ying and yang--Lamm ML3 and darTZeel 458

[morricab]

Brad, Zus thrive at low levels. Indeed it’s a deal breaker for me re Apogees which always seem to need to be played loud to come alive.
Zus w NATs are absolutely sensational at medium to low volumes, and any potential move to horns (which I remain interested in) would have to convince for late night/drink in hand listening levels too.

sounds good. I switched from Apogees to electrostats and that was one of the major reasons. The electrostats could sound full and natural even at quite low levels...Apogees needed several db louder and then were superb. The stats I had were every bit as good as horns at low levels...they just don't scale as well.

 

[PeterA]

You are. I’m not. Nor is Morricab with whom I agree completely.

I agree with Morricab also. However, there are plenty members here who rarely speak of live music. Perhaps for them there reference is a more vague, a distant memory, and what really matters is "how they like it", that is, whatever flavor floats their boat at a particular moment. I see nothing wrong with this approach. There are many ways to enjoy this hobby. Trying to reproduce the sound of live unamplified instruments is only one.

When one speaks of "wanting different flavors", then I tend to think of the ice-cream analogy. One turntable, amp, cartridge today for this mood, another combination tomorrow for another mood. When one writes about recent concerts and the joy of hearing live music and trying to assemble a system which can do "all of that", then he/she seems to have a different approach. No "right or wrong" as people are fond of writing. Just different approaches and priorities and ways to enjoy the hobby.

 

[dminches]

There are many "flavors" of live music. One can go to a well tuned orchestra hall or a small theater with amplified music or a larger hall, like an arena where the sound is certainly compromised.

 

[dctom]

One of the hardest sounds to replicate on my system are drum rim shots heard up close - the almost gun shot intensity is very dynamic.
I listen to a friend's small jazz combo, playing in a local pub quite regularly, and often sit in close proximity to the drummer! Sitting further away dilutes the impact considerably.

The same friend was playing my alto sax along with an art pepper album on the turntable, purely to tryout the sax not as a comparison to hifi sound. Anyway I was pleasantly surprised to realise the tone, harmonics etc compared very favourably.

As morricab says the experience of sitting close to small string ensembles, jazz etc can be reproduced on a well sorted system. Although large scale classical works are more of a challenge, I do listen much more to classical now as my system reproduces orchestral works much more convincingly than in the past.

 

[morricab]

I love live music and enjoy live concerts not because they give me any references but just because it is an essential way to access music. I also wish I had a real and deep grasp of Cheevers and Geddes but I glaze over with a lot of science and truth be told the people that I have met who have set up the best systems i have heard none of them particularly do either of the these. Everyone has their own preferences but these don’t necessarily set any limits for anyone else particularly.

I wonder if Mike has a particularly deep understanding of Cheevers or Geddes (but clearly even if not) has managed to put together a world class SOTA sound system. Way beyond any of this I am unsure if he even needs a basic understanding of Cheevers or Geedes to ever explain why he likes the Lamms, I am guessing probably not. I don’t know how many classical concerts Mike attends a year but still Mike clearly has put together one of the great systems that regularly sets the highest of standards and continuously wows so many audiophiles.

All of these rules about what it takes to be a proper audiophile and to be able to make a proper system... I just don’t believe any of them. The systems I’ve heard that are great are the result of commitment and take time and a genuine understanding and appreciation of music. Science is a nice way to get some kinds of understanding but I’ve never heard anyone who has set up a truly brilliant system just by using specs or theories. Choosing purely by specs is what we do at the start when we just don’t know any better.

I do wonder why some feel that a simplistic understanding of acoustics theory is sufficient to fully explain even the very basics of a rich human experience like listening to music and what are just individual preferences. This isn’t just about simple psychoacoustics, understanding states of consciousness is an area yet to be fully grasped by any of us and still waiting to be fully grasped by neuroscience.

Let’s let go of the hubris and just admit this is all just about preferences. That’s one of the things I admire about Mike, the lack of hubris and lack of absoluteness in his approach. The reason his observations are always so useful is that they seem to come from a middle or moderate position.

I also go to concerts for enjoyment...that doesn't stop those experiences from being references...in fact there is nothing mutually exclusive about the dual purpose as it just comes naturally.

