Natural Sound

[PeterA]

Peter, I don’t know how you define “ways” in your sentence above but if it means combinations of speakers and electronics and cabling and room configuration/treatments then I am surprised, given the unlimited combinations out there, that you think there aren’t “many” ways to get to natural sound. Or, maybe “natural sound” is not really a general term but instead “ddk’s natural sound” or “Peter A.’s natural sound.” BTW, attaching your or David’s name to it is not meant in a negative or derogatory way but more as a descriptor.

It is Marc who thinks that I said there are many “ways” to get to “natural” sound. I said no such thing. I said there’s more than one way to achieve a system that sounds natural. What I mean are components and set up. It is an approach and One type of sound. Nothing more nothing less. I do not think it is the only approach nor is it the right approach. It is only the approach that some people follow and I chose to do the same with this new system after learning about it with my old system. Some systems present music in this natural way and others do not.

Yes, there are unlimited combinations of system configurations that are possible. And that is what makes the hobby so fun and interesting to people.

i’m not talking about any of those other combinations. I’m talking about my specific combination and the fact that I now hear in my own room a Type of sound which has the same sonic characteristics as the sound I heard from David’s four systems in Utah.

People can try to make the conversation about their own systems and approaches but that not why I started this thread.

 

[ddk]

Sorry guys above posts are a bit confusing.

Is natural sound getting sound to sound like live?

It's certainly a sonic attribute but there's an equally important element of emotional and psychoacoustic cognition attached to it. Accuracy alone is easily achieved the additional element is difficult until you know what it is and why.

Or Is natural sound a process of no tweaks, that is supposed to get a sound like live?

"Natural Sound" is the goal or the attribute, eliminating barriers by removing certain tweaks or components blocking the path is only natural!

Also, I don't understand why sound similar to live is unique?

It isn't! HP did it for years in his way but neither his focus nor his results was "natural", consider "Natural Sound" as a direct contrast to "Absolute Sound".

david

 

[dminches]

It is Marc who thinks that I said there are many “ways” to get to “natural” sound. I said no such thing. I said there’s more than one way to achieve a system that sounds natural. What I mean are components and set up. It is an approach and One type of sound. Nothing more nothing less. I do not think it is the only approach nor is it the right approach. It is only the approach that some people follow and I chose to do the same with this new system after learning about it with my old system. Some systems present music in this natural way and others do not.

Yes, there are unlimited combinations of system configurations that are possible. And that is what makes the hobby so fun and interesting to people.

i’m not talking about any of those other combinations. I’m talking about my specific combination and the fact that I now hear in my own room a Type of sound which has the same sonic characteristics as the sound I heard from David’s four systems in Utah.

People can try to make the conversation about their own systems and approaches but that not why I started this thread.

Just to clarify, in my post I said you DON’T think there are many ways to get to “natural sound.”

All I know is that when I play a good recording of Coltrane or Rollins or Gordon their sax sounds like what I think a saxophone sounds like based on hearing saxophones in multiple settings including small clubs. When I play a recording and hear Jerry Garcia’s guitar it sounds like what I think it should like based on seeing him live 200 times. Is that “natural sound?” I have no clue and in reality it doesn’t matter since it is my brain and my system. I assume you view it “similarly” too.

 

[PeterA]

Just to clarify, in my post I said you DON’T think there are many ways to get to “natural sound.”

All I know is that when I play a good recording of Coltrane or Rollins or Gordon their sax sounds like what I think a saxophone sounds like based on hearing saxophones in multiple settings including small clubs. When I play a recording and hear Jerry Garcia’s guitar it sounds like what I think it should like based on seeing him live 200 times. Is that “natural sound?” I have no clue and in reality it doesn’t matter since it is my brain and my system. I assume you view it “similarly” too.

That’s great that you think saxophone and guitar sounds real on your system. You are right. It does not really matter. I can’t tell you anything about your system. Nor should I. It is your system, it seems like you really enjoy it. That should be the goal.

 

[DaveC]

You and I have a completely opposed understanding of what David thinks natural sound is.

You have no idea what I think.

As opposed to you and David, I have a system with a horn, a 15" woofer and SET amps I've built myself, every single part from source output to speaker driver. I even have my own midrange drivers but the woofer and tweeter and not my own. Besides that, EVERY SINGLE PART is my own design. I've spent decades now refining it, and you have NO IDEA what it sounds like.

If you're at audio shows in the future you'll have a chance to experience it firsthand. Reserve judgement until then please.

EDIT... In addition, I may know a lot more than you think about what you describe. I understand room, speaker and electronics measurements, have designed and built gear myself as described above, so I know exactly what removing all acoustic devices is likely to do to, etc. etc. In the past I've encouraged you to perform some basic measurements but you feel it's not worth the effort and apparently so does David because neither of you can describe anything you're doing in objective terms, which is part of the difficulty in conveying "natural sound".

