Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
1. Is exposure to live
2. Is exposure to gear. There might be a disconnect between 1 and 2
3. Musical preference. I find those who like classical have preferences that align closely to mine, provided we both know similar gear, even if they don't have 1. For example tang doesn't do 1, but now that he is into classical he has similar preferences. Gian has a lot of exposure to gear but his music preference is different, though he is very aligned to understanding what I would prefer and what he would differently.
4. The thing is, what people buy might have nothing to do with any of the above. Some buy just because.
5. What people post might have nothing to do with what they buy or research. I have met some eager posters who were quite laid back In reality about audio if you met them at home.
6. Lack of (low) bias
2. Is exposure to gear. There might be a disconnect between 1 and 2
3. Musical preference. I find those who like classical have preferences that align closely to mine, provided we both know similar gear, even if they don't have 1. For example tang doesn't do 1, but now that he is into classical he has similar preferences. Gian has a lot of exposure to gear but his music preference is different, though he is very aligned to understanding what I would prefer and what he would differently.
4. The thing is, what people buy might have nothing to do with any of the above. Some buy just because.
5. What people post might have nothing to do with what they buy or research. I have met some eager posters who were quite laid back In reality about audio if you met them at home.
6. Lack of (low) bias
Last edited:
No just that they would so eagerly be posting about how something is while at home they would hardly be bothered to compare. They could have lived with a 100 products as they are really easy listeners, why post vehemently about one?
In short when you read someone's recommendations check if he is consistent through his exposure, his listening style, his preference, and his posting behavior. There are a lot of breaks and emotions wrapped up in those different phases. I am not referring to dealers who might be the most rational beings on an audio forum
I totally understand some people would like to be more descriptive than simply write natural. That's part of the hobby. That said natural can only mean real and close to live so while it might not be sufficient it is certainly not controversial unless one chooses to be argumentative
Thanks for your post, Bob, Talking about use of the single word 'natural' and its ability to resonate with people or not or be understood or not, from my persective - smile - my point was is not about music genre, but the context in which the word is used. Reproduction of any music that comes from 'traditional' music instruments can sound natural to a listener, or a listener can say "That sounds natural." To that person the single word is all that is needed; it is simple, direct and conveys his impression.
For the person who may not know the listener, (likely a pedantic reviewer) or be familiar with the sort of conversations we're having here, they might ask "what do you mean by natural?" Then the single word is not sufficient and it warrants a description of the sort Peter offered at the outset of this thread.
I'm pretty sure no one in this conversation will be offended or put off if when describing what they heard at your house that not one of your listening buddies use the natural word. No audio-nanny stands before you saying "what, you don't like natural sounding music - whatsamatter you?" No audiocrime is committed if you don't use live acoustic music as a reference. You're free to go, live long and prosper. etc. etc.
I've maintained from the outset that there is no right or wrong when it comes to basis of preference. Some people, I call them naturalists, use live acoustic music as their reference and take the notion of natural sound as a guide when building their system. Some people simply don't do this. They do not have natural sound as their basis of preference - I call them synthesists for lack of a better term.
That's the 'natural sound' vs everything else tactic. But there may well be many different bases of preference that people have and follow. Someone might say "my basis of preference is Carnegie Hall - I built my system so whatever the music, from Elvis to Kraftwerk, it sounds as if it is performed in Carnegie Hall. There reference is ... wait for it ... Carnegie Hall. Someone might say "my basis of preference is one of self discovery - I keep learning what I like and adapt my system accordingly." Their reference is themselves. Someone might say "my basis of preference is what I hear at my audio dealer - I want my system to sound like my dealers." Their basis of preference for reproduction is another reproduction, in a showroom. Part of the issue is there does not seem to be anyone articulating an alternative - all alternatives are welcome.
No one gets to question or criticize your preferences. No one gets to tell you what you like. But the same question appears to apply equally to all camps: what do you use as a guide or set of criteria for building your system? It's a very audio forum type of queston. Someone comes to rhapsody northwest and asks you "what amplifier do you (Bobvin) like?" Their follow-up might be "why? what are your guidelines for building a system, I want to learn."
Again at the audio forum, if someone wants to question the notion of natural sound or interrogate a person who enjoys it or criticize it because it seems snooty, or even say "I don't do that", then no one should be surprised if that same person gets asked: well what do you do? It's a very audio forum sort of question.
Yeah - I understand what you're saying, but ... maybe I'm being argumentative ... it seems too simplistic. Someone may not know what you mean by the one word - or think it means something other than you do. Some believe their stereo sounds very realistic, but don't go to hear live music. See first two paragraphs above.
