Natural Sound

[Al M.]

but image sizes of vocals, instruments (including piano) were more or less sized just fine.

Yes, these were just fine on smaller scale music, but that's not what I was talking about.

 

[morricab]

Yes, these were just fine on smaller scale music, but that's not what I was talking about.

We are talking about images in the soundstage, no? Not the soundstage size itself. Instruments and voices, yeah?

 

[morricab]

I must be one of the others to whom you refer, Brad. I assure you that I am not describing tiny images. I am not arguing about "pinpoint" but rather about "pinpoint imaging" and outlined images. My question is what is meant by "image". Image of what exactly? I imagine no image of a musician bowing his violin, nor do I imagine seeing the bow and the violin. And this is regardless of where the mic is. I agree that different mic locations will change the listening perspective of what is presented at our listening seat when listening to the recording. That is not the issue.

When I close my eyes at a live concert, I hear the sound, the energy, from a bow against the strings of the violin being played by the musician. He or she is standing or sitting in a chair. I do not hear the sound of the chair. I hear the sound of the instrument. There is no image of anything. There is the location of the violin producing sounds and that location and that scale are specific in that moment. If recorded, that information should be later presented more or less naturally by the system in the room, if that was indeed the intent of the recording engineer. The system should not editorialize, emphasize, embellish, or otherwise change the information on the recording. That is natural. The system should disappear.

You mentioned focus before. I do not advocate for a "de-focusing" of the sound in the presentation. That is nonsense. I want focus. I want specificity, whatever is on the recording. What I do not want is a hyper focus, an etched and overly detailed image. Natural sound is what it is. It is what we hear. With a good recording, that sound should be presented in such a way that it reminds us of what we hear live. I am all for clarity and focus, as long is it is not more or less than what I hear live. And yes, it is dependent upon the recording and where the mic is located, and it is dependent upon the quality of the system.

I agree with you that people do not want the origin of the sound, whether it is a voice or or cello, to be the size of truck in the front of the living room. Nor do they want the location of that sound to be tiny or pinpoint. I want the scale and the location to be convincing and relative to the scale and location of the other instruments up on the stage or in the room.

I never think of an image. I think of Ella's voice in front of me next to Joe Pass' guitar sounds, presented in a realistic and convincing and natural scale and position up on stage or wherever they were when they were being recorded. And then I want the energy from that voice and guitar rapidly expanding into the room.

For me, "image" is simply the size and location of the origin of a sound in a recording in a virtual setting. It can be large or small, the air out of an organ pipe, or the ting of a small triangle. These are very distinct from the expansion of that sound into the listening space. One has specificity in size and location, the other is grows as it expands, and then it decays. One occurs quickly in time, and remains the same size and in the same location, unless the musician is moving around the stage. The other is the energy, soft or loud, and it grows and then fades. These are different from each other and I think some think of the former mixed with the latter, as an image or imaging when discussing sonic attributes. They are sounds with cues, not images with shape and edges.

Sorry Peter, I wanted to respond to this lengthy post but after reading four times I can’t make enough sense out of your thoughts to formulate a response. There is so much self contradiction in what you wrote that I could answer in more than one way and be both right and wrong. IMO, despite all the ink you have spilled on this topic you still don’t have a clear and concise explanation of what you mean personally by natural sound.

When you listen live you have visuals in front of you …even if you close your eyes you still have your mind’s eye of where all performers are…you have an image whether you like it or not. A good recording and stereo tries to put that into your mind with sonics only and in the best of times it works. Are there stereos that hype or downplay the effect? Of course. But you have been downplaying that aspect of stereo to the point that no one knows what you mean when you talk about details vs. natural resolution etc.

 

[PeterA]

And who the hell decides that it's on the recording in the first place? What if it's an artifact of the gear that reproduces the recording? From a logical and logistic perspective, you simply cannot make the distinction where it comes from. You need reproducing gear to listen to the recording, so if the artifact arises from that, you never can conclude that it's actually in the recording. You just don't know -- you will never know.

Let's not fool ourselves and believe everything that "esteemed" hifi gurus, in that case originally from The Absolute Sound and Stereophile, tell us about their perceived virtues of how soundstaging should be and that it's in the actual recording. Let's engage in some independent thinking, not bowing to cultish "authority", shall we?

Al, I actually think some of this can be determined. One can take a recording and listen to it in different context and get a sense of what is on the recording. In the same way one can take different recordings to a system and understand what the system is doing.

When it comes to some of these artifacts or properties or attributes, it may well be a combination of recording and system or the way the system is set up in a particular room. Disemboweling it is not easy, and one might not understand the distinction when listening in isolation to a record recording on a given system. But given some effort, I do think as possible to determine what is doing what. This is where people with a lot of knowledge and experience understand more than the rest of us.

You and I have discussed the topic of being open minded. I sometimes recognize that I am not open minded enough. I find that the more I listen, and the more I read, and the more I talk to people who know more than I do, the more I learn, and the more I realize that there’s a lot more to learn about this hobby.

 

[Al M.]

We are talking about images in the soundstage, no? Not the soundstage size itself. Instruments and voices, yeah?

