Natural Sound

[Al M.]

Last week I listened to Peter’s system with both cartridges, the refurbished vdH, adapted to provide lower output, and the Technics MM cartridge. After a relaxed and delicious dinner at a favorite restaurant we experienced relaxed sound. Why was it relaxed? I will get to that later.

David Karmeli said that the speakers still had to settle in after not having been played for such a long time, and the progress compared to the first time I heard this system was obvious. Back then it had sounded off to me, this time the sound was very good, and I expect more progress as the system continues to settle in. We started with the vdH cartridge, and with Kenny Burrell’s “Midnight Blue”. I thought Kenny’s electric guitar sounded spectacular, with truly explosive dynamics from the notes through the reproduced guitar amp, and timbre was also very attractive.

The acoustic guitar on Almeida/Brown sounded very good, and the low register of the bowed bass was excellent. It was powerful with a round tone, but no overhang. Art Pepper plus Eleven sounded very nice, and by this time it was clear that there were no obvious horn colorations. Again the bass was excellent, in several aspects the best I have heard. The notes from the stand-up bass were very distinct, and you could follow the walking bass lines with utter ease. Peter talks about hollowness of the bass, the ability to hear the effect of the hollow body of the instrument, and in that sense I have never heard more convincing bass shy of the real thing. It’s hard to describe, you have to hear it. It is no coincidence that our friend Ian (MadFloyd) also raved about bass quality in his report towards the beginning of the thread (post #46). The sound of the music was good with the MM cartridge as well, but it was more open with the vdH.

The chamber opera Savitri by Holst showed off the spatial capabilities of the system, with stage depth from back to front. The vocals sounded dynamic and quite uncolored, but personally I would have hoped for some more air in the sound. About 5-7 minutes into the music, there was a spectacularly reproduced bass line from the chamber orchestra, very distinct and powerful.

Scheherazade showed solid body on low brass and some good air on the solo violin, particularly with the vdH cartridge, and with the latter also good resolution of the sound texture of the massed strings. The MM cartridge failed to show such resolution; if that was inherent to the cartridge or due to the less pronounced HF response which, in the context of a system that shows some HF roll-off to begin with, was insufficient, is not quite clear. Yet overall the sound was also quite good with the MM cartridge on most material.

The sound of the system was large, not surprising with corner horns in a 16 feet wide room, but it could scale appropriately where needed. Depending on the LP played, overall dynamics of the sound ranged from good to spectacular (highlight Kenny Burrell’s guitar). Especially with the vdH cartridge I found the sound of Peter’s system very enjoyable. It was a nice evening.

 

[Al M.]

So what makes the sound relaxed and what is, in my view, the characteristic that creates the unique Natural Sound of Peter’s system?

I have started a new thread on this, also in Member’s Gallery:

Peter A.’s System: A Perspective on Natural Sound

Link:
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/peter-a-’s-system-a-perspective-on-natural-sound.33044/

(Sorry, you have to copy and paste, sometimes the hyperlinking on the forum does not work.)

Perhaps opening this new thread, which you may view as a companion to Peter’s system thread based on my listening experience, will help refocus the discussion of Peter’s Natural Sound.

 

[Tango]

Another observation I would make from afar regarding the different ways one can set up a natural sounding system is to simply look at the collection of gear in your audio laboratory. From here, it seems your AS2000 gets the most use, perhaps by far. And you once had quite a number of arms and cartridges. It seems you have migrated toward primarily the SME 3012R and the Opus/Colibri combinations. Is that true? If so, is it because you find that gear to produce the most natural sound from your system?

