Well put Ron.
Incidentally, although may be not quite "vintage", my Garrard 301 must be older than me as it was produced until 1965. I think the production dates of the SP10mk3 and MS 8000mk2 are somewhat later though.
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Incidentally, although may be not quite "vintage", my Garrard 301 must be older than me as it was produced until 1965. I think the production dates of the SP10mk3 and MS 8000mk2 are somewhat later though.
Funny, for the longest time I was known in our Boston audio group as the guy with the "vintage gear" (from the Nineties that is). Now none of my components are vintage, real or pretend. The oldest component I think is my CD transport, from 2014. Everything else is 2017/2018 or newer.
Do I have "natural sound"? Visitors can decide for themselves, I know my answer.
Do I have "natural sound"? Visitors can decide for themselves, I know my answer.
1) Where did Peter say that other peoples' systems don't result in "natural sound" as perceived by the owners of those systems?
2) Peter has listed attributes he perceives and which, together, form the basis of his philosophy of natural sound. You may have a list of attributes you perceive which, together, form the basis of your own philosophy of natural sound. Each of you may call your own philosophy "natural sound" and a jury of our peers might find those systems to sound dissimilar.
Is the solution here to point out something as simple as that in a subjective hobby "natural sound" can mean different things (sound like different things) to different people?
Seems to be an overdose of attitude towards Peter, alluding that he is saying, 'if you're not with me, you are against me' which is, of course, patently not true. We can all have vastly different systems and rooms and all have natural sound. Peter is merely describing how he achieved his as far as I can see.
Last edited:
Hey Ron - you're back! Hope you enjoyed your tropical getaway with the missus.
I agree that Peter's list of attributes and listening experiences (name it what you will) reflect and identify his personal choices based on his listening at Davids. It is important that he wrote them down.
If one understands the approach to system building that yields natural sounding reproduction, grounded in the use of live acoustic music as a guide, then the phrase "natural sound" may be all that is needed to encapsulate that paradigm. The ability to communicate via a list or cogent description is more important than the name it is given but having some representative name is also important. David has been talking about natural sound long before many of us heard from him; I gather Peter naming his new system thread Natural Sound is as much a tribute to David as it is Peter's description of his new system.
The activity surrounding the whole natural sound affair taking place in a variety of threads at WBF over the past few years is movement towards the codification and clarification of an idea, a listening experience, and the language we use to talk about those.
Ostensive definition is simple: sit here and listen, first in the concert hall and then in the audio room. with a naturally sounding system. Do that 10-20 or however many times work for you and the notion of natural sound may become obvious. Yet talk about both experiences in an audio forum where ostensive definition is not at hand and years may pass.
We are at the interface between reality (live music) and reproduction (stereo listening) and as we try to communicate our experiences with each other it should be obvious how very difficult that is to do with words. I appreciate the efforts of anyone, including Peter, who attempts such. Describing the sonics associated to a live music experience is hard, but if you can do some of that you'll gain the background to describe the sound from your own stereo and find where the latter does and does not approach the former.
The tendency has been to say "I don't hear that in the concert hall" Black backgrounds, pin-point imaging, etc. Sometimes looking the other way - from concert hall to stereo - may prove insightful.
Absent a reference nothing grounds your view in terms of description, improvement and assessment. If you do have an approach that can be communicated, words still matter. If one has their own ground their own basis for sytem creation and enjoyment (synthesism) then state it clearly. Maybe this is why we see complaints about natural sound - one doesn't need have a guide or well understood set of communicable listening preferences to complain. Maybe this is why people do not communicate approaches that lead somewhere desirable that is not, or is different from, natural sounding. (Maybe it is sufficient for some to take their audio goals from magazines.)
If you have or believe in an approach that does not lead to a natural sounding system, lay it out. If your notion of natural sound is not based on a reference to live acoustic music, what is it based on? Lay it out. Rather than argue with someone complaining about the notion of natural sound, challenge them to make a positive contribution by describing the destination of their own audio journey and how to get there. If your goals are essentially the same as those propounding a natural sound approach then elaborate.
Some think the discussion goes nowhere. Some don't have the patience. It's easy to play devil's advocate without a framework or developed set of priorities.
Go to a concert - how about Shostakovich's Leningrad Symphony (#7) that is playing in the background as I type - then give us a full single-spaced page about what you heard. Then do that in your audio room - Bernstein is a good choice - describing the sonic differences between the two performances. Do that 10-20 times until you are confident you can generalize a core set of values or attributes that apply across the listening sessions.
