Sublime Sound

[Lagonda]

But like a scene from Oliver, I am tempted to say again can I have more. Not rudely or because I am greedy but (while containing some great and handy stuff) none of the systems of subjective definition that have gone before have actually answered all our questions or satiated all our hunger to understand better.

Which for me is why just quoting out of one of any of the more accepted bibles of subjective understanding is not (I’d suggest) for many of or possibly even not most of us therefore a complete solution.

We continue to grasp at understanding and there is always latitude in interpretation and that is as it should be. I’m not sure it’s even just the simple yes no response to does this sound natural not. Until we have a unifying TOE (Theory of everything) that correlates all human behaviour we are stuck with the gritty unease of the imperfect communication whenever trying to box in the unobjective world. Until completely unified in understanding in human behaviour and consciousness there are no single winners in this, we just have to accept that there can be those definitions that feel essentially right too any of us and only the more we agree the more essentially right we can be.

I’m happy with an unconscious holistic evaluation on when I feel I am experiencing naturalness or even better moments of realness and feel comfortable with how I apply that distinction because for me rightness in this is set within the limits of my experience much like an appreciation of preference and may not just be about dopamine rewards or sonic parameters alone but somehow also how fundamentally the experiential world meshes with the actual.

Damn Graham, you are in a philosophical mood tonight

 

[the sound of Tao]

Damn Graham, you are in a philosophical mood tonight

and relatively drug free according to my mandatory testing

 

[microstrip]

I find interesting that only one or two years ago, I read very few references to a system sounding "natural". DDK used this term, but rarely did I see others using it. Perhaps I was simply not paying enough attention.

I used to break down sound into parts when trying to describe what I heard. I moved toward more complication, more stuff, and more words all in a seemingly endless attempt to improve and to describe, and to "understand" what I was doing and hearing.

These days, I am attempting to simplify. I have removed things from the system and from the room. I am selling off stuff and getting back to really enjoying my system again. I am also understanding what I hear in simpler terms. I think less about parts, and more about the whole and where I am going.

I am also increasingly seeing the term "natural" being used in our discussions about sound. Are others having similar thoughts, and noticing similar things, or am I adrift in my observations? Is the conversation really changing?

Peter,

We have been talking about natural sound since long in WBF - see for example this five years old thread started by Ron - most of our members, including amirm and FrantzM participated in it. https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/natural-sound.18815/

I remember addressing the "natural sound" subject with Phelonious Ponk and Frank (fas42) about ten years ago in WBF, RogerD also loved the subject. BTW, Gordon Holt wrote about it in 1992 https://www.stereophile.com/historical/864howhifi/index.html

As far as I remember , S. Linkwitz addressed particularly two aspects of natural sound - the natural bass and the natural space.

BTW, the holistic approach in audio is not something new - it has been addressed many times in audio forums and articles.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I find interesting that only one or two years ago, I read very few references to a system sounding "natural". DDK used this term, but rarely did I see others using it. Perhaps I was simply not paying enough attention.

I used to break down sound into parts when trying to describe what I heard. I moved toward more complication, more stuff, and more words all in a seemingly endless attempt to improve and to describe, and to "understand" what I was doing and hearing.

These days, I am attempting to simplify. I have removed things from the system and from the room. I am selling off stuff and getting back to really enjoying my system again. I am also understanding what I hear in simpler terms. I think less about parts, and more about the whole and where I am going.

I am also increasingly seeing the term "natural" being used in our discussions about sound. Are others having similar thoughts, and noticing similar things, or am I adrift in my observations? Is the conversation really changing?

I’m tempted to think evolving but I really do want to avoid hubris, I joke sure but modesty and moderation is actually core to learning.

Beyond the fora I’m lucky to have a job that aligns perfectly with these discussions here so exploration here is also part of currency and professional practice for me.

Understanding how the subjective correlates to the objective and teaching students then how to understand their own design process is one of my essential drivers so I’m always thankful for the contributions of those like yourself that explore and ask rather than just assume and know. I’m a learner also and appreciate the chance to know better.