You have to look at the endeavors of the scientists (of which I am one) as an attempt to understanding why a majority of people would have a particular preference. The assumption is that distortions, of whatever kind, are the root cause for a negative impact on sound quality. The further assumption is that a majority of people will prefer distortions of some patterns over distortions of other patterns and that all distortion patterns are NOT equally accepted...given of course that no system is distortion free. So, they are attempting to generate a set of rules about the measured data that allows some degree of prediction about human evaluation of sound quality.

Whether Mike's system is truly SOTA sounging or not I have to reserve judgement since I haven't heard it myself. He has certainly invested a SOTA amount of money in it. I disagree also that one doesn't need a good experience with the real deal to come up with a SOTA system...they might get something impressive and even quite interesting but probably not all that realistic...of course exceptions do exist...

The most realistic system I have heard is the Living Voice Vox Olympian with Kondo and battery power from a couple years ago in Munich...and Kevin Scott knows live unamplified music very well and it expresses amazingly in his systems...nothing else really touched it.

As is always the case with human psychology, there will always be those that don't fit with the majority, so there is of course room to manuever. He may not need Cheever and Geddes to explain his preference but it could be that Cheever and Geddes to some degree explain his new interest in a "distortion generator" as objective measurement guys would like to call SETs.

A complete understanding would be nice but it is not really necessary. What is useful for designers and for consumers is a good correlation between design and what most would consider their preferred sound quality.

 

[morricab]

There are many "flavors" of live music. One can go to a well tuned orchestra hall or a small theater with amplified music or a larger hall, like an arena where the sound is certainly compromised.

And yet you will not mistake any of them, rarely ever, with a recording played back at the same volume...that is worth considering.

 

[morricab]

One of the hardest sounds to replicate on my system are drum rim shots heard up close - the almost gun shot intensity is very dynamic.
I listen to a friend's small jazz combo, playing in a local pub quite regularly, and often sit in close proximity to the drummer! Sitting further away dilutes the impact considerably.

The same friend was playing my alto sax along with an art pepper album on the turntable, purely to tryout the sax not as a comparison to hifi sound. Anyway I was pleasantly surprised to realise the tone, harmonics etc compared very favourably.

As morricab says the experience of sitting close to small string ensembles, jazz etc can be reproduced on a well sorted system. Although large scale classical works are more of a challenge, I do listen much more to classical now as my system reproduces orchestral works much more convincingly than in the past.

Yes, a well sorted system for the smaller stuff will probably do well up to its limits with the big stuff.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I would love to think that we collectively can make intellectual progress over time on the fascinating theoretical and conceptual issues about our hobby, and what we are trying to accomplish with our audio systems, without starting from the very beginning each time these questions arise.

I like to think we established a couple of years ago at http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?19261-Introduction-and-Listening-Biases/page8 (and other threads) through thorough analysis and debate four primary, but not mutually exclusive, alternative objectives of high-end audio:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape,

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

4) create a sound that seems live.

Shall we once again begin with these first principles and discuss these issues on the thread above or on a new thread rather than continue to hijack Mike’s ML3/458 thread?

Brad, Peter, would you like to start another thread on these conceptual issues?

 

[ddk]

I agree with Morricab also. However, there are plenty members here who rarely speak of live music. Perhaps for them there reference is a more vague, a distant memory, and what really matters is "how they like it", that is, whatever flavor floats their boat at a particular moment. I see nothing wrong with this approach. There are many ways to enjoy this hobby. Trying to reproduce the sound of live unamplified instruments is only one.

When one speaks of "wanting different flavors", then I tend to think of the ice-cream analogy. One turntable, amp, cartridge today for this mood, another combination tomorrow for another mood. When one writes about recent concerts and the joy of hearing live music and trying to assemble a system which can do "all of that", then he/she seems to have a different approach. No "right or wrong" as people are fond of writing. Just different approaches and priorities and ways to enjoy the hobby.

The “Live” as reference not only pertains to tone, tonal depth & timbre, volume and comparative levels of unamplified instruments etc. which I call “tangibles” but the other elements that exist during a performance, the “intangibles” which include emotional content, virtuosity, the sense of presence of a person/people playing there’s pressure and energy and very importantly the ambience of the venue which is it own presence. There are a lot of elements that need to be and often is captured in analog recordings which must reproduced honestly without addition or subtraction of vital cues for a natural listening experience. The intangibles are crucial IMO and what many systems and/or setups fail to reproduce, intangibles are also what’s lost in a digital chain.

