What's Best? The Absolute Sound or today's High End Systems?

Back in the day of Harry Pearson and the evolution of the High End Audio, Pearson, in the pages of The Absolute Sound, defined the "absolute sound" as unamplified acoustic instruments and/or vocals performed in a real space, usually a concert hall. The evaluation of reproduction systems (HiFi equipment) was a based on a subjective comparison to the "absolute sound." The best systems came the closest to the sound of a live performance in a real space.

Over the last several years I have been a regular attendee of live music in San Francisco at Davies Symphony Hall and The Metropolitan Opera House. I have come to the realization that, in my opinion, the best sound and musical enjoyment happens at home with my highly evolved system, and I question weather it's worth the expense and effort to attend, other than for the occasional performance of a favorite artist.

I've tried various seating choices, always seeking the best. But more and more I have come to the conclusion that the best seat in the house (at least sonically) is at home! Do other WBF members share this view?

 

Yes. But you don't always need an advanced set up. Those who don't have lot of money or time for dedicated effort should set up simple systems that let recordings and performances show through. devore orangutans and tannoys (though latter are more colored but very natural sound) are excellent trade offs that either require a lot of money and work or good DIY route to be beaten..

 

my emphasis

And - forgive me if I'm off base here - presumably you choose componentry and overall system organization based on your preference for this experience. Versus choosing based on what you hear/heard from the live event.

Recognizing this could be a wee bit of a revelation to me - I'm not sure of what I'm about to say, it may be twaddle:

Without anyone needing to explain one's preferences, this (ML's account) seems to represent what might be one account from one of what I see as two very broad camps of audiophiles. 'Camps' is not the best word here, and this sort of identifying exercise is dangerous. But I'll go further and name these camps as the 'Naturalists' and (again for lack of a good word) the ‘Synthesists’. Two (radically different?) perspectives on what they want/like/seek and what stereo reproduction should be - from the same source material. Naturalists adopt the live concert hall or venue experience as their reference in choosing a system, or at least memory of past live events or mental amalgamation of multiple past live events. Whereas Synthesists tend toward using their own set of personal preferences (what sounds best to them, regardless of live) as their reference or guide; and, such a perspective may be more likely to shift or evolve over time. Both more or less stringently.

Drawing from prior message, for one the compliment is 'Believable' for the other 'Enjoyable'.

If we take one as thesis and the other as antithesis, I see no synthesis. Of course that assumes you know what you want. For each their choice is right; to regard differently is the ground for audiophiles arguing on a forum. Though one can flip to the other.

Along with my last post I'd also like to point out another conundrum. When I talk about the sound of the recording coming along with the music... We're all synthesists in some way or another. Music productions are FAR from perfect, and don't lend themselves to sounding like our specific cups of teas very often. If you're trying to make a stereo sound live (in which the ways vary greatly) you're often fighting the recording, mastering, etc, so you can't exactly be "pure" and in opposition to "the way you like it" in the name of "live" sound. This goes back to why I can work with the DDK natural description but not the ones you use.

 

Along with my last post I'd also like to point out another conundrum. When I talk about the sound of the recording coming along with the music... We're all synthesists in some way or another. Music productions are FAR from perfect, and don't lend themselves to sounding like our specific cups of teas very often. If you're trying to make a stereo sound live (in which the ways vary greatly) you're often fighting the recording, mastering, etc, so you can't exactly be "pure" and in opposition to "the way you like it" in the name of "live" sound. This goes back to why I can work with the DDK natural description but not the ones you use.

Reading your last two posts, you seem to have gotten into the trap of defending why you did not read and try to understand Tima's and my context in the first place.

 

Reading your last two posts, you seem to have gotten into the trap of defending why you did not read and try to understand Tima's and my context in the first place.

Nope, that is not what is going on.

You always do this, if you don't get some sort of bias confirmation it means the person didn't read or comprehend what you've posted... (or at least if the person is me)

 

Nope, that is not what is going on.