Given your architectural training I figure you are also probably deeply conceptually and process driven.

Something that I have learnt out of observing perceptual process in literally many thousands of discussions on how the function and form of something framed human experience is that in the process of review that the best place to start is in the whole. Not with what is not yet right with a thing but rather what is essentially right with that thing. Recognising rightness is like getting the scent for a bloodhound, the truth is in the core of what is right. The second question I then ask is where is this thing not yet right then.

Bringing to rightness requires identifying rightness first.

Why the order is critical is that the second question shifts the learner designer maker into another state, if they enter the second state without the grasp of the first state they will lose the thread because they don’t know what they most essentially are chasing as they haven’t got the scent of it clearly first. This scent is some conscious awareness of what or where the core of rightness may reside. PS This is what I may call scent-ience from now on. Lol.

Jokes rarely aside the trickster is one of the archetypal faces of the teacher and an unfortunate arch daemon of mine as well.

So back to the system analysis. If the start of finding direction for us to then SET (apologies) our course is to recognise the scent of that which we are chasing in developing our system can just be a simple holistic assessment of where and if there are moments of realness... and the most essential of these may be in just what if things seem essentially natural. In the nature of things and things being in nature is where we started as a civilisation. Reason grew out of nature. That which seems natural is then the natural start of just referencing and correlating with the familiar and known and real as a pathway that may then point us to something that guides us better through the infinite dazzle of amazement that comes in negotiating all the parts that we may be led to assess if we find that the answer to that first part is not so much really.

 

[PeterA]

Peter,

We have been talking about natural sound since long in WBF - see for example this five years old thread started by Ron - most of our members, including amirm and FrantzM participated in it. https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/natural-sound.18815/

I remember addressing the "natural sound" subject with Phelonious Ponk and Frank (fas42) about ten years ago in WBF, RogerD also loved the subject. BTW, Gordon Holt wrote about it in 1992 https://www.stereophile.com/historical/864howhifi/index.html

As far as I remember , S. Linkwitz addressed particularly two aspects of natural sound - the natural bass and the natural space.

BTW, the holistic approach in audio is not something new - it has been addressed many times in audio forums and articles.

Thank you Francisco. I asked if I was not paying attention and clearly I was not. I appreciate all of the information. I will try to be more attentive going forward. What is old seems to be new again, at least for me. I’ll have a look at your links to see what I may learn. Many thanks.

 

[Folsom]

I find interesting that only one or two years ago, I read very few references to a system sounding "natural". DDK used this term, but rarely did I see others using it. Perhaps I was simply not paying enough attention.

I used to break down sound into parts when trying to describe what I heard. I moved toward more complication, more stuff, and more words all in a seemingly endless attempt to improve and to describe, and to "understand" what I was doing and hearing.

These days, I am attempting to simplify. I have removed things from the system and from the room. I am selling off stuff and getting back to really enjoying my system again. I am also understanding what I hear in simpler terms. I think less about parts, and more about the whole and where I am going.

I am also increasingly seeing the term "natural" being used in our discussions about sound. Are others having similar thoughts, and noticing similar things, or am I adrift in my observations? Is the conversation really changing?

Yes, it’s a trend. No one’s ego can handle not having the attribute to their stereo. (Even if they don’t like the sound)

On the flip side some of us have decided to change things in our stereos to go that way instead of re-describing what we have.

Even if it has been around, it wasn’t trendy before.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Yes, it’s a trend. No one’s ego can handle not having the attribute to their stereo. (Even if they don’t like the sound)

On the flip side some of us have decided to change things in our stereos to go that way instead of re-describing what we have.

Even if it has been around, it wasn’t trendy before.

Given how much time and coin most of us have spent in just getting our stereos to that point where we are still not continuously happy should take all ego out of this equation for most of us .

