Natural Sound

[Ron Resnick]

No such luck, Ron. I don't know what "high-end audio" means any more,

I find this unnecessarily nihilistic. By "high-end audio" I simply meant this hobby.

 

[ddk]

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, 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...immersive, 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?

That’s absolutely not what I said Marc. You were talking about expanding the definition of “Natural” to whatever suits the person and/or system, that’s what I objected to not different ways of getting there. The context was @Folsom post regarding cat litter boxes that you were discussing. You can like them but what the litter boxes do to the sound is diametrically opposite of “Natural”. There are different ways of getting there as there are ways of never getting there and litter boxes is one of them.

david

 

[PeterA]

No Marc. I’m not saying there’s one formula. I heard four very different speakers at David’s house. One of them was not even horns. I’ve also described the last iteration of my Magico system as sounding quite natural but not to the same degree.

After repeating this so many times, how can you still think I am advocating one solution? Isn’t it obvious that there is more than one way to get there? And haven’t I made it obvious there are different degrees of natural sound? Natural sounding systems share particular characteristics. It’s a pretty easy concept but for some reason many cannot seem to grasp it.

It took me two years to understand this. It took some longer and others less time. Visit Tango. Or just listen to a few videos. It is clear that there is NOT just one way to a system with natural sound.
But there are some key things which have been discussed a few times.

Regarding audiophile room treatments: of course not all rooms are perfect. People are free to address room issues anywhere they want. I’m not here to tell others what to do. I’m describing what I did.

Ask yourself why you keep adding room treatments. Are you trying to get your system to sound more natural? If so, did it not sound natural before? What are you trying to change? What are you gaining? If what you are doing now is making your system sound more natural, then you have the answer to your earlier question about different ways of getting natural sound.

I’m not here to judge what kind of sound you get out of your system. Describe it however you want. I will use the words I think best describe the sound of my system.

 

[Ron Resnick]

As far as objectives go, Natural Sound is my objective.

You were a big part of the group of us here who developed in 2016 four alternative, but not mutually exclusive, objectives of high-end audio.

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

In fact we added 4) at your thoughtful request.

Would you now add a fifth possible objective -- "create a natural sound"?

If so, how is "create a natural sound" different than "create a sound that seems live"?

 

[PeterA]

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.

Is David’s system in my room the same as his Mitsubishi system in his big room or his JBL system in his small room? Is Tango’s system the same as my system? Four different systems in four different rooms. There are similarities, and there are differences. If you think these represent one way, then let’s just leave it at that.

 

[microstrip]

(...) So to rbbert, micro, DaveC et al who have commented so vociferously , I understand your negativism (...)

Steve,

I would like to know why you consider my answer to your answer vociferous. I listed facts, that I suppose are true, and told my opinion on them. I would like to read your comments on it. Simple as that.

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 ......

Agree on the roads - I call them preferences. I have not heard the Bionors, but all else. Are you suggesting that anyone who has not listened to the Bionors is unable to understand "Natural Sound"?

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"

It is not a p* contest, it is a discussion on stereo sound reproduction. IMHO declining to answer natural questions helps creating a p* contest.

 

[PeterA]

I find this unnecessarily nihilistic. By "high-end audio" I simply meant this hobby.

I understand that. What I’m saying is I don’t know what that is anymore. There’s another thread about this whole topic and we can discuss it over there.

 

[Steve williams]

Are you suggesting that anyone who has not listened to the Bionors is unable to understand "Natural Sound"?

I guess this is really what you're fishing for

The answer is a simple "No" but I would retort that unless you have heard the Bionors then you haven't heard it the way I have.

Plenty of systems with Natural sound. I've heard many. I just have never heard it as good, as these speakers are 114 Db efficient

 

[PeterA]

You were a big part of the group of us here who developed in 2016 four alternative, but not mutually exclusive, objectives of high-end audio.

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

In fact we added 4) at your thoughtful request.

Would you now add a fifth possible objective -- "create a natural sound"?

If so, how is "create a natural sound" different than "create a sound that seems live"?

As I remember it Ron, number four was to create a sound from a system that reminds the listener he is listening to real acoustic instruments in real space. I don’t think “live“ is the right word. I tried to find that thread the other day because it came up in this very thread and I couldn’t find it.

So as I think of “natural send”, it is that a system reminds me that I am listening to acoustic instruments in your space. So my number four would be natural sound. And that is what I would choose as a goal.

 

[tima]

The power supply is tube but the preamp is solid state?

Strictly speaking the L2.1 Ref is a linestage, but otherwise, yes. Mosfets in Class A, tubed PS in separate box. A very congenial unit.

Preamplifiers: L2.1 Reference – Lamm Industries Audio Products

/

 

[microstrip]

I guess this is really what you're fishing for

The answer is a simple "No" but I would retort that unless you have heard the Bionors then you haven't heard it the way I have.

Plenty of systems with Natural sound. I've heard many. I just have never heard it as good, as these speakers are 114 Db efficient

Dinosaurs, fishes, what is next ...

Surely I have not heard the way you did, but my questions were about your system, simple as that.

99.9% of the members of WBF have not listened to the Bionors or Peter speakers, it is why we ask for other "Natural Sound " systems.

 

[tima]

As I remember it Ron, number four was to create a sound from a system that reminds the listener he is listening to real acoustic instruments in real space. I don’t think “live“ is the right word. I tried to find that thread the other day because it came up in this very thread and I couldn’t find it.

Not sure there is such a thread. I asked Ron to show me the discussion, but I've never seen it.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Let’s not be silly. David described Tango’s system as sounding natural. You are the one claiming that David said there’s only one way to get there. I think we should drop this because we do not agree and we cannot seem to get past our misunderstanding of each other’s point of you.

