Natural Sound

[the sound of Tao]

A violin is made of wood, and metals and horse hair and rosin and crafted by mankind… all these are a part of nature.

Things resonate to sound like the parts of nature that come together to create them. Wood sounds naturally like wood, metal sounds like metal naturally. Even the instinct to make music is natural, our urge to communicate and to make sounds and to share in the beauty of sound is within our nature. We are another part of nature.

Our drive to have culture is part of our nature as well. Civilisation and the connection of our selves to others also within our nature. Even the hubris to think that we are somehow disconnected and can be above nature and to see ourselves as exclusive of the natural world seems to be natural to some as well.

To think, to feel, to make sounds all these are within our nature. To make a system to share in music this is easily within our nature. To make it reflect the nature of music and the nature of sound, perhaps the only truly unnatural thing is to think that we aren’t just a continuing part of it all.

 

[bonzo75]

Well, keep in mind that his "chosen system" has only settled on horns and SETs in the last year or so...before that it was Apogee Grands and some others. You would think he has been an advocate for the horn sound for the last few decades...if you didn't know any better.

Actually, I was a fan of horns since 2014, with apogee grand upping horns and I was trying to get in smaller size. Scintilla is quite better than compromised horns, but it was when I heard dual woofer FLH I realized I could make it sound more powerful at not much cost.. And yes, I don't consider odeon horns, so you don't really have any. You think you do.

 

[morricab]

Actually, I was a fan of horns since 2014, with apogee grand upping horns and I was trying to get in smaller size. Scintilla is quite better than compromised horns, but it was when I heard dual woofer FLH under and realized I could make it sound more powerful at not much.. And yes, I don't consider odeon horns, so you don't really have any. You think you do.

Your delusions are irrelevant to reality, Bonzo. My Odeons are not just horn tweeters, the bass is horn loaded as well...therefore, like them or not (you haven't actually heard them...at my place or anywhere else) MY pair of Odeons are fully horn loaded speakers...i.e. they are horns. That is a physical reality, your opinion doesn't change physics.

 

[morricab]

Actually, I was a fan of horns since 2014, with apogee grand upping horns and I was trying to get in smaller size. Scintilla is quite better than compromised horns, but it was when I heard dual woofer FLH under and realized I could make it sound more powerful at not much.. And yes, I don't consider odeon horns, so you don't really have any. You think you do.

Sure you were...revisionist history...

 

[bonzo75]

Sure you were...revisionist history...

Calling yourself a horn guy with those tiny bookshelves, and a SETs guy who wanted to use them on apogees, is revolutionist. Guy Fawkes level

 

[morricab]

Calling yourself a horn guy with those tiny bookshelves, and a SETs guy who wanted to use them on apogees, is revolutionist. Guy Fawkes level

Bookshelves? They are 130 cm tall! Again, keep your delusions to yourself... SETs are SETs,.. I have four pairs and had many others over the years...what speakers I used them with is irrelevant...experimentation is the key to enlightenment...you should try but I doubt you are up to it?

 

[bonzo75]

Bookshelves? They are 130 cm tall! Again, keep your delusions to yourself... SETs are SETs,.. I have four pairs and had many others over the years...what speakers I used them with is irrelevant...experimentation is the key to enlightenment...you should try but I doubt you are up to it?

Pass. I have zero interest in discussing with you

 

[morricab]

Pass. I have zero interest in discussing with you

Just hit an run, eh?

 

[microstrip]

(...) To think, to feel, to make sounds all these are within our nature. To make a system to share in music this is easily within our nature. To make it reflect the nature of music and the nature of sound, perhaps the only truly unnatural thing is to think that we aren’t just a continuing part of it all.

the sound of Tao,

IMHO sound reproduction is not within our nature. Producing and listening to music is a natural process, storing it to listen at later moments is not a natural process, irrespective of our good intentions and human feelings.

In some sense a stereo listener of typical amplified music is more natural than a listener of acoustic music. The former is listening to music that most of the time was created in a studio to be listened at any time in any conditions just for entertainment.

IMHO bringing an orchestra in our room after having a generous meal with wine and listening with friends is a very artificial process.

As a side note I add that the first sound recording of human voice was not made by humans wanting to share music but by a person wanting to study sound waves. We only listened to it almost an hundred and fifty years after. I find curious that I sang such song many times in my childhood ...

 

[Al M.]

I think that all topologies here can be naturally sounding, as we all agreed to disagree what that may be...

Yes, that very much seems to be the point. What is natural to one person is unnatural to another. Or conversely, what is unnatural to one person, is natural to another. Or, of two different things that both are natural to one person, only one is natural to another. Perceptions of the very same thing, as well as individual experiences formed under different circumstances for each person and then taken as reference, vary greatly.