I've had a couple of friends up recently, both well into music and love a well-presented, and emotionally engaging playback.
The one without a home system really loved my sound using phrases like "instruments and vocals were realistic and lifelike", "music came out of nowhere as if no spkrs in the room", "could really feel the musicians as well as hear", She was really impressed and loved that the system really seemed not to be there just leaving music. Now, she didn't use the word "natural", but effectively that's what I read btwn the lines. When I mentioned the phrase natural sound, she said she concurred that my sound was so effortless and lacking in being a giveaway from spkrs in a room it reminded her of a live classical concert, a busker in a street, her mum singing to her.
My other friend, who has a modest Rega-based system, actually doesn't like my current sound. It's "less in your face", "too aware of musical lines", "not raucous enough", "I prefer the previous wall of sound". I'll take that as my friend preferring my previously more congested overly forward sound. Again I actually mentioned the phrase natural, and he said he naturally hears a more mashed up sound in real life, more fidelity and communication is not his bag. He prefers the big jammed up sound of Muse live.
The one without a home system really loved my sound using phrases like "instruments and vocals were realistic and lifelike", "music came out of nowhere as if no spkrs in the room", "could really feel the musicians as well as hear", She was really impressed and loved that the system really seemed not to be there just leaving music. Now, she didn't use the word "natural", but effectively that's what I read btwn the lines. When I mentioned the phrase natural sound, she said she concurred that my sound was so effortless and lacking in being a giveaway from spkrs in a room it reminded her of a live classical concert, a busker in a street, her mum singing to her.
My other friend, who has a modest Rega-based system, actually doesn't like my current sound. It's "less in your face", "too aware of musical lines", "not raucous enough", "I prefer the previous wall of sound". I'll take that as my friend preferring my previously more congested overly forward sound. Again I actually mentioned the phrase natural, and he said he naturally hears a more mashed up sound in real life, more fidelity and communication is not his bag. He prefers the big jammed up sound of Muse live.
\\
What a wonderful thread. Peter is a brave soul for laying bare your journey and experiences. Braver still for putting "Natural" in the title....
Peter's video's, which I watched over a few evenings, are great. I've never been to Boston, or ddk's, and as such YouTube will have to do. Make of that what you will. The differences in the video's seemed pretty obvious to me.
Al. M posited in another thread in relation to his reference sound, there was
"never any pinpoint or otherwise small-sized imaging, even when rather precise localization of sound source is possible".
I respectfully agree. But there is no one path.
Junji Kimura, of 47 Labs, had a philosophy: Only the simplest can accommodate the most complex.
When thought about, in the context of his experiences (which are worth the quick read), the same philosophy - albeit expressed differently - may apply in ddk's, and now Peter's, approach to music reproduction.
So here are 2cents, again for what they are worth - which I acknowledge aren't much - and derived entirely from Peter's YouTube video's.
I'll get this out of the way. Peter's current system sounds - at least to my ears - a whole lot better than the previous one.
I could rabbit on about sound-stage, timing, localization, tonal shift, pitch, scale and scaling, entrance and exit (what some folk call attack and decay), background - the space between notes (overlays ^) atmospheric presentation etc etc, but Peter already know all that, and more.
Personally I really don't like etched imaging from one position ("the listening chair") when I'm listening to something.
Hence my earlier tongue in cheek comment about having a comfy couch and using all of it as being the litmus test of a natural sounding system - ie you don't need your head in a vice to enjoy what you are hearing. One of the great benefit of corner horns. There is "never any pinpoint or otherwise small-sized imaging, even when rather precise localization of sound source is possible".
There is also nowhere to hide with high resolution horns....equally, you don't need to play hide and seek to enjoy them. There goes that couch again...
I get everyone is different.
Some eschew classical as their reference. They prefer jazz, blues, rock, metal, folk, electronic music (which covers a multitude of genres), 30's and 40's big band era swing, and whatever else floats a boat.
In terms of "classical" - well term that is often used generically to include everything from Renaissance through to ....20thC atonal. There are many wonderful contemporary composers, undoubtedly 'classical' in character as well. Most folks however use' classical' in the sense of the actual Classical and Romantic periods. But in terms of listening to "classical" it can cover everything from Church based choral (eg Palestrina) to single instruments (the Cello Concertos) to the huge (pretty much all of Mahler's and...the Russians: God I love the Russians).
On Primephonic, curator Guy Jones said that Mahler had something akin to over 1000 performers at the premiere of the 9th - 3 full orchestras, 3 full choirs, an organ, church bells and a clutch of opera singers. Extraordinary. That's not fitting into any listening room...
