The language of Reproduction and the language of Music.

[PeterA]

Tim,

Last spring after visiting ddk in Utah and spending a week listening to his extremely natural sounding systems, I attempted to describe the sound I heard. I posted this early in my system thread. This post avoids the typical use of audiophile language that we learned from the glossary of terms. This is just one example of an approach to your OP. It likely fails on many levels, but it does convey to me what I experienced when listening to those systems, and it tries to relate to the sound of real music, though not in the language of music, which I know almost nothing about.

What is Natural Sound?
​

Hearing David’s four systems play music over seven days allowed me to understand the qualities of a “Natural Sound” system. I came up with this list to describe what I heard.

• No aspect of the sound calls attention to itself
• The sound is balanced
• The system sound is absent from the presentation
• Wide listening window: able to enjoy most/all genres of music
• Portrays the character of each recording, nuanced venue information
• Allows a wide range of volume adjustment for what is most appropriate for a particular recording and still be engaged
• Superior information retrieval
• Natural resolution, not “detail”
• Able to scale up and down, large to small
• No “sound”, only music
• Room is energized and music is “alive”
• Enjoyable outside of listening sweet spot
• Images are stable as listener moves around the room
• Draws listener into the music
• Relaxing, zero fatigue
• Open, effortless, and dynamic sound
• No need to crank the volume
• No added or artificial extension
• No analysis of the sound into bits and pieces, music experienced as a whole
• Result is beauty and emotion.

David discusses different degrees of natural sound. Surely more modest systems will not sound like his Siemens Bionor speakers. However, the four systems I heard all exhibited these characteristics, to a greater or lesser degree. The systems simply sounded right. Lesser natural sounding systems will still have these characteristics, but to a lesser extent.

After spending a week listening to David’s system and grasping the true meaning of Natural Sound, I have moved away from the Audiophile Glossary of Terms. Reading reviews and trying to replicate the sonic attributes of the “Absolute Sound” in my old system gave me a sense of achievement and progress, but I now think this approach led me astray. I lost the music along the way. Until I began my eighteen months of set up experiments, I was developing a more and more Hifi sound from my system and ultimately becoming less satisfied as a result.

After Utah, I realized I had to forget about hifi attributes, the glossary of terms, and breaking the music into “bits and pieces.” I needed to get back to hearing the music as it is presented in the concert hall. I wanted to experience the music’s power, its meaning, its gestalt.

 

[tima]

I try to think not in terms of the typical audiophile vocabulary of blacker background and delineated instrumental imaging and lower noise and tight bass and extended highs, etc., but to feel in terms of easier suspension of disbelief and which sounds in totality more like what I hear at Walt Disney Concert Hall?

I go back and forth with regard to 'suspension of disbelief'. It is an audiophile notion, about sound, is it not? - seemingly with no analogue to listening in Walt Disney Concert Hall?

What makes one listening experience more believable than another?

 

[tima]

Part of what I am saying is, the group of people that want to feel like they are experiencing a live show may be a very small percentage of listeners.

Perhaps. I said earlier that I thought many audiophiles don't know what they want beyond emotional satisfaction - is that the majority?

 

[wil]

While it makes sense to me that live music is a good touchstone for what we seek in reproduced music, I also reflect on my experiences of live music as often being notably mediocre to poor in terms of sound quality. In most cases the poor quality experience occurs in rooms with terrible acoustics and extreme over-amplification from hearing/brain-impaired sound guys. Acoustic performances while never miserable (unless the music itself is miserable), are often mediocre because of poor rooms/halls and seat location.

While live music is unsurpassable when everything comes together -- great music, performance, sound quality -- it is also easier and more consistent for me to find a great music experience with my home system. I can pick from the infinite catalog of great music and the smaller, but still large catalog of good/great recordings.

(On a side note, most of the most memorable, amplified music experiences for me have occurred outdoors. Not at mega festivals, but mid sized amphitheater settings.)

Beyond all the specific audio/hi-fi terminology or even the inarguable, but overly general term "natural" to describe what we're looking for in music reproduction, I have my own touchstone that tells me if I have if it all working: that is, do I have a sense or illusion of the human presence behind and making the music. This comes the easiest, naturally enough, through vocals, but also transmits a thousand different ways, whether through the sense of fingers on strings and keys or the sense of great musicians playing off another and improvising in the moment.