I sold the AF1P and SAT. The Kronos had been in its flight case for year and I sold it a few months ago. The 927 I keep because it is rare to find one with good condition and play properly. So yes I now only use AS2000, 3012R, vdh and Opus1. Regardless of how much praise ddk made on the 927, I think the AS2000 is in another level of transparency, resolution and all the attributes you wrote describing natural sound. Maybe this is the only time I am not diplomatic in saying. The 927 size and scale is less believable than the AS2000. It also does not layer as well. What it does great is making reproduced music sound live. The AS2000 is to me the best example of gear that tick all boxes of sound attributes you wrote at full degree. If you went back to read my comment when I first encountered AS2000, I said the AS2000 striked me with clarity and transparency. I was reluctant to say anything else because my other tts actually gave me more in most areas that famous reviewers love to write about. But the more I listen the more I hear nothing is lacking. For example dynamic exhibit differently from one record to another. Some record has heart pumping dynamic. Some record has lame dynamic. How could the AS2000 lack dynamic if I just heard the kind of dynamic that raised my heart beat like riding a roller coaster listening to another record. One thing consistent is you will hear all instrument so very clearly with uncomparable flow of musical movement. Some how the timing of notes get me more emotional involve with the music than my other tts especially on slower quieter passage. The sound of music becomes more up to the record. This tt actually made me understand what ddk was saying. So the AS2000 was my trigger not Utah. I never been there. Never listen to his system. I don't think one need to listen to his system to understand but one needs to hear it from a system that possess it.

Writing so long but have not answered you any question..hehe . Now some answer. I don't really know if these gears give me most natural sound. They seem to work excellent hand in hand giving me more believable sound. More believable than gears I had before. But there are just so many interesting gears out there that I never tried in my system.

 

[PeterA]

Thank you Tang. Your signature explains your choices. I once referred to your system as an "audio laboratory" because of all the possible turntable/arm/cartridge combinations heard through the same electronics and speakers. You have now settled on the combination you prefer and you no longer have so many options. That makes sense as the exploration period is over.

There will always be different gear to try or hear in other systems. That is part of the fun. There will always be better somewhere somehow. Best to explore when in the mood, and then settle on choices so that you can relax and enjoy listening to your music.

 

[PeterA]

Last week I listened to Peter’s system with both cartridges, the refurbished vdH, adapted to provide lower output, and the Technics MM cartridge. After a relaxed and delicious dinner at a favorite restaurant we experienced relaxed sound. Why was it relaxed? I will get to that later.

David Karmeli said that the speakers still had to settle in after not having been played for such a long time, and the progress compared to the first time I heard this system was obvious. Back then it had sounded off to me, this time the sound was very good, and I expect more progress as the system continues to settle in. We started with the vdH cartridge, and with Kenny Burrell’s “Midnight Blue”. I thought Kenny’s electric guitar sounded spectacular, with truly explosive dynamics from the notes through the reproduced guitar amp, and timbre was also very attractive.

The acoustic guitar on Almeida/Brown sounded very good, and the low register of the bowed bass was excellent. It was powerful with a round tone, but no overhang. Art Pepper plus Eleven sounded very nice, and by this time it was clear that there were no obvious horn colorations. Again the bass was excellent, in several aspects the best I have heard. The notes from the stand-up bass were very distinct, and you could follow the walking bass lines with utter ease. Peter talks about hollowness of the bass, the ability to hear the effect of the hollow body of the instrument, and in that sense I have never heard more convincing bass shy of the real thing. It’s hard to describe, you have to hear it. It is no coincidence that our friend Ian (MadFloyd) also raved about bass quality in his report towards the beginning of the thread (post #46). The sound of the music was good with the MM cartridge as well, but it was more open with the vdH.

The chamber opera Savitri by Holst showed off the spatial capabilities of the system, with stage depth from back to front. The vocals sounded dynamic and quite uncolored, but personally I would have hoped for some more air in the sound. About 5-7 minutes into the music, there was a spectacularly reproduced bass line from the chamber orchestra, very distinct and powerful.

Scheherazade showed solid body on low brass and some good air on the solo violin, particularly with the vdH cartridge, and with the latter also good resolution of the sound texture of the massed strings. The MM cartridge failed to show such resolution; if that was inherent to the cartridge or due to the less pronounced HF response which, in the context of a system that shows some HF roll-off to begin with, was insufficient, is not quite clear. Yet overall the sound was also quite good with the MM cartridge on most material.

