Indeed, there is nothing wrong with having a soundstage, with hall information, great depth layering etc. This can be had without pinpoint imaging.
Sublime Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Indeed, there is nothing wrong with having a soundstage, with hall information, great depth layering etc. This can be had without pinpoint imaging.
Actually, I do think the absence of the visual can be a good thing. Seeing performers can give you great insight into many details of the performance, and it can be a thrilling experience.
But if I want to concentrate on the structure of the music, both on the smaller, more immediate scale, and on the larger, more overarching scale, having no visuals can actually be helpful. Listening in the dark can take this a step further.
Only once. I felt it was another type suspension of disbelief. I am a little old fashioned. When I experience something new, very interesting very attention grabbing, I keep reminding myself it is artificial and ruin myself the enjoyment. I admit the old two channel stereo is my comfort zone although it is no less artificial. And I let go of reminding myself constantly that it is also artificial unlike when I experience other means to suspension of disbelief.
No and no. Listening with eyes closed is simply a method I sometimes use to exclude the influence that my eyes have on my brain. Listening this way often helps to inform me of particular attributes of live sound. It is different when my eyes are open, but I usually listen and watch live performances. It is more fun that way and less analytical. Listening with eyes shut to someone talking to you in the room is very interesting and this helped me appreciate the quality of sound in my system as I removed room treatments and repositioned my speakers. There are no musicians to watch in my listening room when listening to my system.
I have little experience with binaural listening. I have a few sample CDs with such recordings and I listened to them on my system and through headphones, but I have no real opinion.
Kingsrule, there are degrees of natural. I do not use this as a descriptor of only great systems. My system is certainly not great. Nor is Al's. They are decent systems, and at times can sound rather convincing. I find they are also sounding more natural as we continue to make changes.
Regarding the definition of the term "natural", I think Al did a fine job with his response to your question in post #1,617, and I will just leave it at that.
I will say that I am learning that a "natural" presentation from a stereo system may well have more to do with set up and with room interaction than it does with specific gear. Based on what I hear with my lowly Q3s, I would think your mighty M6s are certainly capable of presenting the recorded information in a natural way as long as there are not devices, accessories, or issues with set up that would stand in the way.
Last edited:
It can be. Many of the psycho-acoustic attributes can be a function of setup. My sense (correct if wrong) is that in Peter's case and perhaps in your own, changing speaker orientation was an important factor in achieving a more natural sound. And particularly in the case of the attribute du jour of pin-point imaging. I can't remember if either of you explicitly said that - we've all made lot's of words on the topic over many threads - so excuse me if I don't have that right. Yes other factors come into play besides speaker position.
In my own case, I find equipment can make a significant difference, as much or more so as setup. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing setup as important.) I've found that without changing speaker position or acoustic treatment I can achieve pin-point images or ... this is not the right way to say it but it's a short cut ... or a more 'natural image' by changing various pieces of equipment. As I thought more on this I looked at some past reviews to see if I'd written about it.
Not quite within the current context of discussion I found in my 2009 SS review of the Lamm LL2.1 Deluxe linestage when constrating that unit to an Atma-Sphere MP1, this: "Without drawing them in precise outlines, it [the LL2.1] placed instruments in a highly realistic acoustic ambience. The Lamm painted the music's story in palpable tonal colors, and led my ear to perceive the orchestra as an integrated whole rather than as collection individuals."
Then again in my 2015 TAB review of the Lamm M1.2 Ref monoblocks, when I, in retrospect was amusingly wrong-headed, "Hearing the Lamm amps after break-in, I found image outlines were less than sharply drawn. I heard similar when reviewing the Lamm LL2.1D line stage several years ago and thought this was a character of the Lamm sound. I was wrong. Upon mounting each amp on four Stillpoints Ultra SS isolation devices, not only was there an increase in overall clarity, previously soft or amorphous images were more distinctly drawn and dimensionality improved." The comparison there was to the ARC 250SE monos. Hah! I beclowned myself relative to where I've evolved today - my ears were right but my values were skewed. (I'll blame HP ;-> )
The point being that without changing speaker setup when doing contrast/compare, the sonic characteristics re imaging were clearly different. This is not to contradict what you say about the impact of relative balance between gear and setup but to say achieving a more natural sound doesn't rely more on one approach or the other - but it can. I suppose the moral of the story is that setup and audio equipment are fungible according to what we value when we listen - figuring that out, synthesist or naturarlist - that's the real battle. For many of us, it happens over time.
