Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
David, I understand and support that, but that was not my point.
My point was that people don't get to tell other people what to like in an unsolicited manner, and in the process to basically imply or say explicitly that they don't hear or listen the right way, or don't perceive things the right way when they don't share the same opinion.
Doing so also does not take into account that people have different tastes, and perceive music differently, even when they all have unamplified live music as reference. Why else would different people even with substantial knowledge of what the industry has to offer arrive at completely different system types?
Peter told me that he appreciated that you did not tell him what to hear when you suggested changes, but that you let him discover things himself, and in the process let him form his own way of liking things.
So you certainly did not tell him what to like in an unsolicited manner, and you did not tell him what type of system to buy. A number of people on this forum do tell others, even when not asked for their opinion. They know who they are -- or at least they should know if they possess a sufficient degree of self awareness, which is not guaranteed by any means.
Last edited:
Isn't this analysis using the example of cables based on your premise that cables are not components?
If someone considers cables to be components then couldn't it as easily be stated that one must make sure to select electronic components that don't "add or remove anything from the sound" of the cables?
Ron, this is not an analysis. This is an thought that came to me when I read that a member who wanted to get off the merry go round was told by his dealer to keep his components and just get some cables (from him) to change the sound to suit the client. I have often heard about people doing this, and so I am wondering if this can be considered an "approach". Not just cables, but the idea of getting more and more accessories to alter the sound of his system to his liking.
This approach as compared to another approach which is to focus more on the main components - source, electronics, speakers - to determine the sound, and then to get cables, rack, power cords, perhaps some treatment (furniture or commercial acoustic treatments) that do not change the sound, that is do no harm.
It is just an observation of what might or might not be considered two different approaches. I am simply curious what others think. I stated that I followed the first approach with my other system, and the second approach with my current system. It is basically deciding what to focus one's attention on.
I do not have a premise which states that cables are not components. I said that some manufacturers and dealers claim that cables should be considered as components. I don't think of cables in those terms.
You need to be specific Al you’re too vague. If you’re talking about my exchange with Marc then it wasn’t unsolicited he was a participant in the thread. My comment about litter boxes is accurate in this context, ie the natural sound in Peter’s thread which I clarified further what it was so not to add further confusion. How someone takes it is up to them I see it as a nudge in the right direction if this natural sound is what they’re after. I never told him or anyone else for that matter what to like, ever.
david
Hi Peter,
Been there / done that in the early days. Thinking that cables will resolve a system failure is a very bad strategy indeed imho. It is like putting a band aid on a wound that needs stitches. Ultimately one will still have long term dissatisfaction and it should be resolved in macro terms.
I've never understood the idea of using cables to modify sound - or more aptly to change or correct what one's electronics are doing. I'm curious how people think about this - why do they make the choices they do.
At first, cables were snake-oil - any guy with a pickup truck and a decal could make cables. Cable advertising became, uh, 'exotic'. Eventually it became undeniable that whatever wire was used had a distinct character and differences could be heard between wires. Cables were/are claimed as components. Cables became expensive. I"m waiting to learn of the guy who buys electronic components to match his cables - and then the guy who buys electronics to enhance or correct his cables.
I suspect it is as simple as someone thinking they want to enhance their sound or to have 'better sound'. Cables will change it. And many cables - or at least ones I've tried and heard - are as responsible for the idealized sonic characteristics we've discussed as antithetical to natural sound as electronics are.
There is a somewhat amusing trend I've seen over the last 2-3 years - where you see main components listed in a guy's signature - source, preamp, amp, speakers. Then comes all the cables, power cords, power distributor, etc. and that takes over twice the space as the main component list. Guess I'm guilty of some of that.
cables?
i went many years not thinking about them. at all. i had my 'zeel' BNC's (darTZeel's 50 ohm interface) between my sources and preamp and amps, and my Absolute Fidelity power cords in most places. no, this was not zip cord, but i had plenty of 'uber' cables around previously and was 'satisfied' that my cables got out of the way. my system was tuned to be neutral. i did play around for a while with some spendy Tara Labs with my dac investigations, but that was short lived. they did boost performance but not relative to cost of acquisition.
then a few years ago adding turntables and phono's and cartridges it was suggested by Mik (member 108CY) that the LFD cables could be transformative to unleashing another level of performance. especially in a phono cable dealing with such a low level signal. based on Mik's accuracy on other recs i finally did jump into the LFD cables. no tonal shifts or brittle transient emphasis! just more information and flow.
in a fully mature system another level of performance was reached not otherwise accessible.
cables as components? you bet. much more natural sounding. as more music being revealed is. these are not 'production-line' cables. they are essentially hand-built one-off assemblies. multiple strands with different metallurgy combined and mixed just 'so'. and the wait time to acquire them is 6 months to a year, or more. like waiting for a bespoke tt to be built.
anyone who has visited Mik, and heard these cables (even higher levels than i have) has been pretty amazed.
there is a thread about them if you have an interest. just posting here to offer a another viewpoint. zero expectations anyone is going to change their minds. we are 'dug-in' here pretty good.