The sound of the system was large, not surprising with corner horns in a 16 feet wide room, but it could scale appropriately where needed. Depending on the LP played, overall dynamics of the sound ranged from good to spectacular (highlight Kenny Burrell’s guitar). Especially with the vdH cartridge I found the sound of Peter’s system very enjoyable. It was a nice evening.

Thank you Al for taking the time, and making the effort, to share your listening impressions here with others. Thank you also for your expanded thoughts in the other thread.

My thoughts have been expressed numerous times, so I will not add much here. I appreciate your recognition of the improvement in the area of the bass reproduction. This is perhaps the single most significant difference between my old system, even at the very end when I really enjoyed the sound, and my new system. But beyond the bass, I do want to touch on a few aspects of the sound which you discuss and that I mention in my list of Natural Sound characteristics.

• No “sound”, only music
• The system sound is absent from the presentation

These basically mean the same thing. By "sound", I mean system sound, or sonic signature from a component or system. What David's four systems shared was a complete lack of recognizable system sound. What the listener is left with is the music, nothing else. There is no highlighting or spotlighting of some aspect of the sound. This was unique in my experience of listening to many systems over the years. My new system approaches that, but it is still settling and will surely benefit from David's fine tuning when he visits. This lack of system sound leads to the idea of the listener relaxing to enjoy the music. The listener is not focused on the system or some aspect of its sound.

• Relaxing, zero fatigue

This is not about a "relaxed" presentation from the system, it is about the listening state or mood the system puts the listener in. When there is fatigue, there can be no relaxation. David's four systems had zero fatigue. This again is unique in my experience of listening to many systems over the years. I was able to sit and listen for hours, days on end, to any one of his systems. With many other systems, I am mentally tired after a few minutes or hours and want to do something else. Others may be less sensitive to this or may simply disagree.

These two then lead to the idea of high frequencies and their pronounced presence in many systems. That leading edge you discuss so well is a very interesting topic. I think people have varying perceptions of high frequencies and their effect on the presentation. This may be based on where they generally sit in the hall, the presentation of their particular components or system, and their preferences and what they think is most realistic.

One person may think leading edges, transients, high frequencies, are rolled off giving a further back presentation, a more relaxed sound, a rolled off sound, while someone else may think this is just more balanced. Listeners with the latter perspective may describe a more prominent leading edge or transient as an accent, a highlighting, with the result that the sound is more forward, less relaxed, more spectacular and aggressive. These are differences of degrees, and they are so dependent on one's perspective, preferences, and experience, that it is difficult to evaluate.

I think the important thing is having a system which can demonstrate differences between recordings, because they are made with different mic positions and perspectives. Engineers play a role too. If a system is forward or recessed sounding on everything, or the highs/transients/leading edges are either pronounced or rolled off, on everything, then I would suggest there are issues.

To me, Tima's review of the Lamm LP2.1 describes this sense of balanced sound and how it relates to the concert hall experience very clearly:

When you close your eyes in the concert hall do you sense vivid three-dimensional images of performers and instruments? In your mind's ear are there precisely delineated rows of violins playing or musicians laid out in bas relief? Does your seating offer "illumination of the furthest corners of the soundstage?" My experience largely finds such effects not in concert halls but in listening rooms, where electronics along with room factors and speaker positioning help produce them. In the concert hall do you hear "velvety black backgrounds?" Do transients "pop like fireworks against a night sky?" Many audiophiles like these sonic characteristics and reviewers do write about them as the quotes (taken from real reviews) suggest. To my ears they are audiophile "virtues," psycho-acoustic idealizations of the live experience. What do you want your stereo system to sound like? I use live music as my reference.

I look forward to our next dinner and listening session.

