ying and yang--Lamm ML3 and darTZeel 458

[ddk]

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

You get the recipe but not what's in the water! I'm sure you've heard an Italian or two telling you that .

david

 

[bonzo75]

I think the way some posts read is "I go to live concerts, and so the system I own should be considered as reference. And shi**y state amps cannot recreate what I have at home, hence Mike's system cannot probably recreate live concerts".

 

[morricab]

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".

"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"

How would you ever know unless you were right there in the studio or withe headphones on as the electronic "musician" composed his track on the computer? These are not sounds you can hear everyday, unless you are a musician or have one in the house of course. If you live with someone who rocks out with a guitar and a guitar amp then that could be considered a real reference...except that all recorded electric guitars can sound literally like anything! A classical guitar will always sound more or less the same within a fairly limited band by comparison.

 

[morricab]

You get the recipe but not what's in the water! I'm sure you've heard an Italian or two telling you that .

david

For sure the complexity is prohibitive...easier to just get it from the source than try to recreate it .

 

[JackD201]

What horns Jack?

Sierras Jeff. Premium compression drivers on l'cleach types with front horn bass. Duelund cabling and caps, and carbon graphite resistors. Just one each for each midrange horn. Jazz is just KILLER with these.

 

[morricab]

I think the way some posts read is "I go to live concerts, and so the system I own should be considered as reference. And shi**y state amps cannot recreate what I have at home, hence Mike's system cannot probably recreate live concerts".

I don't see that anyone has said anything remotely like this but I guess you have tried to read between about 20 different lines? For myself, I never heard Mike's system with or without Lamms, so it is impossible for me to know which is more realistic; however, i can take an educated guess which I would think sounds more "real"...maybe I would be wrong...who knows?

 

[morricab]

Sierras Jeff. Premium compression drivers on l'cleach types with front horn bass. Duelund cabling and caps, and carbon graphite resistors. Just one each for each midrange horn. Jazz is just KILLER with these.

And this doesn't do justice to Rock and electronic music? What is not there? I have horns with SET and honestly rock and electronic sound phenomenal (I especially like old ZZ top, Police, Fleetwood Mac and Dead Can Dance with this setup)

 

[JackD201]

"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"

How would you ever know unless you were right there in the studio or withe headphones on as the electronic "musician" composed his track on the computer? These are not sounds you can hear everyday, unless you are a musician or have one in the house of course. If you live with someone who rocks out with a guitar and a guitar amp then that could be considered a real reference...except that all recorded electric guitars can sound literally like anything! A classical guitar will always sound more or less the same within a fairly limited band by comparison.

Why are you stuck on situations? What I'm saying is that we all have our personal concepts of what things "should" sound like and that is what makes up what sounds real. Our own paradigms so to speak built over time through our experiences. I've never heard Frank Sinatra live. I know it's him when I hear him. It is the same thing as that live unamplified music mantra which I think is being put on too high a pedestal. It should sound "like" a live set while it is a given that you should have actually lived a little and gone to see more than a few. You were not at the concert in the recording either, you've been to concerts but not that one. You know simply because you know what sounds realistic and that has nothing to do with having been there. Synthesized music today are made with layered samples of real sounds for the most part. The same thing applies here. The thing with synthesized music is that you have to accept that you get what you get because these are layers of imagined timbres and textures. Music that make use of a lot of synthesis is usually played in public events so there too are "life" references. Places you can be brought back too whether it is going nuts in a club or lazing in front of a beach sunset. Sorry I'm just in a bad mood but since we're nitpicking, the musicians and every other person present on the floor or behind the desk heard that session differently too so I don't know where you pulled that one from. Synthesized, amplified, unamplified, all the above, or just one, other than a few occasions, none of us were there.

 

[thedudeabides]

And let’s see his emotional connection to the music,

With all due respect, why would that matter?

It's ML's connection to the music. That's the bottom line.

 

[JackD201]

And this doesn't do justice to Rock and electronic music? What is not there? I have horns with SET and honestly rock and electronic sound phenomenal (I especially like old ZZ top, Police, Fleetwood Mac and Dead Can Dance with this setup)

It does not do justice to music with low mid bass energy like many of my old classical run of the mill box sets. Do I think that it is the speaker and amps fault? No. I could fix that easily with a conical stylus cart for one. Put on another arm when I'm listening to something else. Come on we all do that and you horn guys probably do it more. All the guys I know save one with more carts than I do are horn guys. Coincidence, maybe, maybe not. Back to these wonderful horns, it does a lot of great things. Violin solos are breathtaking, woodwinds are glorious, well recorded voice, impact I could go on and on. Remember I said I will have one, it just isn't my main one. I'm not ANTI lates make that very clear. Oh and it does most electronic music MIGHTY FINE. It can be beat with ambient genres. What they are very intolerant of is wall of sound mixes with a lot of bleeding. This overlay of channel strip distortions are laid very very prominently and this makes most pop and rock a tiring experience despite having triodes throughout the chain. Over the last few months I've come to believe that this is mostly because of the more direct dispersion relative to conventional speakers. There's a concentration of energy that is mostly blessing but sometimes curse too. Of course the same is true the other way with conventional speakers being found distant by comparison.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I don't see that anyone has said anything remotely like this but I guess you have tried to read between about 20 different lines? For myself, I never heard Mike's system with or without Lamms, so it is impossible for me to know which is more realistic; however, i can take an educated guess which I would think sounds more "real"...maybe I would be wrong...who knows?

