Natural Sound

[Tango]

Tang yours is an interesting argument and you make an interesting point. The way I understand what you're saying goes something like this:

A. Each cable has its own sonic characteristics. (implied)
B. Choosing a cable you like means choosing a particular set of sonic characteristics.
Conclusion: Therefore whatever cable you like is choosing a flavor or shaping the sound because every cable has its own sonic.

Ergo someone who says cables should not be used to flavor or shape a sound to their liking is a hypocrite because no cable does not shape or flavor sound.

I can accept the conclusion following from the premises. Seems like a sound argument.
Not sure I accept the part about being a hypocrite which implies dissemblence or feigning a posture that does not match the reality of behavior. However, I suppose that is a judgement call about intent. I see Peter as working through his approach - pehaps sometimes struggling with the words, which we all do - but without meaning to deceive.

I won't pretend to speak for him, but what I understand is the viewpoint Peter tried to express is simple: I don't choose cables that alter the sound of my electronics, or I choose cables that are neutral relative to the sound of my system.

Of course the 'problem' is we cannot know the sonic characteristics of a set of cables without actually trying them - same for any part of a system. We have to make a judgement about their influence within the system as a whole. There is no absolute neutrality and relative neutrality is still a judgement call.

Hi Tima,

I'm glad that you pretty much understand my intent and what I was saying. My writing was terrible...run on sentences, not concise, etc. You can convey message in three lines but I need twenty while not knowing if I got my point across.

My point is there is a group of people who "play" with cables in hope to get their so-called better sound. The kind of better sound that is added so much it makes obvious difference to easily convince them this cable is better than that cable. People in this group tend to fall in love with "degree of sound difference" which makes up justification of their expensive purchase. Most people in this group don't even know where their sound stand. What is lacking. Or is there any lack at all. Just hope to get the "better sound" from a cable they heard from a forum or dealer raving. I was in this group too.

But there is also a group of people who have a much better understanding of sound. Knowing where their system sound stands. Knowing exactly which area their system don't score well and want to improve to sound more natural. They know pretty much the areas they don't want a new cable to add more because there is already enough of that in the system. They know adding more could bring in less contrast, more homogeneity, too much bass, too much spotlight, etc. for their particular system. They take the same approach that @Folsome said "Electronics first but you must find cables that let them work their best." But we all agree that there is no perfect equipment. Using the right cable (spk cable, interconnect, power cable.) for a system can make that system "more complete."

One can say both group use cable to tune the sound. But is the second group that I mentioned really "play" with cable or just trying to select a cable that make their system sound more complete? Going through many audiophile cables in the process of selection instead of taking the advice or copy from one who's been there before is "playing, seasoning, coloring sound?" I say no. It is a learning process. Is all audiophile cables a pile of pooh we don't want to step on like being implied many times on this forum? I say no. They all have their own character. Most more evil than good. Most not all.

I give you three systems that I think sound natural. If I want to build another system I might even copy one of them. 1) Leif's 2) ZerostarGeneral's 3) Gian's. They all have their own choice of cable. Their cables are considered audiophile. Bonzo might say Leif made his own cable. I say isn't Leif an audiophile? He also uses silver. My audio teacher David hates silver. But Leif's system sound top rank natural. The General uses Vyger cable. US people can go to Utah to hear a reference sound. UK people can go to G. Gian is in the process of settling on cable. I think he finds his CH a little light on tonal density although the CH already cover most check box of natural sound. (My opinion. Don't know if he thinks the same.) Goebel cable seems to do the job for him without harming the great natural sonic attribute his system already presenting. These people selected the best main equipment using years and years of experience they have. Yet they use audiophile cable that complete their system more. So we should not generalize or imply that just about any one who trial and error with cable is stepping on a pile of shit. Some of us just need to go through the cable selection process to fit best our different systems.

 

[tima]

Going through many audiophile cables in the process of selection instead of taking the advice or copy from one who's been there before is "playing, seasoning, coloring sound?" I say no. It is a learning process.
...
So we should not generalize or imply that just about any one who trial and error with cable is stepping on a pile of shit. Some of us just need to go through the cable selection process to fit best our different systems.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Tango.

I think you're saying something, perhaps indirectly, that I've believed for a while now, something I see in others and in myself. I may get in trouble for saying this ... many of us, especially coming into the hobby, don't know what we want. Well, we want music, but once in the audiophile world and hearing this and that, good and better, from others, we're not sure if what we hear from our systems is good or mediocre. This sounds good, that sounds interesting, etc. Those are expensive so they must be good, right?

Cables tend to be less expensive than speakers, amps, sources, so they become an opportunity to explore, trial and error, especially for those on a budget. Cables seem to be among the most difficult of audio objects. Yes, it is a learning process. And not until enough experience is had with systems might we figure out what works for us - and what we want. Or so goes my thinking. Not until we have some grasp on what sort of sound we're looking to achieve might we stop trying different stuff in hopes we might discover what that is. Then, the cable choice becomes intentional.