 

[microstrip]

That’s exactly what I posted! You have used the stereo is artificial therefore we can’t have natural sound in many posts here. That has been your position, why deny it now?
david

No David I do not deny anything. I say that stereo is an artificial process and explained its consequences, including the physics. No stereo system or sound type can be " the natural one", although it can create the illusion of reality, with the participation of the listener. This participation defines preferences, and is influenced by our particular perception of the reality.

Probably if you had trademarketed "Natural Sound" you would have some legal rights on the use of the expression. As long as you did not, any one is free to say its sound is more natural sound that yours. And what I say is that the sound of your Bionor's is as artificial as the one of my XLF's or Steve X2's - it is sound reproduction created by man and the degree of pseudo-natural depends on the man listening to them.

Most of what we debate is just semantics, but also the fundamental aspects.

 

[microstrip]

I sold the AF1P and SAT. The Kronos had been in its flight case for year and I sold it a few months ago. The 927 I keep because it is rare to find one with good condition and play properly. So yes I now only use AS2000, 3012R, vdh and Opus1. Regardless of how much praise ddk made on the 927, I think the AS2000 is in another level of transparency, resolution and all the attributes you wrote describing natural sound. Maybe this is the only time I am not diplomatic in saying. The 927 size and scale is less believable than the AS2000. It also does not layer as well. What it does great is making reproduced music sound live. The AS2000 is to me the best example of gear that tick all boxes of sound attributes you wrote at full degree. If you went back to read my comment when I first encountered AS2000, I said the AS2000 striked me with clarity and transparency. I was reluctant to say anything else because my other tts actually gave me more in most areas that famous reviewers love to write about. But the more I listen the more I hear nothing is lacking. For example dynamic exhibit differently from one record to another. Some record has heart pumping dynamic. Some record has lame dynamic. How could the AS2000 lack dynamic if I just heard the kind of dynamic that raised my heart beat like riding a roller coaster listening to another record. One thing consistent is you will hear all instrument so very clearly with uncomparable flow of musical movement. Some how the timing of notes get me more emotional involve with the music than my other tts especially on slower quieter passage. The sound of music becomes more up to the record. This tt actually made me understand what ddk was saying. So the AS2000 was my trigger not Utah. I never been there. Never listen to his system. I don't think one need to listen to his system to understand but one needs to hear it from a system that possess it.

Writing so long but have not answered you any question..hehe . Now some answer. I don't really know if these gears give me most natural sound. They seem to work excellent hand in hand giving me more believable sound. More believable than gears I had before. But there are just so many interesting gears out there that I never tried in my system.

Great post. Can you tell us where in this description fits your Studer A820?

Reading what you say about the EMT927 versus the AS2000 - size, scale, layering I must say I felt the same about the EMT927 versus the TechDas AF1P - it is in part why I sold the EMT and moved to the TechDas.

 

[Andrew S.]

Thank you Al for taking the time, and making the effort, to share your listening impressions here with others. Thank you also for your expanded thoughts in the other thread. My thoughts have been expressed numerous times, so I will not add much here. I appreciate your recognition of the improvement in the area of the bass reproduction. This is perhaps the single most significant difference between my old system, even at the very end when I really enjoyed the sound, and my new system. But beyond the bass, I do want to touch on a few aspects of the sound which you discuss and that I mention in my list of Natural Sound characteristics.

• No “sound”, only music
• The system sound is absent from the presentation

These basically mean the same thing. By "sound", I mean system sound, or sonic signature from a component or system. What David's four systems shared was a complete lack of recognizable system sound. What the listener is left with is the music, nothing else. There is no highlighting or spotlighting of some aspect of the sound. This was unique in my experience of listening to many systems over the years. My new system approaches that, but it is still settling and will surely benefit from David's fine tuning when he visits. This lack of system sound leads to the idea of the listener relaxing to enjoy the music. The listener is not focused on the system or some aspect of its sound.

