Natural Sound

[PeterA]

I had a lot of difficulty with those dinosaur videos. I read Toole but that didn’t help. The Harmon listening tests don’t have dinosaurs. As a last resort, I looked up HPs Glossary of High End Audio Terms and could not even find dinosaur.

Completely stumped and not knowing what to do next, someone told me to simply sit down and watch the videos to form my own opinion. Wow, never thought of that before.

I preferred the last video, not because it looked the most natural. That term is too vague and has no meaning to me. I preferred last one to the others because it had the prettiest colors. The image had the best outline and the background has the least noise. The image stood in stark relief. It wasn’t quite black, but it had the least information to distract from the pretty picture.

In the end this is all personal preference anyway. Now if only I could have found a quote or link to an article to share with you all to add some extension and slam to this post.

 

[microstrip]

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

Are you saying that the Lamm solid state units, such as the ML1.2R or the L2ref are not "Natural Sound"? It is what I am listening this weekend and sound great!

 

[microstrip]

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.

Steve,

Thanks for participating. Most audiophiles tell the same about a sound quality that is not "natural sound"at all. I have found that some people tell exactly the same about listening in mono, finding that stereo is artificial. Many extreme objectivist audiophiles also feel it about their systems.

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

What stands out is dependent on individual training (call it preference if you want) and mostly on the recording techniques. No stereo system can please all of them IMHO.

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

Curiously you selectively stripped - you kept the absorptive room treatments, the ultra-expensive signal and speaker cables, the same turntable as me, the speakers that are a technical mismatch with the ML3 according to most people here, and the tube digital that you wisely adapted to your preference.

I have no doubt you have a great system and a great sound - but I just can not see how you can apply to the "Natural Sound" just stripping power cables and moving the listening position.

 

[rbbert]

Marc,
@Folsom is correct. The "Natural Sound" we're discussing here is ONE type of of sound based on a single specific criteria. It has nothing to do with consensus or about anyone's personal interpretation. While there are a variety of systems and varying degrees of "naturalness" that qualify as "Natural Sound" there are more that don't. It is a unique type of sound and not at all what you think it is. To achieve "Natural Sound" as meant by me and some others here one needs to first understand what is.

It is also a fact that not all equipment sound "Natural" as intended in this thread as it is a fact that one cat litter box, a power cord or the wrong tweak will undermine the entire sound system. People are free to choose whatever path or sound they want and hold all kinds of opposing opinions, personally I have ZERO interest in changing anyone's mind about it but don't make up what we mean by "Natural Sound" or assign your own inaccurate definition to it.

david

The take away with David’s path is that everything is stripped away. There is nothing that can alter the signal.

Curiously you selectively stripped - you kept the absorptive room treatments, the ultra-expensive signal and speaker cables, the same turntable as me, the speakers that are a technical mismatch with the ML3 according to most people here, and the tube digital that you wisely adapted to your preference.

I have no doubt you have a great system and a great sound - but I just can not see how you can apply to the "Natural Sound" just stripping power cables and moving the listening position.

 

[DaveC]

The take away with David’s path is that everything is stripped away. There is nothing that can alter the signal.

This is yet another fallacy that causes issues.

This is absolutely not true. It's simply MORE tweaks that replace your current tweaks, and David's tweaks are far more tweaky.

CC power cables that by your own admission don't work on your amps without making their trafos buzz. This is due to flaws in it's design, far more contact resistance vs other cables that makes it inadequate to power amplifiers because of it's low quality.

Steel racks makes things vibrate to your liking.

Absence of room treatments make decay times MUCH longer than any recording engineer intended.

Lack of low bass and high highs.

Use of mega-$ gear.

Absolutely no objective basis behind what he does. David doesn't understand ANYTHING about audio or frankly, what I'm saying above. He's never been able to make a single logical, objective point in all the years he's been on here touting his "natural sound" systems. He has NO IDEA what any of his tweaks do. Yet he debases others gear without even knowing anything about it! The number of times he's defamed myself and others on here is absurd.

The view that anything is "stripped away" besides your wallet is ridiculous, IMO.

 

[rbbert]

But, to paraphrase @tima, DaveC you are not proposing any specific alternatives or explanations

 

[Steve williams]

Well the sharks are out. happy Sunday to you all. I find it becomes all too easy to criticize something that none of you have heard but as Tang points out all too well the term can be supplanted by other terms. Yes it is for sure a different path and until one can make the trek to Utah to hear what Peter is talking about, everything is merely speculation.

Once you hear it, it becomes blatantly clear.Of course hearing the Bionor's which IIRC are 114DB efficient was an eye and ear opener

So to rbbert, micro, DaveC et al who have commented so vociferously , I understand your negativism For me it was a revelation. People are now throwing jabs at my system and that's OK. When I sit and listen now, there is ease in everything. I sit and listen and suffer no fatigue as a result. The volume rarely changes and I am content in. my listening sessions. I don't own horns and I really know nothing about horns. I made changes in my system based on what I could and could not do. Many of the changes as pointed out involved some removal of sound amendments made to the room as well as every plug in box. For my ears the greatest revelation in doing such was that the "blackness" that I described was so mesmerizing that it fascinated me. Yet when I removed all of these things there was suddenly a return of ambient sound and a feeling of presence. I did what I felt necessary to bring me to that place and I haven't turned back. No I don't use CC PC's on my amps but I do everywhere else.

All roads lead to Rome. My direction was one in which I have no regrets as gone are the room restrictions I was battling and back was an overall sense of presence which I consider essential. Those are my thoughts. I understand yours. The difference is that I have heard all of David's systems and those of you being most vocal ........havent

I have no desires to get into a pi$$ing contest because frankly that is what this well intended thread has become. I laud members for the direction they have taken. Mine has been somewhat different.