You can use the ice cream analogy if you want but don’t think of it chocolate one day then orange and pistachio on other days, pick one favorite flavor and then sampling that same flavor in different favorite spots. People often use the term plain vanilla, maybe true to some degree comparing large tubs of commercial iceream but in the high end artisanal world plain vanilla is no longer bland. Using the same ingredients each master will infuse something of himself making their plain vanilla ice cream a unique tasting experience, this is what is meant when talking about different flavors.

david

 

[Al M.]

I disagree also that one doesn't need a good experience with the real deal to come up with a SOTA system...they might get something impressive and even quite interesting but probably not all that realistic...of course exceptions do exist...

Agree with your disagreement. Continuous reference to live unamplified music is key to shaping one's system for a convincing result. And it is a humbling reference, because you'll never get there, even though a certain level of illusion of it on your system can induce excitement and satisfaction.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

The live, unamplified, music is really the only reference...it might not be a practical one to use but it is the only one, nonetheless. I guess, if you were only listening to amplified rock music you could argue that hearing someone playing live through a guitar amp etc. could also be a reference...but it is still with another layer on top (speakers, amps, mixer, engineer etc.) to muddy the waters.

I don't know what you mean by "our own references". This is pure relativism. This changes as per your whim and is not a reference at all...by definition. Reference means something you "refer to"...a constant if you will. It needs to be somewhat outside yourself. Sure it is observed and interpreted by you but for normal hearing people it won't be so different how we hear the real event.

There are recordings that have done an admirable job of capturing a performance accurately...use of these to establish the quality of a system as a practical reference. If your system captures these close to a live experience of something that is very similar (this relies on a good aural memory of course...or frequent repetition) then one can be reasonably certain that it captures what is on other recordings accurately as well...for better or worse.

The Audio Note UK guy, Peter Q. has a pretty good, but incomplete point in that a system should capture maximum contrast between recordings and this is because the range of recording quality is so diverse from attrocious to sublimely accurate. What is incomplete about this is that what he is advocating is that a system has a high precision and so small changes are readily discerned but that approach says nothing about the accuracy of that system. A system can show the tiniest differences but still be way off the mark in terms of tonality, dynamics, resolution (transparency), imaging, soundstaging etc. Discrimination alone is does not make a system accurate. A lot of people fall into this trap...they have über resolution, attack, soundstage etc. and every recording sounds different...but the sound of every recording is far from realistic, even with the best recordings, and therefore wrong.

Do you really know what it is in your system you are striving for? Or, having reached it (so you thought) , you realized that it wasn't what you thought it would be? I have long ago decided that there is not a system on this earth that will give me a true live experience for large orchestral works...I have never heard it and I doubt it exists...so I have focused on getting a system that is as realistic as possible for smaller ensembles (jazz, classical). This doesn't mean it won't do big classical well...it does but not realisitically well. Rock and electronic music sounds good and (right?) through it if the recording is good or harsh and compressed if that is how the recording is made...I don't want to change that because that means introducing deliberate bias to "soften" bad recordings.

I know a guy who changes whole systems on nearly a monthly basis...he has no idea about what is correct sounding but just likes changing the aural flavor for the experience of it and for his unabashed love of the gear. Knowing this, it is pointless to talk seriously with him about sound quality because he just wants to play and that's fine and that is his defined goal of the whole thing. I suspect that the guys with 4 of this and 5 of that are similar despite their protestations to the contrary. Now, I have three systems at home but they have well defined purposes. 1 is for "serious" listening, 1 is for late night listening and 1 is for TV and background listening...they are all in different parts of the house. Each has only 1 source of a given type and one pre/amp or integrated amp. Only the "serious" rig is striving for what I have posted above. The background rig is decent enough for me and my wife likes the looks. The late night rig is in our attic room where I can listen at night with disturbing and it is efficient (96db single driver) so it works really well at low volumes. it is limited in both highs and low but still sounds rather nice...great for working while listening because the big rig always commands my attention.

my response to you was relative to there being a singular reference for all. and one view of and consequence of that. which was the idea you seemed to be inferring.