• Relaxing, zero fatigue

This is not about a "relaxed" presentation from the system, it is about the listening state or mood the system puts the listener in. When there is fatigue, there can be no relaxation. David's four systems had zero fatigue. This again is unique in my experience of listening to many systems over the years. I was able to sit and listen for hours, days on end, to any one of his systems. With many other systems, I am mentally tired after a few minutes or hours and want to do something else. Others may be less sensitive to this or may simply disagree.

These two then lead to the idea of high frequencies and their pronounced presence in many systems. That leading edge you discuss so well is a very interesting topic. I think people have varying perceptions of high frequencies and their effect on the presentation. This may be based on where they generally sit in the hall, the presentation of their particular components or system, and their preferences and what they think is most realistic.

One person may think leading edges, transients, high frequencies, are rolled off giving a further back presentation, a more relaxed sound, a rolled off sound, while someone else may think this is just more balanced. The later perspective may describe a more prominent leading edge or transient as an accent, a highlighting, with the result that the sound is more forward, less relaxed, more spectacular. These are differences of degrees, and they are so dependent on one's perspective, preferences, and experience, that it is difficult to evaluate.

I think the important thing is having a system which can demonstrate differences between recordings, because they are made with different mic positions and perspectives. Engineers play a role too. If a system is forward or recessed sounding on everything, or the highs/transients/leading edges are either pronounced or rolled off, on everything, then I would suggest there are issues.

To me, Tima's review of the Lamm LP2.1 describes this sense of balanced sound and how it relates to the concert hall experience very clearly:

When you close your eyes in the concert hall do you sense vivid three-dimensional images of performers and instruments? In your mind's ear are there precisely delineated rows of violins playing or musicians laid out in bas relief? Does your seating offer "illumination of the furthest corners of the soundstage?" My experience largely finds such effects not in concert halls but in listening rooms, where electronics along with room factors and speaker positioning help produce them. In the concert hall do you hear "velvety black backgrounds?" Do transients "pop like fireworks against a night sky?" Many audiophiles like these sonic characteristics and reviewers do write about them as the quotes (taken from real reviews) suggest. To my ears they are audiophile "virtues," psycho-acoustic idealizations of the live experience. What do you want your stereo system to sound like? I use live music as my reference.

I look forward to our next dinner and listening session.

Excellent well expressed and generous reply. A pleasure to read.

 

[PeterA]

Great post. Can you tell us where in this description fits your Studer A820?

Reading what you say about the EMT927 versus the AS2000 - size, scale, layering I must say I felt the same about the EMT927 versus the TechDas AF1P - it is in part why I sold the EMT and moved to the TechDas.

No comparison between the AS 2000 and the TechDAS. I heard them in the same system with the same music. This just goes to show you different preferences. Tango sold his TechDAS and kept the EMT but seems to only listen to the AS 2000.

 

[PeterA]

This notion that something can not sound natural if it is man-made makes no sense to me. When we go to Vienna and here a performance on those great stages in those great halls from those great musicians playing those great instruments, it is all man-made, every last bit of it I ncluding the very composition which was invented by man in the heads of geniuses.

Not only that. Every one of us here alive living and breathing is man-made by his two parents. Now as humans, we are also part of nature.

my brothers wife works for a French cosmetics company. They try very hard to come up with fragrances and lip stick colors that smell and look natural. I had a glass of orange juice this morning made by man that I have to say had a combination of chemicals that made it look and taste quite natural.

This notion that we cannot use the term to express how we think a system presents music is silly. I’m not telling others what terms to use. I just don’t like being told by others what terms I can use.

 

[ddk]

No David I do not deny anything. I say that stereo is an artificial process and explained its consequences, including the physics. No stereo system or sound type can be " the natural one", although it can create the illusion of reality, with the participation of the listener. This participation defines preferences, and is influenced by our particular perception of the reality.

