The Cat’s Grin - a thread I’d have expected to be started by Ron ;-)

[PeterA]

Yes, Bob, you beat me to it!

As you and TimA note well a group of us here developed in 2016 four alternative, but not mutually exclusive, objectives of high-end audio. While this structure still attracts debate and dissent, it was at least a good place to start:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

These Objectives are not mutually exclusive, and an audiophile might seek a combination of them.

While there is a great deal of overlap, I, personally, think that this framework is more analytically intelligible than Jonathan's framework.

Ron, I thought these objectives simply evolved out of a discussion thread that you started and kind of moderated. Stating that "a group of us here developed in 2016..." kind of implies a subset of people operating on their own, separate from the general membership.

Is #4 the closest to setting up a system that reminds one of real music? IE, convincing, believable, natural sound, heard in the listening room and somewhat dependent on the quality of the recording?

 

[PeterA]

Why do we all know real when we hear it? In answer Valin says we it takes both superior parts grouped together in a way to provide a neutral and complete presentation. That's actually a non-sequitar, but I suspect most don't care; Valin's words sound nice - who could disagree with them? Is that what real or 'natural' mean - neutral and complete?

Tim, I enjoy reading your posts and your efforts to analyze what others have written. Your last sentence here is interesting.

"Is that what real or 'natural' mean - neutral and complete?"

I think the problem with neutral and complete is that it is so difficult to know for sure if something (a component, a system, a recording, a concert hall, an instrument, etc.) is ever truly neutral and complete. Do we measure this somehow? Is it understood to be so only in direct comparison to something else, that is, is it relative?

Valin and ddk both describe the differences we hear from sitting in different locations and in different halls. The instruments themselves are different too. In my view, there are many different flavors for how a real violin sounds: what violin, who plays it and in what hall? What about the bow? Even, who hears it? I think there is no way to know truly if something sounds neutral or complete. There is only more or less neutral and more or less complete. But most of us know clearly and instinctively if something sounds real or natural.

I began to understand this more clearly when I was in Utah visiting David Karmeli. We listened to different turntables, cartridges, and speakers, two different rooms and slightly different Lamm components. To me, it all sounded natural, perhaps not quite real, but more real than all systems I had heard before. And this held for each combination of gear, speaker, turntable, cartridge, and room. The big Bionor system with the AS2000 and Neumann cartridge were my favorite, but there was also some magic to the Thoren's Reference and Ortofon A95 SPU. At this level of naturalness, I was not really thinking better or worse, but only different. One was not more real or natural sounding. However, one was slightly more neutral and complete relative to the other.

I learned that there are slight differences for sure, different flavors, and different presentations, but the underlying quality that made them all sound natural to me remained clearly audible. I outlined those qualities in one of the opening posts in the thread I started describing that visit. I described the differences as similar to hearing to the same conductor leading the same orchestra playing the same music in three different halls: Chicago, Boston, and Vienna. As I think of it now, it could be different conductors leading different orchestras playing different instruments playing the same music. We would still know the music is live and real sounding, it is just presented slightly differently and with a slightly different flavor or accent.

It sounded very close to real and incredibly natural, but there was no way to know if it was neutral and complete. It was just more neutral and more complete than what I had heard before. David is designing a new turntable which will likely be more neutral and more complete sounding. The real and the natural cover a range of believability, yet we are all surely convinced that an actual violin sounds real. Perhaps Harry Pearson did not lose sight of this range of believability, but it seems his writings and thinkings and system set up reflected a very specific sound based on his singular perspective from his singular seat in Carnegie Hall. It was surely real, but it seems now somewhat limiting.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, I thought these objectives simply evolved out of a discussion thread that you started and kind of moderated. Stating that "a group of us here developed in 2016..." kind of implies a subset of people operating on their own, separate from the general membership.

I think your first sentence is correct. I think my characterization that the objectives evolved out of the group discussion to which you refer in your second sentence also is correct.

I don't think either one leads necessarily to your suggested implication.

The "group" was a subset of the general membership. (How could it not be?)

