Natural Sound

[bonzo75]

From Tima's post:

"The damage as I called it came when other reviewers used those poor examples - which seemed novel at the time - and greatly influenced audiophiles and stereo end-users who went looking for such in their purchases - and continue doing so today "

This can happen with anything, including with the term natural sound

 

[PeterA]

From Tima's post:

"The damage as I called it came when other reviewers used those poor examples - which seemed novel at the time - and greatly influenced audiophiles and stereo end-users who went looking for such in their purchases - and continue doing so today "

This can happen with anything, including with the term natural sound

Bonzo, what is the harm in someone looking for a component or system sound that seems to him to be balanced with nothing spotlight or highlighted? The whole idea of natural sound is that it is believable and convincing. It is the opposite of black backgrounds, pinpoint, outlined imaging, fatiguing highs, booming bass. From what I can tell from this thread, no one is rushing out there having been greatly influenced by anything I am describing here. Excepting those few who understand and appreciate what Natural Sound is, most posters seem to be dismissing it.

Name one example of a characteristic of Natural Sound that people can take away from this thread and look for in their purchases that would be damaging. I am very curious to learn what you think they are.

 

[bonzo75]

Bonzo, what is the harm in someone looking for a component or system sound that seems to him to be balanced with nothing spotlight or highlighted? The whole idea of natural sound is that it is believable and convincing. It is the opposite of black backgrounds, pinpoint, outlined imaging, fatiguing highs, booming bass. From what I can tell from this thread, no one is rushing out there having been greatly influenced by anything I am describing here. Excepting those few who understand and appreciate what Natural Sound is, most posters seem to be dismissing it.

Name one example of a characteristic of Natural Sound that people can take away from this thread and look for in their purchases that would be damaging. I am very curious to learn what you think they are.

Sorry, if you read what I wrote, the description of the component can fit any term and any term can be changed by the writer to add any description. There is nothing stopping someone from using black background for natural sound

 

[PeterA]

Sorry, if you read what I wrote, the description of the component can fit any term and any term can be changed by the writer to add any description. There is nothing stopping someone from using black background for natural sound

Sorry, then I don't follow you. The writer is me, describing Natural Sound in this system thread. I am defining the term as a list of characteristics I heard in common on four systems in Utah. How does any of that fit into the quote you selected from Tim:

"The damage as I called it came when other reviewers used those poor examples - which seemed novel at the time - and greatly influenced audiophiles and stereo end-users who went looking for such in their purchases - and continue doing so today "

Either I am the one using poor examples, or others are the ones using poor examples (of Natural Sound in this case) and causing damage by influencing audiophiles and stereo end-users looking for such in their purchases. Again, how is any of that happening with Natural Sound? What is damaging? I don't follow the meaning of your post. Even if people in the future corrupt what I am writing here, what possible damage can come of it? How does one corrupt such a simple concept?

Tim is pointing out that others like Valin/Harley did damage to HP's concepts later and influenced audiophiles who then made poor purchases. How does that apply here? Could you please clarify this for me?

Tim's post is excellent, but I don't see how what happened with HP's more complex list of terms breaking down sound and by extension music into bits and pieces is happening with the idea of Natural Sound. The latter is the opposite of HP's concept of The Absolute Sound in terms of describing what is heard (bits and pieces versus holistic/gestalt), except that they both emphasize listening to judge performance, and they both use unamplified real music as references.

 

[bonzo75]

What I interpret Tim's post to mean is if someone coins a term or a list of attributes defining that term, it will not be used in the same manner as original writer intended down the line.

 

[PeterA]

I listened to Peggy Lee's Greatest Hits on Capitol the other day. It's the same LP that David has. I'll get around to recording it and posting it. Then I will read again that all system iphone videos suck and have no value. I'm looking forward to it. The one on the Bionars sounds excellent, even if recorded at too high a level.

As requested, and promised, here is Peggy Lee's Fever heard with the vdH GC:

A video poster must realize and accept that their will be criticism once posting a video of his system on an audio forum... actually once he puts the video on Youtube. People hear differently for 108 reasons. Negative comments will always be there together with positives. Often poster does not even have to defend because people who make positive comment would jump in to say differently. I am only talking about comments on video not the subject of Natural Sound.

Indeed. That is fine. I am hear to learn and to share. Criticism will be what it is.

 

[Al M.]

What I interpret Tim's post to mean is if someone coins a term or a list of attributes defining that term, it will not be used in the same manner as original writer intended down the line.

Well, that has become bloody obvious during the discussion. Well said.

