Natural Sound

How wonderful. And there are still people participating on this thread who say the term natural is too vague and meaningless to be of any use to describe audio. Or it means whatever you want it to mean and everyone is after a natural sound anyway and considers his system to sound natural. It’s pretty funny.

You must’ve had a great time with your friend. Thank you for sharing this. It kind of says it all.
What he described as natural could also be described as life-like, accurate, absolute... Natural is as good a word as any. I doubt many here are questing after un-natural sound.
 
Reading the recent posts on this thread, I can see that the discussion on the idea of “Natural Sound” has become unconstrained. To me, the distinction is very simple and it is not bound to vintage horn speakers and SET tube amplifiers.

To me, some systems accentuate certain attributes during playback, such as pin-point imaging, black-background, extended high frequencies, treble-air and so on, which are not heard or highlighted when one listens to live music or instruments. These “audiophile pyrotechnics“ are either a product of the recording, recording or mastering engineers, or a product of stereophonic sound. Simply the use of panning or spatial positioning of the microphones feeds during the recording or mixing process can alter the presentation.

Those systems that emphasize these unnatural attributes, which are audiophile ear candy, to me, would be classified as sounding “Hi-Fi”, while those that present music in a more “realistic”, and perhaps tamed for lack of a better word, are the ones that provide the “Natural Sound”.

To me, it’s that simple. And ”Hi-Fi” is not to be taken as a derogatory description, as a matter of fact, I venture to say that 98% of audiophiles seek and strive for the “bigger than life”, presentation that can now be achieved. By comparison, “Natural Sound” will not dazzle as much.

I have both types of systems here in-house and I appreciate them all for what they do and deliver. Listen to your music whichever way makes you enjoy it the most and the longest. Once you let go of the pursuit for ”the absolute sound”, it unbounds us and gives us the freedom to relax and enjoy the music and to stop fighting the fight that we are never going to win and to stop chasing the mirage that we are never going to reach.
 
Last edited:
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.

Shane, forgive me for over analyzing your comments, but I have a question.

You say in the first sentence that the term "natural" seems to you to be a meaningless descriptor.

In the second sentence, you seem to equate the meaning of the terms "natural" and "realistic".

In the third sentence, you include the term "realistic" in a list of descriptors that you suggest we use to assess the sound of our systems.

The terms "good", "realistic", "dynamic", "unforced", "clear", and "enjoyable", etc. are all terms that seem OK to you. You and we understand them and use them. If "realistic" is OK in this list, and you write that it is similar or the same as "natural", then why is "natural" not OK, or even meaningless, to you?

Many people do think "realistic" and "natural" mean more or less the same thing. Why the resistance to the term "natural"?
 
Reading the recent posts on this thread, I can see that the discussion on the idea of “Natural Sound” has become unconstrained. To me, the distinction is very simple and it is not bound to vintage horn speakers and SET tube amplifiers.

To me, some systems accentuate certain attributes during playback, such as pin-point imaging, black-background, extended high frequencies, treble-air and so on, which are not heard or highlighted when one listens to live music or instruments. These “audiophile pyrotechnics“ are either a product of the recording, recording or mastering engineers, or a product of stereophonic sound. Simply the use of panning or spatial positioning of the microphones feeds during the recording or mixing process can alter the presentation.

Those systems that emphasize these unnatural attributes, which are audiophile ear candy, to me, would be classified as sounding “Hi-Fi”, while those that present music in a more “realistic”, and perhaps tamed for lack of a better word, are the ones that provide the “Natural Sound”.

To me, it’s that simple. And ”Hi-Fi” is not to be taken as a derogatory description, as a matter of fact, I venture to say that 98% of audiophiles seek and strive for the “bigger than life”, presentation that can now be achieved. By comparison, “Natural Sound” will not dazzle as much.


I have both types of systems here in-house and I appreciate them all for what they do and deliver. Listen to your music whichever way makes you enjoy it the most and the longest. Once you let go of the pursuit for ”the absolute sound”, it unbounds us and gives us the freedom to relax and enjoy the music and to stop fighting the fight that we are never going to win and to stop chasing the mirage that we are never going to reach.

Carlos, you managed to write clearly in this short post what it has taken me pages and pages to try to explain. Thank you. I would probably use the word "balanced" rather than "tamed" to describe "Natural Sound". There is nothing wrong with "Hi-Fi Sound". It simply simply emphasises some attributes, as you mention, and thus sounds less balanced. The lack of emphasis or spotlighting of attributes, is what I heard from all four of David's systems in Utah and why, to me, they sound natural.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carlos269
*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.