Correct. Image sizes for small-scale music were fine, for voices and instruments (image height though was an issue as with most monitors). Depending on the recording, soundstage for orchestral music could be quite wide, even though of course not wide enough, certainly not for relatively upfront recordings as most are. Yet in my experience images within the orchestral soundstage were often relatively too small.

With my current speakers I get about the same width on orchestral in my room, but the image sizes relative to the soundstage width (and depth) are larger than on the monitors and in my view more satisfactory.

 

[tima]

So we're back to a “natural sound” system sounds like Peter thinks it should, NOT like what the recording dictates. This is the ultimate expression of ego-driven hifi. I'm with hopkins and want no part of it.

And yet you're still here.

 

[tima]

A good recording and stereo tries to put that into your mind with sonics only and in the best of times it works. Are there stereos that hype or downplay the effect? Of course.

Psycho-acoustic effects happen as they will for individuals. Recordings and stereos themselves have no intentionality.

 

[PeterA]

Brad wrote:

“When you listen live you have visuals in front of you …even if you close your eyes you still have your mind’s eye of where all performers are…you have an image whether you like it or not. A good recording and stereo tries to put that into your mind with sonics only and in the best of times it works. Are there stereos that hype or downplay the effect? Of course. But you have been downplaying that aspect of stereo to the point that no one knows what you mean when you talk about details vs. natural resolution etc.”

Brad, I agree with you that a recording played through a system presents sonic cues to the listener about the location and scale of the instruments captured on the recording. When I hear the sound of a violin being played, that’s all it is. It is sound, but that sound conjures up in my imagination, the memory of when I saw a violinist playing his instrument. If there is any image in my mind, it is of that memory. It has nothing to do specifically with the sound on the recording played in my listening room. The sound in the room tells me about the spatial relationship between the instruments and their relative scale.

Regarding natural resolution and details: I hear some systems emphasizing specific details over the music. When these details are enhanced, they draw attention to themselves and distract me from the message and emotion of the music. My mind goes to the details. The experience of attending a live concert is much more holistic than that. Natural resolution is about information presented in a balanced way. It’s another way of describing a system, which makes its sound known to a listener. There is a signature sound to the system across multiple recordings.

It’s like every recording sounding like it was made with the mic 2 feet in front of each instrument. It’s not about the system emphasizing or deemphasizing anything. It’s about retrieving the information on the recording and presenting it in a transparent manner without enhancement or homogenization. That is natural resolution.

 

[tima]

Brad wrote:

“When you listen live you have visuals in front of you …even if you close your eyes you still have your mind’s eye of where all performers are…you have an image whether you like it or not. A good recording and stereo tries to put that into your mind with sonics only and in the best of times it works. Are there stereos that hype or downplay the effect? Of course. But you have been downplaying that aspect of stereo to the point that no one knows what you mean when you talk about details vs. natural resolution etc.”

Brad, I agree with you that recording played through a system presents sonic cues to the listener about location and scale of the instruments captured on the record recording. When I hear the sound of a violin being played, that’s all it is. It is sound, but that sound conjure up in my imagination, the memory of when I saw a violinist playing his instrument. If there is any image in my mind, it is of that memory. It has nothing to do specifically with the sound on the recording played in my listening room. The sound in the room tells me about the spatial relationship between the instruments and their relative scale.

Regarding natural resolution and details: I hear some systems emphasizing specific details over the music. When these details are enhanced, they draw attention to themselves and distract me from the message and emotion of the music. My mind goes to the details. The experience of attending a live concert is much more holistic than that. Natural resolution is about information presented in a balanced way. It’s another way of describing a system, which makes its sound known to a listener. There is a signature to the sound across multiple recordings.

It’s like every recording sounding like it was made with the mic 2 feet in front of each instrument. It’s not about the system emphasizing or deemphasizing anything. It’s about retrieving the information on the recording and presenting it in a transparent manner without enhancement or homogenization.

excellent post.

 

[Kingrex]

Dump the term Pinpoint Imaging and replace it with Precision Image Placement (PIP). As in, its very easy to locate the performers on the stage. Very easy to distinguish them as separate entity. They don't blur together into a homogonous mass.

Just last night I was climbing into a very close listening position. What I noticed was PIP was very high, but, any small movement of my head and the image moved. Very head in a vice. I had to move back to get the images to stay more in place. That brought on room reflections and reduced the PIP a little. The images smeared together a little.

Peter mentioned earlier that when a system is natural, you don't have to play it loud. I have noticed this on some horn systems. When the dynamics are extremely high, you can turn the volume down very low and still maintain the sense of life. I don't know I have heard this with dynamic speakers. You usually have to juice them up in volume to bring on the dynamics. And even then, there is something missing. At least for me. Especially on certain types of music. But then again, some music has a "Sound" that is very captivating on a dynamic driver/SS system. A sound you can't get from a horn system.

 

[PeterA]

But then again, some music has a "Sound" that is very captivating on a dynamic driver/SS system. A sound you can't get from a horn system.

Rex, could you talk a little bit more about this “sound”? And what is it about dynamic driver/solid-state systems and not horns?