 

[morricab]

Hi Tima,

I'm glad that you pretty much understand my intent and what I was saying. My writing was terrible...run on sentences, not concise, etc. You can convey message in three lines but I need twenty while not knowing if I got my point across.

My point is there is a group of people who "play" with cables in hope to get their so-called better sound. The kind of better sound that is added so much it makes obvious difference to easily convince them this cable is better than that cable. People in this group tend to fall in love with "degree of sound difference" which makes up justification of their expensive purchase. Most people in this group don't even know where their sound stand. What is lacking. Or is there any lack at all. Just hope to get the "better sound" from a cable they heard from a forum or dealer raving. I was in this group too.

But there is also a group of people who have a much better understanding of sound. Knowing where their system sound stands. Knowing exactly which area their system don't score well and want to improve to sound more natural. They know pretty much the areas they don't want a new cable to add more because there is already enough of that in the system. They know adding more could bring in less contrast, more homogeneity, too much bass, too much spotlight, etc. for their particular system. They take the same approach that @Folsome said "Electronics first but you must find cables that let them work their best." But we all agree that there is no perfect equipment. Using the right cable (spk cable, interconnect, power cable.) for a system can make that system "more complete."

One can say both group use cable to tune the sound. But is the second group that I mentioned really "play" with cable or just trying to select a cable that make their system sound more complete? Going through many audiophile cables in the process of selection instead of taking the advice or copy from one who's been there before is "playing, seasoning, coloring sound?" I say no. It is a learning process. Is all audiophile cables a pile of pooh we don't want to step on like being implied many times on this forum? I say no. They all have their own character. Most more evil than good. Most not all.

I give you three systems that I think sound natural. If I want to build another system I might even copy one of them. 1) Leif's 2) ZerostarGeneral's 3) Gian's. They all have their own choice of cable. Their cables are considered audiophile. Bonzo might say Leif made his own cable. I say isn't Leif an audiophile? He also uses silver. My audio teacher David hates silver. But Leif's system sound top rank natural. The General uses Vyger cable. US people can go to Utah to hear a reference sound. UK people can go to G. Gian is in the process of settling on cable. I think he finds his CH a little light on tonal density although the CH already cover most check box of natural sound. (My opinion. Don't know if he thinks the same.) Goebel cable seems to do the job for him without harming the great natural sonic attribute his system already presenting. These people selected the best main equipment using years and years of experience they have. Yet they use audiophile cable that complete their system more. So we should not generalize or imply that just about any one who trial and error with cable is stepping on a pile of shit. Some of us just need to go through the cable selection process to fit best our different systems.

I am not sure you can restore "tonal density" to electronics through cable selection. You will add a consistent flavor that might satisfy some of those aspects but will ultimately impart a "sameness". IMO, a light tonal density would disqualify a piece of gear from contention for natural sound...but that's my concept...tonality is fundamental to natural sound. If it is wrong somehow you can start over for the quest for natural sound, regardless of how good the sound is for other parameters.

 

[jeff1225]

Every business has their version of cables: extremely high margin accessories that all steps of the supply chain make money on. Manufacturers, distributors and retailers make more margin on cables than any other product. Cables are given free to reviewers, in order to get them into the market.

cables will never die, the industry will never let them.

 

[Steve williams]

When auditioning something new (such as cables) in my system my mantra has always been "am I hearing something better or merely something different. If it is something better, in what way is it better.?"

If I can't answer the latter question it is almost always only something different that I am hearing.

 

[DaveC]

When auditioning something new (such as cables) in my system my mantra has always been "am I hearing something better or merely something different. If it is something better, in what way is it better.?"

If I can't answer the latter question it is almost always only something different that I am hearing.

Thank you Steve, this is exactly the case with how I evaluate my own cables.

I prioritize achieving an immersive, 3-D soundstage and distinct differences in timbre of instruments and differences between recordings.

While you can't evaluate a cable vs no cable, you can achieve a more neutral result by simply doing what I describe above. Also, over time you can recognize all sorts of different distortions or artifacts introduced by the cable or electronics and make it a point to avoid anything fatiguing. These 2 things are the most important to me.

 

[microstrip]

(...) After Utah, I realized I had to forget about hifi attributes, the glossary of terms, and breaking the music into “bits and pieces.” I needed to get back to hearing the music as it is presented in the concert hall. I wanted to experience the music’s power, its meaning, its gestalt.

Sincerely,
Peter

Peter,

Just consider writing "I needed to get back to earing the music as I perceive it in the concert hall. I wanted to experience the music’s power, its meaning, its gestalt." We will all subscribe it.

IMHO no system will present music as it is presented in the concert hall. Do you agree with this view?