Even a number of items in Peter's initial list of bullet points about Natural Sound (post #5) lend themselves to be interpreted very differently by different people. The list is extraordinarily elastic in that respect.

So where does this leave us? Does anyone get to claim a Natural Sound for a system to the exclusion of other possibilities? To claim "oh, you know it when you hear it" in a system is not sufficient.

PS: Just to clarify, I don't want to be too relativistic, but relativistic enough.

 

[ddk]

A violin is made of wood, and metals and horse hair and rosin and crafted by mankind… all these are a part of nature.

Things resonate to sound like the parts of nature that come together to create them. Wood sounds naturally like wood, metal sounds like metal naturally. Even the instinct to make music is natural, our urge to communicate and to make sounds and to share in the beauty of sound is within our nature. We are another part of nature.

Our drive to have culture is part of our nature as well. Civilisation and the connection of our selves to others also within our nature. Even the hubris to think that we are somehow disconnected and can be above nature and to see ourselves as exclusive of the natural world seems to be natural to some as well.

To think, to feel, to make sounds all these are within our nature. To make a system to share in music this is easily within our nature. To make it reflect the nature of music and the nature of sound, perhaps the only truly unnatural thing is to think that we aren’t just a continuing part of it all.

Dear Graham,
Arguing what’s natural or not is a moot point and has no relevance to anything discussed here and it adds nothing to the conversation. “Natural” is a descriptor used by the OP and others to describe attributes of a system and a type of sound quality. “Natural” is as valid a term as “Living Voice”, ”Living Stereo”, “His Masters Voice”, etc., etc..

david

 

[PeterA]

Vitavox: living voice. Might have been a better title for the thread. “Vitavox Sound”

 

[jeff1225]

Vitavox: living voice. Might have been a better title for the thread. “Vitavox Sound”

Don't short change the Lamms!

 

[morricab]

Don't short change the Lamms!

IMO, more important to natural sound than the speakers!

 

[Al M.]

Don't worry Peter, the title would not have made a difference, WBF just needed a place to congregate and let loose a little after this last year of restrictions! Though some are letting more than their masks drop to the ground !

Of course the title would have made a difference.

Nobody has ever complained about, or discussed the validity of, the title for my system thread "My monitor/subwoofer system". That is because the thread title is an indisputable fact. It is my system, and I own both monitors (as generally understood and disputed by no one) and subwoofers. The title makes no claims as to how it sounds.

Also, for similarly obvious reasons, nobody has complained about, or discussed the validity of, the title for another system thread that I started, "A Visit to Hear Vlad's System".

 

[ddk]

Of course the title would have made a difference.

Nobody has ever complained about, or discussed the validity of, the title for my system thread "My monitor/subwoofer system". That is because the thread title is an indisputable fact. It is my system, and I own both monitors (as generally understood and disputed by no one) and subwoofers. The title makes no claims as to how it sounds.

Also, for similarly obvious reasons, nobody has complained about, or discussed the validity of, the title for another system thread that I started, "A Visit to Hear Vlad's System".

And why should we care one way or another when participation isn’t mandatory nor positive?

My position is that some degree of intelligence is essential for a conversation and if individuals can’t even comprehend the gist of the title then the rest are better off without their participation.

The difference between Peter’s title and yours is that he has identified qualities of his system and he’s defining them while you might still be working on yours or might not want to label it, personal choice.

You can look at it another way too, the title is giving those with nothing to contribute to the subject an opportunity to join in by bitching about it !

david

 

[Bobvin]

You can look at it another way too, the title is giving those with nothing to contribute to the subject an opportunity to join in by bitching about it !

david

Damn, called out again!

 

[PeterA]

How would you contrast a natural sounding saxophone to a realistic sounding saxophone? To me the two SHOULD be one and the same.

Brad, I assume you are referring to the sounds of the saxophone as heard through an audio system. If that is indeed the case, I would not contrast them. Both imply a reproduced sound that reminds the listener of the sound of a real saxophone.

I would not have wanted to name the thread "Realistic Sound" though. Can you imagine the firestorm that title would have started?

The concept of "Natural Sound" as a type of sound from an audio component or system was, I think, introduced to David by Vladimir Lamm. I heard the Lamm gear in four systems in Utah, and then I heard it in my own system at my house. I bought it and it became the heart of my new system. David and I had been discussing this sound for two years. It seemed right to call the thread introducing my new system "Natural Sound".

 

[Al M.]

The difference between Peter’s title and yours is that he has identified qualities of his system and he’s defining them while you might still be working on yours or might not want to label it, personal choice.

Everyone has identified qualities in their system. Otherwise we would find this hobby pointless.

 

[Kingsrule]

The concept of "Natural Sound" as a type of sound from an audio component or system

Finally. You said it. Natural sound is a type of sound. Nothing more, nothing less.