You can discuss what a hifi system is doing to help communicate this, but for me this is the end result that I'm always seeking.

 

[Kingrex]

Perhaps. I said earlier that I thought many audiophiles don't know what they want beyond emotional satisfaction - is that the majority?

Do they even want emotional satisfaction. Maybe audiophile really want intense sensory stimulation. WOW factor. Clarity to look for hidden notes. Bass and Treble extension.

 

[bazelio]

I did not mean not used again until the 20th C. Not the sort of thing I keep track of, I just know jazz uses lots of 7ths and that was the basis of my guess. G-B-D#-F . So what is the relevance here or why do you ask?

If you had said we didn't hear this sound again until the 20th century, you'd have been correct.

 

[tima]

If you had said we didn't hear this sound again until the 20th century, you'd have been correct.

Okay - given the amount of music between Bach and the 20th C, I did pretty well for something so obscure.

 

[tima]

Do they even want emotional satisfaction. Maybe audiophile really want intense sensory stimulation. WOW factor. Clarity to look for hidden notes. Bass and Treble extension.

Music can be stimulating and intense - consider Mahler (2nd) or Shostakovich (8th) or Mendelssohn (Scottish) or Handel (Messiah) - but what you describe sounds neither nuanced nor balanced and ultimately limiting, bruttish and tiresome. Be that as it may, each to his own.

 

[tima]

While live music is unsurpassable when everything comes together -- great music, performance, sound quality -- it is also easier and more consistent for me to find a great music experience with my home system. I can pick from the infinite catalog of great music and the smaller, but still large catalog of good/great recordings.

One thing I think we tend to overlook about home reproduction is that it can be repeated - be that for scrutiny or enjoyment. There are actually quite a few works that I did not really appreciate until the second, third or fourth hearing - dare I say Bartok or Sibelius (whom I adore) or Glass (VC) or others who were innovative with tone or instrumentation.

Music not readily available in live performance is explored at home while the cost of a decent LP is often less than a concert or recital. And I still wonder about lesser concerts that I might find exemplary if I could attend them again.

 

[tima]

PART ONE:

What is Natural Sound?
​

Hearing David’s four systems play music over seven days allowed me to understand the qualities of a “Natural Sound” system. I came up with this list to describe what I heard.

• No aspect of the sound calls attention to itself
• The sound is balanced
• The system sound is absent from the presentation
• Wide listening window: able to enjoy most/all genres of music
• Portrays the character of each recording, nuanced venue information
• Allows a wide range of volume adjustment for what is most appropriate for a particular recording and still be engaged
• Superior information retrieval
• Natural resolution, not “detail”
• Able to scale up and down, large to small
• No “sound”, only music
• Room is energized and music is “alive”
• Enjoyable outside of listening sweet spot
• Images are stable as listener moves around the room
• Draws listener into the music
• Relaxing, zero fatigue
• Open, effortless, and dynamic sound
• No need to crank the volume
• No added or artificial extension
• No analysis of the sound into bits and pieces, music experienced as a whole
• Result is beauty and emotion.

David discusses different degrees of natural sound. Surely more modest systems will not sound like his Siemann Bionor speakers. However, the four systems I heard all exhibited these characteristics, to a greater or lesser degree. The systems simply sounded right. Lesser natural sounding systems will still have these characteristics, but to a lesser extent.

After spending a week listening to David’s system and grasping the true meaning of Natural Sound, I have moved away from the Audiophile Glossary of Terms. Reading reviews and trying to replicate the sonic attributes of the “Absolute Sound” in my old system gave me a sense of achievement and progress, but I now think this approach led me astray. I lost the music along the way. Until I began my eighteen months of set up experiments, I was developing a more and more Hifi sound from my system and ultimately becoming less satisfied as a result.

After Utah, I realized I had to forget about hifi attributes, the glossary of terms, and breaking the music into “bits and pieces.” I needed to get back to hearing the music as it is presented in the concert hall. I wanted to experience the music’s power, its meaning, its gestalt.

Tim,

Last spring after visiting ddk in Utah and spending a week listening to his extremely natural sounding systems, I attempted to describe the sound I heard. I posted this early in my system thread. This post avoids the typical use of audiophile language that we learned from the glossary of terms. This is just one example of an approach to your OP. It likely fails on many levels, but it does convey to me what I experienced when listening to those systems, and it tries to relate to the sound of real music, though not in the language of music, which I know almost nothing about.

And your list bears repeating. I note you describe it as a list about a natural sounding system.

I don’t know what your goal here is Tim, consider that you’re always communicating to highly conflicted and opinionated groups with their values and understanding.

David asks me about my goal - I gather that is in terms of this thread, though perhaps the larger discussion of values and understanding in terms of words and concepts as expressions of value - a point where I believe he and I agree - where do we put our emphases and our values, and with less certainty on agreement, how we describe those value to share and perhaps explain them to others, if not to ourselves. (As an aside: I'm not bothered by communicating to/with highly conflicted or opinionated people with their own values and understanding as long as I can understand - yes difficult at times - what they're talking about; names are unneccesary.)

Peter. I believe we can draw on it (your list and thoughts) toward an effort at what we mean by listening to music or a language of listening to music, then further mull that over in terms of hearing a natural sounding system. I'm not an Hegelian but maybe a thesis-antithesis-synthesis approach might be a guide ... or maybe not. This is first an exploration - there, David, is a first goal, a try at exploring what we value with idesa and words. Yes, I know dear sir what you may tell me and quite rightly - there is very much a sense where no exploration is needed to go beyond the sound of live acoustic music in a great venue with a great performance or even a great system, simply listen and say no more - but, bear with me as I accept the goal known in listening yet I think in words and concepts. I mean no disrespect. Maybe it is a weakness on my part, consider me fated to it.

I will break this in two parts.

 

[tima]

PART TWO:

Bare with the autiobio stuff ...

I came to the audiophile word from my love of music. I came to exploring the language of reproduction from reviewing and came ultimately to my dissatisfaction with that language as it is promulgated in the audiophile press and by extension in audio forums, where I see much of what reviewers describe as adopted/accepted by the general forum community, a community extending well beyond WBF.

For now, in its most rudimentary form my tact is to pay attention to the way components and systems are described in reviews, examine what coincides with my concert hall experience and what I know from playing music and identify what in those review descriptions is incongruous with that experience. It is a very simple method and anyone who reads reviews can do it. Or anyone can do it who can describe what they hear from their own system (being your own reviewer) assuming they listen to live music.

Peter's approach came from his seven days at David's where he understood the qualities of a natural sound system. His list describes what he heard. My early method is to ferret out and reject review descriptions that I do not experience in the concert hall. So our methods are different. His is additive, mine is subtractive. Some of what his list yields is not applicable to the concert hall, such as the character of a recording. I think we share some common results - which is to be expected as a naturally sounding system and the sound of the concert hall share common qualities albeit acknowleging the reality-reproduction gulf as reality.

We've already talked (some will say ad nauseum) about review descriptions that may be heard from a component but are not heard from a live performance. Here is your classic inky black backgrounds or your refined image outlines, etc. I invite others to submit examples they know of or find in reviews, even if they enjoy listening room artifacts not heard elsewhere.

Where we might go next is some amalgamation of Peter's notions with mine and others, including @Karen Sumner - all are welcome to participate or critique - try to be clear and your own editor.

I acknowledge you probably can find plenty of egregious examples in my own reviews. It's taken me years to get to where I am now, but this is not a sneaky effort to get you to read them.

P.S. And for all of you who think reviews are un-needed or you don't read them, or they are BS and by gawd you think for yourself - you are acknowledged. Save your breath, but someinevitablycan't helpthemselves.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron,

The question is how do you carry diagnostics and improvements in your system in the absence of any analysis? And how do you debate and share it?

I agree with the thought process behind this question. While the subjective nature of our personal sonic preferences, combined with the difficulty of agreeing on the meaning of audiophile terms (see our attempts to define "resolution"), makes it complicated, the traditional audiophile glossary is all we have to work with.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I go back and forth with regard to 'suspension of disbelief'. It is an audiophile notion, about sound, is it not? - seemingly with no analogue to listening in Walt Disney Concert Hall?

I actually don't consider it to be an audiophile-type notion. I actually consider it to be more on the holistic and organic side of the nomenclature divide. I think it is a better analogue to listening in Walt Disney Concert Hall than is the linguistic analysis and effort to define terms and connect words to experiences like "natural sound."

I feel "suspension of disbelief" encompasses the question in a more visceral and comprehensive and emotional way, rather than in an artificially-defined and structured and intellectually-oriented audiophile way.

If listening to a live performance at Walt Disney Concert Hall involves zero suspension of disbelief because, by definition, it is a real and live experience, how close to the conceptual nature of this audible and emotional experience do I feel when listening to various stereo systems? There is no right or wrong here, in my opinion, but for me I think this gets to the essence of the question more effectively than do the discrete, fractured, sonic terms of the audiophile glossary -- of which "natural sound" is a member term.

 

[PeterA]

I agree with the thought process behind this question. While the subjective nature of our personal sonic preferences, combined with the difficulty of agreeing on the meaning of audiophile terms (see our attempts to define "resolution"), makes it complicated, the traditional audiophile glossary is all we have to work with.

Ron, What did those designers of theater horns and tubes and the Beyond turntables have to work with before Stereophile and TAS and the audio press taught people what to listen for? What do concert goers and music lovers say when describing music, sound, and a high end system for the first time? I remember what my musician friend and carpenter told me when we compared my old system and Pass/Magico to my new Lamm and Magico, and then Lamm and Vitavox. I was nothing to do with the glossary of terms. It was "Wow, what a difference, this sounds so much more real. The music is alive. That saxophone is right there." Etc, etc.

I disagree that the traditional audiophile glossary is all we have to work with. What about common, everyday terms like these in this incomplete list?

The positive:
Believable
Convincing
Natural
Life
Energy
spatial layering
power
gestalt
holistic
beautiful
nuanced
ambience
balance
information

The negative:
enhanced
spotlit
extended (beyond natural)
dampened
bright
painful
dull
boring
splashy
whitish

and then there are the non specific audiophile terms that are clear to all:

Tone
Dynamics
Presence
Resolution

I reject the terms that are heard and sought from some hifi sounding gear, systems, accessories, but that I never hear in real life concert hall settings:

ink black backgrounds
pinpoint imaging
image outlines
air between instruments
tight/fast bass

One of the big problems I think is that we have been taught to listen for sonic attributes like "air" and "black backgrounds" and to seek them out from components. That implies to me that we should here these things from the system if we buy these components. And we should hear them from all recordings. That then means, they are imposed onto everything we play. This makes various recordings less distinct, less unique, more the same. Black backgrounds, pinpoint imaging and tight/fast bass if always heard is a coloration. When reviewers use these glossary terms to describe the sound of components, I lose interest pretty quickly.

edit: I’m not advocating for some new kind of list. I am simply suggesting we use every day common language to describe what we hear from components and from music.

 

[wil]

One thing I think we tend to overlook about home reproduction is that it can be repeated - be that for scrutiny or enjoyment. There are actually quite a few works that I did not really appreciate until the second, third or fourth hearing - dare I say Bartok or Sibelius (whom I adore) or Glass (VC) or others who were innovative with tone or instrumentation.

Music not readily available in live performance is explored at home while the cost of a decent LP is often less than a concert or recital. And I still wonder about lesser concerts that I might find exemplary if I could attend them again.

So true. About half the time I hear music, I don't begin to really get it until the 2nd or 3rd go around. And from there on it blossoms with every repeat. And I find my music brain has to go through a re-calibration when I switch genres. I'd like to see a comparative MRI study of the brain on Mozart and then the brain on, say, Oliver Lake.

I've been trying to methodically go through about 600 albums, A-Z, I've "collected" on Qobuz in the last few years, to cull which ones I want to purchase. I started at "A" about 1 year ago. I just got through the D's last week. I'll typically listen to one album for as long as a full week , because I don't want to let it go.

(On Phillip Glass, btw, listen to his string quartets and also his opera "Beauty and the Beast." -- which are by far his best music imo.)

 

[PeterA]

One thing I think we tend to overlook about home reproduction is that it can be repeated - be that for scrutiny or enjoyment. There are actually quite a few works that I did not really appreciate until the second, third or fourth hearing - dare I say Bartok or Sibelius (whom I adore) or Glass (VC) or others who were innovative with tone or instrumentation.

Music not readily available in live performance is explored at home while the cost of a decent LP is often less than a concert or recital. And I still wonder about lesser concerts that I might find exemplary if I could attend them again.

Yes indeed, and the fact that we can no longer go to hear Sonny Boy Williamson or Ella Fitzgerald up on stage. I remember telling one of my visitors recently, "Can you image what it must have been like to hear Peggy Lee sing Fever right in front of you?" With a glass of scotch in a dimly lit club? Oh my God! Try using the glossary of terms for that one. Another common term we could all relate to when describing that one: HOT

 

[Cellcbern]

Those sonic attributes would indeed factor into my component selection process and are vitally important, just in the opposite way you seem to infer. The first question I ask myself when auditioning a system or a specific component in a comparison, is "Does it sound natural?" This is relative to my memory of live music, not to some other system or component. If comparing two components, I ask myself which sounds more like real music, not so much how one sounds different from the other. If I hear a cable that creates an impression of enhanced frequency extension which is not natural, I avoid it. Same with a component or system from which I hear black backgrounds, pinpoint imaging, image outlines, "air" between instruments, fast/tight bass, etc. Those are sonic attributes I avoid.

I don't hear them when listening to live music, and since my goal is to approach the experience of listening to live music in my living room, those components would fail the test. Low noise levels are good, all else being equal. So is extension, if it is natural, and not an enhancement. Some of these things are the opposite of not being important. They are critical as an indication of what I don't want to hear. It all depends on whether or not I experience these attributes in the concert hall or not.

Those sonic attributes would indeed factor into my component selection process and are vitally important, just in the opposite way you seem to infer. The first question I ask myself when auditioning a system or a specific component in a comparison, is "Does it sound natural?" This is relative to my memory of live music, not to some other system or component. If comparing two components, I ask myself which sounds more like real music, not so much how one sounds different from the other. If I hear a cable that creates an impression of enhanced frequency extension which is not natural, I avoid it. Same with a component or system from which I hear black backgrounds, pinpoint imaging, image outlines, "air" between instruments, fast/tight bass, etc. Those are sonic attributes I avoid.

I don't hear them when listening to live music, and since my goal is to approach the experience of listening to live music in my living room, those components would fail the test. Low noise levels are good, all else being equal. So is extension, if it is natural, and not an enhancement. Some of these things are the opposite of not being important. They are critical as an indication of what I don't want to hear. It all depends on whether or not I experience these attributes in the concert hall or not.

Not inferring anything - just trying to understand.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, What did those designers of theater horns and tubes and the Beyond turntables have to work with before Stereophile and TAS and the audio press taught people what to listen for? What do concert goers and music lovers say when describing music, sound, and a high end system for the first time? I remember what my musician friend and carpenter told me when we compared my old system and Pass/Magico to my new Lamm and Magico, and then Lamm and Vitavox. I was nothing to do with the glossary of terms. It was "Wow, what a difference, this sounds so much more real. The music is alive. That saxophone is right there." Etc, etc.

I disagree that the traditional audiophile glossary is all we have to work with. What about common, everyday terms like these in this incomplete list?

The positive:
Believable
Convincing
Natural
Life
Energy
spatial layering
power
gestalt
holistic
beautiful
nuanced
ambience
balance
information

The negative:
enhanced
spotlit
extended (beyond natural)
dampened
bright
painful
dull
boring
splashy
whitish

and then there are the non specific audiophile terms that are clear to all:

Tone
Dynamics
Presence
Resolution

I reject the terms that are heard and sought from some hifi sounding gear, systems, accessories, but that I never hear in real life concert hall settings:

ink black backgrounds
pinpoint imaging
image outlines
air between instruments
tight/fast bass

One of the big problems I think is that we have been taught to listen for sonic attributes like "air" and "black backgrounds" and to seek them out from components. That implies to me that we should here these things from the system if we buy these components. And we should hear them from all recordings. That then means, they are imposed onto everything we play. This makes various recordings less distinct, less unique, more the same. Black backgrounds, pinpoint imaging and tight/fast bass if always heard is a coloration. When reviewers use these glossary terms to describe the sound of components, I lose interest pretty quickly.

edit: I’m not advocating for some new kind of list. I am simply suggesting we use every day common language to describe what we hear from components and from music.

Peter, I think we are misunderstanding each other.