You always do this, if you don't get some sort of bias confirmation it means the person didn't read or comprehend what you've posted... (or at least if the person is me)

That seems to be your bias against me

 

Well I can say that I wouldn't use Synthesists as the "opposing" camp to naturalist. I think that people listen for different things. What sounds live to one person isn't always what sounds live to another. I can understand the sentiment though because some "upgrades" ultimately lead away from the sound some associate with live, but lead to others that some do associate with live.

And I don't think your description really refers to what I would call natural, not as outlined by DDK - whom I consider to be the foremost. People think all sorts of different things sound live, and I don't find any relation between a lot of them as they're often polar opposites. But I wouldn't even go as far as to say I like one direction or the other all the time. What I can absolutely agree with for being a natural sound is when music isn't distracting by attributes of the room or stereo. If you're listening to the music, not the stereo, that's a natural sound. And I'm sorry but I think VERY FEW stereos really go that way - and I don't think everyone wants that anyways. My reasoning is not only respective of the stereos in which referenced, but personal experience of what people will call natural or not that have never ever been prompted by anything or even suggested that it is a term.

Now there are lots of other attributes that may make a stereo better/worse even if it qualifies as "natural" but they're not easy to read without thinking about it because you're hearing the music and not the stereo. They really play out as resolution, timbre, and scaling (small & big) - within the character of the album.

But I should say one thing remains, especially on a high resolution system, the sound of the recording. It doesn't go away unless you're going to toss a lot of other stuff with it. Because you can't do away with it and you have to live with it possibly causing some interference with sounding "live" in different ways, it's hard for me to really want to go anywhere near "live" being the specific qualification of "natural". You can however still experience beautiful non-distracting, music listening (not stereo) along with what comes on the recording. I'd rather hear a very good violin representation that just easily registers in my brain, low effort, low fatigue, high enjoyment for the performance... than I would want to press a soundstage or such. I might be going too far, but if I'm not mistaken some have described the Bionors as a "wall of sound" as opposed to a layered 3D soundstage... So take what you may, for me I'm sticking to what I consider the foremost reference of natural.

Along with my last post I'd also like to point out another conundrum. When I talk about the sound of the recording coming along with the music... We're all synthesists in some way or another. Music productions are FAR from perfect, and don't lend themselves to sounding like our specific cups of teas very often. If you're trying to make a stereo sound live (in which the ways vary greatly) you're often fighting the recording, mastering, etc, so you can't exactly be "pure" and in opposition to "the way you like it" in the name of "live" sound. This goes back to why I can work with the DDK natural description but not the ones you use.

Oh dear .... Again, without intent of disrespect, I don't think you understood what I said in my initial post and follow-up about basis for preference. I'll take that on myself for not being sufficiently explanatory to you but the post is for any forum member. I don't want to keep repeating myself because that takes a lot of energy from me.

Too many items for a response to each. So a couple brief remarks others may want to skip and then the caravan moves on.

==> My post and my point is not about the word 'natural' or what counts as 'natural sound.' <==

Of course "what sounds live to one person isn't always what sounds live to another." Almost no one will disagree. ('Almost' because, well, we're audiophiles.) But what we should not be able to disagree over, despite VR, is whether a person is listening to a live acoustic event - however that sounds to them. Whatever one hears, the Naturalist uses that experience as a reference for assessment and has a general preference for it over reproduced music, when those are his choices. There's wiggle room for mediocre performers and poor performances.

Do you really think the board is going to be willing to don a term that's root word is synthetic

Synthesist is not derogatory. I use it to denote those who generally prefer the sound of their own or some system over a live experience when given that choice, and adopt what in their view makes that system good or right or enjoyable as their basis for making choices about it and what it contains. More detail, better imaging, more comfort, whatever, than they might experience from the live experience. Perhaps they see or prefer what they've created or are working toward as an ideal of what music (or even the live experience) should be. Or perhaps not. (Yes I could have used 'Idealist' but other connotations there.)

These are not opposing views but a ground, a fundament, on which one's approach to audio stands. Where I stand or where you stand cannot be wrong.

Sidebar: but of course that won't prevent us from 'arguing' or at least saying "neener neener I'm better." I have some good ideas for arguments but won't take those up here.