Point being - it is a wide wide world of music out there and we all have different experiences and preferences. Live, recorded and reproduced.
I'm with Tima incidentally ~ re 80:20 Classical: Other.
I have understood Peter's thread to concern what he has discovered, what his experiences have been and the joy he has found.
I have never understood it to be anything else, and have been surprised at the reaction of some folks who appear to understand it as a form of diminution of their own experiences, preferences and predilections. Or an invitation to engage in the age old 'what's natural and what's not'. Seriously.... Not again. But that's audio forums for you.
I've always thought one of the biggest problems with auditioning gear is it's usually done at dealers / hi fi shows (God help us all) or by visiting fellow audiophiles. One tends to get bits of this, and bits of that, and it can all be a little daunting - gear often sounds ....well...just different. It can be confusing and exhausting going around the Mulberry Bush. Reviewers know this more than most. I don't envy them.
I've observed that folk tend to gravitate to their spend. I certainly have seen many audiophiles with veritable rooms of the ghosts of audio past. I've got the scars. I quit the hobby years ago incidentally - more or less. I now enjoy it vicariously. Hence my enjoyment reading this thread and seeing lovely pictures.
In this respect I take my hat off to Peter - who has made comparatively few changes to his system - till now - and when he did it wasn't a spur of the moment thing: I have followed Peter's Sublime Sound thread over the years.
What Peter has now is, for me at least, simply wonderful.
It is as natural as natural gets: the tone of the Lamm's is spot one (I thought they made the Magico's sound considerably better), timing and tempo with the front end is just ....glorious: everything all stops and starts on a dime and scales effortlessly. The synergy with Lamm cannot be doubted.
The Vitavox were by far my favorite of all the horns posted from ddk's listening video's. They seem to me to possess a certain elegance. They have an ease about them - effortless fluidity - if that makes sense. They aren't the only solution in the world - but they were actually heard, able to be sourced, were within budget and gave Peter exactly what he wanted. They were almost made to fit the room.
It seemed to me when Peter changed over his system, the music appeared and the sound departed, again if that makes any sense.
May I also say, and I don't mean to be at all rude, Peter's room looks a much nicer place to be as well. It seems to have gotten much larger.
So hats off to Peter. For a wonderful wonderful system, for being open to change, to ddk for his guidance and for sourcing those wonderful components and for Peter seeking it out in the first place.
I don't know many who would do it, and fewer still who would be so gracious as to share it.
Kudos.
T.
What a wonderful thread. Peter is a brave soul for laying bare your journey and experiences. Braver still for putting "Natural" in the title....
Peter's video's, which I watched over a few evenings, are great. I've never been to Boston, or ddk's, and as such YouTube will have to do. Make of that what you will. The differences in the video's seemed pretty obvious to me.
Al. M posited in another thread in relation to his reference sound, there was
"never any pinpoint or otherwise small-sized imaging, even when rather precise localization of sound source is possible".
I respectfully agree. But there is no one path.
Junji Kimura, of 47 Labs, had a philosophy: Only the simplest can accommodate the most complex.
When thought about, in the context of his experiences (which are worth the quick read), the same philosophy - albeit expressed differently - may apply in ddk's, and now Peter's, approach to music reproduction.
So here are 2cents, again for what they are worth - which I acknowledge aren't much - and derived entirely from Peter's YouTube video's.
I'll get this out of the way. Peter's current system sounds - at least to my ears - a whole lot better than the previous one.
I could rabbit on about sound-stage, timing, localization, tonal shift, pitch, scale and scaling, entrance and exit (what some folk call attack and decay), background - the space between notes (overlays ^) atmospheric presentation etc etc, but Peter already know all that, and more.
Personally I really don't like etched imaging from one position ("the listening chair") when I'm listening to something.
Hence my earlier tongue in cheek comment about having a comfy couch and using all of it as being the litmus test of a natural sounding system - ie you don't need your head in a vice to enjoy what you are hearing. One of the great benefit of corner horns. There is "never any pinpoint or otherwise small-sized imaging, even when rather precise localization of sound source is possible".
There is also nowhere to hide with high resolution horns....equally, you don't need to play hide and seek to enjoy them. There goes that couch again...
I get everyone is different.
Some eschew classical as their reference. They prefer jazz, blues, rock, metal, folk, electronic music (which covers a multitude of genres), 30's and 40's big band era swing, and whatever else floats a boat.
