Natural Sound

[Lampie519]

I went to a live perfomance of The Prodigy in 2009, not sure if i like to have that experience in my room....So i prefer the recordings they made for me.... and then it is even better then live...

if you are into this kind of music that is...

 

[morricab]

Personally, I want my stereo to sound good. Whether it sounds like a live event (whatever that sounds like) or not is irrelevant. The better it sounds then the happier I am, but as long as it isn’t distorted then I can live with it. Even listening to the cable TV music channels with my soundbar will make me smile.

I achieved that decades ago...if that was my goal in this hobby I could have ticked the box and spent money on something else.

 

[microstrip]

Fransisco, I have no idea what any of this has to do with the sound of my system. In the end I simply want a violin to sound like a violin and not like something more. Others have different goals. And those goals can be discussed elsewhere.

It explains a lot about your preference and others preferences.

Anyway the only reason there is discussion is that you systematically misrepresent other people goals in your thread. They also want a violin to sound like a violin.

 

[microstrip]

This is part of the reason why records before this era was the golden period. This record wasn't. The two paras you posted say how they were changing recordings for the worse. The golden era is max till early 60s. Solti is 1968. The recording is not considered the best of the best as you claim, and this is also reflected in the price.

I do like the Solti version, it is very good but it is no example of the Decca etc masterpieces. I know your intention was to say the golden era was heavily manipulated, but thanks for unintentionally posting an example to further show you don't know what recordings that era refers to, and for cut pasting a Wikipedia quote that provides part of the reason for the decline.

Also, do you have any further Google quotes to prove digital, and modern era cone speakers are better than horns, vintage and analog? Search harder. You got real close this time, till 1968.

You opinion, that is god to know. But my post was clear - I did not address the Silver, Golden or Platinum era - I simply said "These are great recordings - some people consider them as the best of the best." Sorry, but my post was answering Morricab post and Peter views, not your particular preferences.

For recordings my sources are well known books and magazines. I use advanced google in searches as I do not live in the Stone Age or the Golden Era and it saves me a lot of typing when quoting, and it has the large advantage that people can also read the texts in full context if they want.

 

[PeterA]

That’s interesting because I want mine to sound real. What is more natural than hearing something that you can equate to a living breathing performance? If the recording is limited then of course the degre to which this is achievable is limited.

Brad, We are saying the same thing. I am just not limiting it to that live jazz club sound with clapping and glasses clanking. The goal is sounding real. I call that natural: the orchestra in the concert hall and the quartet in the chamber or small stage.

 

[PeterA]

It explains a lot about your preference and others preferences.

Anyway the only reason there is discussion is that you systematically misrepresent other people goals in your thread. They also want a violin to sound like a violin.

Yes Fransisco. People want violins to sound like violins. However, You are constantly quoting others to polute this thread with off topic content. You quote modern engineers who enhance the recording to add the excitement (fireworks) and visuals that are not on the simple recording.

I prefer the simpler recordings. But you changed the topic as usual away from my goal of a natural sounding system to quoting people about the recordings they make and why.

People like Reference Recordings and others for the “sound”: wait, listen to the bells”. I am asking you to discuss that stuff in your own thread or elsewhere. Just not here.

What is it about SET and Lamm in particular, or these beyond turntables or corner horns when in combination and well set up with certain cables and cords can sound so natural and convincing?

 

[Mikem53]

In the end I simply want a violin to sound like a violin and not like something more. Others have different goals. And those goals can be discussed elsewhere.

Peter…. Appreciate you documenting your experiences and sharing your thoughts on the sound you have been seeking. I see your audio journey as a “natural” evolution of what many aspire to after being in the high end of audio for some time. It brought about an awareness in my listening sessions that have me thinking differently about attributes I’ve dismissed over the years.
I also enjoy those who chimed in with their take and tangents on the subject. I once again have new music titles and labels to seek out, Thank you Ked and others once again.
Even the arguments have been beneficial in some way. While I don’t agree with all that’s said, it’s still is educational and enjoyable. I also have a good belly laugh from some of the sarcasm and wit being displayed , which makes the reading even more “fun”.
You also have a great flare when it comes to interjecting your other tasteful hobbies and artful photo captures. Much appreciated as it’s quite time consuming I’m sure.
I look forward to your next chapter and future thoughts. Now…. Back to the show !

 

[microstrip]

Wrong Fransisco. You are constantly quoting others to polute this thread with off topic content. You quote modern engineers who enhance the recording to add the excitement (fireworks) and visuals that are not on the simple recording.

I prefer the simpler recordings. But you changed the topic as usual away from my goal of a natural sounding system to quoting people about the recordings they make and why.

So, you dislike the Decca John Culshaw recordings? Is he a "modern engineer"?
Sorry, IMHO we need to debate the recordings to understand better the "Natural Sound".

