Sublime Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
I was not looking for a definition of 'natural', but thanks for that.
I was responding to your message where you wrote:
I thought a discussion about how we describe live music and sound and a discussion on the adequacy of that language for use with our stereos might be useful instead of talking in terms that some historically have used for talking about their stereos. While there may be utility for reviews in doing such, I am thinking more about on-line communications. However, as a topic, maybe it is broader than a personal system thread. Or as some ascribe, maybe a single word is all that is needed and no discussion can be adequate to that.
I don't know about an absolute sound, some particular instance that one could hear or point at - I don't think I believe in that either. I understood Pearson's usage as the concept of using live acoustic music (of which there are many instances) as a the target for measuring reproduced sound rather than using measurements as that target.
Antonyms can be useful. If someone says 'the sound evinces 'characteristic X', sometimes I look at the antonym of X to see if X makes sense.
For example, some people say 'Lamm gear sounds dark.' If the antonym of 'dark' is 'light', then the claim 'Lamm gear sounds dark' does not make sense to me and perhaps a different description would capture that characteristic better. If the antonym of 'dark' was 'thin' ( which is not true) then I might say 'dark' is a good description.
But what I am after - and may not be able to find - are sonic descriptions that are positive in the sense that they are not in terms of what a characteristic is not. 'Lacking focus' tells me what the sound is not - tell me in positive terms what the sound is. I understand 'diffuse sound' as sound that is spread out or scattered, similar to 'diffuse light'. Maybe the distinction I'm trying to draw is too fine-grained.
Fwiw, I do agree with much in your posts of the last page or so. In the case of larger orchestral works, realistic reproduction is indeed difficult. If I can get a sense of an orchestra in a hall - its presence, coherence, and perspective, albeit with scaled down dynamics, then that goes a long way toward suspension of disbelief.
In science, we sometimes use an is/is not tool as it is often easier to say what something is not rather than what it is.
Yes, but is discussing the language and terms we use to describe subjective personal impressions of what we hear when listening to live or reproduced music considered science?
Hi Tim, I reposted my definition of "natural" because you have been pointing to people using the antonyms of words to get to the meanings of specific terms and I thought you were being a bit critical of that as a technique. I thought you were looking for more positive attributes rather than negative ones, ie. as this IS this rather than this IS NOT this.
My definition is not full of those negatives. Going back to the "diffuse" term that I should not have used, I prefer this "expansion of energy". That more accurately captures what I heard from Vlad's voice as he spoke to me with my eyes closed. My definition is mostly positives as in these two passages:
This was made super clear to me the other night when I visited Al to hear his isolation transformers. With the transformers in place, I heard "tight" bass, a focused organ and voices, a slightly harsh triangle, a sharp trumpet, a restricted soundstage, and focused images. Without the transformers, I heard an expansion of energy in the room, a more convincing presentation of musicians on a stage, and the music, not the sonic attributes. This is how I knew that his system sounded more natural without the transformers.
The overwhelming impression for me at the BSO is one of clarity and the sheer energy from the instruments. When I can hear some of that in my listening room with much of the information intact and uncorrupted, I know the system is getting out of the way, my mind is not focusing on specific sonic attributes and the glossary of audiophile terms is the last thing I am thinking about. That is when I know the sound is approaching a sound that I perceive as natural.
Last edited:
We have been discussing language and how to describe what we hear, both from reproduced music from our systems and also from our live music experiences. KeithR is posting short listening impressions of various speakers that he has heard recently. I think his post of the Tannoy Westminister is particularly good and refreshing. It communicates well to his reader what he heard. It is not flowery prose, nor is it a collection of the audiophile glossary of terms. He does use the terms "coherency" and "warmth" but these are fairly common terms, easily understood.
I highlight phrases and sentences that resonate with me and give me a strong impression of what the sound of these speakers is like in this system. I think Keith's description is excellent, and it could serve as an example of writing that could help to make audio reviews more enjoyable and accessible. It uses language which is also used to describe the sound of live music and be understood by people who are not familiar with HP's glossary. The conclusion kind of says it all.
Thank you for this, Keith.
Tannoy Westminster:
I've been meaning to hear the big Westminsters for quite some time - a friend of a friend has owned them for several years. He is analog only and runs them on ARC gear. Currently, his amp is being repaired so a pair of Canary Audio amps were in the mix. Jim has a converted garage, a big 25' x 20' space, and has inserted some room treatment smartly to contain the sound.