In terms of "classical" - well term that is often used generically to include everything from Renaissance through to ....20thC atonal. There are many wonderful contemporary composers, undoubtedly 'classical' in character as well. Most folks however use' classical' in the sense of the actual Classical and Romantic periods. But in terms of listening to "classical" it can cover everything from Church based choral (eg Palestrina) to single instruments (the Cello Concertos) to the huge (pretty much all of Mahler's and...the Russians: God I love the Russians).
On Primephonic, curator Guy Jones said that Mahler had something akin to over 1000 performers at the premiere of the 9th - 3 full orchestras, 3 full choirs, an organ, church bells and a clutch of opera singers. Extraordinary. That's not fitting into any listening room...
Point being - it is a wide wide world of music out there and we all have different experiences and preferences. Live, recorded and reproduced.
I'm with Tima incidentally ~ re 80:20 Classical: Other.
I have understood Peter's thread to concern what he has discovered, what his experiences have been and the joy he has found.
I have never understood it to be anything else, and have been surprised at the reaction of some folks who appear to understand it as a form of diminution of their own experiences, preferences and predilections. Or an invitation to engage in the age old 'what's natural and what's not'. Seriously.... Not again. But that's audio forums for you.
I've always thought one of the biggest problems with auditioning gear is it's usually done at dealers / hi fi shows (God help us all) or by visiting fellow audiophiles. One tends to get bits of this, and bits of that, and it can all be a little daunting - gear often sounds ....well...just different. It can be confusing and exhausting going around the Mulberry Bush. Reviewers know this more than most. I don't envy them.
I've observed that folk tend to gravitate to their spend. I certainly have seen many audiophiles with veritable rooms of the ghosts of audio past. I've got the scars. I quit the hobby years ago incidentally - more or less. I now enjoy it vicariously. Hence my enjoyment reading this thread and seeing lovely pictures.
In this respect I take my hat off to Peter - who has made comparatively few changes to his system - till now - and when he did it wasn't a spur of the moment thing: I have followed Peter's Sublime Sound thread over the years.
What Peter has now is, for me at least, simply wonderful.
It is as natural as natural gets: the tone of the Lamm's is spot one (I thought they made the Magico's sound considerably better), timing and tempo with the front end is just ....glorious: everything all stops and starts on a dime and scales effortlessly. The synergy with Lamm cannot be doubted.
The Vitavox were by far my favorite of all the horns posted from ddk's listening video's. They seem to me to possess a certain elegance. They have an ease about them - effortless fluidity - if that makes sense. They aren't the only solution in the world - but they were actually heard, able to be sourced, were within budget and gave Peter exactly what he wanted. They were almost made to fit the room.
It seemed to me when Peter changed over his system, the music appeared and the sound departed, again if that makes any sense.
May I also say, and I don't mean to be at all rude, Peter's room looks a much nicer place to be as well. It seems to have gotten much larger.
So hats off to Peter. For a wonderful wonderful system, for being open to change, to ddk for his guidance and for sourcing those wonderful components and for Peter seeking it out in the first place.
I don't know many who would do it, and fewer still who would be so gracious as to share it.
Kudos.
T.
WOW Peter. congrats on the entire new system.
Just dropped in and realised you have changed everything in your system in the last few months. Looks like when visiting David, he slipped you the DDK cool aid and you fell in luv with his system and philosophy to great sound. I know, I enjoy the SME 3012-R.
hope you enjoy for many years to come.
me, I will be happy to listen to one of the CC power cables one day
Just dropped in and realised you have changed everything in your system in the last few months. Looks like when visiting David, he slipped you the DDK cool aid and you fell in luv with his system and philosophy to great sound. I know, I enjoy the SME 3012-R.
hope you enjoy for many years to come.
me, I will be happy to listen to one of the CC power cables one day
Ked, most recordings are not natural, let alone systems. nor do many artists want their music to sound natural. perhaps in classical they do moreso compared to pop, rock or electronic.
Very much agree Shane. What is so natural listening synthesizer, electric guitar that use these devices below and get amplified. Synthetic sounding music can also sound good. But I don't think Ked can call it sounds "natural" out of any system because those music were not meant to sound natural as Shane said.
Great rock recordings can sound realistic and dynamic as hell, but they don't sound natural.
Anything amplified is not natural. I love amplified music, love multi layered and multi tracked synths, samples and effects on guitars, drums, voices, even saxophones.
But none of that sounds natural.
Natural to me seems to be another one of those meaningless descriptors that is used in how one thinks their system sounds.
Does your system sound natural or realistic in playing what has been recorded - that is, what it sounds like in the studio. Not sure anyone knows on most recordings.
So you are stuck with, does my system sound good, realistic, dynamic, unforced, clear etc and most importantly, enjoyable.
Similar threads