Perhaps I've missed it, but what is the supposed negative of pin-point imaging? I can understand if it comes at the expense of tonality or other valued attributes, but personally I find it to be very satisfying and helps my brain sort out the music better. Because of my room I can't get holographic imaging the way Al M can in his and it strikes me as strange that anyone would not want this.
Ian, for me it is not so much about not wanting a palpable, holographic semblance of a musician or drum kit laid out in my listening room, but more about not wanting precisely etched outlined images of musicians. I am not advocating for a really diffuse, undefined swirl of sounds with no sense of where the instruments are relative to each other or no sense of the soundstage laid out in front of me. I think Al and I are describing a range somewhere between those two extremes which we find is preferable and what sounds most natural to us and what is more similar to what we hear from live performances.
I am saying that I do not want to hear an outlined image of a musician playing his saxophone just outside my right speaker, a figure 6'-2" tall with the horn opening just below his belt buckle. If the recording allows it, I want to have some idea of the space in which the recording was made, a localization of the musicians and their instruments relative to other musicians and their instruments, a sense of scale and layering, depth, height and width.
What I am increasingly less interested in are "cut out" and precise images of the performers in front of me because when I close my eyes in the chamber setting with three instruments, the BSO with one hundred instruments, or a person speaking in front of me, I do not "see" such carefully defined images. I hear the origins from where the energy is created and how it develops as it fills the space. I hear that energy and how it reacts within the room. The tone, the beauty, and the message is what is important.
Very good question Ian! As they say there’s no free lunch and to get that pinpoint imaging you give up tonality, scale while adding a coloration which is always present and a distraction. You mayblike it for a while but eventually the homogenized sound will become boring and you’ll end up upgrading or sidegrading again. Pinpoint imaging that talking about is a coloration of certain cables and footers, every recording is presented the same way.
david
+1
I do not hear at Walt Disney Concert Hall clearly outlined instrumental sources, so this effect is not something I focus on when listening to audio systems.
David, this is precisely what I heard with some signal cables, some short lived and expensive footers, even a power cord or two: a homogenization of spatial information and imaging. It is exciting for a while, it draws attention to itself, it impresses visitors, but it is not what I hear when listening to live music. The products that enhance this did alter tonal balance, at least in my system by emphasising particular frequencies, even adding distortion, as surprising as that now seems to me.
Ron, the question for me is: do you hear it when listening to audio systems? I do in some systems and don't in others. I never hear it when listening to live music.
I'm truly glad I haven't aimed for any of that w the various ancilliaries I've tried, those I've rejected (the vast majority), those I've kept (the tiny minority).
Acoustics has been the key to a sound that breathes and immerses, good footers and cables choice has revealed tonal colour and timbral accuracy, clean power has enabled true after midnight sound 24/7.
It's great that you're finding these things upon stripping back your ancilliaries, but for me, self effacing and tonally pure changes here via acoustics, ancilliaries and careful setup have only enhanced my enjoyment of music with no delineation of images or frequency bands.
This pretty much demonstrated by a whole new appreciation of lots of jazz LPs and a fair number of classical, that were unmusical or unemotional before, now fully communicative. With no aural fireworks, just a greater appreciation of tone, timbre and texture.
That’s great Marc. I think we are all after the same goal: to enjoy our systems. There are many ways to get there. You’ve added stuff and I have removed stuff. We make our choices and enjoy the results.
Sure. My point is I've heard so much stuff that is hugely attractive at first listen, 20 mins later the euphonic colouration (system dependent) comes thru.
Almost without realising it, I started rejecting cables and footers that imposed a rigid, unvarying tonal homogeneity on everything, and hyped detail, pinpointness.
Almost without realising it, I started rejecting cables and footers that imposed a rigid, unvarying tonal homogeneity on everything, and hyped detail, pinpointness.
You’re almost ready for horns based on this description
Similar threads