"Do you really know what it is in your system you are striving for?"

much of my personal posting about my system development over the last few years is exactly referring to my own reference in my head guiding my room tuning. but that reference is not any particular experience, but a combination of different things I picked up over a period of time. there were a few 'ah-ha' moments where I saw in my mind where my system was not achieving this or that attribute. and i'm open to that next 'ah-ha' moment when it comes to me.

so for me personally; i reject the idea of one reference. it's just not so simple as that. but maybe this is more semantics between us than a clear difference. maybe you too find other references in places different than live acoustic music.

and i would also say that practically speaking; having a recording as a reference, by that i mean hearing a particular thing from a recording that you are striving for, is our real world situation that we have to work with. when i'm doing room tuning i'm trying things and then listening over and over again looking for that specific result from that recording. how can that be practically done with live music. which is why i said my references are the recording, and not live music.

so relating hifi to a music reference is not so simple a process. I do feel that separating nuances of different recordings is one of my guiding goals. I do want to hear the uniqueness of each recording. i will admit that so far the Lamm ML3 goes in the opposite direction as it certainly does add an enhanced viewpoint on the music that makes what i hear from each recording and even each format more similar than the dart 458 experience which exposed all the differences so clearly. but it's too soon to really know where that goes. i'm still learning about this. it's just a first impression and an interesting one for me who has put so much into having optimal levels of performance to hear the very best of various formats.

the ML3's are more about a different experience that is enjoyable, a different flavor of ice cream, and it does not need to do all the things that the big darts can do. i'm good with that and what i wanted from them.

 

[morricab]

The “Live” as reference not only pertains to tone, tonal depth & timbre, volume and comparative levels of unamplified instruments etc. which I call “tangibles” but the other elements that exist during a performance, the “intangibles” which include emotional content, virtuosity, the sense of presence of a person/people playing there’s pressure and energy and very importantly the ambience of the venue which is it own presence. There are a lot of elements that need to be and often is captured in analog recordings which must reproduced honestly without addition or subtraction of vital cues for a natural listening experience. The intangibles are crucial IMO and what many systems and/or setups fail to reproduce, intangibles are also what’s lost in a digital chain.

You can use the ice cream analogy if you want but don’t think of it chocolate one day then orange and pistachio on other days, pick one favorite flavor and then sampling that same flavor in different favorite spots. People often use the term plain vanilla, maybe true to some degree comparing large tubs of commercial iceream but in the high end artisanal world plain vanilla is no longer bland. Using the same ingredients each master will infuse something of himself making their plain vanilla ice cream a unique tasting experience, this is what is meant when talking about different flavors.

david

Which can all be understood with sufficient chemical analysis (the icecream I mean...I am an analytical chemist afterall )

 

[Al M.]

The “Live” as reference not only pertains to tone, tonal depth & timbre, volume and comparative levels of unamplified instruments etc. which I call “tangibles” but the other elements that exist during a performance, the “intangibles” which include emotional content, virtuosity, the sense of presence of a person/people playing there’s pressure and energy and very importantly the ambience of the venue which is it own presence. There are a lot of elements that need to be and often is captured in analog recordings which must reproduced honestly without addition or subtraction of vital cues for a natural listening experience. The intangibles are crucial IMO and what many systems and/or setups fail to reproduce, intangibles are also what’s lost in a digital chain.

The intangibles are also what’s lost in a digital chain? Fortunately, this is not my experience.

 

[morricab]

Agree with your disagreement. Continuous reference to live unamplified music is key to shaping one's system for a convincing result. And it is a humbling reference, because you'll never get there, even though a certain level of illusion of it on your system can induce excitement and satisfaction.

True, you will never quite get there but it gives you a proper "compass" to direct your quest...otherwise it becomes a bit of a random walk...

 

[Al M.]

True, you will never quite get there but it gives you a proper "compass" to direct your quest...otherwise it becomes a bit of a random walk...

...and a costly random walk, that is.

 

[morricab]

my response to you was relative to there being a singular reference for all. and one view of and consequence of that. which was the idea you seemed to be inferring.

"Do you really know what it is in your system you are striving for?"

much of my personal posting about my system development over the last few years is exactly referring to my own reference in my head guiding my room tuning. but that reference is not any particular experience, but a combination of different things I picked up over a period of time. there were a few 'ah-ha' moments where I saw in my mind where my system was not achieving this or that attribute. and i'm open to that next 'ah-ha' moment when it comes to me.

so for me personally; i reject the idea of one reference. it's just not so simple as that. but maybe this is more semantics between us than a clear difference. maybe you too find other references in places different than live acoustic music.

and i would also say that practically speaking; having a recording as a reference, by that i mean hearing a particular thing from a recording that you are striving for, is our real world situation that we have to work with. when i'm doing room tuning i'm trying things and then listening over and over again looking for that specific result from that recording. how can that be practically done with live music. which is why i said my references are the recording, and not live music.

so relating hifi to a music reference is not so simple a process. I do feel that separating nuances of different recordings is one of my guiding goals. I do want to hear the uniqueness of each recording. i will admit that so far the Lamm ML3 goes in the opposite direction as it certainly does add an enhanced viewpoint on the music that makes what i hear from each recording and even each format more similar than the dart 458 experience which exposed all the differences so clearly. but it's too soon to really know where that goes. i'm still learning about this. it's just a first impression and an interesting one for me who has put so much into having optimal levels of performance to hear the very best of various formats.