Ah, so David says it sounds natural. And obviously many other rooms we don't get to hear about. All different rooms and varying gear, but Dave in common. And they're all natural. And anyone w Entreq and other tweaks in their system by definition can't be natural. Peter, it was Dave who interjected on your thread in response to my post previously saying in his opinion there's only one way to natural, and recently said tweaks like Entreq bar entry.
So, now we're getting to it. Dave's prescription for sound results in natural. Systems diverging with many tweaks and/or room treatments, don't. Or even worse, cannot.
It's a good thing I've developed a thick skin as I've grown older, not needing my "betters" to approve of my choices. Now I just smile to myself that adults choose to be so exclusionary and judgemental.
And to think, in a hobby that's SO subjective, with SO MANY variables, with SO GREAT a number of life experiences/system evolutions/musical tastes/biases/bloody minded attitudes...we're to consider one approach from Dave encapsulates natural sound, and many other approaches definitely don't.

 

[tima]

You were a big part of the group of us here who developed in 2016 four alternative, but not mutually exclusive, objectives of high-end audio.

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

In fact we added 4) at your thoughtful request.

Would you now add a fifth possible objective -- "create a natural sound"?

If so, how is "create a natural sound" different than "create a sound that seems live"?

I know this list is dear, but I think it is time to give it up, or change it. Several lengthy threads on some these "possibilities".

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event
-- likely not possible
2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,
-- unknowable
3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile,
-- possible, the majority fit hear, as many 'sounds' as their are audiophiles?
4) create a sound that seems live.
-- since reproduction is of an original musical event, is this sufficiently different from #1? I agree w/ Peter, here a different word is needed instead of 'live'. How 'bout "is believable".

 

[ddk]

Ah, so David says it sounds natural. And obviously many other rooms we don't get to hear about. All different rooms and varying gear, but Dave in common. And they're all natural. And anyone w Entreq and other tweaks in their system by definition can't be natural. Peter, it was Dave who interjected on your thread in response to my post previously saying in his opinion there's only one way to natural, and recently said tweaks like Entreq bar entry.
So, now we're getting to it. Dave's prescription for sound results in natural. Systems diverging with many tweaks and/or room treatments, don't. Or even worse, cannot.
It's a good thing I've developed a thick skin as I've grown older, not needing my "betters" to approve of my choices. Now I just smile to myself that adults choose to be so exclusionary and judgemental.
And to think, in a hobby that's SO subjective, with SO MANY variables, with SO GREAT a number of life experiences/system evolutions/musical tastes/biases/bloody minded attitudes...we're to consider one approach from Dave encapsulates natural sound, and many other approaches definitely don't.

You keep going in circles Marc misquoting and misrepresenting exactly the same stuff, no one stopped you from you from putting anything you want in your system or call it whatever you like. We didn’t say that there’s only one right direction, there are many but we’re discussing one specific type. If it fits your vision great, and if not also great.

david

 

[dminches]

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.

I think people are saying that because you have stated that there aren’t many ways to achieve natural sound. Correct me if I have mis interpreted your prior comments.

 

[spiritofmusic]

You keep going in circles Marc misquoting and misrepresenting exactly the same stuff, no one stopped you from you from putting anything you want in your system or call it whatever you like. We didn’t say that there’s only one right direction, there are many but we’re discussing one specific type. If it fits your vision great, and if not also great.

david

Sure, I keep misquoting and misrepresenting. So you say.
At least I'm in total agreement w your final sentence, that's as good a place to leave it Lol.

 

[PeterA]

Ah, so David says it sounds natural. And obviously many other rooms we don't get to hear about. All different rooms and varying gear, but Dave in common. And they're all natural. And anyone w Entreq and other tweaks in their system by definition can't be natural. Peter, it was Dave who interjected on your thread in response to my post previously saying in his opinion there's only one way to natural, and recently said tweaks like Entreq bar entry.
So, now we're getting to it. Dave's prescription for sound results in natural. Systems diverging with many tweaks and/or room treatments, don't. Or even worse, cannot.
It's a good thing I've developed a thick skin as I've grown older, not needing my "betters" to approve of my choices. Now I just smile to myself that adults choose to be so exclusionary and judgemental.
And to think, in a hobby that's SO subjective, with SO MANY variables, with SO GREAT a number of life experiences/system evolutions/musical tastes/biases/bloody minded attitudes...we're to consider one approach from Dave encapsulates natural sound, and many other approaches definitely don't.

Marc, All I can say is: “ Come on, man”.

I thought you had left the thread. Now you say you are thick skinned in your older age, but you seem very perturbed by what you imagine David thinks about your system. I would not worry so much. Move on and do your own thing.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Not sure there is such a thread. I asked Ron to show me the discussion, but I've never seen it.

Post # 260 of https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/great-article-on-analogue-warmth.19363/page-13#post-363656

Post # 11 of https://www.whatsbestforum.com/thre...e-hear-system-building-too.20747/#post-395453

Post # 2 of https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/truth.31618/#post-683585

I think this is the thread most dedicated to the objectives discussion: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/thre...utual-understanding-and-predictability.22285/

 

[Ron Resnick]

As I remember it Ron, number four was to create a sound from a system that reminds the listener he is listening to real acoustic instruments in real space. I don’t think “live“ is the right word. I tried to find that thread the other day because it came up in this very thread and I couldn’t find it.

So as I think of “natural send”, it is that a system reminds me that I am listening to acoustic instruments in your space. So my number four would be natural sound. And that is what I would choose as a goal.

Fair enough.

I think of "live" as being a subset of "natural," so I think I prefer your original forumulation. I think your list of attributes defining "natural sound" is broader and hits on more topics than the concept of music reproduction that sounds "live."

We both are probably being overly semantic.