 

[PeterA]

What I interpret Tim's post to mean is if someone coins a term or a list of attributes defining that term, it will not be used in the same manner as original writer intended down the line.

Thank you. I get it now.

For example: Balanced sound, lacking fatigue inducing highs > deemphasized high frequencies > deficient leading edge > relaxed, mid hall sound = Natural Sound. This leads to the purchase of rolled off, warm sounding cartridges and tube electronics.

I hardly think this thread has the reach HP enjoyed. But, as Rhapsody discovered, audio stores called themselves Natural Sound 45 years ago and now the term seems to be everywhere, so who knows?

 

[bonzo75]

Thank you. I get it now.

For example: Balanced sound, lacking fatigue inducing highs > deemphasized high frequencies > deficient leading edge > relaxed, mid hall sound = Natural Sound. This leads to the purchase of rolled off, warm sounding cartridges and tube electronics.

I hardly think this thread has the reach HP enjoyed. But, as Rhapsody discovered, audio stores called themselves Natural Sound 45 years ago and now the term seems to be everywhere, so who knows?

Yes and one could add black background and pinpoint in there or take something out as things went along. It doesn't have to be natural or absolute according to the real definition

 

[PeterA]

Yes and one could add black background and pinpoint in there or take something out as things went along. It doesn't have to be natural or absolute according to the real definition

I guess the reason I was having trouble following you is that the concepts of Absolute Sound vs. Natural Sound are fundamentally different in the sense of how they use words or don't use them to describe what is heard from a system. Because Natural Sound is so much simpler, almost trivial, there are fewer ways to corrupt the terms used to describe what it means. There are no "bits and pieces" to isolate and redefine or reuse. The basic concepts can be changed or misinterpreted as my example tries to show, so I can see how it could happen, but I don't think to the same extent. I think it is more likely to be misunderstood as too vague or to broad, or it is outright rejected, as we see here.

 

[Al M.]

Thank you. I get it now.

For example: Balanced sound, lacking fatigue inducing highs > deemphasized high frequencies > deficient leading edge > relaxed, mid hall sound = Natural Sound. This leads to the purchase of rolled off, warm sounding cartridges and tube electronics.

I hardly think this thread has the reach HP enjoyed. But, as Rhapsody discovered, audio stores called themselves Natural Sound 45 years ago and now the term seems to be everywhere, so who knows?

De-emphasized leading edge is not the same as deficient leading edge, and I made an effort to explain the concept in my post. I chose my words carefully, Peter.

De-emphasized leading edge = one specific, yet valid perspective on natural sound.

Deficient leading edge = unnatural sound.

 

[PeterA]

De-emphasized leading edge is not the same as deficient leading edge, and I made an effort to explain the concept in my post. I chose my words carefully, Peter.

De-emphasized leading edge = one specific, yet valid perspective on natural sound.

Deficient leading edge = unnatural sound.

I agree, and you were careful, which I get and agree with. My example used some of your words, but it was not directed at your report or impressions directly. In your thread, a poster read your words and jumped to the conclusion that leading edges were missing. Not your statement, but someone's conclusion from reading. That is why I used this example to illustrate what I think Bonzo is describing. No worries. I get the distinction.

Others have commented in general terms about different people having a different sense of what balanced means: too much, just right, too little. All subjective, and that leads directly to our respective impressions of each other's systems. What is right for you or me, may not be quite right for the other, but still enjoyable. Another way of saying it is, no right or wrong, only preferred.

 

[bonzo75]

I guess the reason I was having trouble following you is that the concepts of Absolute Sound vs. Natural Sound are fundamentally different in the sense of how they use words or don't use them to describe what is heard from a system. Because Natural Sound is so much simpler, almost trivial, there are fewer ways to corrupt the terms used to describe what it means. There are no "bits and pieces" to isolate and redefine or reuse. The basic concepts can be changed or misinterpreted as my example tries to show, so I can see how it could happen, but I don't think to the same extent. I think it is more likely to be misunderstood as too vague or to broad, or it is outright rejected, as we see here.

I don't think so. We don't know what HP actually wrote (going by Tim's post there were a lot of misinterpretations down the line). To understand natural sound for many has been anything but simple.

What is simple is to describe what you hear next to a known reference. Tang's or Mike's writings are well received because they have known reference products next to them. I always try to have a known reference product in my compares. I can assure you if tang only had the AS with no other known reference table, people would not have been able to relate.

You can, for example, say how lamm is compared to pass (highs, lows, transparency, flow, violin cello brass jazz orchestral etc). You can then end it with which one you think is more natural or absolute. Based on their own individual experiences, people can then relate. Visiting listeners can further verify or counter what you said. Videos help some along with written word

 

[PeterA]

Bonzo, I just saw again your thread Tango Time. I clicked on the Zero Distortion link. I will read that again this weekend. Tang's system has changed and much of those alternative tables, arms, cartridges are gone or no longer listened to. The inferred preferences are telling. Nice article. Thank you.

 

[microstrip]

(...) The importance of @ddk's natural sound is an effort to get at or return to a true or truer ideal. I applaud him for this and think his effort extremely important. To point out, at least indirectly, the emperor's new clothes and to go back to the pre-objectivist days when different words and expressions were used to describe the listening enjoyment of natural sound, believable sound. Nonetheless the vast majority of audiophiles today - and this is where we see the push-back - have taken a bite of HP's apple, and once tasting its sweet fruit and having 'invested' their systems in it, find it neigh impossible to allow the scales to fall from their eyes. (Okay - maybe that was a bit over the top. ;-o). We see where we are in the discussions we're having now.

Tim,
Although I enjoyed your view on HP - IMHO focusing terminology and ignoring the most important part, the long essays and his continuous and sinuous never ending search , often going back and forward at light speed - I regret that you used the words the "emperor's new clothes" and associate it with David and "Natural Sound". Also your figurative and pejorative style to describe the current preferences and systems of most audiophiles in this forum is the best way to start a war and weaken this forum. As they say, extinguishing a fire with gasoline ...
Just MHO, YMMV.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Micro some horns ( i havent heard them yet though )can do some things cones cant .
But it works vice versa .
May be with my speakers and your LL 1 ml 3 you can beat them at their own game ,lol.
Besides that its a useless discussion if one has nt heard davids or peters system

 

[wil]

"Excepting those few who understand and appreciate what Natural Sound is, most posters seem to be dismissing it."

Peter, respectfully, the above sentence/sentiment expresses why there is push-back on this thread.

The words "natural sound" to me connote exactly what I look for in recorded music playback. Someone else might use a different term like "absolute." It's what I strive for and I think I intuitively know it when I hear it. I don't believe I need to pilgrimage to Utah to have it revealed to me. Saying that is not a knock on what David has done or his practices and philosophy on sound. But I know what live acoustic music sounds like and that's my guiding light for my own system, however far (or short) I am along that road.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, respectfully, the above sentence/sentiment expresses why there is push-back on this thread.

The words "natural sound" to me connote exactly what I look for in recorded music playback. Someone else might use a different term like "absolute." It's what I strive for and I think I intuitively know it when I hear it. I don't believe I need to pilgrimage to Utah to have it revealed to me. Saying that is not a knock on what David has done or his practices and philosophy on sound. But I know what live acoustic music sounds like and that's my guiding light for my own system, however far (or short) I am along that road.

understood. I will then simply say that many systems sound very different from each other and everyone thinks they sound natural and their goal is natural Sound.

I don’t know where that leaves us. But I respect your opinion and I see now why there is so much pushback. Thank you for explaining it.

 

[DaveC]

I think it's also important to understand that many of the system attributes derided and rejected here are end-goals of some. Many people value enhanced and over-emphasized leading edges, black backgrounds and pinpoint imaging. I've been told many times my cables sound too boring compared with brand X. I've been told other times the exact opposite, some want warmer and softer.

The thought that exposure to and understanding of "Natural Sound" will convert those folks who previously didn't know any better and are currently doing it all wrong is off-putting, and it's elitist. It's deriding and rejecting the things they enjoy and spent their money on. There have also been comments that people should enjoy whatever they like, but these don't come off as genuine because there are other more contradictory comments made as well.

Also, there is a complete and absolute lack of any objective definitions. If you're selling a setup service and can't even give examples of what you consider proper frequency response target curves and waterfall plots then it causes problems because that's how audio professionals communicate certain information. While subjective descriptions are also a big part of it, relying on a subjective description entirely is not enough. This is why we have science and engineering. If you're going to be in a science and engineering business I think it's a great idea to learn and apply it. It will help a lot.

 

[Al M.]

I think it's also important to understand that many of the system attributes derided and rejected here are end-goals of some. Many people value enhanced and over-emphasized leading edges, black backgrounds and pinpoint imaging. I've been told many times my cables sound too boring compared with brand X. I've been told other times the exact opposite, some want warmer and softer.

Or, there can be a reasonable discussion about what constitutes enhanced and over-emphasized leading edges, and what not.