YMMV.
i went many years not thinking about them. at all. i had my 'zeel' BNC's (darTZeel's 50 ohm interface) between my sources and preamp and amps, and my Absolute Fidelity power cords in most places. no, this was not zip cord, but i had plenty of 'uber' cables around previously and was 'satisfied' that my cables got out of the way. my system was tuned to be neutral. i did play around for a while with some spendy Tara Labs with my dac investigations, but that was short lived. they did boost performance but not relative to cost of acquisition.
then a few years ago adding turntables and phono's and cartridges it was suggested by Mik (member 108CY) that the LFD cables could be transformative to unleashing another level of performance. especially in a phono cable dealing with such a low level signal. based on Mik's accuracy on other recs i finally did jump into the LFD cables. no tonal shifts or brittle transient emphasis! just more information and flow.
in a fully mature system another level of performance was reached not otherwise accessible.
cables as components? you bet. much more natural sounding. as more music being revealed is. these are not 'production-line' cables. they are essentially hand-built one-off assemblies. multiple strands with different metallurgy combined and mixed just 'so'. and the wait time to acquire them is 6 months to a year, or more. like waiting for a bespoke tt to be built.
anyone who has visited Mik, and heard these cables (even higher levels than i have) has been pretty amazed.
there is a thread about them if you have an interest. just posting here to offer a another viewpoint. zero expectations anyone is going to change their minds. we are 'dug-in' here pretty good.
YMMV.
Last edited:
"They should not be used to flavor or shape the sound to your liking." I don't think you can use this statement without appearing hypocrite. Natural sound is the sound to your liking. You have speaker cables and interconnects that you think work very well with the gears you have now. Are you using ones that David pick out for you? If not have you tried ones that David would use? Selecting gears including cables to get natural sound is unavoidable. Everyone has to go through the process of selection. Only those who copy the recipe of people who already figured out which do a good match can short cut the process. I took a short cut and copied David's on most gears...basically followed what he recommended. But Other people have their own path. They already chose and paid huge money on the equipments they have and may not be thinking to 100% turn around their system. Most don't use Lamm. So they have to figure out which cables work best with their main equipments and still get them to proximity of natural sound. Implying that people trying to get the right cable that work with the equipment they are owning to get the same check list you wrote describing natural sound is sound seasoning is just not so humble imo. Inviting push back.
David went through so much before reaching the cable he thinks work best. The 30 years process of trial and error switching trying cables could be the same as many other people who are trying to do that now but with different main equipment and different starting point. Some may find the same truth about cable as David. Some may not.
Kind regards,
Tang
Last edited:
Absolutely Tang. I was not clear. I should have better explained what I interpret as a different degree of priority placed on the elements used to assemble a system.
I see it as two different approaches to system building. I am not criticizing it, in fact, it is the popular one. BTW, I think cables are just one example. Other items, those outside of source, electronics, speakers, are part of this too. Footers, treatments, etc can have similar results. Nothing at all wrong with it, and I followed this "path" too for years and enjoyed doing so.
I use David's cables and power cords. They basically came with the gear. I do not think of them as components, but simply necessary things that hook the main components of a system together and allow them to function. Of course they have to sound good too. My cables and cords have been described as "junk". Others call their cables and cords components. All that is fine.
I share this observation because this thread has become more about "Natural Sound" and what it is than it is about my new system. To me, this approach, followed by so many, seems different somehow than the approach I have learned from David. This may explain a bit more about David's approach which seems to deemphasize things like cables. What is described in this post below is different approach to getting the sound the owner prefers. I am not saying one is better than the other, they just seem different to me.
I think the difference is the priority one places on the elements of a system as he assembles it and fine tunes it. Both approaches involve assembling and fine tuning to please the owner. But somehow they seem different to me. Perhaps not to you.
Here is the post that caught my eye and got me thinking about this distinction. Of course the goal is the same: to assemble a system that sounds pleasing.