Bottom line, "it's all good"

 

[Steve williams]

I meant no thing mean by my use of the word. Certainly there was non malice afore thought. So my apologies if they were taken in a mean light. That was not my intent. Again my apology

 

[ddk]

Steve,

Thanks for participating. Most audiophiles tell the same about a sound quality that is not "natural sound"at all. I have found that some people tell exactly the same about listening in mono, finding that stereo is artificial. Many extreme objectivist audiophiles also feel it about their systems.



What stands out is dependent on individual training (call it preference if you want) and mostly on the recording techniques. No stereo system can please all of them IMHO.



Curiously you selectively stripped - you kept the absorptive room treatments, the ultra-expensive signal and speaker cables, the same turntable as me, the speakers that are a technical mismatch with the ML3 according to most people here, and the tube digital that you wisely adapted to your preference.

I have no doubt you have a great system and a great sound - but I just can not see how you can apply to the "Natural Sound" just stripping power cables and moving the listening position.

Francisco, it's only simple when you know what you're doing!

david

 

[Ron Resnick]

Is natural sound getting sound to sound like live?

I am making this comment before I have seen how Peter actually has responded to your post down the thread.

I am hoping that Peter does not cause his philosophy of natural sound to collide with our several objectives of high-end audio by saying anything other than something like:

"Natural Sound allows me to better achieve my high-end audio objectives."

 

[Al M.]

I really haven't commented much at all, and what I did I intended to be supportive.

I only commented in a light hearted manner to try to keep Marc and ddk from an obvious waste of time debate as to who owns the term "natural sound", which provoked ddk to malign and defame me yet again.

I don't feel it's fair to characterize me this way, if anything it's David's viscous and defamatory attacks that are the issue, in this thread he defamed Mike L by calling him a shill and myself as well. Then there's his questionable use of language by calling things names like "room tampons" and "kitty litter boxes", his amazingly questionable comments about panzerholz, etc. His wanting to OWN terms like natural, etc...

Sorry but to characterize folks who object to this nonsense "sharks" isn't fair. David is the king shark around here, and he's much more viscous than anyone else. Sorry you can't see that.

Oh my, you are politically-correct sensitive. Even while I still had them in my own room, I found the name "room tampons" funny. And I have nothing against the name kitty litter boxes either.

What are some of the sensitive members here going to do? Play crybaby and send Steve Williams another PM, which he is not interested in, complaining how everyone is so rude? Gimme a break.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . I said there are many “ways” to get to “natural” sound. . . . I said there’s more than one way to achieve a system that sounds natural.

I am afraid that here you have confused me. These statements seem to me to be substantially identical in meaning.

What is the distinction you are trying to draw here?

 

[bonzo75]

I am making this comment before I have seen how Peter actually has responded to your post down the thread.

I am hoping that Peter does not cause his philosophy of natural sound to collide with our several objectives of high-end audio by saying anything other than something like:

"Natural Sound allows me to better achieve my high-end audio objectives."

Sorry my comment that you quoted was part of a is 1 or 2 or 3 type I am confused post, and in isolation will just add to the confusion

 

[Al M.]

Al... I have not sent a PM complaint to anyone about this thread.

I know that you wouldn't, Dave. I was not talking about you, but about "some sensitive people" who will know exactly who they are.

If you can't see the language used by ddk as being problematic, as well as his viscous and defamatory attacks on everyone he disagrees with, then IDK what to say, you've got blinders on. Gimme a break!

Maybe, but I still can't find the term "room tampons" anything but funny. And no, I am not a despicable misogynist macho, in case you wonder.

 

[Joe Whip]

As with all things audio, could it be that natural sound is in the ears of the beholder? Last night, with my modest system by WBF standards, I was transported into Bubba’s jazz club with Monty Alexander in 1982 with what I consider superb natural sound, just like what I would hear sitting in the first or second row of tables. What more could I ask for? I just let the sound flow over me.

 

[DaveC]

I know that you wouldn't, Dave. I was not talking about you, but about "some sensitive people" who will know exactly who they are.


Maybe, but I still can't find the term "room tampons" anything but funny. And no, I am not a despicable misogynist macho, in case you wonder.

In and of it's self, it's funny, I agree. It's in the context of the whole that it can be seen as part of the problem.

 

[Al M.]

This is exactly what you should expect from this "man".

You won't get better because he has no clue what he's actually doing and doesn't have the intelligence to debate anything like a real man.

Well, obviously you don't care about political correctness in your characterizations either .

 

[morricab]

Are you saying that the Lamm solid state units, such as the ML1.2R or the L2ref are not "Natural Sound"? It is what I am listening this weekend and sound great!

I haven’t heard the preamp, so no comment on it. The hybrid amps are not close sonically to a good SET on a speak compatible with both, IME. On a non-SET friendly speaker I can think of two amps offhand that offer better sound...Sphinx Project 16 and CAT JL2 Signature...again only if the speaker is really not SET friendly...I would probably still prefer something like Marc’s NAT SE2SE monos, which outperformed the JL2.

 

[jeff1225]

Probably don’t meet hospital specs...

Haha

 

[jeff1225]

This is exactly what you should expect from this "man".

You won't get better because he has no clue what he's actually doing and doesn't have the intelligence to debate anything like a real man. So all we get are childish insults complete with a vid of a crying baby. But he doesn't get it's himself. Lol...

"You don't have "Natural Sound"! You have no clue what it is! It's not what YOU think it is!" Waaaahhhh...

Dave,
As a member of the high school debating team, I can tell you what is not effective......the numerous posts where you proclaim your superior intelligence over your competition.

@Al M. can you please rescue this thread by posting your comments after visiting PeterA's system?