 

[Tango]

Who said anything about you?

I really like you guys here. Very funny bunch of intellectually silly people.

 

[PeterA]

You have no idea what I think.

As opposed to you and David, I have a system with a horn, a 15" woofer and SET amps I've built myself, every single part from source output to speaker driver. I even have my own midrange drivers but the woofer and tweeter and not my own. Besides that, EVERY SINGLE PART is my own design. I've spent decades now refining it, and you have NO IDEA what it sounds like.

If you're at audio shows in the future you'll have a chance to experience it firsthand. Reserve judgement until then please.

EDIT... In addition, I may know a lot more than you think about what you describe. I understand room, speaker and electronics measurements, have designed and built gear myself as described above, so I know exactly what removing all acoustic devices is likely to do to, etc. etc. In the past I've encouraged you to perform some basic measurements but you feel it's not worth the effort and apparently so does David because neither of you can describe anything you're doing in objective terms, which is part of the difficulty in conveying "natural sound".

DaveC, My comment about you and I having different opinions was about what you wrote that David thinks about natural sound. I happen to disagree with what you wrote in that post based on talking to him about natural sound for two years. Simple as that. I really have no idea what you think about anything else ( with the exception of the private messages you sent me about your cords). Except for that, you are correct.

None of that has anything to do with your new speakers and your experience or my system.

 

[DaveC]

Dave,

Peace!
You don't need to make it personal and aside from our direct exchanges nothing I've said now and in the past regarding "Natural Sound" had anything to do with you or your company. We have different experiences and different goals lashing out isn't going to change that. Take a step back and consider why is a mass produced power cord is so controversial and threatening.

Nice, you're good... but you also contradict yourself in your own post. Take a step back and understand the contrast between "Peace!" and your last sentence. And then see the words in between as the snide BS that they really are.

Some of your broad characterizations of entire classes of audio gear have been the issue in the past, like panzerholz, room tampons, kitty litter boxes, calling everything "tweaks" except for your own "TWEAKS!!!"... I already said I don't want to rehash it, so why suggest I think about your power cables ONCE AGAIN?! I don't find them anymore threatening than the multitude of other Home Depot and AliBaba specials people often rave about like White Lightening Moonshine cables, etc. . Anyone can load up their cart on Alibaba with a dozen cables and pick one out as their favorite.

I only posted to suggest Marc not start in on a debate about it. It's been done, not worth it because we can't even communicate what we're arguing about effectively for a multitude of reasons.

 

[XV-1]

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"?

Peter

2nd sentence I said natural or realistic. Imo realistic is the correct term, but does it sound as sexy?.

Natural meaning is: as found in nature and not involving anything made or done by people

Nothing to do with hifi sound reproduction is natural and that is why it's meaningless, to me at least.

As Marc said, you and ddk seem to be making natural as some sort of exclusive sought after sound that should be aspired to.

 

[microstrip]

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

Well, congratulations on the use of templates. Probably next we will have natural templates in this thread.

For me, real and sound reproduction are different worlds. I go to concerts to enjoy, and do not think about my stereo there - any stereo pales compared to real, that has a lot more than sound, including all kinds of visual stimulus and feeling of participating in a collective.

I tune my system to be enjoyable and probably it includes matching a few aspects that I find more remarkable and enjoyable at recent life experiences. This creates preference and can change with time.

And be assured I do not mind with your thinking as long as you keep it polite and smiley. As long as you do not own a system, in a way we can have a solid reference on your real biases they will have little weight.

 

[ddk]

Nice, you're good... but you also contradict yourself in your own post. Take a step back and understand the contrast between "Peace!" and your last sentence. And then see the words in between as the snide BS that they really are.

Not BS, fact. I don't have a problem with no peace either!

Some of your broad characterizations of entire classes of audio gear have been the issue in the past, like panzerholz, room tampons, kitty litter boxes, calling everything "tweaks" except for your own "TWEAKS!!!"... I already said I don't want to rehash it, so why suggest I think about your power cables ONCE AGAIN?! I don't find them anymore threatening than the multitude of other Home Depot and AliBaba specials people often rave about like White Lightening Moonshine cables, etc. . Anyone can load up their cart on Alibaba with a dozen cables and pick one out as their favorite.

Absolutely! As you correctly stated anyone can go to Alibaba buy any wires put a stocking on terminate it then call it White Lightening Moonshine, isn't this EXACTLY what you do? If I recall you even have an off the shelf White Lightening Moonshine special that you sell with your signature then , why shoot yourself in the foot put and down Alibaba?

It wasn't broad I was very specific with my generalizations that's why you can list them so perfectly, but I'm very curious about my TWEAKS and don't say CC, please be specific about the tweaks I sell.

