Peter A.’s System: A Perspective on Natural Sound

[zerostargeneral]

Firstly I feel compelled to salute PeterA once more. He has traversed a path that the medians lack the conviction to even appreciate.

Secondly where can one purchase a coal powered donkey?

 

[bonzo75]

Thank you for taking down the whole paradigm with two simple sentences. There is no natural sound, just like there is no absolute one.

The way I am reading it is that both are close to live. Additionally natural sound seems to be a process of lamm + CC, no other audiophile cables + no toe in + steel supports but no other footers, to get outcome that can be defined as Peter's list that lacks Al's list and tries to result in close to live sound, otherwise known as absolute sound.

The main serious difference is that Absolute sound has more of a final wannabe, all out assault ring to it while natural can be achieved at various levels of compromise to final. Natural sound clearly separates from non natural which indeed most of the systems are. Absolute sound by definition of being close to live should do the same, however the description of attributes such as black or pinpoint could mislead one to look for other stuff.

 

[tima]

24 caprices in one go from memory? Wow

This is what happens when you practice, repeatedly.
Watch great performers, Horowitz, Heifetz and others in concert.
No sheet music.
And once you learn it, the composition will stay with you, mostly, unless you stop playing.

 

[ddk]

The way I am reading it is that both are close to live. Additionally natural sound seems to be a process of lamm + CC, no other audiophile cables + no toe in + steel supports but no other footers, to get outcome that can be defined as Peter's list that lacks Al's list and tries to result in close to live sound, otherwise known as absolute sound.

The main serious difference is that Absolute sound has more of a final wannabe, all out assault ring to it while natural can be achieved at various levels of compromise to final. Natural sound clearly separates from non natural which indeed most of the systems are. Absolute sound by definition of being close to live should do the same, however the description of attributes such as black or pinpoint could mislead one to look for other stuff.

You’re close.
david

 

[Al M.]

This is what happens when you practice, repeatedly.
Watch great performers, Horowitz, Heifetz and others in concert.
No sheet music.
And once you learn it, the composition will stay with you, mostly, unless you stop playing.

That reminds me of the remark of a young pianist when asked how he could play Stockhausen's Piano Piece X by heart, when everybody else plays with score in front of them (including Pollini in this concert):

"The piece is so complicated that once you have learned it, you know it by heart."

That was during the Stockhausen Summer Courses in Germany, in 2001. The composer said afterwards that this was the best performance of the piece that he had ever heard. It's from 1961, and famous in avantgarde circles.

 

[tima]

Dissecting sections of the audible frequency spectrum is, I think, the antithesis of Peter's approach.

Ron, I think people do this all the time. The point I was making about David Karmeli‘s four systems is it’s extremely difficult to do that. In many other systems it is very easy to do that. That is the distinction.

"Dissecting" - I prefer "analysis" - can be done for any system or component.

I know and appreciate exactly what you guys are saying. And as I've written here and published elsewhere, I love gear that does not call attention to itself. But with a certain frame of mind one can dissociate from musical enjoyment (break the gestalt) and listen to the sonics - the characteristics of the sound itself. Doing so does not require someone's audio glossary. At a less than nuanced level all you need is Tonality, Dynamics and Timing - the elements of a score. Musicians love music, especially of their own genre - but they also listen to sound - it is a way they evaluate what they do. Music listeners - audiophiles - can do this too wrt components and systems. The keys, imo, are to be intentional and recognize your own priorities and biases.

Al does not hear a pronounced leading edge from my system. Some have read his comments to mean that transients are missing from my system. I agree that there is no pronouncing, no enhancing, no exaggeration of leading edge.

Quod erat demonstrandum

 

[morricab]

This is what happens when you practice, repeatedly.
Watch great performers, Horowitz, Heifetz and others in concert.
No sheet music.
And once you learn it, the composition will stay with you, mostly, unless you stop playing.

It was about 8-10 hours a day for months....

 

[tima]

It was about 8-10 hours a day for months....

yes - dedication, hard work

 

[Chop]

The way I am reading it is that both are close to live. Additionally natural sound seems to be a process of lamm + CC, no other audiophile cables + no toe in + steel supports but no other footers, to get outcome that can be defined as Peter's list that lacks Al's list and tries to result in close to live sound, otherwise known as absolute sound.

The main serious difference is that Absolute sound has more of a final wannabe, all out assault ring to it while natural can be achieved at various levels of compromise to final. Natural sound clearly separates from non natural which indeed most of the systems are. Absolute sound by definition of being close to live should do the same, however the description of attributes such as black or pinpoint could mislead one to look for other stuff.

Nice sensible post

 

[Chop]

Sorry, that sounded faintly patronising and it wasn't meant to be. I meant "I think that's a good stab at the differences between the different approaches." Particularly the last paragraph.

 

[ddk]

I would argue "natural sound" as ddk puts it is on the soft side of neutral and will homogenize to a degree.