 

[beaur]

Peter, it is implicit in your suggestion that there are cables which do nothing. All cables do something. They add or takeaway. Sure, you can go for the least colored, that requires a lot of research. Also, cables are very system specific, given most systems have some compromise or the other. So usually people end up choosing one that attenuates the highs, or plumps up the bass, etc. Most people don't have infinite resources and space to fine tune components and rooms. Cables are also portable so can easily be shared and tried and bought and resold

Saying that "all cables do something" is where I think the contentiousness comes from. That statement is both true and false at the same time. If I swap out cables and perceive no difference in the sound/presentation etc., then from my frame of reference that swap has done nothing. That doesn't negate the statement as it's possible that the sum of all the electrical/environmental etc, differences between the cables could have resulted in the null result or I maybe my hearing isn't good enough or attuned to listening for those differences.

Peter saying "Natural Sound" is his goal shouldn't on the face of it cause an issue but it's apparent that it means different things to different people. I like to think of my home audio experiences as walking through an art museum. Some of the paintings I like some not as much. All the painters worked with a similar gamut of colors but I prefer some over others and I prefer some styles over others. Audio is much the same in that we acquire pieces (paintings) that we like and put them in a museum. For some of us, the collection doesn't change much over the years but for others, it's a revolving series of exhibitions. Both are valid approaches and use the same pieces, but different things are prioritized by everyone.

Let's say Peter's version of Natural Sound is a Degas. When I look at a room of his paintings I see someone who excelled at capturing the scene and the moment. When I move into the next room that's full of Monet's work I see a person who seemed more interested in capturing the light and the scene than the moment. Both rooms are worthy of their place in the museum and just because I choose to sit in Monet's room longer doesn't mean I've dismissed Degas or think he is less worthy, it's just my preference.

 

[PeterA]

Peter,

Just consider writing "I needed to get back to earing the music as I perceive it in the concert hall. I wanted to experience the music’s power, its meaning, its gestalt." We will all subscribe it.

IMHO no system will present music as it is presented in the concert hall. Do you agree with this view?

Fransisco, that is an interesting distinction and thank you for suggesting how I should write and express my thoughts.

I chose the word "presented" because different halls present the sound differently. I want to hear those differences and a resolving system is a part of that. Yes, I also "perceive" the sound differently in different halls, but that is because it is "presented" differently in the first place. Now, each recording is presenting the sound differently too, and I therefore hope to perceive it as different also. This too is a distinction between my former and present systems.

I think a case can be made for using either term, but they have different meanings. I chose mine carefully, but could have used your term for a slightly different meaning. Regardless, I don't think the overall meaning of my post is lost. Do you? Your main point in many/most of your posts is that this whole hobby is based on the subjective perception of the listener. That is true, and I do not think that it is at all controversial.

 

[Al M.]

Gentlemen,

I described the system in the first ten posts on page one of this thread. I also described the sound of the system on the first page with references to live music and specific recordings. I then shared my notes in list form of the sound I heard from ddk's four systems. I then posted some videos of my new system with reference tracks and videos of my former system.

People asked questions and follow up questions about the content on that first page, and I did my best to answer those questions. Ian heard the system and described its sound. Al later heard the system for himself and also described the sound.

If all of this information is insufficient to "describe a little in how it appears natural to someone else you're sharing the description with." or that it does not adequately describe "the Parts that make up the Whole," I do not know what to say. I have given it my best effort. You will have to look to someone else for the answers you seek. You can do an advanced search to find how ddk defines Natural Sound. He has done so in many places, including on his threads about the turntables and his rooms.

I also suggest you reread the first ten posts of the thread, read Ian and Al's account of the sound of the system, and listen to the videos. At this point, I am at a loss. I am quickly running out of patience and losing interest in repeating myself any longer. Others have read the thread and have told me they get it and understand what I am trying to convey.

I wrote this at the end of post #5. It summarizes my goal and what I am trying to achieve with my system.

After Utah, I realized I had to forget about hifi attributes, the glossary of terms, and breaking the music into “bits and pieces.” I needed to get back to hearing the music as it is presented in the concert hall. I wanted to experience the music’s power, its meaning, its gestalt.

Sincerely,
Peter

Peter, you are completely right. As Ian and I did, you did describe the sound of your system by highlighting parts that make up the whole. I apologize for not internalizing this, even though I saw your comments early on, before the thread shifted away from its original focus.

 

[DaveC]

Saying that "all cables do something" is where I think the contentiousness comes from. That statement is both true and false at the same time. If I swap out cables and perceive no difference in the sound/presentation etc., then from my frame of reference that swap has done nothing. That doesn't negate the statement as it's possible that the sum of all the electrical/environmental etc, differences between the cables could have resulted in the null result or I maybe my hearing isn't good enough or attuned to listening for those differences.