 

Live music is all about being there for me, the total experience of the music,performers,and crowd.
At home can be enjoyable to, but then it’s all about the presentation. Two totally different animals.

+1

 

my emphasis

And - forgive me if I'm off base here - presumably you choose componentry and overall system organization based on your preference for this experience. Versus choosing based on what you hear/heard from the live event.

Recognizing this could be a wee bit of a revelation to me - I'm not sure of what I'm about to say, it may be twaddle:

Without anyone needing to explain one's preferences, this (ML's account) seems to represent what might be one account from one of what I see as two very broad camps of audiophiles. 'Camps' is not the best word here, and this sort of identifying exercise is dangerous. But I'll go further and name these camps as the 'Naturalists' and (again for lack of a good word) the ‘Synthesists’. Two (radically different?) perspectives on what they want/like/seek and what stereo reproduction should be - from the same source material. Naturalists adopt the live concert hall or venue experience as their reference in choosing a system, or at least memory of past live events or mental amalgamation of multiple past live events. Whereas Synthesists tend toward using their own set of personal preferences (what sounds best to them, regardless of live) as their reference or guide; and, such a perspective may be more likely to shift or evolve over time. Both more or less stringently.

Drawing from prior message, for one the compliment is 'Believable' for the other 'Enjoyable'.

If we take one as thesis and the other as antithesis, I see no synthesis. Of course that assumes you know what you want. For each their choice is right; to regard differently is the ground for audiophiles arguing on a forum. Though one can flip to the other.

i went back and read your post after reading further comments referring back to your explanation.

my perspective is really the only one i think we can have if we aspire to optimize our systems; and that is i want to hear what the recording engineer did. which can be all over the board. i do recognize that tastes can vary and some want or value that more typically diffuse imaging live experience (Naturalists) and some want the cookie cutter imaging and detail (Synthesists). but to me choosing then becomes the wrong guide to optimizing each recording.

the recordings themselves should tell us which they are. and it's those unique presentations from each recording that are one proof of concept.

and as i said earlier, i generally musically prefer what my system does for the music, compared to live.

and while my live music experiences are enjoyable, i don't get out to do that very often. i know......it's a character flaw i have to live with. musically i am fulfilled regardless.

 

Mike the way I read naturalist and synthesist is a bit different. Not necessarily with or without cookie cutter imaging and diffuse imaging. If you ever travel to Milan and/or UK, will be happy to show you. One is just core components (speaker, amp, basic cables, analog) placed in the room. Changing the amp can break the system. There is no emphasis on room treatment, isolation, or toe in, not saying that doing that might not improve the sound, but it just sounds so real anyway which is closer the live reference at any time, even if the system is under development, it is never synthetic.

Your system is built additionally on cabling, isolation, power supplies, Herzan, equitech, Tania, Daiza etc... The toe in or treatment can make or break it. Yes then you add a lot of textbook hifi attributes that make your system sound real. In many cases these textbook attributes are negative. When your system was under development, it might not have sounded as real, and was just components together, rather than with a live feel. Until it all came together.

I am 100 percent certain if I get General's or Pietro's system (entire system) in another room, I will get excellent sound as long as the room is sufficiently large. In your case, if I get the system in another room it will probably not work.

 

Mike the way I read naturalist and synthesist is a bit different. Not necessarily with or without cookie cutter imaging and diffuse imaging. If you ever travel to Milan and/or UK, will be happy to show you. One is just core components (speaker, amp, basic cables, analog) placed in the room. Changing the amp can break the system. There is no emphasis on room treatment, isolation, or toe in, not saying that doing that might not improve the sound, but it just sounds so real anyway.

Your system is built additionally on cabling, isolation, power supplies, Herzan, equitech, Tania, Daiza etc... The toe in or treatment can make or break it

I am 100 percent certain if I get General's or Pietro's system (entire system) in another room, I will try excellent sound as long as the room is sufficiently large. In your case, if I get the system in another room it will probably not work.