Probably if you had trademarketed "Natural Sound" you would have some legal rights on the use of the expression. As long as you did not, any one is free to say its sound is more natural sound that yours. And what I say is that the sound of your Bionor's is as artificial as the one of my XLF's or Steve X2's - it is sound reproduction created by man and the degree of pseudo-natural depends on the man listening to them.

Most of what we debate is just semantics, but also the fundamental aspects.

Unfortunately Francisco most of this thread is wasted on semantics than anything else. I didn't coin the phrase 'natural sound" or natural nor do I claim ownership. Of course anyone is free to call what they want "natural sound" but we're not discussing the same things anymore.

To clarify "natural sound" has it's own elements which are demonstrable it has nothing to do with Bionor, Wilson or any particular brand of speakers or gear as long as they're not completely wrong and heavily colored to begin with. This doesn't mean that all "natural sound" gear are equal and even the best "natural sound" can easily be transformed into something else with one wrong power cord.

david

 

[Bobvin]

Thank you Al for taking the time, and making the effort, to share your listening impressions here with others. Thank you also for your expanded thoughts in the other thread.

My thoughts have been expressed numerous times, so I will not add much here. I appreciate your recognition of the improvement in the area of the bass reproduction. This is perhaps the single most significant difference between my old system, even at the very end when I really enjoyed the sound, and my new system. But beyond the bass, I do want to touch on a few aspects of the sound which you discuss and that I mention in my list of Natural Sound characteristics.

• No “sound”, only music
• The system sound is absent from the presentation

These basically mean the same thing. By "sound", I mean system sound, or sonic signature from a component or system. What David's four systems shared was a complete lack of recognizable system sound. What the listener is left with is the music, nothing else. There is no highlighting or spotlighting of some aspect of the sound. This was unique in my experience of listening to many systems over the years. My new system approaches that, but it is still settling and will surely benefit from David's fine tuning when he visits. This lack of system sound leads to the idea of the listener relaxing to enjoy the music. The listener is not focused on the system or some aspect of its sound.

• Relaxing, zero fatigue

This is not about a "relaxed" presentation from the system, it is about the listening state or mood the system puts the listener in. When there is fatigue, there can be no relaxation. David's four systems had zero fatigue. This again is unique in my experience of listening to many systems over the years. I was able to sit and listen for hours, days on end, to any one of his systems. With many other systems, I am mentally tired after a few minutes or hours and want to do something else. Others may be less sensitive to this or may simply disagree.

These two then lead to the idea of high frequencies and their pronounced presence in many systems. That leading edge you discuss so well is a very interesting topic. I think people have varying perceptions of high frequencies and their effect on the presentation. This may be based on where they generally sit in the hall, the presentation of their particular components or system, and their preferences and what they think is most realistic.

One person may think leading edges, transients, high frequencies, are rolled off giving a further back presentation, a more relaxed sound, a rolled off sound, while someone else may think this is just more balanced. Listeners with the latter perspective may describe a more prominent leading edge or transient as an accent, a highlighting, with the result that the sound is more forward, less relaxed, more spectacular and aggressive. These are differences of degrees, and they are so dependent on one's perspective, preferences, and experience, that it is difficult to evaluate.

I think the important thing is having a system which can demonstrate differences between recordings, because they are made with different mic positions and perspectives. Engineers play a role too. If a system is forward or recessed sounding on everything, or the highs/transients/leading edges are either pronounced or rolled off, on everything, then I would suggest there are issues.

To me, Tima's review of the Lamm LP2.1 describes this sense of balanced sound and how it relates to the concert hall experience very clearly:

When you close your eyes in the concert hall do you sense vivid three-dimensional images of performers and instruments? In your mind's ear are there precisely delineated rows of violins playing or musicians laid out in bas relief? Does your seating offer "illumination of the furthest corners of the soundstage?" My experience largely finds such effects not in concert halls but in listening rooms, where electronics along with room factors and speaker positioning help produce them. In the concert hall do you hear "velvety black backgrounds?" Do transients "pop like fireworks against a night sky?" Many audiophiles like these sonic characteristics and reviewers do write about them as the quotes (taken from real reviews) suggest. To my ears they are audiophile "virtues," psycho-acoustic idealizations of the live experience. What do you want your stereo system to sound like? I use live music as my reference.