 

[Kingrex]

Rex, could you talk a little bit more about this “sound”? And what is it about dynamic driver/solid-state systems and not horns?

To clean. To perfect. Totally silent background. Not to say a horn can't be silent. But you don't perceive the hall as well with some dynamic driver. You don't perceive the reverberance in the background of the recording as well. This could also be sensed as a hollowness or echo in a horn. That is replaced with a more contained or controlled background sound. Its gripped. Bass is at times exaggerated. Can be more there than needs to be there. Not quite as quick, but punchy. You could possibly call it guttural or viceral.

 

[Rexp]

Psycho-acoustic effects happen as they will for individuals. Recordings and stereos themselves have no intentionality.

Totally wrong. When I had a hifi shop, I could easily demonstrate a system/recording that had 3D imaging, everyone that heard it, described the sound in similar terms.
You clearly have not heard 3D sound, to be fair most Audiophiles haven't.

 

[bonzo75]

But then again, some music has a "Sound" that is very captivating on a dynamic driver/SS system. A sound you can't get from a horn system.

Boomy bass?

 

[tima]

Psycho-acoustic effects happen as they will for individuals. Recordings and stereos themselves have no intentionality.

Totally wrong. When I had a hifi shop, I could easily demonstrate a system/recording that had 3D imaging, everyone that heard it, described the sound in similar terms.
You clearly have not heard 3D sound, to be fair most Audiophiles haven't.

Chuckling -- I have no idea what you thought my post to say but you either proved or totally missed my point.

 

[Rexp]

Chuckling -- I have no idea what you thought my post to say but you either proved or totally missed my point.

Oh, what was your point again?

 

[PeterA]

To clean. To perfect. Totally silent background. Not to say a horn can't be silent. But you don't perceive the hall as well with some dynamic driver. You don't perceive the reverberance in the background of the recording as well. This could also be sensed as a hollowness or echo in a horn. That is replaced with a more contained or controlled background sound. Its gripped. Bass is at times exaggerated. Can be more there than needs to be there. Not quite as quick, but punchy. You could possibly call it guttural or viceral.

Thank you Rex. This seems like you are discussing nuance and ambience. I never thought of it as being distinguishable by speaker type in general terms but more that specific examples can be identified that excel in these areas. Lots of things must be right in the presentation and it is where it all comes together.

EDIT: I agree with Bonzo below. I hear these qualities generally more in a simpler system, but not necessarily a high efficiency system. I have heard great nuance and ambiance in large SoundLab panels with massive VTL monos and vinyl.

 

[bonzo75]

To clean. To perfect. Totally silent background. Not to say a horn can't be silent. But you don't perceive the hall as well with some dynamic driver. You don't perceive the reverberance in the background of the recording as well. This could also be sensed as a hollowness or echo in a horn. That is replaced with a more contained or controlled background sound. Its gripped. Bass is at times exaggerated. Can be more there than needs to be there. Not quite as quick, but punchy. You could possibly call it guttural or viceral.

I always hear recording venue information more with horn systems (anything related to better analog flows through better from the record on a simpler set simpler crossover horn)

Horns are more “silent” in the sense that small signals are amplified more easily. If you get bothered by any tube microphonics or tube rush etc that is different..

 

[audiobomber]

Before Taylor Swift, there was a 500 year German tradition of Lieder, the French and their Chansons, and the Russians were also game for a poet and a piano. Nina Simone was quite handy on the ivories and used to sing at the same time. More recent candidates might include Cecile McLorin Salvant, to name but one. You might want to have a listen to this rather remarkable recital or at least half of the actual live recital, which was frankly mesmerising.

I meant that "vocalist and piano" does not describe most styles of music, e.g. jazz in a club, pop or rock in a stadium, symphony in a hall, etc.

Many recordings don't even record vocal and piano properly. They'll put the singer in the center, the keyboard player's left hand in the left speaker and right hand in the right speaker, so the piano spreads across the entire stage. They'll do the same with drums; half the kit panned right, the other half on the left.

 

[Tonari]

I agree with your premise, but a piano and a singer with no amplification does not cover a lot of music. I was recently in a jazz club with seating for 35. The band was acoustic bass, drum kit, guitar, trombone. I was seated dead center at the first table. All were lightly miked except for the drums. The trombone bell was about 7 feet from my head. I closed my eyes specifically to evaluate soundstage. There was nothing resembling the soundstage one gets in a typical high end audio system.

Regarding natural resolution and details: I hear some systems emphasizing specific details over the music. When these details are enhanced, they draw attention to themselves and distract me from the message and emotion of the music. My mind goes to the details. The experience of attending a live concert is much more holistic than that. Natural resolution is about information presented in a balanced way. It’s another way of describing a system, which makes its sound known to a listener. There is a signature sound to the system across multiple recordings.

That's pretty much how I've felt many times during concerts with small bands playing acoustic instruments with a singer. Soundstage (which includes depth) and imaging (which includes that concept of "pinpoint") don't attract my attention. Yet these aspects were very important to me when listening to my system. That's why now I have slightly reconsidered my priorities regarding the aspects I need to optimize in my system.