'like live' can mean many things, as can 'like our personal hifi systems' can similarly mean many things. my comments did not make those distinctions.

i will leave it to you as far as what makes my room work. appreciate that you think it does. i do agree btw.

 

Commenting on the differences in SQ between live and reproduced music at home is not productive for me due to the many comments already made. Let’s not show this thread to any musicians please or they would probably post something on social media asking to burn down the site. Let’s also dispense with the most obvious differences that cannot be captured in a reproduced environment; namely the humanism factors including the ability to see the orchestra players' faces, the audience’s reactions that range from rapt attention to falling asleep, the conductors abilities to shape the performance, etc. and just focus in the sound in the hall. It can’t be emphasized adequately how great the variations are in SQ depending on where one sits in a given hall. If I may, I’ll illustrate using Carnegie Hall as an example with 4 seating locations.





Position 1- mid parquet dead center. Surprisingly, this might be the worst sound one can possibly hear even in a good hall. To begin, you are generally sitting below the level of the players on stage. If the sound were coming from their shoes, you might have a chance of hearing some detail and direct sound that is in balance with the ambient sound of the hall. It’s no surprise to me that Mike wasn’t impressed with his experience there (in his hall). I’m also pretty sure that if he were at David Geffen Hall he would have liked it even less. That location is just terrible. Better to be in a muffled submarine.

Position 2- First tier, a bit off of dead center to the right. One of my regular seats for the concerto series. Excellent sound, plus the ability to see the pianist’s hands make this a particularly desirable location. Great clarity of sound, very good instrument localization, excellent hall ambience.

Position 3. First tier, about a quarter of the way around to the left. Another regular seat of mine for smaller groups, chamber, soloists, etc. but sometimes larger pieces (I just saw M4 from these seats). I completely understand what Al and Ian said about their somewhat similar seating experience in Boston regarding their ability to “hear everything.” And where “complex orchestral music is extraordinarily well presented in all its intricacies of texture and detail”.

In Carnegie, a big difference between position 2 and 3 is that the latter is 30 feet closer to the stage due to the horse shoe configuration of the lower balcony. That 30 foot difference makes a world of difference in the immediacy of sound that one hears. Position 3 is over row Q whereas position 2 is over row Z. Even though you can see and hear the entire stage from position 3, you are not dead center and there is no way to get dead center 30 feet in front of position 2 unless you can float in space somewhere above the parquet seats. If that’s the position you covet, you’ll have to fly west to Chicago or St. Louis. The Chicago Symphony Center and Powell Hall in STL are shorter halls, so their balconies allow the unusual combination of center seating, elevation above the stage and an immediacy of sound that is not available even at the great Carnegie. At Chicago, the Lower Fadim balcony (and more expensive Box Seats just below the Fadim lower balcony) are probably not only the best overall concert hall seats in America available at reasonable prices, but allow great sound to be shared by hundreds of concert goers, and not just a handful as in the best boxes at Carnegie.

Position 4. Nose bleed section, top balcony. Why would I even mention these seats? Who would ever want to sit there? Well, it turns out, a lot of people. It’s no accident that Harry Pearson thought these were the best seats in the hall.

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/the-sound-at-carnegie-hall.20911/

In summary, as in real estate, it’s all about “location, location, location” when it comes to the sound one hears in any concert hall. Making generalizations about the sound of any given hall has limitations but more importantly, the listening enjoyment one can derive in any given hall can vary widely from seat to seat.

 

Mike the way I read naturalist and synthesist is a bit different. Not necessarily with or without cookie cutter imaging and diffuse imaging. If you ever travel to Milan and/or UK, will be happy to show you. One is just core components (speaker, amp, basic cables, analog) placed in the room. Changing the amp can break the system. There is no emphasis on room treatment, isolation, or toe in, not saying that doing that might not improve the sound, but it just sounds so real anyway which is closer the live reference at any time, even if the system is under development, it is never synthetic.