Seeking a reflection in nature for the order of things is a trend that reaches back to the pre Dionysian and may stretch well back to Pan and beyond. The rising pandemic is perhaps a none too subtle indicator that we are possibly completely out of order with nature

We should continue with the great work (alchemical) and get our own systems more in accord with those harmonies of both poles of universe and nature... perhaps if Alon Wolf were to build a giant horn and Elon Musk were to then launch it to the centre of the universe’s Extremes guided only by hybrid tube ss analogue digital instrumentation and constructed out of unobtainium and powered on the scent of snake-oil we’d somehow then combine all our best threads in one collossal pandeamonium and finally unleash the philosopher’s stone ... just sayin.

 

[PeterA]

Peter,

We have been talking about natural sound since long in WBF - see for example this five years old thread started by Ron - most of our members, including amirm and FrantzM participated in it. https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/natural-sound.18815/

I remember addressing the "natural sound" subject with Phelonious Ponk and Frank (fas42) about ten years ago in WBF, RogerD also loved the subject. BTW, Gordon Holt wrote about it in 1992 https://www.stereophile.com/historical/864howhifi/index.html

As far as I remember , S. Linkwitz addressed particularly two aspects of natural sound - the natural bass and the natural space.

BTW, the holistic approach in audio is not something new - it has been addressed many times in audio forums and articles.

Fransisco, I looked up that five year old thread you referenced. Amir and Blizzard started arguing with those of us who simply used the word "natural" to describe what we were hearing. The thread got shut down. I found the OP interesting but never questioned it before. Ron wrote that he used the term to describe the sound he heard from Steve's system. He then asked the forum what the term means. Five years later, I find that to be a bit ironic.

 

[PeterA]

We should continue with the great work (alchemical) and get our own systems more in accord with those harmonies of both poles of universe and nature... perhaps if Alon Wolf were to build a giant horn and Elon Musk were to then launch it to the centre of the universe’s Extremes guided only by hybrid tube ss analogue digital instrumentation and constructed out of unobtainium and powered on the scent of snake-oil we’d somehow then combine all our best threads in one collossal pandeamonium and finally unleash the philosopher’s stone ... just sayin.

Alon, Wolf, Elon, Musk. Four words, four letters each. Not good. Just sayin....

 

[the sound of Tao]

Lol

 

[ddk]

Peter,

We have been talking about natural sound since long in WBF - see for example this five years old thread started by Ron - most of our members, including amirm and FrantzM participated in it. https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/natural-sound.18815/.

We go back a little earlier starting post #11

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/beyond-turntables-micro-seiki-sz-1t-sx-8000ii-sx-8000.17789/

david

 

[bonzo75]

I find interesting that only one or two years ago, I read very few references to a system sounding "natural". DDK used this term, but rarely did I see others using it. Perhaps I was simply not paying enough attention.

I used to break down sound into parts when trying to describe what I heard. I moved toward more complication, more stuff, and more words all in a seemingly endless attempt to improve and to describe, and to "understand" what I was doing and hearing.

These days, I am attempting to simplify. I have removed things from the system and from the room. I am selling off stuff and getting back to really enjoying my system again. I am also understanding what I hear in simpler terms. I think less about parts, and more about the whole and where I am going.

I am also increasingly seeing the term "natural" being used in our discussions about sound. Are others having similar thoughts, and noticing similar things, or am I adrift in my observations? Is the conversation really changing?

There is a marketing study that has examples like, once you decide to paint your house, you will start noticing many paint shops in your area that you didn't know existed. Same if you were changing your flooring, you will start noticing floor shops and so on

 

[ddk]

Just purchased a couple of Studer motors for potential TT upgrade. One is a real freaky version made for Phillips test department.
View attachment 66933View attachment 66934

Very nice!
david

 

[Lagonda]

Very nice!
david

That flywheel looks effective

 

[tima]

Is there more?

"Presence: A quality of realism and aliveness in reproduced sound."

"Presence range: The 1,000 - 4,000-Hz part of the audio spectrum, which contributes to presence in reproduced sound."

Holt, J. Gordon (1990) The Audio Glossary, p. 108 The Audio Amateur Press

 

[andromedaaudio]

Imo it just needs to be as flat as possible in that area .
If it wasnt it would be distortion of the original sound.
Presence of distortion

 

[tima]

I think palpable is a funny way to judge. A little bit contributes to presence but a lot no longer sounds real (go listen to live music, and you’ll know this to be true).

