure I'm not the only one here who read the first few years of Stereophile and The Absolute Sound when they came out, but few of you are posting as if you did. Whether or not you agreed with their opinions and conclusions, they are largely responsible for the birth and progression of high-end audio.
I'm sure I'm not the only one here who read the first few years of Stereophile and The Absolute Sound when they came out, but few of you are posting as if you did. Whether or not you agreed with their opinions and conclusions, they are largely responsible for the birth and progression of high-end audio.
An interesting, but vey hard question that would need a separate thread. Cables do not modify the signal permanently. If we make a recording inserting a Nordost Odin signal cable in the chain we do not get an Nordost Odin in our system - I once tried it for fun ... IMHO cables do not filter, they mask or enhance low level information during playback.
This is not about the scientific definition of black, but about what the visual analogy of "black" suggests. And in the context of audio, it's not good.
They may be largely responsible for the terminology, but I do not consider them gurus nor do I bow to them.
The fact that we cannot agree on "black background" demonstrates that the term is useless and needs to be dropped -- permanently.
Screw the community of "high end authorities", I don't accept them as such.
Why should posters here get to decide "black" means something other than its widely accepted definition?
Who said anything about "high end authorities"? If you actually read the post I quoted, I merely stated that those 2 magazines are generally acknowledged to be responsible for the growth and development of high-end audio, which is true regardless of whether or not you agree with them or accept them as "authorities".
So much miscommunication in this thread, which as I said is a bit baffling.
Yes, but in pure audiophile spirit, this is "natural"
Last edited:
The use of "black background" as a high end term is not according to a "widely accepted definition". The discussion on WBF on this and other threads shows that it is far from that. It is a term that does not encourage constructive discussion but only causes widespread disagreement. Thus, it is entirely useless and should be dropped. I will certainly refuse to accept its continued use, and so will many others.
No matter what‘s said in this definition bloodbath, “black background “ will always mean the same thing I’ve been using to judge my systems for decades.
I don't much follow many audiophile threads these days, so I may have missed this change of definition. I'm not so sure about "widespread disagreement" outside of this thread and a few dedicated malcontents who seem to want it to mean something it is not
This whole discussion may have been initiated by me because the topic of this thread is the natural sound of my new system. I don’t hear black backgrounds.
I think we can all move on from this now. Everyone has made his case and there remains widespread disagreement.
I would appreciate it if we got back to the topic of the thread which is my new system if that is of any interest to anyone. We could also just move on and reconvene when there is something new to discuss.
I think we can all move on from this now. Everyone has made his case and there remains widespread disagreement.
I would appreciate it if we got back to the topic of the thread which is my new system if that is of any interest to anyone. We could also just move on and reconvene when there is something new to discuss.
Last edited:
Well, surely it is not used by the very few who disagreed vehemently on its use, but I can't see where you get the moral authority from this thread to say it is useless and should be dropped.
Besides the use by reviwers, many other posters also have used it in WBF in tens of excellent posts along a decade. Just because a small group feels uncomfortable with it I do not see any reason to drop it.
I agree we should stop the debate here and move the discussion away from your thread.
That's an amazing journey in the pursuit of excellent audio reproduction. After reading through it again I don't recall any mention of anything ever being measured during this process. This was all done through listening rather than checking frequency response or reverb times. No REW was used in this process. Is that true?
Totally true, Tim. Ears only, just as I think the gear was designed. Well, I understand the Lamm gear is designed by measurements, but they are based on correlation to many many listening test results. @ddk could confirm.
The experiments beginning two years ago were only based on listening and that led to the trip to Utah.
Last edited:
Similar threads