Your system is built additionally on cabling, isolation, power supplies, Herzan, equitech, Tania, Daiza etc... The toe in or treatment can make or break it. Yes then you add a lot of textbook hifi attributes that make your system sound real. In many cases these textbook attributes are negative. When your system was under development, it might not have sounded as real, and was just components together, rather than with a live feel. Until it all came together.

I am 100 percent certain if I get General's or Pietro's system (entire system) in another room, I will get excellent sound as long as the room is sufficiently large. In your case, if I get the system in another room it will probably not work.

Interesting; however, i think you can never remove a syntheticness to the sound through room and power treatment if the basic gear is not largely absent of a synthetic contribution to the sound. General's and Pietro's work most anywhere probably because they have carefully chosen components that are largely lacking in telltale synthetic artifice. It shows that the room is not really the key to a realistic sound (a piano or violin still will sound real in a crappy room), gear (and power) that lack synthetic sonic cues (ie distortions) will get you much of the way there (or as close as it is possible to get).

 

Two comments. As Marty succinctly point out, the degree to which one enjoys and emotionally connects with live unamplified classical music is (assuming one likes what is being played) largely seat dependent. When I attended the Grand Teton Music Festival in Jackson, WY, I had a very specific seat preference "area". The other point is that this is a circular discussion with no definite matrix as to what's better or worse. Both live and reproduced music have their inherent benefits and pitfalls.

 

Commenting on the differences in SQ between live and reproduced music at home is not productive for me due to the many comments already made. Let’s not show this thread to any musicians please or they would probably post something on social media asking to burn down the site. Let’s dispense with the most obvious differences that cannot be captured in a reproduced environment; namely the humanism factors including the ability to see the orchestra players faces, the audience’s reactions that range from rapt attention to falling asleep, the conductors abilities to shape the performance, etc. and just focus in the sound in the hall. It can’t be emphasized adequately how great the variations are in SQ depending on where one sits in a given hall. If I may, I’ll illustrate using Carnegie Hall as an example with 4 seating locations.

View attachment 59501

View attachment 59502

Position 1- mid parquet dead center. This might surprisingly be the worst sound one can possibly hear even in a good hall. To begin, you are generally sitting below the level of the players on stage. If the sound were coming from their shoes, you might have a chance of hearing some detail and direct sound that is in balance with the ambient sound of the hall. It’s no surprise to me that Mike wasn’t impressed with his experience there. I’m also pretty sure that if he were at David Geffen Hall he would have liked it even less. That location is just terrible. Better to be in a muffled submarine.

Position 2- First tier, a bit off of dead center to the right. One of my regular seats for the concerto series. Excellent sound, plus the ability to see the pianist’s hands make this a particularly desirable location. Great clarity of sound, very good instrument localization, excellent hall ambience.

Position 3. First tier, about a quarter of the way around to the left. Another regular seat of mine for smaller groups, chamber, soloists, etc. but sometimes larger pieces (I just saw M4 from these seats). I completely understand what Al and Ian said about their somewhat similar seating experience in Boston regarding their ability to “hear everything.” And where “complex orchestral music is extraordinarily well presented in all its intricacies of texture and detail”.

In Carnegie, a big difference between position 2 and 3 is that the latter is 30 feet closer to the stage due to the horse shoe configuration of the lower balcony. That 30 foot difference makes a world of difference in the immediacy of sound that one hears. Position 3 is over row Q whereas position 2 is over row Z. Even though you can see and hear the entire stage from position 3, you are not dead center and there is no way to get dead center 30 feet in front of position 2 unless you can float in space somewhere above the parquet seats. If that’s the position you covet, you’ll have to fly west to Chicago or St. Louis. The Chicago Symphony Center and Powell Hall in STL are shorter halls, so their balconies allow the unusual combination of center seating, elevation above the stage and an immediacy of sound that is not available even at the great Carnegie. At Chicago, the Lower Fadim balcony (and more expensive Box Seats just below the Fadim lower balcony) are probably not only the best overall concert hall seats in America available at reasonable prices, but allow great sound to be shared by hundreds of concert goers, and not just a handful as in the best boxes at Carnegie.