Bitten by an LFD Scorpion !!
Like most of us, I have spent a good few hard earned hifi tokens on box swapping in search of the end game sound. Obviously chasing one's tail in the process. I was advised by Mik @Unique audio to concentrate on optimising my system and the components I had and stop chasing the tail! By this he meant to optimise and tune the system using it's sound of the components as the foundation and add a different dimension to the sound using cabling!
Now I must be honest, I was very sceptical this could be achieved, as the age old fora cable debate is hard to ignore and also the lure of a new box of a component change with all the excitement/ fear/ trepidation that comes with such a purchase, is far more attractive.
Anyway the LFD Scorpion was inserted into the system between Power & Pre amp. Pre being AD Audio Satchmo and the Power being Jadis JA30 monos
I won't delve into the hifi cliché superlatives, but just say it revealed what was missing and delivered more air, space, scale and weight then I thought possible by one component change (let's call the cable a component, as it's that important imho!, not an accessory)
To achieve air, space, weight and authority in the presentation is a bloody difficult thing to do and usually it leans one way or another. The LFD Scorpion has really delivered. It may not be the cable for many systems, but i'm sure with the many different LFD cable constructions and flavours, there is one out there to tune most systems to it's optimum 10/10
Of course cables are important, I agree, Mike. I was reminded of that again yesterday, comparing speaker cables at a friend's house on his high-resolution system. It was not simply a difference in tonal balance or in transient behavior -- any differences there were relatively insignificant -- so it was not about "adjusting" the sound. It was about what sounded both more natural and resolving. Turns out that the cable we both preferred in those respects was the far more expensive one. People can take that for what it is.
The comparison was short because the difference was obvious, clear cut.
Would you choose the same cable in a different set or do you then start again comparing?
I consider cables (power, signal, speaker), along with AC power, to be the foundation for a stereo. Once you build a good, solid foundation then any gear you add will work at its best.
Electronics first but you must find cables that let them work their best… I am not sure how that is or is not tuning with cables. It’s easier to just use which sounds natural.
Cables as component always seems like overkill to me. What happens with the next upgrade from the same company ? Is it better in all systems, like manufacturers/dealers will often claim ? Different sure ! But better ? Component where voiced with certain cables, often with associated equipment, those would be the correct cables for these component, not the last generation 7 or 8 of the fancy designer cable, designed because the last model had stopped selling in sufficient numbers. I also understand why simple copper cables seem to work well in vintage systems, because that was what was being used to voice it when it was being designed, before cables became a component that had to sound different for each new generation. In the 80's and 90's a lot of cables where designed to add a little warmth to metallic tweeters and shitty sounding treble from early digital, Cardas Golden Reference and Straightwire Virtuoso come to mind. As treble improved and audiophiles started treating /over treating their rooms more treble extension/bass slam became the norm for every new cable generation, Odin comes to mind. What do we want to hear ? The equipment the way the designer heard it, or the way the cable manufacturers latest creation makes it sound ? 
Not using any is.... very black background
I used to really enjoy my system with Transparent Audio cables. One day a friend of mine heard my system, and despite telling me repeatedly that my cables suck, he said that he enjoyed the sound of my system.
A few years go by, and he still tells me my cables still suck. Then he heard a system in New York City with a newer model higher line set of Transparent cables. He loved the sound of that system. He wrote that the newest generation and higher level line get better and better in the treble region.
I just had to upgrade my cables to the latest and newest to get treble performance that matched his own brand of cables.
That’s when I started questioning what cables are doing. I eventually had an electrical engineer build me cables for my system. They sounded much better and cost much less. I now use old cables that come off of a spool carefully chosen by someone for the gear he sells.
That chapter is now behind me, but it is worth mentioning because this is my system thread which I had started out as a documentation of my system changes.. Everyone has different preferences and different priorities.
A few years go by, and he still tells me my cables still suck. Then he heard a system in New York City with a newer model higher line set of Transparent cables. He loved the sound of that system. He wrote that the newest generation and higher level line get better and better in the treble region.
I just had to upgrade my cables to the latest and newest to get treble performance that matched his own brand of cables.
That’s when I started questioning what cables are doing. I eventually had an electrical engineer build me cables for my system. They sounded much better and cost much less. I now use old cables that come off of a spool carefully chosen by someone for the gear he sells.
That chapter is now behind me, but it is worth mentioning because this is my system thread which I had started out as a documentation of my system changes.. Everyone has different preferences and different priorities.
Last edited:
Similar threads