Brad,

I think if we were listening to both the Lamm ML3's and then the dart 458's back to back in my system, we would have much to talk about. and it would involve preferences for sure. but the truth of certain things would also be undeniable.

maybe some day it might happen.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I dont understand the better thing really.
I Just wanna get An audiothrill when i cranck the system up.
Hifi is pretty simple .
Lanm. Dartzeel i suppose its all good stuff

 

[andromedaaudio]

Would love to try Them Both on my speakers , always great trying new gear

 

[853guy]

"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"

How would you ever know unless you were right there in the studio or withe headphones on as the electronic "musician" composed his track on the computer? These are not sounds you can hear everyday, unless you are a musician or have one in the house of course. If you live with someone who rocks out with a guitar and a guitar amp then that could be considered a real reference...except that all recorded electric guitars can sound literally like anything! A classical guitar will always sound more or less the same within a fairly limited band by comparison.

Why are you stuck on situations? What I'm saying is that we all have our personal concepts of what things "should" sound like and that is what makes up what sounds real. Our own paradigms so to speak built over time through our experiences. I've never heard Frank Sinatra live. I know it's him when I hear him. It is the same thing as that live unamplified music mantra which I think is being put on too high a pedestal. It should sound "like" a live set while it is a given that you should have actually lived a little and gone to see more than a few. You were not at the concert in the recording either, you've been to concerts but not that one. You know simply because you know what sounds realistic and that has nothing to do with having been there. Synthesized music today are made with layered samples of real sounds for the most part. The same thing applies here. The thing with synthesized music is that you have to accept that you get what you get because these are layers of imagined timbres and textures. Music that make use of a lot of synthesis is usually played in public events so there too are "life" references. Places you can be brought back too whether it is going nuts in a club or lazing in front of a beach sunset. Sorry I'm just in a bad mood but since we're nitpicking, the musicians and every other person present on the floor or behind the desk heard that session differently too so I don't know where you pulled that one from. Synthesized, amplified, unamplified, all the above, or just one, other than a few occasions, none of us were there.

Hi morricab, hi Jack,

I think I understand and appreciate what you're both saying.

For me, trying to reproduce the sound of live unamplified instruments is perhaps a worthy goal in theory, but impossible in practice. Our systems cannot ever reproduce the sound of live unamplified instruments because that sound is fundamentally ephemeral - an event that starts and stops in time and must be perceived by a perceiver. If one is not present, one cannot perceive it.

Our systems attempt to reproduce a recording of an event in time, which is completely dependent on the presence of a recording mechanism. That is, we’re never ever listening to the sound of live unamplified instruments via prerecorded music - only live unamplified instruments as “perceived” by an interdependent chain of mic, mic-pre, recording device and recording medium. Once the music hits the mic diaphragm, it is no longer live, nor unamplified - it is transformed into electrical energy, and then stored, and I cannot percieve that electrical energy save for a mechanism to convert it back to sound.

So we are always listening to a mechanism stored in a medium replayed via another mechanism, not an event (since the event itself no longer exists in time).

The recording mechanism is itself always subject to the preferences of the one who is tasked with recording, not only in terms of gear selection, but also mic placement, all of which are done relative to subjectivized choices on behalf of the recording engineer.

Therefore, I do not need a system that references the sound of live unamplified instruments since I cannot be everywhere where live unamplified music happens, particularly if it happened before my existence - it is its own entity that lives and dies in time. I need a system that can convey the intention of the recording engineer, and much more importantly, the intention of the musicians as slaved to the recording mechanism. It’s musical intention that differentiates Cortot from Rubinstein, Page from Iommi, Nine Inch Nails from KMFDM, Ella from Aretha - even in as much as there are sonic differences.

How can I know what is more real, especially if there is no precedent for what Nine Inch Nails should sound like? By understanding what it is about each musician’s intention that makes them unique, and sound more like themselves, and less like a clone of themselves.

To me the best systems are not ones that attempt to imitate a sound that can only ever be perceived by the individual subjectively in time - for just as the event is perceived subjectively, so too the recording mechanism is subjectivized, as is the playback mechanism. To me the best systems are the ones that most differentiate why Cortot sounds nothing like Rubinstein and vice versa. That the ML3 may convey as aspect of what makes each musician's intention unique in a way that is different to say, the way the 458 conveys it, providing additional insight into the how and why of musical artistry, sounds like a great way of appreciating what each musician brings to a piece of music, even when playing the exact same piece of music.