Actually this statement is totally inaccurate it's not "natural" if the sound is softened and homogenized, I've argued against any homogenization of sound many times on this forum, in fact the opposite is true in case of "natural sound". HIgh resolution; ie tonal accuracy, tonal range and tonal depth are pretty much part and parcel of the natural sound requirements. As well as dynamics and dynamic scale which horn speakers at this level are easily capable of. One other element of "natural sound" which is overlooked and never discussed is volume which is part of the experience of real music. At the top of "natural sound" system pyramid like Peter's they're capable of distortion free playback at realistic level volumes with ease. This is why we did our exhibitions in very large ballrooms to demonstrate this ability to large groups at a time.

david

 

[Lampie519]

I think that volume settings are very difficult as we do not know how "loud" the original performance was in the first place (unless you record and playback in the same room). My experience with domenstrations is that most of the time it is set too loud.... even in my home i need to adjust the volume as i also tend to play louder then needed to get a "natural" experience.

 

[ddk]

I think that volume settings are very difficult as we do not know how "loud" the original performance was in the first place (unless you record and playback in the same room). My experience with domenstrations is that most of the time it is set too loud.... even in my home i need to adjust the volume as i also tend to play louder then needed to get a "natural" experience.

We know more or less what different live music levels are from experience, volume of an orchestra in a large hall and a jazz band are different but it is part of the overall experience, recording isn't the issue.

I agree with you that at shows too many rooms are simply too loud and I would not stay in some without earplugs but this isn't the natural volume that I'm talking about. Of course there's the room and what it can handle that one has to consider when setting the volume for realism.

david

 

[Rhapsody]

It's everywhere now I had to laugh when I just received this email/ad from - https://natural-sound.com

 

[PeterA]

It's everywhere now I had to laugh when I just received this email/ad from - https://natural-sound.com

“High-quality audio video since 1975“. It seems that this was not controversial in 1975. No idea why it is today, some 46 years later.

 

[Rhapsody]

It seems that this was not controversial in 1975. No idea why it is today 46 years later.

Nothing controversial in my post, I just thought it was a bit surreal after watching the thread for weeks now to receive this ad from a store which I have never heard of prior. Nothing more than that.

And Peter, I'm very happy for you, and for David and all of those that have followed David's path. I'm certain that David's systems, your systems and all mentioned systems sound WONDERFUL. Look amazing as well.

No controversy from me whatsoever. Very happy for everyone that they have found their true path. It's a great thing!

 

[ddk]

"Dissecting" - I prefer "analysis" - can be done for any system or component.

I know and appreciate exactly what you guys are saying. And as I've written here and published elsewhere, I love gear that does not call attention to itself. But with a certain frame of mind one can dissociate from musical enjoyment (break the gestalt) and listen to the sonics - the characteristics of the sound itself. Doing so does not require someone's audio glossary. At a less than nuanced level all you need is Tonality, Dynamics and Timing - the elements of a score. Musicians love music, especially of their own genre - but they also listen to sound - it is a way they evaluate what they do. Music listeners - audiophiles - can do this too wrt components and systems. The keys, imo, are to be intentional and recognize your own priorities and biases.



Quod erat demonstrandum

I believe purpose and intent and method of communication is part of the issue here. Of course we all analyze to various degrees all the time even calling a system natural is analysis by definition. We can call it deep analysis instead of dissecting but the function is the same. When I'm testing or designing a new product my first criteria is if it's natural sounding from there I get into deeper analysis but at this point my goal isn't listening to music, now music is just a tool. I believe you would approach a review session differently than a private listening one too. You have your checkboxes and I have mine to deal with. Your challenge is to put your analysis to words and communicate your observations while my challenge is to translate this analysis into a better product or setup, words aren't in my toolbox.

The way we communicate is naturally different, you need the vocabulary and descriptive passages to share with your audience about what you're hearing, in my case I let the system do the talking, abstract concept doesn't need words to be understood anymore and it's same for a lot of people who invite friends over. Probably why just natural would suffice, QED?

Natural, suspend reality and hear the music, AS hear the system while thinking of the next upgrade !

david

 

[tima]

The way we communicate is naturally different, you need the vocabulary and descriptive passages to share with your audience about what you're hearing, in my case I let the system do the talking, abstract concept doesn't need words to be understood anymore and it's same for a lot of people who invite friends over. Probably why just natural would suffice, QED?

Exactly, David. Your Utah presentations allow the opportunity to listen - what I call ostensive or experiential definition - the system describes itself to the listener. No need for intermediary words from you. The listener can bring his own words but likely he won't need any words at all. I also agree that 'natural' encapsulates the experience and the system - I have zero issue with that one word.

The system speaks to the listener whereas the reader is the audience of the writer. The latter is a poorer though necessary medium as not everyone can go to Utah. The glossary issue only comes into play when the writer, the reviewer, adulates characteristics that are not on the source.

 

[bonzo75]

Natural art

Italian Artist Sells Invisible Sculpture for More Than $18,000

Though he's received much critique for the sale, Salvatore Garau argues that his work of art isn't "nothing," but is instead a "vacuum."

www.newsweek.com

 

[PeterA]

Natural art

Italian Artist Sells Invisible Sculpture for More Than $18,000

Though he's received much critique for the sale, Salvatore Garau argues that his work of art isn't "nothing," but is instead a "vacuum."

www.newsweek.com

You can clearly see that that sculpture is man-made. Therefore, it cannot be natural. When confronted with this paradox, the sculptor went missing.