[Pibborando]

Dude you can't x2 your own posts.

 

[Pibborando]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pibborando /img/forum/go_quote.gif Dude you can't x2 your own posts.

x2

 

[mdarnton]

I find it interesting that the OP is complaining about the loss of something in violin tone that I almost always hear on CDs that I don't hear from real violins. Though cheap violins have the characteristics he mentions he likes, the real, expensive ones you find playing solo in front of the orchestra are, characteristically, very smooth. Perhaps he's just been trained to expect bad violin reproduction, by the way that CDs habitually present violins? For me, getting a system that smoothed out the violins so that they sounded like violins was a gift from the gods! When I finally achieved that, my business partners (half of http://callistoensemble.com) did finally give my system their seal of approval.

 

[d-cee]

Natural is when it sounds right and realistic to YOU

Don't let anyone else's opinions tell you different!

 

[DJShadow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mindless /img/forum/go_quote.gif Natural to me would be the way I perceive instruments in real life. In other words, if a headphone sounds natural to me, it's able to reproduce instruments the way I hear them at live preformances, etc. Honestly, there is no real answer to your question. While I enjoy my GS1000, others will hate them. While some enjoy their D2000, I will hate them. It's all personal preferences of different colorations in the sound.

I agree.
Quote:

Originally Posted by kanamin /img/forum/go_quote.gif sometimes I'm surprised at how real the music coming out of my headphones sound. That's what I'd call natural, it's like there's no headphones by my ears.

Ah the disappearing headphone effect, as though the music is being created in your head without external help. Thats when you can begin to slip away from the mundane and into music itself.

 

[wang228]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdarnton /img/forum/go_quote.gif I find it interesting that the OP is complaining about the loss of something in violin tone that I almost always hear on CDs that I don't hear from real violins. Though cheap violins have the characteristics he mentions he likes, the real, expensive ones you find playing solo in front of the orchestra are, characteristically, very smooth. Perhaps he's just been trained to expect bad violin reproduction, by the way that CDs habitually present violins?....)

I agree with your finding that most violin recordings sound too harsh and not smooth enough. But my guess is that the OP may be used to hearing the violin real up close. I've found that violins always sound much more aggressive when listened near the player. Further from the player, especially in a big concert hall, the agressive treble mellows out. So, it really depends on where we sit relatively to the violin. Perhaps the fact that most recording sounds harsh might be the results of the microphone being put near the player, and not where a normal concert goer sit.

As to the original question, i think natural would mean that it sounds like real instruments, but that up to each individual to judge. A useful indication for natural reproduction for me is that the phones shoudl not give me any ear fatigue after a 1-2 hour listenning. Real and loud orchestral concert never give me any fatigue.

 

[Jeff E]

Natural: a property of the sound as reproduced through the entire recording playback chain, from microphone to listener's room. The reproduced music sounds more natural if it is more difficult to distinguish from live music. For example, the bark in the recording sounded so natural I took off my headphones to see what my dog was doing.

Neutral: a property of a particular component in the recording playback chain. "Straight wire with gain" describes a neutral amp. For example, a neutral headphone would transduce electrical energy into sound energy accurately.

Playback may sound natural even with components that are not neutral as long as the nonneutralities are complementary, that is, cancel. This is synergy.

 

[unclejr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kukrisna /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... but yeah - for me natural means accurate reproduction of tone and timbre which means that the harmonic series is accurate enough that you hear the overtones produced by the said instrument ...

I think this is spot on.

It's why pace, rhythm, and timing are so key, because they don't just apply to the fundamental tone but the natural decay of the overtones. Granted, this is difficult to purposefully seek out, I mean, I've yet to hear anyone say, gosh, that violin note's third overtone isn't behaving like I want it to.

Being able to capture this entire complexity is a really herculean task throughout the entire music-reproduction chain.

 

[jant71]

I agree with the OP that the UE universals have a tone and timbre that are a bit synthetic sounding.