How well does a sonic description from your listening room work for the live performance? What attrilbutes from a live performance correspond to what you believe is natural sound from your stereo? Or use the points in Peter's list as a starter. Ron you said those are not an objective compass, perhaps not objective but they may serve as compass until one comes to his own directions. Use those to make a list. Compare your list with 5 of your audio brothers to arrive at a shared set of attributes about the similarities and differences between live and reproduced and what is needed to bring the latter closer to the former.
Then publish that - heh heh - and see what responses you get.
We hear from some how Pearson, Holt and other early writers misled their readers. Peter eschews audiophile glossaries. Listening is a private singular activity. Yet, this and other forums and Webzines and yes, magazines, show that audiophiles like to communicate with one another. Words matter to understanding and learning. How comfortable are we with the safe position of 'everything is preference', 'everything is subjective'? Your own choices are not subjective to yourself.
Some want to learn. Some want advice on gear and music. Imo, the natural sound affair is helping to re-evaluate a vocabulary mis-trusted (by some) or improve or enlarge the audiophile vocabulary. There is value in being able to describe what you hear and what you want from your stereo. Vocabulary influences preferences and choices and purchases. As we've seen from early TAS, HP influenced manufacturers over what they made and dealers over what they sold. All he had was words - and a bunch of gear sent to him for review.
Last edited:
Tim, I greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments. In comparison I’m an intellectually lazy SOB. Many in this hobby use live, unamplified music as a reference. I guess I’m not in that camp at all. I love to hear live music, but chamber music — just shoot me already. Classical — for years I’ve tried to like classical music. I can appreciate some large scale and powerful compositions, but for the most part I sure don’t seek out classical music. Jazz — even the jazz I hear often has an amplifier on some instrument. I don’t like crowds of people, so seldom attend big concerts unless, maybe, summer concerts outdoors at the winery. Those are always amplified, and accompanied by noisy people. When comes down to it, I listen to recorded music 99% of the time. As Van Morrison described his music “jazz, blues, and funk” I add good ol’ rock-n-roll.
My close audio buddies, I think, are similar. We all enjoy well recorded music, across a large variety of genre, including “world” music. Many in the Portland Audio Club are classical lovers (the ol’ geezers — no, wait, I’m an ol geezer) so I always ensure to have some classical vinyl to play when I host a meetup. A very long way of saying I don’t really know what the hell my reference is. I don’t think I am alone in this. But years of listening to improved levels of gear certainly has shown me differences in quality of playback. And listening to my friends systems shows how hard it can be to assemble a system that “works”, particularly given room conditions, sizes, shapes. I feel blessed to have at least once created a pretty damn good sounding system, and many times I was told “don’t F with it, what more do you want?” (I am just about finished selling off the amps and speakers, so lets see if I can do it again.)
I empathize with those who struggle to wrap up their goals into as encompassing term as “natural sound”. Peter does lay out some bullet points, and I think (it seems from the many posts others agree) for the most part we all strive to create that sound from our systems. What is most interesting to me is Peters reductionist approach where many of us are in the additive mode and this might be where things get awkward. (Reductionist to the extent of removing this and that to the point of throwing the whole thing out and starting a new additive mode — thick stainless steel is surely a tweek.)
I am certain many would love to have a system like Peter’s before his “come to Jesus“ epiphany. No doubt his new system sounds different from his prior system, and clearly he loves this sound as well as the aesthetics it allows in his Boston home. And there’s the rub—the move from one sound pre-natural to the new “natural” is very difficult to put to words to and needs to be experienced. Lamm & vintage horns way different from Pass & Magico.
So if one‘s reference is classical concerts or chamber music, it might be easy to say “ there, that change I made, that made my system sound more like my reference” and if someone else shares that reference it might make sense. But lacking the common reference saying it made my system sound more natural is not descriptive enough. I pulled my fancy cables and added some slave labor cheap Chinese cables, and the sound of my system changed by a), b), and c). This is where “natural sound” is overly simplified. It is where the audio glossary of terms come into play. I don’t think reviewers would have much if a career if they could just get by with “I added component X and it was more natural than Y.” If we all had the same reference perhaps.