I only posted to suggest Marc not start in on a debate about it. It's been done, not worth it because we can't even communicate what we're arguing about effectively for a multitude of reasons.

We wouldn't be have this invigorating exchange if that was true.

david

 

[microstrip]

(...) The "Natural Sound" we're discussing here is ONE type of of sound based on a single specific criteria. (...)

Besides Peter's and yours, are you able to nominate other systems in WBF that you consider "Natural Sound"?

 

[Al M.]

At least somebody is enjoying his stereo instead of posting...

I was too this evening, after having been busy with other things, certainly not with posting here today. I do follow the thread. At some point the next few days I plan to post about my listening experience at Peter's this week with his Natural Sound, then hopefully there is more actual sound to discuss about.

 

[ddk]

Besides Peter's and yours, are you able to nominate other systems in WBF that you consider "Natural Sound"?

Only if you promise not to ask me which ones aren't Fracisco !
Please consider privacy issues, there are a number of members with "Natural Sound" systems here, some of them either don't or only very partially originate from me but they're "natural sounding. I have to respect people's privacy they can share if they want to. The few that I hope will not mind being named starts with you, I have not seen or heard your setup but you have all the right components in house. These systems I've heard, Steve's, Tang's and Stargate's. There are others but not my place to mention them.

david

 

[ddk]

Peter

2nd sentence I said natural or realistic. Imo realistic is the correct term, but does it sound as sexy?.

Natural meaning is: as found in nature and not involving anything made or done by people

Nothing to do with hifi sound reproduction is natural and that is why it's meaningless, to me at least.

As Marc said, you and ddk seem to be making natural as some sort of exclusive sought after sound that should be aspired to.

What you claim is mostly inaccurate Shane except that it is a sought after sound but since you also called it KoolAid and claimed it doesn't exist for you, you're not one them. As far as exclusivity goes with "Natural Sound" I have to say not necessarily. Is Peter's system unusual and exclusive, definitely but it's not unobtanium. Consider that this is What's Best Forums exclusivity is par for the course.

david

 

[Steve williams]

For me, real and sound reproduction are different worlds. I go to concerts to enjoy, and do not think about my stereo there - any stereo pales compared to real, that has a lot more than sound, including all kinds of visual stimulus and feeling of participating in a collective.

Francisco

the way I envision “natural sound “ is precisely the way you feel when you go to concerts You want to sit back and only listen to the music.

in David’s definition if you sit down to listen but only are thinking about your stereo system because something stands out, then it’s not natural

The take away with David’s path is that everything is stripped away. There is nothing that can alter the signal. What all if us are guilty if is that we do only A-B testing. So of course there is a preference What we should be doing is an A-B-A test. All too often once we get to B we then find maybe we need to do something to offset what changes we made that also created other issues so eventually we are down the rabbit hole making one addition after another until we forget what we started with.

it was a ear opener for me when we one by one removed so many things in my system that might have done something well but we ignore what they do bad because we never do an A-B-A test.

so If system changes are to be considered , those that are implemented should cause a top to bottom ”equal” improvement rather than accentuating the bass or producing a mid bass hump etc. This sound would be considered colored. That does not make it bad. It’s just not natural.
This is my take on the topic

 

[Bobvin]

I really like you guys here. Very funny bunch of intellectually silly people.

Tang, comments like this are what made me miss you in your absense.

 

[Tango]

We discuss a lot about term using to describe system sound. Stabbing jabbing is all fun giving the forum spices like Thai food. I do see points from all sides. To make this clear I consider myself ddk's student because I learned a lot from him. I understand his definition of natural sound but I don't use the term so frequently cause I foresee how people could get fed up or even disturb. Term to me is just term. What important is if you understand what a particular person talking about and had a reference hearing experience that could relate to those term. Personally I like the term Tima wrote a few times here and there, "Believable" most. I saw him wrote and I used it quite a few times. The word sounds humble enough and doesn't invite bees.

 

[morricab]

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.

Well, you can count me as one who thinks SET is necessary to achieve a truly natural sounding system.

 

[morricab]

The good SET's have 1% or less distortion typically, as in imperceptible. Horns are often also very low distortion because they have very little travel. But I can tell you I've heard plenty of both that wouldn't qualify as natural. While many horn-ish and SET items may be natural sounding, considerably more are not if you ask me. You don't see any advocates of "natural" saying just buy any horn speaker and you'll be better off.

But by all means elaborate on euphonically, because I don't see how that is an objective term we can discuss with at this point. And so you think tweaks inherently reduce noise and distortion? I can tell you with authority that not many do, and even often if they do they cause other issues.

No one is claiming that you don’t need to be highly selective still... still gotta use your ears and brain!