I also differentiate between neutral/accurate and realistic. A good example between the two is the ER4S vs. Super.fi 3 modded with ES cable + S adapter. With the Ety it's like I am the studio engineer. With the modded 3's it is more like I am actually playing the music myself. One is accurate the other realistic. The Ety is like a quality studio recording but a recording none the less. The 3's actually was the first IEM that convinced me that hearing aids may actually let people hear things like in real life. I previously thought(based on having various armature based earphones) that they must help people hear again but not very natural or realistic. In one song there is an isolated triangle strike. The Ety is true and accurate with it and it sounds good; The UE always makes me picture myself holding it and striking it myself and if it would sound any different if I actually was. When I started thinking about hearing aids, picturing myself playing instruments, and jumping up and turning around thinking something fell while it was just something in the recording the difference between realistic/natural and neutral/accurate became quite clear.

 

[1Time]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mindless /img/forum/go_quote.gif Natural to me would be the way I perceive instruments in real life.

I define natural or realistic sounding to be a subjective interpretation of how well one perceives cans to immitate instruments, voices, etc. in various settings.

 

[pearljam5000]

so i guess THE question is....
what are the most natural(but at the same time..not boring) heaphones out there?
and btw i don't find my SR-80 colored at all, i feel they are preety natural(but have had little exprience with other headphones)
is my hearing bad?

 

[ManAtWork]

Natural means what exactly as you can hear in real world, no colorful, no emphasizing, you can feel very comfortable without any excite. Some people may not like the real "natural" sound because they prefer some emphasizing in some frequency range, though. But we believe as the ultimate objective what the "high-fidelity" aims, only those devices with natural sound are capable.

 

[kramer5150]

I never understood the use of that word either. I try not to use it in my subjective comments because it has no frame of reference for comparison. Furthermore (as evidenceed by this thread) everyone has a different interpretation of the word. I much prefer to AB compare something with something else, making relative comparisons using the audible spectrum as a reference. Hardly an unflawed method... but its something that I find makes sense to a lot of readers, as it somewhat employs reference to a standard. That standard of reference may be an SR60, KSC75... or... the audible spectrum itself. IMHO its much more meaningful to say.. "Bass below 150Hz is ~3 db boosted over the rest of the spectrum", than to say "excess bass is un-natural."

"Natural" to me means, it sounds like the real instrument. Sit down in front of a clarinet, guitar cabinet, drum or trumpet... that to me is "natural". The problem with that is it has no frame of reference for the reader, and holds no importance. The reader needs to have heard same instrument, in the same listening session.

 

[mdarnton]

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclejr /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've yet to hear anyone say, gosh, that violin note's third overtone isn't behaving like I want it to.

Ha! You just hang with the wrong people. The other day a player I was adjusting for drew me a little FFT chart on a piece of paper and pointed to one peak and said "The problem is right *here*." Which I did understand, because I already had the same image in my mind from the sound of his violin.

 

[holland]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kramer5150 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I never understood the use of that word either. I try not to use it in my subjective comments because it has no frame of reference for comparison. Furthermore (as evidenceed by this thread) everyone has a different interpretation of the word. I much prefer to AB compare something with something else, making relative comparisons using the audible spectrum as a reference. Hardly an unflawed method... but its something that I find makes sense to a lot of readers, as it somewhat employs reference to a standard. That standard of reference may be an SR60, KSC75... or... the audible spectrum itself. IMHO its much more meaningful to say.. "Bass below 150Hz is ~3 db boosted over the lower mids". "Natural" to me means, it sounds like the real instrument. Sit down in front of a clarinet, guitar cabinet, drum or trumpet... that to me is "natural". The problem with that is it has no frame of reference for the reader, and holds no importance. The reader needs to have heard same instrument, in the same listening session.

x2, x3, x4, x-infinity. I would add, at the same location. A few rows back vs. right next to the instrument vs. the artist themselves. The sound is all different, sound changes as it reflects around. 2 very different headphones can both be "natural" depending on the POV.

I also try to use more relative comparisons, if I could, with distinct points of reference. Terms like natural, organic, neutral, etc. are all audiophile-isms that assume everyone is thinking the same exact thing. Those terms, as illustrated, mean very different things and can give the reader an entirely wrong impression.