And I’ll voice my own pieve wrt the term... it connotes a value judgement that I think might be what gets under some peoples skin. “My system sounds natural” has a slight inference that “your’s doesn’t — I know, I had a system like yours”. I don’t believe for a minute that is Peter’s intent, but I can see how it could be interpreted.
Great post Bob. You articulate your thoughts quite clearly. Regarding the final paragraph, you are correct that it is not my intent to pass judgment and say one system is better than another system, or mine is better than yours.
I actually thought my former SME/Pass/Magico system was sounding pretty natural after the year and a half of set up changes. I was very satisfied with that system and enjoyed it very much.
However, once I started down the path to natural sound, I wanted to explore how to take it further and that is why I asked David if he could find a Micro Seiki turntable. That led to the visit to Utah and the exposure to how the SET amps and horn speakers present the music differently. Some seem to of forgotten that I listened to my actual turntable with the same arm and Colibri cartridge and the LAMM gear and Vitavox speakers all set up in David’s house. I had a clear indication of what the system might sound like in my room.
I got the former system to sound pretty well balanced where little was sticking out. But after Utah I realized the resolution was not as high and the sound was not as open free and dynamic.
These are simply matters of degree and my old equipment went to very happy new owners. I simply wanted to take my system further in the direction that started two years ago. And in that sense it is not very different from the quest or intentions that anyone else has.
In the end I agree with those who say we are more or less after the same thing, and that is to enjoy our systems. Our preferences may differ slightly or a lot, but that is fine.
I am not saying this is the one and only approach and that everyone should follow it. Far from that. My interest in starting this thread was simply to describe and share with other members what I am doing. It was also to recognize the influence David Karmeli has had on my learning about Audio.
There’s nothing wrong with not enjoying classical music or chamber music or even live music. People can do whatever they want and enjoy the hobby however they want. I really appreciate the candor with which you expressed your thoughts in that post.
Last edited:
Bob, really good post. I agree with everything you said.
We live in a world (for a while now) of trying to communicate complex concepts and thoughts via a written forum. This thread would have flowed very differently had we all been sitting in a room together.
That said, the approach is fine. No one can say the thread wasn't entertaining. It had Comedy, action, music, drama. You want to start a thread, do it like this.
How many remember Bill left Focals (similar to Magicos) for horns overnight? Or how many remember byrdparis sold Magico M3 for horns Universum over a year ago? Or even know that Caelin moved from Sasha to devores ? People will remember Peter's thread much longer
How many remember Bill left Focals (similar to Magicos) for horns overnight? Or how many remember byrdparis sold Magico M3 for horns Universum over a year ago? Or even know that Caelin moved from Sasha to devores ? People will remember Peter's thread much longer
Last edited:
I would love to read the stories behind these changes. My change was more than speakers. Right now, the only thing common to the old system and this system are the five Ching Cheng power cords, one tonearm, but two different NOS SME 3012Rs with phono cables, and a modified vdH Colibri cartridge. Even the racks and amp platforms will be different.
Bonz, I bet you did not think I would have SET/horns before you had an actual system to listen to.
Peter, Bill went to visit the general to pick up a phono someone had left for him there, accidentally heard the system, and realized what he had been missing. He hadn't heard proper horns till then except in hifi shows (and he did respect the trios even then). He did melt on the WEs but those are not gettable. Of course when he went in it was all in overnight, selling the whole system and going mad. He is now building a new horn every day. Byrdparis was looking for a change. One of his neighbors does have trios so he had partial exposure. He has many videos up. Caelin started slowly but since has been experimenting with SETs and other stuff for a while, also had the Volti horn (don't know how that sounds). There are of course many apogee converts (one of the best SS speaker combos) to SETs horns on the forum though I consider apogees natural, not Focal/Magico.
Bonz, I bet you did not think I would have SET/horns before you had an actual system to listen to.
Actually, I have a few posts predicting you buying SETs horns. Here is an example
Actually, I have a few posts predicting you buying SETs horns. Here is an example
Yes and there were posts predicting that you would have a system too when you started writing about what you were going to buy and the shortlist gathered from all of your audio travels.
it’s all in good fun. I’m just teasing. Thank you for your role in encouraging me to get exposed to more alternatives.
While you of course are not required to have live, unamplified music as Your reference that doesn’t change the fact that it is THE reference. If your system can reproduce this convincingly then it should be good for the other music you like that doesn’t fit in that category.
If you have no reference, you will be forever changing Gear as your mood, your hearing etc. changes . Any way the wind blows...