I look forward to our next dinner and listening session.

Finally, after pages and pages, with Al’s post here and his new thread, and Peter’s reply, we get to hear how the system is presenting music using vocabulary most will understand—so much more informative than saying it “sounds natural”.

And with respect, I recognize Peter has attempted, with his bullet points, to describe this, but I‘ve been waiting to hear description, comparison, analogy to gain understanding absent hearing the system myself.

 

[Al M.]

Finally, after pages and pages, with Al’s post here and his new thread, and Peter’s reply, we get to hear how the system is presenting music using vocabulary most will understand—so much more informative than saying it “sounds natural”.

And with respect, I recognize Peter has attempted, with his bullet points, to describe this, but I‘ve been waiting to hear description, comparison, analogy to gain understanding absent hearing the system myself.

Thanks, Bob. It was my intention to provide some clarity and context, and to get out of the circular loop of talking about "natural" that comes from assuming everyone agrees on what the term means, while actually nobody does.

 

[Ron Resnick]

To me, Tima's review of the Lamm LP2.1 describes this sense of balanced sound and how it relates to the concert hall experience very clearly:

When you close your eyes in the concert hall do you sense vivid three-dimensional images of performers and instruments? In your mind's ear are there precisely delineated rows of violins playing or musicians laid out in bas relief? Does your seating offer "illumination of the furthest corners of the soundstage?" My experience largely finds such effects not in concert halls but in listening rooms, where electronics along with room factors and speaker positioning help produce them. In the concert hall do you hear "velvety black backgrounds?" Do transients "pop like fireworks against a night sky?" Many audiophiles like these sonic characteristics and reviewers do write about them as the quotes (taken from real reviews) suggest. To my ears they are audiophile "virtues," psycho-acoustic idealizations of the live experience. What do you want your stereo system to sound like? I use live music as my reference.

Before your explication of your natural sound philosophy the dichotomies expressed in Tima's review + a "leading edge" evaluation + a fatigue/relaxation evaluation + a "false speed" evaluation + a dynamics evaluation + a transparency evaluation comprise most, if not all, of how I would evaluate a stereo system. I am sympathetic to your natural sound philosophy because I believe that how I think about these topics and how I evaluate stereo systems is consistent with your natural sound philosophy. My list of bullet points is a subset of your list of bullet points, effectively.

I just wonder if by having so many bullet points in your philosophy you are attracting more controversy and less semantic defensibility than is necessary or illuminating. In other words I feel like my process gets to essentially the same place as your philosophy -- with often the same audio components or types of audio components -- without wrapping the analysis in a more complicated and ostensibly further-reaching structure.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Thanks, Bob. It was my intention to provide some clarity and context, and to get out of the circular loop of talking about "natural" that comes from assuming everyone agrees on what the term means, while actually nobody does.

Thank you very much for posting your impressions, Al!

 

[PeterA]

Before your explication of your natural sound philosophy the dichotomies expressed in Tima's review + a "leading edge" evaluation + a fatigue/relaxation evaluation + a "false speed" evaluation + a dynamics evaluation + a transparency evaluation comprise most, if not all, of how I would evaluate a stereo system. I am sympathetic to your natural sound philosophy because I believe that how I think about these topics and how I evaluate stereo systems is consistent with your natural sound philosophy. My list of bullet points is a subset of your list of bullet points, effectively.

I just wonder if by having so many bullet points in your philosophy you are attracting more controversy and less semantic defensibility than is necessary or illuminating. In other words I feel like my process gets to essentially the same place as your philosophy -- with often the same audio components or types of audio components -- without wrapping the analysis in a more complicated and ostensibly further-reaching structure.