 

[Ron Resnick]

Is #4 the closest to setting up a system that reminds one of real music? IE, convincing, believable, natural sound, heard in the listening room and somewhat dependent on the quality of the recording?

You were a big part of that "group." I added 4) directly as a result of your suggestion of it. Please feel free to explain to us what you meant!

 

[ddk]

The autobiography stuff is interesting with you and Valin sharing experiences of Harry Pearson and yourselves. You say that Pearson's concept of the absolute sound does not represent natural sound because his experience of music at Carnegie hall had overly prominent bass and because of that he emphasized bass in his stereo system. Valin says one's experience of live music is relative to where one sits in a hall and therefore the absolute sound is not absolute.

First, I'm particularly wary of a notion of natural that ties to listening to live music or a stereo only in a specific way such as an optimal listening position, however one regards that. (This starts getting too close to a notion of natural based on performance characteristics.) Pearson's seat at Carnegie was said to be close to the double basses. Regardless of that, he was hearing live acoustic music. Yes, one gets a particular sonic perspective at any concert tied somewhat to listening position. If Pearson or anyone is so naive or unthinking to base both their notion of natural sound or absolute sound and base their stereo setup on a singular perspective of live music - their specific seat in a specific hall - then we should gauge what they say with that in mind. Remarks become prefaced with a disclaimer: "Based on limited experience ..."

Was Pearson naive or unthinking?

Nothing like that all Tim. This was actually a topic of conversation among a few of us who knew his sound, his habits and what read of his absolute sound. One among us was also a personal friend of his for decades. We were wondering how is it that were all attending the same concerts in the same hall and using live music as reference yet his approach to listening, to systems and his description of AS were so distant from the actual experience or how we approach sound and systems. What we heard at Sea Cliff was always hifi and bass heavy, not even pleasant to listen to. So we hypothesized that at least the bass in the face part was because of where he always sat.

Don't confuse Valin's assessment of Harry Pearson's take on absolute sound (which Valin (and David?) presumes is flawed because Pearson had a specific concert seat and setup his stereo accordingly) with attempts at categorizing listeners or listener objectives. If Valin's first category of listeners is based on Valin's notion of Harry Pearson's notion of absolute sound, then that's the straw dog, namely an argument set up to be easily refuted. It appears that Valin's motive in creating confusion for his first two categories is to solve the confusion with his third category, as he writes: "the “as you like it” or “musicality first” listeners." "...musicality listeners are simply looking for a good time."

I can't speak for Valin the topic wasn't exactly a secret and some even wondered if HP's hearing was intact. Wether that hypothesis is true or false is immaterial what I find relevant here is that JV doesn't categorize HP's notion of AS as real or natural even though the basis for it was live music. Yes there are systems out there that come from HP's AS school of thought and the owners approach their sound and music in bits and pieces exactly the way HP taught people in his writings.

Why is the notion of preferred seating and sound preference influencing system decisions that far fetched? I'd throw in music choices as a factor too. I have preferred sections in concert halls but I'm still flexible if I can't get seats in those sections, there's a 2nd and third choice but not so at a venue like Blue Note Club in NY. I either get my seat or I won't go. There are venues like Madison Square Garden that I simply wont attend no matter how badly I want to see the concert or where I get to sit. I know that the seat mat's a more positive experience when I'm seated where I want and I know that experience influences my setups. It's also why I tend to use "natural" a lot more instead of "real" to describe sound.

But there are issues with that third category. Valin writes: "In worst case scenarios, musicality amounts to subjectivity taken to an entirely personal extreme. There can be no general standard of what constitutes excellent playback because no standard (except one’s own) is needed or applies. Put simply, you like what you like." I call this the Mick Jagger's Brown Sugar School of Music Appreciation: I ain't no school boy but I know what I like.

In effect, Valin's entire enterprise in his guest editorial is a straw dog. It is not a genuine effort at categorization. In fact he critiques the categories he himself offered a few years back. It is designed to take us not to categories one can match against oneself but to Valin's quasi conclusion which is not about categories or groups of listeners.