Best,

853guy

 

[DaveyF]

Not sure why any of the comparisons between our perceptions of the ‘live’ event and Mike’s reason for the acquisition of the ML3’s is relevant??
Anyhow, as I said before, I completely understand where Mike is coming from, having done something similar myself. SS amps have a certain flavor...and excel in certain areas, tube amps have a slightly different flavor, and excel in other areas. Having the ability to hear both in your system makes perfect sense to me.
I would go even further, and say that it should be almost mandatory that if an a’phile has the means to accomplish it, that acquiring both technologies be done.
BTW, whenever I have played my Taylor ( acoustic steel 6 string guitar)to any of my visiting a’phile friends and then gotten their feedback, the one thing that is consistent (besides the dropped jaw) is the comment that the sound ‘explodes’ into the room, unlike anything they have ever heard reproduced. That is in many ways the difference between the ‘live’ experience and the reproduced, and why most of us can instantly tell if it is ‘live’ or memorex!

 

[JackD201]

I think it is relevant because Mike just wants two versions of music, with amps in this case, and not just one. Like you, what I am wondering about is why this is a big deal. You don't see debates like this when he changes cart or tape head right? Like all of us he is finding his way and enjoying while he's at it. I like the continuous learning. For me that makes the hobby more fun. If I were forced to listen to music one way, I'd go nuts.

 

[ddk]

BTW, whenever I have played my Taylor ( acoustic steel 6 string guitar)to any of my visiting a’phile friends and then gotten their feedback, the one thing that is consistent (besides the dropped jaw) is the comment that the sound ‘explodes’ into the room, unlike anything they have ever heard reproduced. That is in many ways the difference between the ‘live’ experience and the reproduced, and why most of us can instantly tell if it is ‘live’ or memorex!

Depends on the venue, recording and the system Davey, that same explosion heard 5' away will be barely noticeable if played at a typical rock venue stadium, amplify and crank it up as you want but it's the not same. Context matters.

david

PS. 1:1 reproduction isn't essential to having a natural and realistic experience with reproduced sound, the mind is a complex instrument and as long as enough natural queues are present without competition and distraction then the brain can fill up the gaps.

david

 

[LL21]

You can have the live swings without the live levels...if your system is good enough at low volumes. I learned this with good electrostats. They can go down down down in level without falling apart and so you just shift your SPL register down as well to fit their comfort range and you still do pretty well. My horns allow a wider range so I open them up a bit more but still short of true live levels most of the time...the dynamics are still there but not the live SPLs (which would probably have my wife kill me most of the time).

If your system doesn't play well quietly then you should change it. This is very important for many other reasons like micro-dynamic retrieval and soundspace retrieval. it should also be able to resolve very low level sounds in the presence of loud sounds...something the late Allen Wright called Downward Dynamic Range (DDR).

I disagree somewhat about the live dynamics at home...for large music I agree completely but for smaller ensembles it is definitely possible to do it correctly and I have heard it in a few top systems. it should be able to handle at least a quartet of musicians (classical or otherwise).

I get this. After 3+ years of isolation, grounding, emi/rfi shielding...at volume 1 the music feels surprisingly 'whole' and dynamics feel akin to being further away from a performance (ie, quieter, but you still hear the 'swells' in the music). But it took all that time to get it right and hone, hone, hone away the noise. I am sure there is more to go, but this dynamic capability has changed a lot during this time to where listening at 1 is sometimes all i need at 3am...while 28 (now) also seems fine and perfectly at ease...and not at all 'shimmering/shaking' due to dynamics the system cannot handle.

 

[LL21]

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?

Ron,

Given our collective discussion on ice cream last nite, how about this?

Given that there is no perfect audio system, what are your personal priorities in sound when you select a system/component? (you can select your own):


- Detail Retrieval
- Full-range Extension
- Midrange magic
- Effortless all out dynamic range
- Absolutely ruler-flat technical performance
- Absolutely extended, filigreed highs...but not one iota of harshness
- Deep propulsive bass

 

[the sound of Tao]

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.

I do very much get and appreciate your approach and the way you validate your experiences, I’ve said it before that I figure I would probably very likely love your choices of gear as I also share appreciation of the types of gear that you champion. I just have softened through time on my aims and see latitude in a range of approaches being valid and being all able to end in the notion of connecting to the music rather than any one held judgement on sound. I do find that when you stop looking at the sound the music just comes through easier and that identification with sound may be an impediment to music.

I do very much respect everyone’s right to create and validate their experiences in the framework they need as in the end an experience is ultimately singular even when it’s shared so it’s just for me these notions of only one way to get there that I just can’t agree with.

Pursuing understanding with science or philosophy or through art and music are all wonderfully valid systems but also they are discretely separate dimensions of being. If we set up our systems just to play music that is all we need to evaluate the quality of our efforts and this is only ever a purely individual evaluation. If our aim is to reproduce sound that is a different matter again. The meaning or purpose of a thing sets up the only true rules of assessment and these may be different for each of us and even different for any of us at different times. I’m not sure that being conscious of any of it is even essential to any full and real experience. Being conscious of a thing can be something of a double edged sword. It may prove to be a limit in our appreciation.

One thing that I am sure of is that there is a remarkable amount of effort put in by many in trying to get a hang on how experience relates to reality and this music and audio journey is certainly a rich experience whether we come to any conclusions or not.