*To me, some systems accentuate certain attributes during playback, such as pin-point imaging, black-background, extended high frequencies, treble-air and so on, which are not heard or highlighted when one listens to live music or instruments. These “audiophile pyrotechnics“ are either a product of the recording, recording or mastering engineers, or a product of stereophonic sound. Simply the use of panning or spatial positioning of the microphones feeds during the recording or mixing process can alter the presentation.
Those systems that emphasize these unnatural attributes, which are audiophile ear candy, to me, would be classified as sounding “Hi-Fi”, while those that present music in a more “realistic”, and perhaps tamed for lack of a better word, are the ones that provide the “Natural Sound”.

*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.

Surely I can't be the only one who sees the inconsistencies and inherent contradictions in these quotes from earlier posts on just this page (#55)?? Is "natural sound" a realistic reproduction of what is recorded, or is it something that sounds "real" to you (the listener) regardless of what is on the recording? And as the last quote so accurately notes, how do we know what is on the recording? Even if you were there at the actual recording session (live, studio, empty concert hall or wherever) it's almost impossible to know how the subsequent mastering might affect the sound on the medium used for playback.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lordcloud
If someone says my basis of preference is Carnegie Hall instead of Boston or Barbican that person lacks experience with both concerts and auditions. This question keeps going around it is very simple to answer if you have heard it nor will someone build up a system that way
 
*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.

*To me, some systems accentuate certain attributes during playback, such as pin-point imaging, black-background, extended high frequencies, treble-air and so on, which are not heard or highlighted when one listens to live music or instruments. These “audiophile pyrotechnics“ are either a product of the recording, recording or mastering engineers, or a product of stereophonic sound. Simply the use of panning or spatial positioning of the microphones feeds during the recording or mixing process can alter the presentation.
Those systems that emphasize these unnatural attributes, which are audiophile ear candy, to me, would be classified as sounding “Hi-Fi”, while those that present music in a more “realistic”, and perhaps tamed for lack of a better word, are the ones that provide the “Natural Sound”.

*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.

Surely I can't be the only one who sees the inconsistencies and inherent contradictions in these quotes from earlier posts on just this page (#55)?? Is "natural sound" a realistic reproduction of what is recorded, or is it something that sounds "real" to you (the listener) regardless of what is on the recording? And as the last quote so accurately notes, how do we know what is on the recording? Even if you were there at the actual recording session (live, studio, empty concert hall or wherever) it's almost impossible to know how the subsequent mastering might affect the sound on the medium used for playback.
You answered your own question: "natural sound" is something that sounds "real" to you (the listener) regardless of what is on the recording. How else can “you” possibly think that it could be any different ………………and know it?
 
Nice SPU collection!
david

Whew, I'm not the only one that noticed an army of SPU's strangely placed liked on the TT like badges or something.

*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.

*To me, some systems accentuate certain attributes during playback, such as pin-point imaging, black-background, extended high frequencies, treble-air and so on, which are not heard or highlighted when one listens to live music or instruments. These “audiophile pyrotechnics“ are either a product of the recording, recording or mastering engineers, or a product of stereophonic sound. Simply the use of panning or spatial positioning of the microphones feeds during the recording or mixing process can alter the presentation.
Those systems that emphasize these unnatural attributes, which are audiophile ear candy, to me, would be classified as sounding “Hi-Fi”, while those that present music in a more “realistic”, and perhaps tamed for lack of a better word, are the ones that provide the “Natural Sound”.

*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.

Surely I can't be the only one who sees the inconsistencies and inherent contradictions in these quotes from earlier posts on just this page (#55)?? Is "natural sound" a realistic reproduction of what is recorded, or is it something that sounds "real" to you (the listener) regardless of what is on the recording? And as the last quote so accurately notes, how do we know what is on the recording? Even if you were there at the actual recording session (live, studio, empty concert hall or wherever) it's almost impossible to know how the subsequent mastering might affect the sound on the medium used for playback.


Honestly this sorta reads like you just don't have a clear picture of what the "natural sound" description is, in any way. I suggest some diligence to figure it out (I've made a point to exposure myself to extra things just to confirm I'm on-page with others).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ddk
If someone says my basis of preference is Carnegie Hall instead of Boston or Barbican that person lacks experience with both concerts and auditions. This question keeps going around it is very simple to answer if you have heard it nor will someone build up a system that way
To expand a little on that, attending a concert at any of those halls gives only a rough approximation of the sound of a recording session at one of them
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scott Naylor
To expand a little on that, attending a concert at any of those halls gives only a rough approximation of the sound of a recording session at one of them

That's not what people try to do
 
You answered your own question: "natural sound" is something that sounds "real" to you (the listener) regardless of what is on the recording. How else can “you” possibly think that it could be any different ………………and know it?
You can't. But there have to be a number of possible approaches to realize this. One would be to have your system add (euphonic) noise and distortion in such a way that a lot of good recordings sound "real" to you. Another would be to try have recordings sound as the recording is supposed to, but since we rarely know what that is, and as you have pointed out many recordings are mastered to highlight "hifi" audio characteristics that might not be particularly enjoyable nor the way music sounds to you. Yet another is to strive to have a few recordings sound as close to "real" as you can (and perceive it to be), realizing that a lot of other recordings (probably most recordings in one's collection) will sound less "real" to varying degrees. There are of course variations of each of these basic approaches as well as other basic approaches.