(my emphasis)

Yes. Again the difference between reality and reproduction. In audio writing, Palpability is a name for a psycho-acoustic effect.

The more I think about this I'm inclined to believe certain psycho-acoustic effects we experience in the audio room are not experienced in the concert hall. (Okay. that's limited to myself.) I don't have a list. But palpability may be one of those ... or not... "capable of being discerned by the sense of touch: a palpable fracture" or more broadly "easily perceived by the senses or the mind; obvious: her explanation was a palpable lie." Consider the antonyms, eg. concealed, indistinct, ambiguous, unclear.

Or perhaps the words we use in describing reproduction don't translate or correlate to the live experience. Thinking about things this way may be a guide to assessing equipment. While in my audio room, do I hear this in the concert hall? And vice versa - while in reality (heh), do I hear this from my stereo system?

Sound is hard to describe.
Our experience listening to music is even harder to describe. Are we describing what we hear or what we feel.
Comments and Reviews should be clearer about what is being described. (note to self.)

 

[Al M.]

Yes, it’s a trend. No one’s ego can handle not having the attribute to their stereo. (Even if they don’t like the sound)

On the flip side some of us have decided to change things in our stereos to go that way instead of re-describing what we have.

Even if it has been around, it wasn’t trendy before.

In my report on Peter's system a few days ago on thread page 58,

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/sublime-sound.12853/page-58

I used the term natural to describe some aspects, since that is the frame of Peter's thinking about improvements. In my own thinking about systems, mine or those of others, the term natural usually does not enter. I do think in terms of added artifacts that need to be removed, but mostly in terms of realism.

Realism is an aspirational term for me, something that can be emulated but never quite reached. Even though sometimes a system can, in certain aspects, invoke a more or less strong sense of realism, the sound will never be a copy of the real thing. The latter being the reference of unamplified live music.

I guess thinking in terms of a goal that can never be quite reached takes at least some ego out of the equation. I do strongly enjoy some aspects of realism in my system, with its level being very much dependent on the kind of music played. Yet at the same time I am constantly aware of its shortcomings compared to the real thing, especially when it comes to critical listening rather than when actually concentrating on the music and losing myself in it.

 

[tima]

I find interesting that only one or two years ago, I read very few references to a system sounding "natural". DDK used this term, but rarely did I see others using it. Perhaps I was simply not paying enough attention.
...
I am also increasingly seeing the term "natural" being used in our discussions about sound. Are others having similar thoughts, and noticing similar things, or am I adrift in my observations? Is the conversation really changing?

Two or three years ago if someone said to you: "Arnie's system sounds quite natural." would you know what he meant or think to yourself what the heck does that mean?

I don't think you find too many references to "natural" because as a term, as an "accepted audiophile adjective" on it's own it is ambiguous at best for the purpose of conveying to someone else how Arnie's system sounds. Of course you or David or anyone can say - it's obvious, I know it when I hear it. But does the person you're communicating with know what you know or hear what you hear?

To be useful, the meaning of word needs to be spelled out or explained. In a sense it's meaning has always been there - it's not a new sound, it's not a discovery. Not only have we been talking here about "natural" as an adjective, but more importantly (imo) as an orientation, as a description of one's basis for preference or guide for building systems.

Yes, you're seeing it used and discussed here more - partly for the very reason of need for explanation. People pay attention to what David says and we often nod our heads in agreement with him. In a sense, what we're doing now is codifying a meaning for the purpose of using and accepting the term in discussion - at least for this community and perhaps for the larger audiophile community vocabulary.

 

[tima]

Realism is an aspirational term for me, something that can be emulated but never quite reached. Even though sometimes a system can, in certain aspects, invoke a more or less strong sense of realism, the sound will never be a copy of the real thing. The latter being the reference of unamplified live music.

Yes. The reproduction of reality will never be reality. Our experience of the reproduction is very real. The question is do you want your reproduction of reality to be close to it or to some new thing you've created for yourself?