"so for me personally; i reject the idea of one reference. it's just not so simple as that." It is simple to say but not simple to execute based on that idea. "maybe you too find other references in places different than live acoustic music" No, I really do not.

"specific result from that recording" Yes, but what specific result? If you don't know what these things ought to sound like?

"so relating hifi to a music reference is not so simple a process" No, not simple at all...in fact it is much harder than a relativistic "what do I like this month" approach. Maybe not as expensive though... HP struggled with it throughout his time at TAS.

Of course I wish you luck in your journey of discovery...may the force be with you!

 

[morricab]

...and a costly random walk, that is.

Indeed

 

[Al M.]

"so for me personally; i reject the idea of one reference. it's just not so simple as that." It is simple to say but not simple to execute based on that idea. "maybe you too find other references in places different than live acoustic music" No, I really do not.

"specific result from that recording" Yes, but what specific result? If you don't know what these things ought to sound like?

"so relating hifi to a music reference is not so simple a process" No, not simple at all...in fact it is much harder than a relativistic "what do I like this month" approach. Maybe not as expensive though... HP struggled with it throughout his time at TAS.

Well said.

 

[JackD201]

When I was a lot younger I bought into the unamplified live music thing of HP. Now I actually think it is limiting. It's now the baseline not the peak. After all, it is only a small subset of our daily auditory processing the sum of which creates our overall sense of what sounds real. The change came when I studied sound for film where not just the score or dialogue matters, everything does. Footsteps, paper rustling on a desk, friction of cloth in the clothing, wind, still air, reverberation. What sounds most real to me is what doesn't get in the way. I can understand the allure of having loads of "wow" moments but that in itself can become tiresome if not set within the context of the music. I'll take Coltrane is playing great to Damn that sax sounds goooood! most of the time. That said who doesn't like pretty sound? I'll take that to tuning that is only communicative with only the best sounding recordings but still...ultimately I'd ALSO want to have raw physicality when the music has raw elements. So, I see no reason why someone can't go and enjoy differing presentations of works of art. I've been living with excellent horns and Lamm ML2.1s for months now. Could I live with them. yes I could. Will I? No. Would I like to have another system based on this someday, yes and I pray I will. Ultimately my compass is different. It is different because I don't hear and listen to only live unamplified music. There's nothing random about that. I think Mike and I are in similar places. We listen to a lot of amplified music and I personally listen to a lot of music with synthesized sound. Believe it or not, these are just as difficult to get sounding "real".

 

[jeff1225]

When I was a lot younger I bought into the unamplified live music thing of HP. Now I actually think it is limiting. It's now the baseline not the peak. After all, it is only a small subset of our daily auditory processing the sum of which creates our overall sense of what sounds real. The change came when I studied sound for film where not just the score or dialogue matters, everything does. Footsteps, paper rustling on a desk, friction of cloth in the clothing, wind, still air, reverberation. What sounds most real to me is what doesn't get in the way. I can understand the allure of having loads of "wow" moments but that in itself can become tiresome if not set within the context of the music. I'll take Coltrane is playing great to Damn that sax sounds goooood! most of the time. That said who doesn't like pretty sound? I'll take that to tuning that is only communicative with only the best sounding recordings but still...ultimately I'd ALSO want to have raw physicality when the music has raw elements. So, I see no reason why someone can't go and enjoy differing presentations of works of art. I've been living with excellent horns and Lamm ML2.1s for months now. Could I live with them. yes I could. Will I? No. Would I like to have another system based on this someday, yes and I pray I will. Ultimately my compass is different. It is different because I don't hear and listen to only live unamplified music. There's nothing random about that. I think Mike and I are in similar places. We listen to a lot of amplified music and I personally listen to a lot of music with synthesized sound. Believe it or not, these are just as difficult to get sounding "real".

What horns Jack?