Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
I don't have the extensive experience of many here, but in my limited experience, I've found my SS amp (Bakoon) and also a DartZeel I demoed to have a more clean and natural sound than the (overly euphonic) tube amps I previously owned (MasterSound 845's and Luxman 300b's). The day I turned my back on tubes was a celebration!
No such luck, Ron. I don't know what "high-end audio" means any more, nor would I say I have some philosophy of natural sound.
As far as objectives go, Natural Sound is my objective. This system achieves that.
Ron, it took me a while to go back and actually find the post and context for this. There are simply too many off topic posts to wade through. You mangled my quote to completely change its meaning by omitting words and context. No wonder you are now confused.
You should reread these two posts, # 1126 and # 1139, both on page 57. They are in response to Marc who mischaracterized what I wrote. They should clear things up.
Basically, Marc wrote that I suggested that there are many ways to achieve Natural Sound. I did not write that and disagree with it. I wrote that there is more than one way to achieve Natural Sound, meaning gear and set up. Choices have to be made carefully, and set up is critical. It can be done with different gear and rooms, but it is not easy unless you have experience and know the target.
I asked ddk about Natural Sound and learned it myself by experimenting for a year and a half on my old system, with his guidance. Getting rid of choke points in my set up and listening. That's all it took, but one must have an open mind and be willing to learn. My system became more natural sounding the more I experimented and got rid of stuff. Then I heard David's four different systems, and they all had higher degrees of Natural Sound than my own system. That is when I knew I had to change gear to go further toward Natural Sound.
So this is a few different systems, and David mentioned others. So it is clear there is more than one way, but that is not the same as saying there are many ways. Please reread my prior quotes in their complete context without words missing, and you will see they are consistent with what I just wrote in this post.
Post # 1126 copied here:
Marc, this is a misrepresentation of what I have been saying. I do not think there is only one way to get to natural sound, but that is very different from saying there are many ways to get to it. It should be clear from the last chapter of my last system where I spent a year and a half making that system sound more natural. The new system simply has a higher degree of natural sound. That is, it sounds more natural than my last one, primarily because it is higher in resolution, though it is also more dynamic and less constricted sounding.
Respectfully, there’s no way that you can know whether or not my new system is the epitome of natural sound. You have not heard my system. I don’t even know if you’ve heard any of the components in my system. I will say David’s main system sounds more natural than my new system. It is only a matter of degree but they share the same sonic characteristics.
And post # 1139 here:
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.
Last edited:
I have that combination available to me for listening and I would not say that. The M1.2 Ref is a hybrid. The L2.1 Ref has tube based regulation and rectification in its power supply.
Poorly executed anything will not sound correct...I found Mastersound not to be in a superior sound class... Lixman 300b is probably only suitable for 100db + speakers and anything less will sound colored and distorted. Dartzeel sounds SS and not natural, IMO, electronic signature is clearly Audible. Bakoon I have no idea never heard it...
I feel like my system thread is becoming the WBF live chat room where everyone comes to gather to air his dirty laundry. We are free to offend and to be offended. But I don't believe in "safe spaces" or the "woke" culture, so beware of the content in these pages. It may offend. Natural Sound has been described as elitist, privileged, and exclusive. The little secret is that it is none of those things. Anyone can achieve it.
Natural Sound is simply a different opinion, and it should be tolerated as such. I am not suggesting that it be celebrated, but I do not think it should be cancelled because some feel offended. It's advocates should be able to express themselves freely because this little chat room is a place for the free exchange of ideas. We are all better for it. All that is needed is an open mind, the willingness to work hard, and to listen.
Oh, and we should respect that which came before, and learn from it. They got a lot of things right back then.
Natural Sound is simply a different opinion, and it should be tolerated as such. I am not suggesting that it be celebrated, but I do not think it should be cancelled because some feel offended. It's advocates should be able to express themselves freely because this little chat room is a place for the free exchange of ideas. We are all better for it. All that is needed is an open mind, the willingness to work hard, and to listen.
Oh, and we should respect that which came before, and learn from it. They got a lot of things right back then.
Last edited:
Unfortunately there are too many tube amps not worthy to be taken serious. So with pain in my heart i understand your decision...
Luckiliy there are exceptions (as always)..
In case you like your amps "fast" , "tight" , "punchy in the bass" and "clear as crystal" but without beeing grainy and harsh (like all the SS gear i know). then you could look at some more "modern" tube designs like: OTL, Zotl, SLCF peamps etc... as these do not roll-off at 20kHz and do kick-ass...
As for me i do not want any SS device in my signal chain ever (D/A converters excluded)! SS devices have their merrits but only in a "supporting role" ( digital domain and current sources etc.)
The biggest issue in this thread would appear to be the title "Natural Sound", which probably should have been "Natural Sound" - trademark ddk. Post #5 has a long list of audio descriptors, most or all of which I and others would apply to the sound of our systems, but in fact that is not what "Natural Sound" is. As finally became clear from posts on pages 55-58, "Natural Sound" as used in this thread is what ddk says it is, no more and no less. Perhaps if that had been made more clear in the first few posts the thread would have been less contentious and more about PeterA's system?
Only in a sense. "Anyone" can only achieve it by visiting ddk and following his advice
Which should be completely irrelevant in a general discussion of what constitutes "natural sound" (no capitals), "realistic sound" or "real music", because the chance of this occurring "naturally"
only at one house in Utah is so small as to be insignificant.Peter, apologies if I mischaracterized you. I'll stick my neck out and say there are many ways to natural sound. I've heard great natural sound via tubes on high efficiency cones, hybrids on panels, tubes and SS on ribbons, on one occasion SS on horns. I haven't yet heard natural sound in a totally untreated room, but I guess if I heard yours, I might.