Ron, it is not my philosophy. I simply have a goal of hearing natural sound out of my system. The list of bullet points was taken directly from my notebook as I said down and listened to David‘s four systems over seven days. It is not meant as a definition of a philosophy. It is a list of observations which attempts to describe the characteristics I heard in common with four different systems.

There is overlap among the bullet points. I could condense it and rewrite it to please some people. I will give that some thought but as we can see from this thread, Al’s new thread, and even two threads completely unrelated to my system, those who want to argue and criticize while having absolutely no clue will continue to do so. At this point I don’t think there’s any getting around it.

 

[Steve Williams]

As far as coining the sound "natural", I agree that this was not David's doing. When I returned from Utah I quoted David's mantra which although similar, really is not IMHO

David's mantra was "above all else, it must sound natural" and he went on to describe what it is in a system that conveys that feeling, to wit, IMO once again, Peter in his bullet points has elucidated these perfectly

David is correct in saying that this thread has deteriorated into semantics and nothing more. I understand completely what David, Peter and Tang are saying. With sake of being redundant, I still maintain that a trip to Utah to hear David's systems will quickly make the listener understand what he is getting at. Of course this is semantics and call it what it will, "lifelike", "real", presence, etc etc. What David has achieved is different than what Peter or I or others have achieved as each system and room mandates different paths. So in my system and where I am now is a long way from what I heard in David's system but the philosophy and logic behind it are in the listening. Mine is a far cry from theirs as I don't have horn speakers with increased efficiency over my 95 Db efficient speakers BUT there is nothing in this philosophy which mandates horn speakers. So in the end when we sit down and listen, we all might say we have "natural sound". The take away with David's path is simply, "less is more"

 

[wil]

Finally, after pages and pages, with Al’s post here and his new thread, and Peter’s reply, we get to hear how the system is presenting music using vocabulary most will understand—so much more informative than saying it “sounds natural”.

And with respect, I recognize Peter has attempted, with his bullet points, to describe this, but I‘ve been waiting to hear description, comparison, analogy to gain understanding absent hearing the system myself.

Exactly! I think giving this system thread the somewhat ponderous entitlement of Natural Sound, as good as Peter's intentions, results in derailing what is most interesting -- how his system presents music relative to how how other systems do so.

Looking forward to videos of the system when it's at it's peak. Would like to hear the Peggy Lee, Fever, if possible, also to compare to the Bionars!

 

[microstrip]

This notion that something can not sound natural if it is man-made makes no sense to me. (...) .

It is not just because it is man made, it is because of the way stereo, our current sound reproduction system is done. The real sound field is sampled at several points in space, encoded in two channels, stored and then reproduced from two points, creating a sound field in space that is very different from the original. For those pretending that it is the same as the original, please remember that the sound field is a directional entity , represented by vectors, not a field of red poppies.

In some sense, mono listening is much less artificial than stereo.

 

[PeterA]

Unfortunately Francisco most of this thread is wasted on semantics than anything else. I didn't coin the phrase 'natural sound" or natural nor do I claim ownership. Of course anyone is free to call what they want "natural sound" but we're not discussing the same things anymore.

To clarify "natural sound" has it's own elements which are demonstrable it has nothing to do with Bionor, Wilson or any particular brand of speakers or gear as long as they're not completely wrong and heavily colored to begin with. This doesn't mean that all "natural sound" gear are equal and even the best "natural sound" can easily be transformed into something else with one wrong power cord.

david

David, I heard this very thing when I was testing various power cords in my system and in the systems belonging to friends. Once you hear it, any natural sense of the presentation can be completely destroyed. It’s it’s not really a balancing act. Sometimes the wrong thing inserted into a system can simply run it and there’s no way to correct it without removing the offending device. It took me a long time to realize this. Many people dismiss it and end up buying more and more and working around the fundamental issue.

The problem is one can assemble the right gear and set it up but then power cords, cables and audiophile accessories must do no harm. That is the challenge and the lesson I learned with all of my experimentation with my old system.