Position 4. Nose bleed section, top balcony. Why would I even mention these seats? Who would ever want to sit there? Well, it turns out, a lot of people. It’s no accident that Harry Pearson thought these were the best seats in the hall.

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/the-sound-at-carnegie-hall.20911/

In summary, as in real estate, it’s all about “location, location, location” when it comes to the sound one hears in any concert hall. Making generalizations about the sound of any given hall has limitations but more importantly, the listening enjoyment one can derive in any given hall can vary widely from seat to seat.

Some of the best sounding concerts i have heard were in small venues and even peoples homes. Add to that numerous church concerts where acoustics were on par with better halls i have heard and your carnegie hall example is but one of many. I used to go hear great live jazz in a club in Zurich called "The Gig", where i could sit just a few feet from the musicians (only a bit of amplification for the bass the rest not) and that had serious presence and aliveness! I frequent many small venues like this for jazz and i can go hear free classical performances at the Zurich music conservatory in small to medium studios, same for Zurich Jazz school. Great young talents and awesome sound.

Real is real and the only real reference to what a system that is lacking in synthetic artifice should sound like, IMO.

 

Two comments. As Marty succinctly point out, the degree to which one enjoys and emotionally connects with live unamplified classical music is (assuming one likes what is being played) largely seat dependent. The other point is that this is a circular discussion. Both live and reproduced music have their inherent benefits and pitfalls.

Regardless, you won't mistake one seat or the other as not live...an emotional connection is kind of beside the point.

 

Commenting on the differences in SQ between live and reproduced music at home is not productive for me due to the many comments already made. Let’s not show this thread to any musicians please or they would probably post something on social media asking to burn down the site. Let’s dispense with the most obvious differences that cannot be captured in a reproduced environment; namely the humanism factors including the ability to see the orchestra players faces, the audience’s reactions that range from rapt attention to falling asleep, the conductors abilities to shape the performance, etc. and just focus in the sound in the hall. It can’t be emphasized adequately how great the variations are in SQ depending on where one sits in a given hall. If I may, I’ll illustrate using Carnegie Hall as an example with 4 seating locations.

View attachment 59501

View attachment 59502

Position 1- mid parquet dead center. This might surprisingly be the worst sound one can possibly hear even in a good hall. To begin, you are generally sitting below the level of the players on stage. If the sound were coming from their shoes, you might have a chance of hearing some detail and direct sound that is in balance with the ambient sound of the hall. It’s no surprise to me that Mike wasn’t impressed with his experience there. I’m also pretty sure that if he were at David Geffen Hall he would have liked it even less. That location is just terrible. Better to be in a muffled submarine.

Position 2- First tier, a bit off of dead center to the right. One of my regular seats for the concerto series. Excellent sound, plus the ability to see the pianist’s hands make this a particularly desirable location. Great clarity of sound, very good instrument localization, excellent hall ambience.

Position 3. First tier, about a quarter of the way around to the left. Another regular seat of mine for smaller groups, chamber, soloists, etc. but sometimes larger pieces (I just saw M4 from these seats). I completely understand what Al and Ian said about their somewhat similar seating experience in Boston regarding their ability to “hear everything.” And where “complex orchestral music is extraordinarily well presented in all its intricacies of texture and detail”.

In Carnegie, a big difference between position 2 and 3 is that the latter is 30 feet closer to the stage due to the horse shoe configuration of the lower balcony. That 30 foot difference makes a world of difference in the immediacy of sound that one hears. Position 3 is over row Q whereas position 2 is over row Z. Even though you can see and hear the entire stage from position 3, you are not dead center and there is no way to get dead center 30 feet in front of position 2 unless you can float in space somewhere above the parquet seats. If that’s the position you covet, you’ll have to fly west to Chicago or St. Louis. The Chicago Symphony Center and Powell Hall in STL are shorter halls, so their balconies allow the unusual combination of center seating, elevation above the stage and an immediacy of sound that is not available even at the great Carnegie. At Chicago, the Lower Fadim balcony (and more expensive Box Seats just below the Fadim lower balcony) are probably not only the best overall concert hall seats in America available at reasonable prices, but allow great sound to be shared by hundreds of concert goers, and not just a handful as in the best boxes at Carnegie.