The speakers are massive, in a good way
Honestly, I always find them ugly in pictures but they look much better in person. The cabinetry work is mighty fine, and while very wide, aren't as deep as I anticipated. They are quite flexible in the treble and bass, to suit various rooms. The big difference in the Westminsters vs the other Tannoys is a large, folded horn for the bass. And as I've recently discovered, that's a huge part to the success of this speaker.
What I heard in just the first 10 minutes was big, bold, and present sound. Music just came to life right in front of you. When I played Trios Palabras, a female Cuban quartet, the classical guitars and congas just had such snap and vividness. It was a "you are there" kind of experience. What I also noticed early on was just how visceral the bass was - I'm telling you the snap and gut punch that is available with these speakers is off the charts cool. I kept referring it as such to Jim throughout the evening. Simultaneously there was a relaxing nature to the sound due to the speakers coherency - again, something that people tend to ignore these days and just adds so much. My friend with me quipped that he could listen to these speakers all day.
The Tannoy Westminster isn't a "hifi" speaker - you don't think of imaging, soundstage, and other hifi fireworks used by the TAS writers in their uniformly boring reviews. It's a rock n roll speaker just as much as a jazz one. It doesn't have the full resolution of a Magico M3 and you don't really care. Bad recordings are even listenable (unlike my YGs, unfortunately). As far as negatives, I'll admit on a few tracks there was a little warmness which I feel goes away when returning to the ARC amps. The soundstage isn't as deep as others, nor is it meant to be. And the speakers don't totally disappear. But all of these things seemed insignificant- we ended with Tony Bennett/Bill Evans on Analogue Productions and it just sang into the room. This is a world class speaker in a sea of boring hifi. A welcome respite for the music lover as compared to the music analyzer.
I highlight phrases and sentences that resonate with me and give me a strong impression of what the sound of these speakers is like in this system. I think Keith's description is excellent, and it could serve as an example of writing that could help to make audio reviews more enjoyable and accessible. It uses language which is also used to describe the sound of live music and be understood by people who are not familiar with HP's glossary. The conclusion kind of says it all.
Thank you for this, Keith.
Tannoy Westminster:
I've been meaning to hear the big Westminsters for quite some time - a friend of a friend has owned them for several years. He is analog only and runs them on ARC gear. Currently, his amp is being repaired so a pair of Canary Audio amps were in the mix. Jim has a converted garage, a big 25' x 20' space, and has inserted some room treatment smartly to contain the sound.
The speakers are massive, in a good way
Honestly, I always find them ugly in pictures but they look much better in person. The cabinetry work is mighty fine, and while very wide, aren't as deep as I anticipated. They are quite flexible in the treble and bass, to suit various rooms. The big difference in the Westminsters vs the other Tannoys is a large, folded horn for the bass. And as I've recently discovered, that's a huge part to the success of this speaker.What I heard in just the first 10 minutes was big, bold, and present sound. Music just came to life right in front of you. When I played Trios Palabras, a female Cuban quartet, the classical guitars and congas just had such snap and vividness. It was a "you are there" kind of experience. What I also noticed early on was just how visceral the bass was - I'm telling you the snap and gut punch that is available with these speakers is off the charts cool. I kept referring it as such to Jim throughout the evening. Simultaneously there was a relaxing nature to the sound due to the speakers coherency - again, something that people tend to ignore these days and just adds so much. My friend with me quipped that he could listen to these speakers all day.
The Tannoy Westminster isn't a "hifi" speaker - you don't think of imaging, soundstage, and other hifi fireworks used by the TAS writers in their uniformly boring reviews. It's a rock n roll speaker just as much as a jazz one. It doesn't have the full resolution of a Magico M3 and you don't really care. Bad recordings are even listenable (unlike my YGs, unfortunately). As far as negatives, I'll admit on a few tracks there was a little warmness which I feel goes away when returning to the ARC amps. The soundstage isn't as deep as others, nor is it meant to be. And the speakers don't totally disappear. But all of these things seemed insignificant- we ended with Tony Bennett/Bill Evans on Analogue Productions and it just sang into the room. This is a world class speaker in a sea of boring hifi. A welcome respite for the music lover as compared to the music analyzer.
Thanks, I understand.
As I noted to Brad, I think antonyms can be useful to test the appropriateness or adequacy of a word or to understand better what someone means by a word by considering its antonym. A word or its antonym can be a positive expression of a characteristic.
Where I was exploring is more in the area of alternatives to saying what a sound word is not. In some cases that may or may not lead to a better description. 'The sound was diffuse' vs 'The sound was not focused'. I"m not sure how much meaningful difference there is between those, but the former is positive.