“We all know real when we hear it.” Figuring out why that should be the case in the face of the obvious contradiction (to wit, a stereo system is manifestly not a real symphony orchestra ...) has been the challenge of a hi-fi lifetime. And I haven’t figured it out yet, save to speculate ... that when a stereo sounds “real” it isn’t just a matter of superior parts ... but also of the way those parts are grouped together—of their gestalt—and that this magical gestalt regrouping of parts depends in some unmistakable way on the neutrality and completeness of the presentation."

Why do we all know real when we hear it? In answer Valin says we it takes both superior parts grouped together in a way to provide a neutral and complete presentation. That's actually a non-sequitar, but I suspect most don't care; Valin's words sound nice - who could disagree with them? Is that what real or 'natural' mean - neutral and complete?

I read this editorial very casually and that's how I'm approaching it.

david

 

[PeterA]

You were a big part of that "group." I added 4) directly as a result of your suggestion of it. Please feel free to explain to us what you meant!

Ron, as I remember it, the three initial objectives did not really represent my type of listening and what I was after in the hobby. I think number four most closely resembles my intent. And it is this:

Setting up a system that reminds one of real music. That is a listening experience that is convincing, believable, and natural sounding: reproduced music heard without the system sound in the listening room. It is of course somewhat dependent on the quality of the recording.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I like that definition. It is hereby the official definition of Objective 4!

 

[PeterA]

I like that definition. It is hereby the official definition of Objective 4!

OK Ron. Now as the audiophile objectives moderator you can go back and change the definition in all the various relevant threads. LOL.

 

[tima]

Tim, I enjoy reading your posts and your efforts to analyze what others have written. Your last sentence here is interesting.

"Is that what real or 'natural' mean - neutral and complete?" ...

There is only more or less neutral and more or less complete. But most of us know clearly and instinctively if something sounds real or natural.

Thank you Peter. I appreciate your cogent responses.

I believe you understand that I am critiquing Valin's article largely on its own terms. I i) find certain logical fallacies in what he says that lead to 'misguided' conclusions and ii) I found the article not really intending to pose listener categorizations but to be entertaining and to allow him the conclusion he offers in his pentultimate paragraph. I wrote what I wrote as a critique. It was not my intent to editorialize my own ideas or conclusions, although it is not surprising, given me being me, that some of that may slip in.

The question in my last sentence that you quote is posed solely as an extrapolation of Valin's conclusion: That "we all know real when we hear ii" results from "superior parts ... grouped together" in a "magical gestalt" - and "this magical gestalt regrouping of parts depends in some unmistakable way on the neutrality and completeness of the presentation."

I believe you, Valin, and I agree with your sentiment that most of us know instinctively if something sounds real or natural. But Valin goes further in an attempt to explain why we know this.

In an effort at keeping the dialog alive, my last sentence asks: is Valin correct - does our recognition of something sounding real or natural depend on the neutrality and completeness of the presentation?

I have no clue what Valin means by "neutrality". In an effort to put a positive spin on a possible meaning, I will say if Valin means by neutral what I would describe as "balanced" then I'm inclined to agree that a balanced and complete presentation is certainly an aspect of natural or real but not sufficient alone.

What I find appealing about your comments is the recognition of real or natural in multiple instances of systems (at David's) and multiple instances of venues. If one talked only of systems without ever attending a live music presentation, then one may find the systems enjoyable but have no any basis for gauging if they sound real or natural.

My current thinking is that my recognition of relatively real and natural from a stereo system derives not from a singular seat in a specific concert hall. Rather it derives from all the experiences I've had of live acoustic music as a listener and in my case as a player of instruments. In fact if I had only multiple experiences of one orchestra in one hall from one seat I may not be fully able to appreciate how different systems can each sound different yet all sound real or natural - or not.

Some will argue that they cannot adopt the objective for their system as sounding real or natural because they did not attend any of the performances recorded on their records, so they cannot know what the real performance sounds like. This is where regarding what sounds real or natural as derived from multiple experiences shows how silly that objection is.

 

[Ron Resnick]

OK Ron. Now as the audiophile objectives moderator you can go back and change the definition in all the various relevant threads. LOL.

We never really defined each objective. But now that you have explained the least intuitively obvious one, we are definitely making forward progress.