Which of these is "natural sound"?
 
You can't. But there have to be a number of possible approaches to realize this. One would be to have your system add (euphonic) noise and distortion in such a way that a lot of good recordings sound "real" to you. Another would be to try have recordings sound as the recording is supposed to, but since we rarely know what that is, and as you have pointed out many recordings are mastered to highlight "hifi" audio characteristics that might not be particularly enjoyable nor the way music sounds to you. Yet another is to strive to have a few recordings sound as close to "real" as you can (and perceive it to be), realizing that a lot of other recordings (probably most recordings in one's collection) will sound less "real" to varying degrees. There are of course variations of each of these basic approaches as well as other basic approaches.

Which of these is "natural sound"?

A playback system will have a sound signature, in technical terms a step-function, and the variations come from the recordings, the inputs that get convoluted. It is the system’s “sound signature” that is being addressed and called it’s “Natural Sound”.

Yes, of course different recordings will and should sound different when played back through the same system but the system’s sound signature will stay a constant .
You are getting hung up on the resultant instead of looking at the transfer function, which is the system’s sound signature.

Have you ever gone from Cartesian coordinates to Spherical coordinates? Look at it the same way.
 
What do people try to do?

All I can say is after pandemic go to concerts in different halls for 6 months. Don't listen to your system then. You will know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeterA and Folsom
You are getting hung up on the resultant instead of looking at the transfer function, which is the system’s sound signature.
On the contrary, I have been focused on the transfer function, whereas most posters here (and certainly the thread starter) are focused on the resultant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: microstrip
All I can say is after pandemic go to concerts in different halls for 6 months. Don't listen to your system then. You will know.
I've already pointed out the fallacy of that approach. I've been at this for a long time and done what you suggest for far longer than 6 months
 
(...) 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.
Tim,

Nice to say it seems to me we agree that we are mostly debating preferences.

Anyway, the way we built our systems is too dissociate of the fundamentals to be of any help in this discussion.

We do not have the time to listen to all types of high-end sound reproduction. We just listen to a few systems in appropriate conditions, influenced by social constraints, availability and rationality. We do not have the time needed to listen in non biased conditions and we try to use the criteria of our enjoyment.

And sorry, it is not the case of egg or chicken - first we become listeners, spending thousand years, perfecting our ears and perception, and only seventy years ago we had stereo sound - something that is not natural (I am using it in a non-audiophile sense! :) )

IMHo the high-end debate goes around words such as perception, illusion, training and preference. As loon we try to avoid them the discussion will be circular or endemic.
 
All I can say is after pandemic go to concerts in different halls for 6 months. Don't listen to your system then. You will know.
It is curious that people who went to concerts for more than thirty years still need to go to concerts to refresh their perception. Sorry, but if needed it is just a form of training.
 
It is curious that people who went to concerts for more than thirty years still need to go to concerts to refresh their perception. Sorry, but if needed it is just a form of training.

Going to concerts once in a way while listening to home system daily will just keep auditory template on system sound. Nothing will be compared to live sound it will be to system sound. So when you listen to another system, you will be mentally using your system as a reference, natural or not.

In audiophiles, home system template needs to be erased as it usually is flawed

Irrespective, no audiophile listening with live sound as reference is trying to listen to a particular hall sound. Sorry, but I just don't think someone who asks this question has a sufficient cross exposure of live, gear, and recordings. If that is offensive I will add a smiley :) . guess whom I learned that from:)
 
You can't. But there have to be a number of possible approaches to realize this. One would be to have your system add (euphonic) noise and distortion in such a way that a lot of good recordings sound "real" to you. Another would be to try have recordings sound as the recording is supposed to, but since we rarely know what that is, and as you have pointed out many recordings are mastered to highlight "hifi" audio characteristics that might not be particularly enjoyable nor the way music sounds to you. Yet another is to strive to have a few recordings sound as close to "real" as you can (and perceive it to be), realizing that a lot of other recordings (probably most recordings in one's collection) will sound less "real" to varying degrees. There are of course variations of each of these basic approaches as well as other basic approaches.

Which of these is "natural sound"?

FYI people that are after "natural sound" pretty much exclusively shun things like kitty litter boxes that house antennas. So I don't think the "add (euphonic) noise and distortion" is an appreciable outlook. They are mostly anti-tweak.

Natural tends to depict better accuracy to what's on the recording as far as I can tell. Where I don't agree is that SET's are necessary, or that non-existent distortion profiles of higher harmonics are the reason that something that isn't an SET is inferior.

Maybe all of this is just a fight for you to validate your own system? It's a lot of wheel-spin.
 
I am not saying SETs are necessary. I like some SS systems. They both have different philosophies and do some things differently.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu