Natural Sound

[Al M.]

Ralph’s amps are a different approach from Lamm. I and others made the same choice. I can’t explain the technical reasons as Ralph can, but I know which sounds more natural to me and which sounds more like music.

You mean judging from a system video? Really?

 

[Al M.]

Al, Do you think such a thread title is an invitation for manufacturers to come onto someone’s system thread and describe deficiencies about gear choices made by the author and then present alternatives that they claim their designs seem to solve?

As Micro says, it's a very general title, and thus invites all kinds of comments.

 

[microstrip]

SET amps, vintage horn speakers, and vintage turntables are a specific approach to playback Pioneered by Japanese audiophiles. DDK took this approach and married it with LAMM’s designs. I have also taken this approach but I’m not using Lamm.

Do you think that this approach did not exist before Japanese audiophiles took it? As far as I know Lamm was started in 1993.

BTW, people interested in the 60's and 70's Japanese audiophiles can find great descriptive articles in the L'Audiophile, including details of several great systems building.

These systems are not typical audiophile systems. They do not image nor do they have extreme detail. But, when you see a live orchestra, there is not imaging or extreme detail.

Great audiophile systems do not have extreme detail, but they convey extreme information - very different things.

Curiously, when we see a live orchestra, there is imaging and lots of added detail. Most people look for the best seats for the visual, not just for sound.

In general, the objective of sound reproduction is using enough of the substance of the real performance, including the type of visual information we get at real performances, to create an enjoyable listening. Many sound engineers work hard to encode all this information in the recording.

 

[microstrip]

Judging a book by its cover is a shallow way to assess its contents.

Yes, Peter would probably be disappointed by this one.

 

[Atmasphere]

I believe balanced systems are less natural than un-balanced systems like Lamm.

When you play an LP or most CDs, balanced lines are involved. If you used un-balanced connections as an alternative in the recording you'd get considerably less natural sound (for example, very likely a loss of high frequencies, plus the cables would introduce their own 'sound'). IOW doing so would render high fidelity recordings impossible. Balanced lines, along with the tape recorder, more than any other technology, ushered in the age of high fidelity.

Yet we all use recordings in our pursuit of Natural Sound.

Its pretty obvious irony is still a thing

Ralph’s amps are a different approach from Lamm.

This statement isn't accurate. In talking to Vlad, it was apparent that he and I had the same goals and to that effect, understood the same things about human hearing in order to achieve them. We went about our goals differently. So yes, a different approach in some ways but with a similar result. I liked Vlad; he was easy to talk to and was gracious when I needed a part when servicing one of his amps.

Your story about me is apparently made up and therefore mostly fictitious.

For example you seem to think I'm here to promote my products. If that is so, then your surmise is false. That set of filters then seems to have gone on to prevent you in seeing how to improve your existing system. Since I don't know you, never met you and so on, it would be pretty dumb for me to take all this personally. If you ever wondered how I maintain decorum under internet attack its the knowledge of that simple fact.

So I'll put it to you again. Bass is screwing up the sound of your system. LPs produce low frequencies via record warp. Your speakers can't reproduce anything near that. Your speakers really don't reproduce much below 40Hz. So if you simply limited the bass going into your amps with a -3dB point at 40Hz you'd notice an immediate increase in clarity and jump factor. That can be done with a simple capacitor of the right value.

Seems to me I advised Ron of this idea on his system thread. I think he took it seriously. You could ask him about the results with his 'Italians'.

But you're not interested because somehow I'm promoting my equipment by telling you how things work. You could solve that issue by simply trying it...

Folks, please do not 'like' or respond to this post with one of the emoji thingys. The site alerts me; when I see stuff that is obviously wrong or the like I feel a compulsion to set the record straight. Probably more of my own doing the same thing expecting different results...

 

[jeff1225]

Do you think that this approach did not exist before Japanese audiophiles took it? As far as I know Lamm was started in 1993.

BTW, people interested in the 60's and 70's Japanese audiophiles can find great descriptive articles in the L'Audiophile, including details of several great systems building.

View attachment 162137



Great audiophile systems do not have extreme detail, but they convey extreme information - very different things.

Curiously, when we see a live orchestra, there is imaging and lots of added detail. Most people look for the best seats for the visual, not just for sound.

In general, the objective of sound reproduction is using enough of the substance of the real performance, including the type of visual information we get at real performances, to create an enjoyable listening. Many sound engineers work hard to encode all this information in the recording.

My research has shown to me that Japanese audiophiles pioneered the SET/vintage horn speakers movement. Don Garber from Fi brought SET’s to America and did much to promote the design.

LAMM’s contributions were many. I wish he was still creating.

 

[PeterA]

You mean judging from a system video? Really?

No, not at all. Judging from what I actually heard with my own ears, both at shows and in people’s rooms. Lamm vs Atmosphere. Each of us judges based on our own criteria and values and than makes his choice.

 

[hopkins]

Great audiophile systems do not have extreme detail, but they convey extreme information - very different things

Can you elaborate?

 

[microstrip]

My research has shown to me that Japanese audiophiles pioneered the SET/vintage horn speakers movement. Don Garber from Fi brought SET’s to America and did much to promote the design.

Can you put dates on that movement? Don Garber amplifiers are from the early 90's, in Europe we had DIY SET projects and analysis in the late 70's. probably due to the influence of Jean Hiraga.

LAMM’s contributions were many. I wish he was still creating.

Probably, but unfortunately hard to enumerate.

 

[jeff1225]

Can you put dates on that movement? Don Garber amplifiers are from the early 90's, in Europe we had DIY SET projects and analysis in the late 70's. probably due to the influence of Jean Hiraga.



Probably, but unfortunately hard to enumerate.

Hiraga was an absolutely amazing hobbyist. He brought the Japanese style to Europe much sooner than it came to America.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Amir, I can’t speak for Kedar or Tim, but I never wrote that analog tube horns is more realistic sound. What I wrote, and what this entire thread is about, is that my current system, and DDK’s systems, sound more natural than my former system, and others I have heard. One of his speakers is cones and he has digital and not just SET. Natural sound is a reference to a specific approach and set up, not typology.

but using such a universal term as natural and then asking for readers to assign a narrow limited viewpoint for how you use it, and not feel it's exclusionary is just unrealistic. we continue to have this same conversation when you attempt to defend it as no big deal. it will always cause a little rancor. and invite comments. ho hum.

 

[PeterA]

Great audiophile systems do not have extreme detail, but they convey extreme information - very different things.

I referred to information since long. Yes, detail and information are very different. Many recordings are close mic’d and we hear everything from the perspective of a fly buzzing around a violin, not from the listening seat in the 10th row.

In the 10th row, you hear a lot of information from the hall, the stage, the gestalt of the orchestra. Perhaps more from even further back. You do not necessarily hear the oboist breathing or the conductor flipping the pages. Some audio files like that detail. And if it is on the recording, their systems should present it. Hi-fidelity systems present the detail from recordings that capture the detail. Often, the audio listener must be happy with a presentation that strikes a balance between the detail created by the engineer and the listening perspective of the concert goer.

A natural presentation is the one that reminds one of the listening experience he has when attending a live performance. He does not hear the Viola from the perspective of the violinist sitting next to him, devoid of ambiance and scale. Information captured and then presented to the listener in the room is more comprehensive and complete.

If a system presents every recording as though it is a zoomed in sonic picture of each instrument and voice up on stage, one must ask himself if that sounds natural.

 

[PeterA]

but using such a universal term as natural and then asking for readers to assign a narrow limited viewpoint for how you use it, and not feel it's exclusionary is just unrealistic. we continue to have this same conversation when you attempt to defend it as no big deal. it will always cause a little rancor. and invite comments. ho hum.

Mike, Take a look at the list of attributes that I posted on the first page of this thread and ask yourself if your system hits all of those. Then you will know how narrow the viewpoint is. As I say, it has nothing to do with typology so people should not take offense.

I think the title thread is a distraction from the current discussion. My complaint is of a manufacturer, though it could be any hobbyist member, who comes on to someone else’s system thread and says he knows better. And it is unsolicited. How would you like a turntable manufacturer coming onto your thread and saying that your efforts at idler turntables or direct drive turntables can’t produce natural sound and only belt drive turntables can. Or a tube manufacturer coming onto your thread and saying solid state amplifiers can’t produce natural sound. Would you think that is normal behavior and in the spirit of this convivial group of hobbyists?

 

[tima]

Musicians and classical music experts or lovers are in generally considered poor choices for general evaluation of sound reproduction. It is why it is extremely important to know in detail about the reviewer preferences when reading a review - something that it is systematically absent in video "pseudo-reviews". Good magazines and sites allow us to find it easily.

I've been including words such as these at the outset of the sonic description of my reviews

My approach to reviewing is to describe what I hear in musical language and audiophile terms. When I describe music I am giving my impressions of what I hear with the component under review. I use the sound of live acoustic music as my reference for assessing realism in reproduction rather than comparing to another piece of stereo equipment. That does not mean comparing a specific live concert against a recording of that concert. Rather, it cashes out as using my auditory template accumulated across years of exposure to live performances, from sitting next to musicians while they play, and from my own training in piano and clarinet. Our ears do not let us confuse stereo reproduction with live music, but different stereo components and systems do sound more or less believable than others. ref

 

[hopkins]

I referred to information since long. Yes, detail and information are very different. Many recordings are close mic’d and we hear everything from the perspective of a fly buzzing around a violin, not from the listening seat in the 10th row.

In the 10th row, you hear a lot of information from the hall, the stage, the gestalt of the orchestra. Perhaps more from even further back. You do not necessarily hear the oboist breathing or the conductor flipping the pages. Some audio files like that detail. And if it is on the recording, their systems should present it. Hi-fidelity systems present the detail from recordings that capture the detail. Often, the audio listener must be happy with a presentation that strikes a balance between the detail created by the engineer and the listening perspective of the concert goer.

A natural presentation is the one that reminds one of the listening experience he has when attending a live performance. He does not hear the Viola from the perspective of the violinist sitting next to him, devoid of ambiance and scale. Information captured and then presented to the listener in the room is more comprehensive and complete.

Here you are describing differences in recordings.
For a system, is the distinction relevant? I’m not so sure.

 

[PeterA]

Here you are describing differences in recordings.
For a system, is the distinction relevant? I’m not so sure.

It depends if each recording is presented the same. If it is, the system is not very revealing. If different recordings sound different, that is a good start. Then, how natural or convincing do they sound and does the system disappear leaving the music to be enjoyed? Does one get lost or does he focus on the sound of the system? If all he hears is detail on every recording, that is a system problem. If the system presents the essence of the information on the recording in a natural way, then the system is successful in my opinion.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, Take a look at the list of attributes that I posted on the first page of this thread and ask yourself if your system hits all of those. Then you will know how narrow the viewpoint is. As I say, it has nothing to do with typology so people should not take offense.

fair enough.

I think the title thread is a distraction from the current discussion. My complaint is of a manufacturer, though it could be any hobbyist member, who comes on to someone else’s system thread and says he knows better. And it is unsolicited.

you mean like here and this post here.

 

[PeterA]

you mean like here and this post here.

That is not your system thread, Mike. That thread was about a specific turntable. Phoenix Engineering was treated very badly. I don’t blame him for leaving WBF. Another loss of someone with superior knowledge and experience.

I don’t see the point you’re trying to make. This thread is my system thread. It is not a thread about a specific piece of equipment like the Lamm ML2 amplifier or American sound AS 2000 turntable. If it were, I would welcome comments about the designs of those products.

 

[tima]

but using such a universal term as natural and then asking for readers to assign a narrow limited viewpoint for how you use it, and not feel it's exclusionary is just unrealistic. we continue to have this same conversation when you attempt to defend it as no big deal. it will always cause a little rancor. and invite comments. ho hum.

Yes, you are perennialy sensitive about the title of Peter's system thread. I see nowhere does it request of others to do anything. You fail/refuse to make the distinction between Peter's naming his system thread versus seeing it as some some sort of prescription or declaration directed at others. From what are you being excluded, Mike, by Peter's account laid out in his opening 10 posts?

You say you don't attend many live performances and you'd rather listen to your stereo.

A natural presentation is the one that reminds one of the listening experience he has when attending a live performance.

Is this why you feel excluded?

Here you are whining about it again with no effort on your part to describe your own system unambiguously in terms of your philosophy about listening and how you achieved what you prefer, muchless a description of how you think stereo reproduction should sound. What you seem to offer is a self-centered response from your high horse about how offended you are at a thread title. Why is that important to you?

Why not make a positive contribution?

[

 

[PeterA]

Can you elaborate?

Here is a wonderful quote from Karen Sumner here on WBF touching on the differences between capturing maximum information from the grooves of a record versus focusing on detail:

“Achieving and maintaining a believable level of tonal density in a hi fi system should be the foundation of building any system regardless of its price tag or the type of music that one prefers. Unfortunately, it is the first quality to fall by the wayside in a quest to hear more information. I think this is at least in part due to the fact that music cannot be played in a home setting on the scale and volume of music played live, and recordings also have their limitations in terms of capturing the scale and volume of live music. If we are on the hi fi improvement path, we just get inexorably drawn into trying to compensate for these limitations. Most of us tend to choose components or room set ups that reduce middle frequencies and lower harmonics below the level that they are present on the source material because large and enveloping middle frequencies and lower harmonics seem to diminish some of the detail that we think we need to hear. The result is a rather antiseptic listening experience where middle frequencies and lower harmonics are “purified” of their essential character. Reducing the power of midrange to hear more details is hi fi, not music, and I don’t mean “hi fi” in any pejorative sense if that is what you really want.”