Position 4. Nose bleed section, top balcony. Why would I even mention these seats? Who would ever want to sit there? Well, it turns out, a lot of people. It’s no accident that Harry Pearson thought these were the best seats in the hall.

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/the-sound-at-carnegie-hall.20911/

In summary, as in real estate, it’s all about “location, location, location” when it comes to the sound one hears in any concert hall. Making generalizations about the sound of any given hall has limitations but more importantly, the listening enjoyment one can derive in any given hall can vary widely from seat to seat.

I find most of Zone A mid hall the sleep zone, I've fallen asleep in rows C to M more than once! Could be my height there's a dip in that part of the hall and the sound passes above my head. Favorite seats are Zone B starting with row S all the way back to CC. I sat in all your preferred sections and quite a few more including on the stage too, perspective and balance changes but no matter what the experience is still "Natural", even falling asleep !

david

 

'like live' can mean many things, as can 'like our personal hifi systems' can similarly mean many things. my comments did not make those distinctions.

i will leave it to you as far as what makes my room work. appreciate that you think it does. i do agree btw.

I agree like live can mean many things. Some people incorrectly assume it is only about the timbre. It is about the balance of many aspects that gives the whole realism. It is easiest to get by simplicity and timbre. Does not mean that a lot of effort in getting complexity right, like you have, will not get it right, even surpass simplicity. Because your system adds many other elements. The one thing that all these systems have in common are the guys behind it have OCD, talent, and have fine tuned their approach.

 

Regardless, you won't mistake one seat or the other as not live...an emotional connection is kind of beside the point.

With all due respect,

First part. Obviously. DUH.

Second part. Emotional connection beside the point? If you don't react to music emotionally, you must be a robot.

 

I've fallen asleep in rows C to M more than once!

Don't knock "falling asleep" at a classical music concert. To be honest, it can often signify a high compliment to the music and performance. We are often so wound-up and stressed, that the relaxation we experience in the hall in the right setting can lead to quiet meditation with eyes closed and even sleep. So sleep during a performance can be good! Snoring however, not so much.

 

Oh dear .... Again, without intent of disrespect, I don't think you understood what I said in my initial post and follow-up about basis for preference. I'll take that on myself for not being sufficiently explanatory to you but the post is for any forum member. I don't want to keep repeating myself because that takes a lot of energy from me.

Too many items for a response to each. So a couple brief remarks others may want to skip and then the caravan moves on.

==> My post and my point is not about the word 'natural' or what counts as 'natural sound.' <==

Of course "what sounds live to one person isn't always what sounds live to another." Almost no one will disagree. ('Almost' because, well, we're audiophiles.) But what we should not be able to disagree over, despite VR, is whether a person is listening to a live acoustic event - however that sounds to them. Whatever one hears, the Naturalist uses that experience as a reference for assessment and has a general preference for it over reproduced music, when those are his choices. There's wiggle room for mediocre performers and poor performances.



Synthesist is not derogatory. I use it to denote those who generally prefer the sound of their own or some system over a live experience when given that choice, and adopt what in their view makes that system good or right or enjoyable as their basis for making choices about it and what it contains. More detail, better imaging, more comfort, whatever, than they might experience from the live experience. Perhaps they see or prefer what they've created or are working toward as an ideal of what music (or even the live experience) should be. Or perhaps not. (Yes I could have used 'Idealist' but other connotations there.)

These are not opposing views but a ground, a fundament, on which one's approach to audio stands. Where I stand or where you stand cannot be wrong.

Sidebar: but of course that won't prevent us from 'arguing' or at least saying "neener neener I'm better." I have some good ideas for arguments but won't take those up here.

Tima, I understand what you're saying. I just completely disagree with the nomenclature - nomenclature that I think also muddies the overall forum. It's not a comment against you.

What percentage do you think people would fall into each group you've designated? I think the problem here is you'll find almost every single person lands themselves in the N, even if you would never know until they told you.