Of course there are also many ways to unnatural sound.
But it seems theres only one way to one type of natural sound. So I've been informed Lol.
Of course there are also many ways to unnatural sound.
But it seems theres only one way to one type of natural sound. So I've been informed Lol.
Last edited:
Only in a sense. "Anyone" can only achieve it by visiting ddk and following his advice
Perhaps you are teasing because of the emoji. I can’t really tell. Visiting David is only for exposure to this type of sound. It is not necessary but it is helpful. You will see there are no fancy power cords with fancy connectors. From my pictures you can tell there is no attention paid to cable dressing. There are no expensive audiophile footers. No audio file room acoustic treatments. But there all equipment supports and there is sound treatment in the form of furniture and carpeting. One will learn that less can be more when trying to achieve natural sound and a convincing presentation.
This sound can you be experienced elsewhere as well. David listed three systems that have it besides his own. He knows of others.
For some reason you keep trying to make this very exclusive. I don’t think that is the case. And no one is saying that is the case. David has a very modest digital mini system in his office. It exhibited some of the same traits of his other systems.
I do not understand why some people here are misconstruing what has been said. Stuff is being made up and I don’t get it.
Marc, perhaps someone informed you there’s only one way. I’ve been saying there is not only one way. I personally have heard four different systems that exhibit this sound.
I don’t know where you got the idea that my room was “totally untreated“. Have you seen the pictures of my room? There is a large natural fiber carpet with pad. There’s a large leather sofa with pillows. There are two upholster chairs. And there are three windows with special glass for acoustic reasons and wooden slats with her adjustable for best dispersion direction. Glass has been removed from the picture frames. All of these decisions were made by listening. They were made carefully and deliberately.
What I do no longer have are my audiophile room acoustic treatments. Al M. has dramatically reduced the number in his room as well based on listening. It’s not a dogmatic position, it is simply a decision reached by the owner by listening for preferred results.
Peter, let me try and explain. I have no idea if I'm talking for others, but even if it's mainly for me.
The thread is Natural Sound. It's the term you've chosen. Or maybe Dave already uses that term. And thus you're using it in concert, because it's his system philosophy and part of his inventory you've purchased.
You're humble enough to say you've hit on a sound you've never experienced before, you deem this natural sound, Dave concurs.
This is all perfectly uncontroversial. I mean I've heard the most amazing system recently, maybe I'd have called that natural sound.
And part of the CV for this sound is stripping stuff out.
I wonder had you got a worse result removing your acoustic treatments, and kept them in, but were good with rejecting your Vibraplanes etc, would you still have called it natural sound. Would Dave have been OK with that.
Or does the label Dave is using only apply with the top to bottom reconfiguration?
Because surely you know the majority of rooms need help...sometimes moving gear about/spkrs positioning hits the G-Spot, but sometimes it doesn't.
You seem ok with the idea that natural sound can be achieved in more than one way. But Dave has interjected to say he's only thinking of one way.
And since so many of us have achieved our natural sound (insert any other descriptor that is positive..non-mechanical, immersive etc) in so many ways, and others are striving, some with a minimum of accessories and tweaks, some with an excess, to hear that there is one natural sound seems by definition exclusionary.
In all areas of life, you're told there is only one true way. In a hobby as hugely subjective as audio, with so many variables, so many tastes, so many life experiences, are we REALLY saying that natural sound reproduction at home has one formula?
Really?
The thread is Natural Sound. It's the term you've chosen. Or maybe Dave already uses that term. And thus you're using it in concert, because it's his system philosophy and part of his inventory you've purchased.
You're humble enough to say you've hit on a sound you've never experienced before, you deem this natural sound, Dave concurs.
This is all perfectly uncontroversial. I mean I've heard the most amazing system recently, maybe I'd have called that natural sound.
And part of the CV for this sound is stripping stuff out.
I wonder had you got a worse result removing your acoustic treatments, and kept them in, but were good with rejecting your Vibraplanes etc, would you still have called it natural sound. Would Dave have been OK with that.
Or does the label Dave is using only apply with the top to bottom reconfiguration?
Because surely you know the majority of rooms need help...sometimes moving gear about/spkrs positioning hits the G-Spot, but sometimes it doesn't.
You seem ok with the idea that natural sound can be achieved in more than one way. But Dave has interjected to say he's only thinking of one way.
And since so many of us have achieved our natural sound (insert any other descriptor that is positive..non-mechanical, immersive etc) in so many ways, and others are striving, some with a minimum of accessories and tweaks, some with an excess, to hear that there is one natural sound seems by definition exclusionary.
In all areas of life, you're told there is only one true way. In a hobby as hugely subjective as audio, with so many variables, so many tastes, so many life experiences, are we REALLY saying that natural sound reproduction at home has one formula?
Really?
Last edited:
To be sure, you aren't saying there is only one way. But Dave is. And it's his system were discussing. In your room.
Respectfully, I don't feel that I misquoted you at all. My excerpt is an exact copy and paste from your original post on which I am commenting.
I understand your point that my quote was out of context, but that is true, if at all, only because you are labeling Marc's assertion of "many" as a mischaracterization of your prior posts which you have distilled into the quantification of "more than one."
My point was that "many" does not seem to me to be that far from "more than one." And "more than one" seems extremely stingy, as David's four systems and your system already total five systems in existence capable of realizing your philosophy of Natural Sound.
Similar threads