People very often come to mistaken conclusions when testing audio equipment of all sorts.

The biggest issue is attributing what they hear to what has changed. It seems like this should be the case but IME you have maybe a 50/50 chance of this being the case. Changing anything in a system has effects that are hard to predict. The most common thing I see is changing something that results in higher fidelity, but also allows one to hear other flaws that were previously not apparent.

Also there's an element of compatibility, especially with speaker cables. The best SC is not always what's technically best, often it's what compensates for the complex impedance of the speaker's crossover more completely. This means the LC values of the cable should match the XO in order to provide the least complex impedance possible.

The "null" result you mention is a fiction, or at least it comes at a cost. All non-neutral parts of the system will reduce resolution, so you can pile up a bunch of non-neutral parts and maybe have a "balanced" or "null result" but your resolution will be very compromised.

 

[microstrip]

Fransisco, that is an interesting distinction and thank you for suggesting how I should write and express my thoughts.

I chose the word "presented" because different halls present the sound differently. I want to hear those differences and a resolving system is a part of that. Yes, I also "perceive" the sound differently in different halls, but that is because it is "presented" differently in the first place. Now, each recording is presenting the sound differently too, and I therefore hope to perceive it as different also. This too is a distinction between my former and present systems.

I think a case can be made for using either term, but they have different meanings. I chose mine carefully, but could have used your term for a slightly different meaning. Regardless, I don't think the overall meaning of my post is lost. Do you? Your main point in many/most of your posts is that this whole hobby is based on the subjective perception of the listener. That is true, and I do not think that it is at all controversial.

Peter,

I understand your point after reading your answer, but IMHO this is a thread on sound reproduction and we should do our best to avoid confusion describing the real. From "I needed to get back to hearing the music as it is presented in the concert hall. I wanted to experience the music’s power, its meaning, its gestalt." I could not imagine that you were addressing the differences coming from concert halls, my fault.

And my main point is not that the hobby is based on the subjective perception of the listener - this almost universal truth in WBF. The controversial point is that I find we model our preference according to our own subjective perception of the real , not the real. A night and day difference.

I would like to have your view on the comment of the previous post. "IMHO no system will present music as it is presented in the concert hall." Do you agree with this view?

 

[microstrip]

(...) Also there's an element of compatibility, especially with speaker cables. The best SC is not always what's technically best, often it's what compensates for the complex impedance of the speaker's crossover more completely. This means the LC values of the cable should match the XO in order to provide the least complex impedance possible. (...)

Dave,
What do you mean by the the least complex impedance possible? I suppose it in not a real with zero phase?

 

[PeterA]

Peter,

I understand your point after reading your answer, but IMHO this is a thread on sound reproduction and we should do our best to avoid confusion describing the real. From "I needed to get back to hearing the music as it is presented in the concert hall. I wanted to experience the music’s power, its meaning, its gestalt." I could not imagine that you were addressing the differences coming from concert halls, my fault.

And my main point is not that the hobby is based on the subjective perception of the listener - this almost universal truth in WBF. The controversial point is that I find we model our preference according to our own subjective perception of the real , not the real. A night and day difference.

I would like to have your view on the comment of the previous post. "IMHO no system will present music as it is presented in the concert hall." Do you agree with this view?

Fransisco,

I went for my thirteenth sail of the season this afternoon. Nature was presented in all her majesty: warm weather, lowering sun, stiff breeze, and calm seas. I captured the experience so that I could be reminded of what a glorious afternoon I had on the water today. The essential elements are all there in the photograph. Unfiltered, and unenhanced, the image presents the moment as I perceived it while sailing back to the mooring.

Open yourself up to understanding what I am saying here and the answer to your question will become clear.

 

[Ron Resnick]

IMHO no system will present music as it is presented in the concert hall. Do you agree with this view?

"As it is presented" -- no.

A representation or a likeness of how it is presented -- yes.

 

[Ron Resnick]

IMHO phono cartridges are very similar.

For me, personally, phono cartridges are more intelligible, and less of a morass, than are cables.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . I like to think of my home audio experiences as walking through an art museum. Some of the paintings I like some not as much. All the painters worked with a similar gamut of colors but I prefer some over others and I prefer some styles over others. Audio is much the same in that we acquire pieces (paintings) that we like and put them in a museum. For some of us, the collection doesn't change much over the years but for others, it's a revolving series of exhibitions. Both are valid approaches and use the same pieces, but different things are prioritized by everyone.

. . .

This is a very interesting analogy that I have not heard or read before. I like it.

 

[tima]

This is a very interesting analogy that I have not heard or read before.

Have you heard Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition ?

 

[morricab]

Have you heard Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition ?

I have a very good modern version conducted by Gergiev and performed by the Marinsky orchestra.

 

[morricab]

Have you heard Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition ?