The Mysterious Case of the Listening Window! By Jeff Day, Positive Feedback

[Bobvin]

I’m glad this thread took a sidetrack for a moment and some humor crept in. (Not what you wrote Tango, before that. i much appreciated your last post.)

 

[Lagonda]

Yes Tango, you have to join us when we are being goofy too, you are so serious these days !

 

[DaveC]

Hello Dave

OK when appropriate, I should sound like the conditions the music was recorded under and of course the music. What I am talking about is dropping on Hard Days Night and then Abbey Road. If they sound the same something is amiss.

Rob

Ok, I'll try my best to explain Natural(TM) to you. You should probably grab a drink. Or three... Here goes:

I tried dropping Hard Days Night and Abbey Road on my Natural(TM) system. They are distinct! In fact, much, much moreso than in a non-Natural(TM) system. I can clearly hear exactly how the mastering was done and what gear was used. Yet, they both sound just like live, unamplified music in the best way possible.

I hope this is clear. Please contact me for more info on my Natural(TM) system if you're one of those good folks interested in great sound. I find the audience here to be educated and discerning, yet open to the idea of Natural(TM) sound, because they only want the best.

 

[Folsom]

A precise definition of a word or concept distinguishes it from other words or concepts. A clear definition of such is not ambiguous and is easy to understand.

Ah, ok you meant word interaction not the sound itself.

 

[DaveC]

I can't handle the volume of mail I'm getting for my Natural(TM) system! Please don't contact me directly, instead go to praypal and pledge 10% of your salary to Natural, Inc. Once pledged, go ahead and send all of your audio accessories and cables to the address given on praypal.

Once this is done, you might receive an handful of cables from a box of cables I've been accumulating my entire life, all came with the electronics I have purchased. This means you're getting the benefit of my lifetime of experience using electronics.

Thanks for your pledges, and may the Natural(TM) presence be with you always!

 

[morricab]

When are you going to join this century? You think any amp designer hasn’t heard of any of them? You’re stuck on amp design 101 class.

I’d love for you to attempt to explain any deeper meaning to Lamm’s marketing words. They imply significantly more depth than exists in the way people think it does.

I can listen to Lamms words and I can see the measurements of his amps and listen to the outcome. Without seeing his model explained conceptually or mathematically I cannot comment further on what he means only note it is consistent with what some other models have suggested.

He was quite clear though that only SET topology could come close to realizing his model in the real world.

 

[Lagonda]

I can listen to Lamms words and I can see the measurements of his amps and listen to the outcome. Without seeing his model explained conceptually or mathematically I cannot comment further on what he means only note it is consistent with what some other models have suggested.

He was quite clear though that only SET topology could come close to realizing his model in the real world.

It was done in Russia, tubes where all he had access to

 

[morricab]

I can't handle the volume of mail I'm getting for my Natural(TM) system! Please don't contact me directly, instead go to praypal and pledge 10% of your salary to Natural, Inc. Once pledged, go ahead and send all of your audio accessories and cables to the address given on praypal.

Once this is done, you might receive an handful of cables from a box of cables I've been accumulating my entire life, all came with the electronics I have purchased. This means you're getting the benefit of my lifetime of experience using electronics.

Thanks for your pledges, and may the Natural(TM) presence be with you always!

Will you accept a personal check??? I am a believer!!

 

[morricab]

It was done in Russia, tubes where all he had access to

AND your amp will survive an EMP blast!

If you have transistors...bad luck...no music in a post-apocalyptic world

 

[the sound of Tao]

Yes, I'm also surprised the word is controversial. But I may understand why, or at least speculate why. I believe you disagree with me about the reasons for this, but that's okay as those may be sidebar issues and not core. (Like Bolshevik committee meta-discussions about rules in the movie 'Reds'. )

Perhaps drawing out some explanation for the controversy will clarify it.

A big part of the swirl around natural is its lack of precision, or put differently, its need of explanation or examples. I touched on this in post #96 of this thread. The need for precision and clarity is not to change the direction of the audio industry (you) or change attitudes of the past 30-40 years (@ddk), but rather to facilitate the discussion here - one that has been going on for a while now - and to learn from creating that precision. You observe your own surprise at the reaction to it.

As David suggests, the word is sufficient to some here, however, imo, left in that state the controversy shall remain. Imo, those who find it sufficient should welcome the opportunity to clarify it for others. Though at the end of the day I suspect natural is too generic to carry a special, distinct definition on its own.

(Fwiw, the preferences built on the HP/Holt vocabulary find that vocabulary to blame - the claim is it is misleading. Well .... we can keep saying that and bitching about it or try to make in-roads on it or at least some revisionisms.)

Another possible reason for controversy is the tendency that artificial has to be an antonym of natural. The unconscious syllogism could go something like: "If my system or my preferences are not natural (in the way those guys describe it) it must be artificial and neither my system nor my music is artificial." Or something like that.

People did not care for the term 'synthesist' because of its root in 'synthetic' despite preferring their own sound. Whatever is the opposite of natural is grounded on nothing - there is no indepedent reference point for the non-naturalist - as if a justification is needed. While people make their own choices, they generally like to think those choices have some rationale attached to them, a rational that is not theirs alone. I don't think such reactions are calculated but their unpleasantness is taken out on 'natural'.

Lastly, some dislike 'natural' because they feel that imposing a specialized definition on it is presumptuous, even dictatorial. "Who are these people that arrogate themselves upon what had been a good common word?"

All this? Idle speculation on my part.

I’d be among those comfortable with the notion of describing things as moving towards the synthetic as an assessment of sound change Tim. But maybe that’s because I’m probably just translating it to the idea of less natural. For those who haven’t considered and developed any reference for what synthetic might be may likely have some notion (or find it easier to arrive at one) of what natural might be in terms of the sound of instruments and voice. I guess by keeping it as a relative term ie just more natural or less natural the question is being trimmed down in complexity and perhaps a bit more immediately digestible.

With regards to a wide or narrow window of listening if the sound isn’t exaggerated but rather closer to the natural centre in terms of detail and resolution and balance perhaps there could just be less for the brain to process if it is familiar and expected and so generally less taxing in listening because it may simply require less processing if it is being more referenced by recall and so less processed from scratch.

We have talked quite a bit about the nature or characteristics of the sound that can open or close down the window of music but perhaps we should also look to the attitude of the listener as well. If we gear ourselves up for peak hi-fi listening experiences and train ourselves that in the sonics lays the reward and create a routine that it is in the beauty of the sound that lays the pathway to nirvana then it makes it harder then for the music itself to be the ultimately satisfying part of the experience.

Where we look is what we see so if we train our focus and expectation in terms of good sound over the value of good music then that becomes the expectation of what then can release that dopamine for us.

 

[tima]

The word natural as a descriptive term is an abstract. What is it about us that we need to box it in and turn it into an acronym. Subjectivity is about experience through the human filter. It has by its nature latitude and it’s validity comes from the authenticity of the reporting of that experience. It serves its purpose best also as an abstract.

To reduce it to the boundaries of strict written definition is however fine as long as we find a way to differentiate that from the traditional original way of using the word as an abstract concept to identify that perhaps we find clear correlations that more align with our non-synthesised experiences of the real world and in the sound of the types of instruments created out of natural materials. ie that they resonate in a way that is familiar with the real thing.

If people want to make a special NS standalone audio category and give it a more exact framework so people can then be right or wrong then all good I figure.

So it might be good to get some consensus on a way forward to differentiate whether we are using natural as its purest most broad abstract usage eg. when I made changes to my system it sounded more natural (ie the instruments sounded more natural) and then also when people want it to be a strictly definable audio term we could then make it something like Natural or Naturalistic Sound (NS) and so then those who then want to apply it in that specific way can do so without confusion. So for those who see it as a definition of a fixed audio descriptor could then move forwards to then develop the core of its meaning and give it their best set of boundaries.
...
Could also save us mountains of Groundhog Day moments as a group. We are all old (even the younger ones among us are happily under way getting fossilised) and need to be more joyously efficient with our time (and words) lol

That was a thoughtful post, Graham. Hi - I'm Ned Ryerson.

I think I understand where you're coming re subjectivity as the filter of human experience. As @PeterA suggests: drink a glass of Tang (heh) and then eat an orange. Sure we get it immediately - ostensive definition.

Another aspect of the human experience is the desire/need to share it - witness WBF - to express our thoughts/experiences and learn those of others.

I don't agree that putting experience into words puts boundaries on experience anymore than recording a concert performance puts boundaries on that. But I won't turn this into a paen to language. I think we do agree that improving mutual communication is probably a good thing. And I appreciate you're willingness to at least explore that with the word natural in hopes effecting understanding for its specialized audiophile use - the need for which this thread demonstrates. (Although it is also about window size.)

Frankly I believe attempts to preserve the word through acronymizing it, abbreviating it or other tricks with letters will not work, although I agree that shorthands can be helpful. For those who grasp, 'get', or know the specialized meaning, the word is sufficient - like guild-speak in a special club whose members communicate effectively via what others know only as code.

at the end of the day I suspect natural is too generic to carry a special, distinct definition on its own.

I spent a little (very little) time thinking about how to approach this. Is there some other word that could stand in its place? I'm somewhat leery of that. The only word I've come up with thus far is evocative or 'evocative of a live music experience' or 'evoking the sound of live music'. Where I struggle: is any single word adequate on its own without needing more explanation?

For now I'm left with an approach that doesn't try to roll up a particular type of experience, but rather takes the time to individually lay out the various aspects of natural sound or sounding natural based on what one wants to say about listening to some piece of equipment or system. That would be in the confines of talking the usual audiophile talk, viz. dynamics, soundstage, timbre, air, energy, timing, transients, etc. Some of that may need to happen in terms of what is not the case relative to other meanings/descriptions such words are used with. That happened with the notion of black backgrounds and pin-point imaging. Maybe we'll stumble across the philosopher's stone equivalent for natural. Maybe.

I wrote this before seeing yr reply to another msg, which I'll go read.

 

[christoph]

Ned Ryerson

#Bing#
Wonderful

 

[tima]

I’d be among those comfortable with the notion of describing things as moving towards the synthetic as an assessment of sound change Tim. But maybe that’s because I’m probably just translating it to the idea of less natural. For those who haven’t considered and developed any reference for what synthetic might be may likely have some notion (or find it easier to arrive at one) of what natural might be in terms of the sound of instruments and voice. I guess by keeping it as a relative term ie just more natural or less natural the question is being trimmed down in complexity and perhaps a bit more immediately digestible.

Sure. My use of 'synthesist', to which others objected because of its root in 'synthetic', is not quite meant that way. A synthesist likes the sound of their system independently of what they hear in the concert hall - a synthesist says there are certain sonic characteristics I enjoy that I probably don't hear from live music. And there may be sonic characteristics of live acoustic music that I do enjoy. "I am the reference" he says, "for what I am aiming at with my system and I will not be limited to a so-called natural sound." Maybe he likes black backgrounds, crisp 3-D images, punchy transients - I know I did at one time. So in the terminology I'm using/advocating 'synthesist' is more related to synthesis than synthetic. If I dare say so, it is more Hegelian (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) than Sartrean (being and nothingness, real and non-real.)

"You cannot define me. I am the reference." (koo-koo-kajoo)

 

[the sound of Tao]

That was a thoughtful post, Graham. Hi - I'm Ned Ryerson.

I think I understand where you're coming re subjectivity as the filter of human experience. As @PeterA suggests: drink a glass of Tang (heh) and then eat an orange. Sure we get it immediately - ostensive definition.

Another aspect of the human experience is the desire/need to share it - witness WBF - to express our thoughts/experiences and learn those of others.

I don't agree that putting experience into words puts boundaries on experience anymore than recording a concert performance puts boundaries on that. But I won't turn this into a paen to language. I think we do agree that improving mutual communication is probably a good thing. And I appreciate you're willingness to at least explore that with the word natural in hopes effecting understanding for its specialized audiophile use - the need for which this thread demonstrates. (Although it is also about window size.)

Frankly I believe attempts to preserve the word through acronymizing it, abbreviating it or other tricks with letters will not work, although I agree that shorthands can be helpful. For those who grasp, 'get', or know the specialized meaning, the word is sufficient - like guild-speak in a special club whose members communicate effectively via what others know only as code.



I spent a little (very little) time thinking about how to approach this. Is there some other word that could stand in its place? I'm somewhat leery of that. The only word I've come up with thus far is evocative or 'evocative of a live music experience' or 'evoking the sound of live music'. Where I struggle: is any single word adequate on its own without needing more explanation?

For now I'm left with an approach that doesn't try to roll up a particular type of experience, but rather takes the time to individually lay out the various aspects of natural sound or sounding natural based on what one wants to say about listening to some piece of equipment or system. That would be in the confines of talking the usual audiophile talk, viz. dynamics, soundstage, timbre, air, energy, timing, transients, etc. Some of that may need to happen in terms of what is not the case relative to other meanings/descriptions such words are used with. That happened with the notion of black backgrounds and pin-point imaging. Maybe we'll stumble across the philosopher's stone equivalent for natural. Maybe.

I wrote this before seeing yr reply to another msg, which I'll go read.

Thanks Tim, yes also completely a fan of improving understanding in language. I’m perhaps less concrete these days because I’m having change of life issues and I’m trying to get comfortable with a realisation that I am at a new point in my life cycle and open to enjoying the freedom that the return to play can bring.

Earlier I clearly overused the acronym thingy but am also a committed anti-acronym (AA) generally suffering from near debilitating acronym allergies

Anything that makes things harder to understand rather than easier is always a nemesis for the writer. The trickster still gets me at times but I’m trying to simplify because I do need to use synthesis and abstracts with my classes so they can get how design and environment shape experiences.

I do believe if we look at the time point of culture we see what people look to for needs.

The modernists applied order and process and valued authenticity. The gear that was produced honoured engineering and order and the gear and the desired sound may reflect that.

The 70s, 80s and 90s the postmodernists championed consumption (excess) and expressionism and a freedom from rules and the gear then became about how we can synthesise anything.

The contemporary world may be swinging back to looking towards the agency of natural order and holistic process and perhaps our desire for sound and the language we become more comfortable relating to may once again look again to nature for its essential references.

Much in the way that design is looking towards biomimicry and using biology more as process over traditional manufacturing and synthetic chemical approaches as natural processes can be more in tune with the organic. Maybe we aren’t comfortable with using the word natural because we have been so removed from the experience of it. The tipping away from a human-centric man made cultivation and a shift back to a more nature-centric core to life and living are trends that may define where we are heading. Nature may be more venerated going forwards and so being natural may become the goal again.

 

[tima]

The tipping away from a human-centric man made cultivation and a shift back to a more nature-centric core to life and living are trends that may define where we are heading. Nature may be more venerated going forwards and being natural may become the goal again.

I like that.

And then there's AI.

And eventually a turn away from tatoos.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I like that.

And then there's AI.

And eventually a turn away from tatoos.

AI... now there’s a acronym that does set my allergies a jinglin.

Also I have both taboos and tatoos I come from the land down under.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I'm using/advocating 'synthesist' is more related to synthesis than synthetic. If I dare say so, it is more Hegelian (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) than Sartrean (being and nothingness, real and non-real.)

"You cannot define me. I am the reference." (koo-koo-kajoo)

All classics... lovin the koo-koo-kajoo

 

[morricab]

Thanks Tim, yes also completely a fan of improving understanding in language. I’m perhaps less concrete these days because I’m having change of life issues and I’m trying to get comfortable with a realisation that I am at a new point in my life cycle and open to enjoying the freedom that the return to play can bring.

Earlier I clearly overused the acronym thingy but am also a committed anti-acronym (AA) generally suffering from near debilitating acronym allergies

Anything that makes things harder to understand rather than easier is always a nemesis for the writer. The trickster still gets me at times but I’m trying to simplify because I do need to use synthesis and abstracts with my classes so they can get how design and environment shape experiences.

I do believe if we look at the time point of culture we see what people look to for needs.

The modernists applied order and process and valued authenticity. The gear that was produced honoured engineering and order and the gear and the desired sound may reflect that.

The 70s, 80s and 90s the postmodernists championed consumption (excess) and expressionism and a freedom from rules and the gear then became about how we can synthesise anything.

The contemporary world may be swinging back to looking towards the agency of natural order and holistic process and perhaps our desire for sound and the language we become more comfortable relating to may once again look again to nature for its essential references.

Much in the way that design is looking towards biomimicry and using biology more as process over traditional manufacturing and synthetic chemical approaches as natural processes can be more in tune with the organic. Maybe we aren’t comfortable with using the word natural because we have been so removed from the experience of it. The tipping away from a human-centric man made cultivation and a shift back to a more nature-centric core to life and living are trends that may define where we are heading. Nature may be more venerated going forwards and so being natural may become the goal again.

"Science, like nature, must also be tamed. With a view towards it's preservation", Neil Peart "Natural Science" Permanent Waves, Rush

 

[the sound of Tao]

"Science, like nature, must also be tamed. With a view towards it's preservation", Neil Peart "Natural Science" Permanent Waves, Rush

Science must be tamed... lovely. Nature needs to be wild... and at the moment it is becoming ever more furious. Eat a pangolin today and we all pay nature’s extraordinary price. Pangolin + Frypan = Pandemic... so a bit of Pan and a bit of Pandora... perhaps time for a sacrifice and a return to natural ways . Old Mother Nature can be a very severe and now chooses to no longer be subtle.

 

[spiritofmusic]

I suspect nature is coming for the petrol heads and audiophiles in equal measure. Car buffs for putting too much CO2 in the atmosphere, and hifi nerds for sucking Oxygen out of the air.