People like Reference Recordings and others for the “sound”: wait, listen to the bells”. I am asking you to discuss that stuff in your own thread or elsewhere. Just not here.

No one is addressing the Reference Recordings in your thread. Anyway, they are a well known case, many people in WBF enjoy them and surely for the music, not for the "bells". IMHO this is a very unkind comment. We had threads on them in WBF and people were very enthusiastic on them, even on the tapes.

What is it about SET and Lamm in particular, or these beyond turntables or corner horns when in combination and well set up with certain cables and cords can sound so natural and convincing?

Lamm's can sound very convincing, no doubt. But IMHO they do not need such particular systems to sound so.

 

[PeterA]

Thank you Mike. Some of my favorite threads on this forum are personal system threads. Marty just started one about his new speakers and Al M recently started one about Vlad’s system.

 

[rbbert]

Rbbert I think many will agree that historically "HiFi" is shorthand for "high fidelity". As far as the opposite of what it means, you are invited to share your views.

When responding to someone else you may want to consider what they said as much as what you want to say in response. Your response to my comment appears to ignore the context I set for it, viz. "As used in this thread...". I was describing how I saw the phrase "HiFi" - used in this thread - as describing reproduced sound (stereo system sound) that comes from a system who's construction was not guided by reference to live acoustic music.

(Remainder of quotes in post deleted for clarity)

I have followed both threads without reading every single post in detail, but I am sure I understand what is going on. What you and many other posters (including the thread starter) apparently fail to understand is that the vast majority (perhaps all or nearly all) of posters and members here have the same goal, which is "high fidelity" (realism) to the sound of music as they perceive it. The point has been made by me and others that "natural sound" is a totally artificial terminology and does not even begin to describe what might be different about PeterA and ddk's approach to system building, just as "HiFi" as you want it to be used probably does not describe anyone else's approach (at least as far as members here). To claim otherwise is quite insulting to the membership here and can easily lead to retaliatory insults.

 

[Ultrafast69]

Interesting and comprehensive narrative on a big endeavor. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Bobvin]

I have followed both threads without reading every single post in detail, but I am sure I understand what is going on. What you and many other posters (including the thread starter) apparently fail to understand is that the vast majority (perhaps all or nearly all) of posters and members here have the same goal, which is "high fidelity" (realism) to the sound of music as they perceive it. The point has been made by me and others that "natural sound" is a totally artificial terminology and does not even begin to describe what might be different about PeterA and ddk's approach to system building, just as "HiFi" as you want it to be used probably does not describe anyone else's approach (at least as far as members here). To claim otherwise is quite insulting to the membership here and can easily lead to retaliatory insults.

rbbert, if you’ve read these threads you already know there are many of us who find the term “natural” to be much too loosely defined to be of much value. And the “you know it when you hear it“ definition is of little help. But this has already been discussed multiple times so rehashing it won’t clear it up.

With my room nearly empty selling off my rig and waiting for delivery of all new kit, I am strongly considering hiring a couple musicians to perform in my room. A brief concert if you will for myself and a couple audio buddies. I’d love to hear a guitar, a sax, and a bowed instrument. I know a restaurant owner who regularly books jazz artists, so this could happen. I can’t imagine a more true reference. Of course, my room is a treated space, so there will be those who say its not “natural” sounding!

 

[PeterA]

I have followed both threads without reading every single post in detail, but I am sure I understand what is going on. What you and many other posters (including the thread starter) apparently fail to understand is that the vast majority (perhaps all or nearly all) of posters and members here have the same goal, which is "high fidelity" (realism) to the sound of music as they perceive it. The point has been made by me and others that "natural sound" is a totally artificial terminology and does not even begin to describe what might be different about PeterA and ddk's approach to system building, just as "HiFi" as you want it to be used probably does not describe anyone else's approach (at least as far as members here). To claim otherwise is quite insulting to the membership here and can easily lead to retaliatory insults.

rddert, Could you start your own thread in which you describe your system and how you go about achieving “high Fidelity”? And could you please defined the term as you and nearly all others define it so that we can understand you you were approach? I just find fairly precisely when I think of his “natural sound“. It is in the first group of posts on this thread. The characteristics and I heard in common in all of ddk’s systems share those characteristics. Most other systems I’ve heard sound different to me, which is not why I do not consider them to sound natural. Perhaps the biggest defining characteristic of a non-natural sounding system is a lack of balance and a spotlighting of certain sonic attributes.

You are free to continue to disagree with my definitions and my approach to my system, but it is not getting us anywhere.

 

[Steve williams]

Man. I feel for Peter who has found Valhalla with a trek to Cedar City and came away (as did I ) understanding completely the philosophy of ddk

When I spent a week there, David's mantra was "above all else it must sound natural" and at the end of the week I understood what David meant when he says, "it sounds 'hifi" where there is clearly an exaggeration of some part of the music rather than a top to bottom feeling where "nothing"stands out

As a result I tend to disagree with the following statement by rbbert

The point has been made by me and others that "natural sound" is a totally artificial terminology and does not even begin to describe what might be different about PeterA and ddk's approach to system building, just as "HiFi" as you want it to be used probably does not describe anyone else's approach (at least as far as members here). To claim otherwise is quite insulting to the membership here and can easily lead to retaliatory insults.

I remember vividly the point David was trying to make is that when someone says, "you have to hear what I did to my system, because the bass now is so much more pronounced" or you have to hear the top end of my system as it ..........etc etc. David's point is that if he is directed to listen for certain attributes that stand out in a system rather than "nothing" standing out, he lost the engagement he gets when nothing stands out and he calls this "hifi" (rightly or wrongly)

I find it sad to read all of the arguments directed at Peter when I understand exactly where he is headed. Kudos to you Peter for standing fast and calling attention to your new found sonic beliefs

A member's personal blog IMO is a means by which the member can memorialize changes in a system and why it was done and what he hears...In this case "nothing exaggerated" leads to "natural sound"

The amount of extraneous noise and fighting in a thread (which IMO is well intentioned to provide Peter's new found philosophy about so many issues other than his system I find also to be distracting and in many posts, I read, to be in poor taste

To rbbert , microstrip and others who find it difficult to wrap their heads around this concept and to call it insulting might have their beliefs changed if they take the trip to Cedar City

David is such a great host and has such a great system that it becomes very easy to understand his meaning of "natural" and "hifi" It is merely his way of differentiating as we all have systems in our house that we all tune, albeit in different ways. I suggest David consider having an annual event at his house where we can all sit and listen to his system as we pass the kumbaya stone". It's not often when one can hear speakers such as the Bionor which IIRC has a sensitivity of 112 Db

So let's stop the nitpicking and screaming about music and different eras and which version is best. A member's personal blog should have discourse limited just to the topic at hand rather than going off in all of the tangents I have seen here

@rbbert....you really should spend a few days there.....you might truly learn something new because once you her it and understand it, you can't unheard it

I applaud Peter for starting this thread and hanging in there as he took all of the heat but took his time to reiterate his new found sonic philosophy.

I'm sure that most of us here have either heard or now own David's famous CC Power cords which used to sell for under $10. This was a simple experiment for me. I have about 9 CC PC's in my system and they are keepers. Bottom line to David's philosophy is "less is more"

Clearly the terms "blackness and black background" have different meanings to all of us but in the world of natural a black background is void of ambient sound as well as all of the clues that provide a sense of presence

So once again, kudos to you Peter for your time taken to show us your new system and what your new beliefs have become as a result. Your tenacity is to be complimented.

 

[ddk]

I have followed both threads without reading every single post in detail, but I am sure I understand what is going on. What you and many other posters (including the thread starter) apparently fail to understand is that the vast majority (perhaps all or nearly all) of posters and members here have the same goal, which is "high fidelity" (realism) to the sound of music as they perceive it.

As "they perceive it "is a cop out. There can't be a common goal or any type of majority when individuals do not have the same understanding of the topic and have moving targets for their destination. Hifi can be short for high fidelity and also have a negative connotation like electronic, fake, colored, etc. sound context determines the meaning. I'm sure you're fully aware of it.

The point has been made by me and others that "natural sound" is a totally artificial terminology and does not even begin to describe what might be different about PeterA and ddk's approach to system building, just as "HiFi" as you want it to be used probably does not describe anyone else's approach (at least as far as members here).

"Natural" in any context is the opposite of artificial, I use the term because it best explains my values for a high end system as it does Peter's, it's not for you to define them. You don't even know how many members the site has yet you decide what everyone wants?

To claim otherwise is quite insulting to the membership here and can easily lead to retaliatory insults.

People who have interest in a topic use their intelligence to understand the topic and contribute. Others with a personal grudge or simply out of envy, malice and pettiness tend to torpedo threads like this. This comment of yours is clear about where you stand!

david

 

[bonzo75]

Natural sound can be lo fi or hifi. Hifi sound can be natural or unnatural

One should move from lo fi to hifi on natural axis

take SPU and vdh for example. SPU lower fidelity, vdh higher, both natural. Bad digital is hifi but artificial.

Of the speakers I like, tannoy are mid fi. But very naturally musical. Stats, panels, high fi and natural. The horns I like have very high fidelity. My favorite drivers are Radian and tad beryllium and AER which have very high resolution and nuance, but the beryllium drivers when set up not well are artificial, they have to be set up right to get a natural sound Paper drivers are usually natural. Altec less fidelity than TAD /radian more than tannoy.

 

[ddk]

Man. I feel for Peter who has found Valhalla with a trek to Cedar City and came away (as did I ) understanding completely the philosophy of ddk

When I spent a week there, David's mantra was "above all else it must sound natural" and at the end of the week I understood what David meant when he says, "it sounds 'hifi" where there is clearly an exaggeration of some part of the music rather than a top to bottom feeling where "nothing"stands out

As a result I tend to disagree with the following statement by rbbert



I remember vividly the point David was trying to make is that when someone says, "you have to hear what I did to my system, because the bass now is so much more pronounced" or you have to hear the top end of my system as it ..........etc etc. David's point is that if he is directed to listen for certain attributes that stand out in a system rather than "nothing" standing out, he lost the engagement he gets when nothing stands out and he calls this "hifi" (rightly or wrongly)

I find it sad to read all of the arguments directed at Peter when I understand exactly where he is headed. Kudos to you Peter for standing fast and calling attention to your new found sonic beliefs

A member's personal blog IMO is a means by which the member can memorialize changes in a system and why it was done and what he hears...In this case "nothing exaggerated" leads to "natural sound"

The amount of extraneous noise and fighting in a thread (which IMO is well intentioned to provide Peter's new found philosophy about so many issues other than his system I find also to be distracting and in many posts, I read, to be in poor taste

To rbbert , microstrip and others who find it difficult to wrap their heads around this concept and to call it insulting might have their beliefs changed if they take the trip to Cedar City

David is such a great host and has such a great system that it becomes very easy to understand his meaning of "natural" and "hifi" It is merely his way of differentiating as we all have systems in our house that we all tune, albeit in different ways. I suggest David consider having an annual event at his house where we can all sit and listen to his system as we pass the kumbaya stone". It's not often when one can hear speakers such as the Bionor which IIRC has a sensitivity of 112 Db

So let's stop the nitpicking and screaming about music and different eras and which version is best. A member's personal blog should have discourse limited just to the topic at hand rather than going off in all of the tangents I have seen here

@rbbert....you really should spend a few days there.....you might truly learn something new because once you her it and understand it, you can't unheard it

I applaud Peter for starting this thread and hanging in there as he took all of the heat but took his time to reiterate his new found sonic philosophy.

I'm sure that most of us here have either heard or now own David's famous CC Power cords which used to sell for under $10. This was a simple experiment for me. I have about 9 CC PC's in my system and they are keepers. Bottom line to David's philosophy is "less is more"

Clearly the terms "blackness and black background" have different meanings to all of us but in the world of natural a black background is void of ambient sound as well as all of the clues that provide a sense of presence

So once again, kudos to you Peter for your time taken to show us your new system and what your new beliefs have become as a result. Your tenacity is to be complimented.

Thank you Steve, your friendship means a lot to me!
I've had plenty of exchanges with @rbbert I'm certain he has no intention of visiting nor is he welcome.

david

 

[rbbert]

Why not name the thread "LP/high power SET/horn Sound", which would be more accurate as well as giving readers a starting point to understand the goals of the system. I know that not all systems with that description will sound the same, and will certainly sound less euphonically distorted than a low power SET/horn system (which perhaps paradoxically often have digital as the primary source.)

 

[KeithR]

rddert, Could you start your own thread in which you describe your system and how you go about achieving “high Fidelity”? And could you please defined the term as you and nearly all others define it so that we can understand you you were approach? I just find fairly precisely when I think of his “natural sound“. It is in the first group of posts on this thread. The characteristics and I heard in common in all of ddk’s systems share those characteristics. Most other systems I’ve heard sound different to me, which is not why I do not consider them to sound natural. Perhaps the biggest defining characteristic of a non-natural sounding system is a lack of balance and a spotlighting of certain sonic attributes.

You are free to continue to disagree with my definitions and my approach to my system, but it is not getting us anywhere.

sure, but you never ventured to hear many other systems outside of Goodwins, particularly in the high efficiency/low power space. i did find it amusing after 20 years of Pass that you dumped it all in a few weeks and the Magicos in less than a week. this after spending loads of time on your other thread trying to convince us on positioning, toe-in(!), Ching Chengs, ditching room treatments, outlets, and all the other stuff that were part of the "natural sound conversion." basically in the end your speaker/amp changed.

"natural sound" is just a synonym for "sound I prefer" in your lexicon, that's all. and there's nothing wrong with that. but I mean, you've never heard Carly White live unamplified right? our hifi systems are always a reproduction so we can't by definition always have live references. it's a subjective hobby at its core. I've struggled with this as well (Johnny Cash tonality).

it will be interesting to see how the vintage horn journey goes over the next year and i look forward to hearing more about it.

 

[Bobvin]

Steve, Peter, Dave... reading what y’all have said on this topic (many times) has convinced me a trip to David’s place needs to be in my schedule at some point. And as I’ve said, there is some reluctance. Red pill, Blue pill. There will likely be consequences!