I was not using "traditional audiophile glossary" to mean only the few terms describing sonic artifacts that you and I mutually find objectionable such as:

ink black backgrounds
pinpoint imaging
image outlines
air between instruments
tight/fast bass


I consider:

spotlit
bright
tone
dynamics
presence
resolution
transparency
spatial layering
ambiance
balance

also to be part of the "traditional audiophile glossary."

I don't know why "image outlines" would be part of the "traditional audiophile glossary," but "spatial layering" would not be.

I think trying to decide which adjectives are in the traditional audiophile glossary and which adjectives are not is just another quagmire of subjective preference and definitional complexity.

I would be inclined to be more focused on adjectives being in the traditional audiophile glossary, and concepts like "suspension of disbelief" not being part of the traditional audiophile glossary.

But even more than that I don't even see the need to engage in the exercise of deciding which adjectives and concepts are part of the traditional audiophile glossary and which adjectives and concepts are not. I don't see how that advances the ball on figuring out how to describe what we hear.

I just don't see the point in demonizing a subset of words as being the "traditional audiophile glossary" and decreeing that they don't make sense to describe anything. Each of us can choose whichever adjectives and concepts we feel most faithfully illustrate the point we are trying to make.

I, personally, think the group of terms that you assign to being part of the traditional audiophile glossary such as

ink black backgrounds
pinpoint imaging
image outlines
air between instruments
tight/fast bass

is a useful subset of adjectives I consider to be unnatural and undesirable artificial artifacts produced by stereo systems. Rather than banish these words from polite company I think these words are very useful to describe many of the things I hear in stereo systems that I do not like.

 

[Kingrex]

One of the big problems I think is that we have been taught to listen for sonic attributes like "air" and "black backgrounds" and to seek them out from components.
[/QUOTE]

This is interesting to me. When I was listening to the Wadax at Mile's, he played a direct to disc and the same recording on the wadax that was a parallel take, direct to tape, then digitized. I personally liked the Wadax better. Mike the vinyl. Maybe I am accustomed to looking for a clean noise free background (no vinyl surface noise). Or maybe I'm use to less dynamic contrast as my stereo and every other I listen too, is not as hot as Mike's.

You have to consider, very very few stereo you will ever hear at a home are presenting as this thread intends to advocate for. Then take the number of people who own a stereo who go to concerts. The pie of people tuning to natural is tiny. As I said earlier and Peter says here, they are tuning for what they know. And my word for it is WOW.

 

[Kingrex]

Peter, we are misunderstanding each other.

I was not using "traditional audiophile glossary" to mean only the few terms describing sonic artifacts that you and I mutually find objectionable such as:

ink black backgrounds
pinpoint imaging
image outlines
air between instruments
tight/fast bass


I consider:

spotlit
bright
tone
dynamics
presence
resolution
transparency
spatial layering

also to be part of the "traditional audiophile glossary."

I don't know why "image outlines" would be part of the "traditional audiophile glossary," but "spatial layering" would not be.

I think trying to decide which adjectives are in the traditional audiophile glossary and which adjectives are not is just another quagmire of subjective preference and definitional complexity.

The distinction I would be inclined to make is that I would make would be more focused on adjectives being in the traditional audiophile glossary, and that concepts like "suspension of disbelief" would not be part of the traditional audiophile glossary.

But even more than that I don't even see the need to engage in the exercise of deciding which adjectives and concepts are part of the traditional audiophile glossary and which adjectives and concepts are not. I don't see how that advances the ball on figuring out how to describe what we hear.

I just don't see the point in demonizing a subset of words in the traditional audiophile glossary and decreeing that they don't make sense to describe anything. Each of us can choose whichever adjectives and concepts we feel most faithfully illustrate the point we are trying to make.

I, personally, think the group if terms that you assign to being part of the traditional audiophile glossary such as

ink black backgrounds
pinpoint imaging
image outlines
air between instruments
tight/fast bass

is a useful subset of adjectives I consider to be unnatural and undesirable artificial artifacts produced by stereo systems. Rather than banish these words from polite company I think these words are very useful to describe many of the things I hear in stereo systems that I do not like.

Is this thread about how to describe what we hear, or a back handed slap at the audio industry for producing a product that has a sonic signature some do not like.