I appreciate your using the word 'energy'. It has a certain dynamic connotation in the sense of activity or movement, vibrancy, liveliness. Sound is a form or instance of energy. Where I struggle is with its descriptive power - how well it communicates meaning. In some usages its fine and in others, for me, not particularly descriptive. '"During the credenza the energy from the violins was vicious.'" "The air around the orchestra was energized." Your high-lighted phrases are similar and meaningful.
"I heard his voice as an expansion of energy." Does the latter convey what you're hearing or an impression of what you're hearing? I'm not criticizing the effort. it's just not obvious to me what that usage is telling me.
Yes. I get it - a more convincing presentation w/out the transformers. On the other hand, without the transformers, you still (presumably) heard the bass, organ, voices, triangle and could recognize them from their different timbre as they played together. That, sans transformers, the sound was more natural does not, to me anyway, lead to a loss of sonic attributes. Can there be an account of what was heard that provides more information within the natural context? I understand you are saying what caused the sound to become more natural for you. But what does that natural sound sound like? I suppose my main query is: what in the concert hall aural experience - put in positive terms - carries over to the stereo experience?
Yes, we can experience a record where we do not focus on attributes and we don't think about equipment and we can enjoy that. Do you think that within the context of natural sound, we should no longer talk of sonic attributes?
Tim, it may seem contradictory, but using sonic attributes can be useful when trying to convey meaning to others. I simply no longer feel the need to break the sound of what I hear in the concert hall or my listening room into “bits and pieces”. The listening experience in both places is more holistic. I think that is a result of my system beginning to sound more natural.
I am tiring of the old nomenclature because I am realizing that the live music experience is not like that. I think HP was right to get us focused on the sound of live music as a reference. It is his glossary of terms that no longer interests me. That whole way of thinking led me down a different path, one that took me increasingly away from what I was hearing from live music. I am now changing my direction.
I hope you discover the vocabulary you need to express your thoughts about the sound of music and of audio gear after this involved discussion. I am settling on how I want to express my thoughts about sound. I do not know what to do about it if others think it is unclear or does not convey meaning. Right now, I am mostly looking forward to doing more listening.
I am tiring of the old nomenclature because I am realizing that the live music experience is not like that. I think HP was right to get us focused on the sound of live music as a reference. It is his glossary of terms that no longer interests me. That whole way of thinking led me down a different path, one that took me increasingly away from what I was hearing from live music. I am now changing my direction.
I hope you discover the vocabulary you need to express your thoughts about the sound of music and of audio gear after this involved discussion. I am settling on how I want to express my thoughts about sound. I do not know what to do about it if others think it is unclear or does not convey meaning. Right now, I am mostly looking forward to doing more listening.
Last edited:
The more natural the sound the less your brain is hearing specific attributes stand out because you’re listening to the music not the stereo.
Btw Tima, I think natural can have focus, and diffuse is the opposite of etched, not focus.
Btw Tima, I think natural can have focus, and diffuse is the opposite of etched, not focus.
Folsom, you say more here using fewer words that I ever did. Well done.
I listen to my system, close my eyes, and can point to exactly where the musicians are playing in front of me. What I hear is the expansion of the energy from their instruments filling the room.
Peter's description of "clarity" when listening to the BSO resonates with my understanding of what he means by "natural."
In the context of reproduced sound heard through electronics, I relate "clarity/natural" to exist to the degree that the system's noise and coloration don't intrude upon the recorded sonics of the original event. Natural sound, whether it is the sound of wind blowing through trees or a musical instrument... breathes unencumbered.
Sure, natural sound can have focus, certainly a locus of location. I'd be surprised if anyone thought otherwise.
Wrt etched and diffuse as opposites, I suppose we can each have our personal dictionaries.
I don't think one's brain hears attributes though it may attribute characteristics to what it hears. I see it as a matter of cognitive focus or perhaps direction of attention. At one extreme is what I might call the 'limbic connection' - where one is wholly engaged with what one is hearing - "a kind of brainless state" as Copland calls it. At another extreme is what we might call an "audiophile connection", where one is listening cognitively, analytically and discerns characteristics of both music and sounds. I can agree to the extent that the limbic connection falls more easily to hand with live sound and reproduced sound that is closer to live sound.
Let's just say it can be...observation is the basis of science and one can take an objective view on the listening experience to note how it compares with one's internal and external references. Compare and contrast is useful.
Some audiophiles have 50 ways to tweak their systems.
Similar threads
