Hi Al,
The general point of my post was to share the observation that for the most part, listening perspectives between our two systems are more or less similar. That is not to say that some recordings don't sound closer or further than others. It is also not to say that on some recordings, there is a slightly different spacing of instruments, etc. Remember, your recording or Art Pepper is digital and mine is analog. On your system, I heard some of the musicians on the sides actually closer to the speakers while the sax in center was further back. On my system, the musicians are more aligned.
The impression from your excellent listening impressions report in your thread about my system, is that your system gives a consistently more up front perspective while mine is more mid hall. I confirmed last night that to my ears, that is certainly not the case. Nor is it the case that the more emphasis on the leading edge and transients from your system does not indeed move everything forward. It simply emphasis the leading edge. This was Bonzo's response to you to which I agree.
Regarding the transients in the two piano pieces, yes, one had softer edges, but again this does not mean the perspective changed as a result, nor would I say the leading edges are not emphasized. Even when softer the transient was emphasized relative to the rest of the note. This is why I brought up my former high output vdH cartridge. Softer does not mean less emphasized. It was soft rather than hard, but it was still heavy. The distinction I would make is that all piano strikes were made by a heavy hand, rather than a light hand alternating with a heavy hand. That is why I asked you if the pianist was the same on both the Haydn and the Debussy.
This heavy hand rendered a sameness to all the piano notes. Yes, some were softer than others, but there was no nuance as between a light and a heavy touch. The vdH did this too to some extent, which the Technics MM does not. The lower output vdH does not do it either. I suspect that is why you enjoyed the older vdH so much in my system. It presented leading edges and transients similar to the way your system does. I had not realized that until I heard your system again last night.
The cello observation is the same thing. The cellos sounded different in your two recordings as I would expect they would on most systems, but there was a similar emphasis of the bow on string texture relative to the sustain and decay. This emphasis was a focus of the presentation last night, for me. Oddly, it was not quite the same in the Art Pepper. There, the horns and highest frequencies were much more pronounced than were the leading edges and transients of the other instruments.
I think this goes to the heart of a fundamentally different aspect of the presentations of our respective systems. The fascinating thing to note however is that I hear it as an emphasis in your system, and you hear it as a de-emphasis in my system. DaveC mentions this in his post. This then results in you describing your system as balanced and natural sounding while I do the same for my system.
I think it is worthy of discussing and in the end it does not really matter. We can surely describe our systems using the words we each feel are appropriate, and we can think of our respective sounds in a similarly subject manner. I am taking those parameters that you set forth in your write-up about my system and sharing my perspective on them.
It seemed you linked the presentation of the leading edge and transients to two aspects of the sound of my system: mid-hall listening perspective and relaxed sound. I addressed the listening perspective by saying that I do not think there is a link, but I do think there is a link to "relaxed" sound. You were referring to the sound of my system as being relaxed due to the de-emphasized leading edges and transients. I think there is a link between the two, but it is to the mental state of the listener, not the sound.
I felt a very welcome state of relaxation when listening to the four systems belonging to
@ddk . This is not to say the sound was relaxing. Just listen to Art Pepper or to Peggy Lee's Fever on my system videos of David's systems. The in room listening is even more so. My new system puts me into a similar relaxed state when listening. It is because my mind is not focusing on or being drawn to a particular aspect of the sound. The music just flows and I hear it holistically. Of course if I try, I can think about the bass quality, or the scale, etc, but I have to force myself.
Listening to your system last night, I was drawn to the sound of the emphasized leading edges produced by your system. This created a sense of excitement surely, but when the music got softer, I still focused on those pronounced edges. So when I talk about a relaxing listening experience from a Natural Sound system, I am saying that no particular aspect of the sound sticks out above and beyond the rest. That is why I did not include the typical hifi attributes on my list of characteristics. Timbre is not there, because it is a given for this type of sound. Balanced sound is on the list as is "no sound, music". A Natural Sound system is one where one does not associate a specific sound to the system. He only hears the music and he is in a relaxed state of mind.
The irony is that you would not describe my new system as natural sounding precisely because you do not hear it as balanced. You hear it as having de-emphasized leading edges and transients and a "relaxed" sound. That is fine, and I now have a better understanding of why you perceive it that way. That is why the discussions and listening sessions we had last night are so fun and interesting. We are both learning and enjoying ourselves.