As I think more about it, I might have more of an idea of Peter's "natural" than I've considered before. It was my trip to visit Bob @ Rhapsody a couple years back where I first was exposed to the Diesis Roma. I've said before my Wilson's, in comparison, seemed to have to work awfully damn hard to get the sound out. Effortless, ease, and flow were terms I used describing the Diesis. My Alexia sounded good with my REF75, but moving to the REF160M improved things dramatically. Wilson's are happy to be fed generous power. Magico, being sealed, doesn't come alive (IMHO) until you pour on the gas and light it. If you give them the juice, you can get 'em to wake up and perform.
Compared to a horn though? Just a touch on the throttle is all it takes, and the presentation is so very different. Effortless. Ease & flow.
Maybe it was just horns Peter needed to change religion Would be curious if adding back his spanky power cords "synthesized" the sound?
Peter, did you try your Pass amps with the horns, or were they gone already?
Compared to a horn though? Just a touch on the throttle is all it takes, and the presentation is so very different. Effortless. Ease & flow.
Maybe it was just horns Peter needed to change religion
Would be curious if adding back his spanky power cords "synthesized" the sound?Peter, did you try your Pass amps with the horns, or were they gone already?
Not sure I agree with that. Perhaps if you listen to primarily to that kind of music. Why should I consider a violin to be a reference if I seldom listen to one? I don't know a perfectly strung violin from one less so. Some folks have an uncanny ear for tone and timbre—I'm probably not one of them. I've hired out speaker setup before, because the fellow who has done it has the uncanny ear, he can notice the slightest shifts in tone. Maybe he's my reference?
Many audiophiles have limited, frequent exposure to live unamplified music. I heard my brother play the guitars he built for years, but its been a long time since I heard a live guitar in my home. I'm just not exposed to it often enough, or trust my aural memory enough, to consider it a valid reference for me. Jazz I hear at the local restaurant is often amped in some fashion, does that mean it can't be a reference?
I've heard enough variety of system now to know great from good to average. Seldom do I hear a system that truly sucks, but can recognize weaknesses and omissions. I have a good idea what I like, and changing gear is, for me, about improving on that as I am exposed to pieces that can.
I'm about to begin my post-graduate work in this hobby. New kit and three pairs of speakers will be quite an education. I hope I don't flunk.
For rock I loved apogees (haven't heard the Alsyvox)
The Apogees were then beaten at their strength by dual woofer FLH, without the FLH losing any magic of SETs horns for jazz and classical.
Plenty of horn rock videos here including vintage https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/rock-and-drum-videos-thread.31170/#post-666436
This indicates you listen sensibly. Wilsons do need a lot of power and Magico you need to light it. Many people, whether exposed to live or not, are biased, e.g. valves will work on anything. 95% of the systems are underpowered. Lack of (low) bias is more important than exposure to live in this hobby.
Compared to a horn though? Just a touch on the throttle is all it takes, and the presentation is so very different. Effortless. Ease & flow.
Maybe it was just horns Peter needed to change religion
Peter, did you try your Pass amps with the horns, or were they gone already?
Bob, I agree about the effortlessness, ease, and flow, of good horns. I was thinking about this and an analogy that comes to mind for those few on the site who are into sailing, is the ML2/Vitavox combination is like dinghy or small boat sailing while the Pass/Magico combo is more like big boat sailing. The small dingies have tillers and are extremely responsive. One has a direct feel for the water waves and wind. Larger boat sailing or cruising involves heavy boats with keels and steering wheels. This combination is much less responsive to sudden changes in wind speed and direction and more cumbersome to maneuver. It takes more effort there is less ease, but there can be flow.
The audiophile power cords are long gone. Someone actually contacted me yesterday to see if I still had any for sale. My guess is that because the system has higher resolution, the power cords would sound even worse and their heightened accents would be extremely spotlight.
I never tried the Pass amplifiers with the corner horn speakers. The buyer for the amplifiers actually showed up at my house to pick them up the day the new speaker crates were delivered so you can imagine there was a lot of confusion here that morning.
I did try the SET amps with the Magicos before the horns arrived. The combination sounded good but it was under powered and a bit soft. But I did get an indication of the magic of these ML2s.
Last edited:
Perhaps so. OTOH, WBF used to demonstrate open-mindedness along with critical thinking and listening, and all those characteristics appear to have fallen by the wayside
Similar threads
