“Physicality” in sound: my novel theory of its basis.

[microstrip]

Wonderful quote. I understand this is exactly why he thought it was sufficient to simply declare, “this is natural sound” and leave it at that.

Yes, probably you and a few Lamm fans ...

Apparently he had no need for the much celebrated glossary of audiophile terms.

Yes, he left such task to reviewers that fortunately would tell people how the Lamm's played.

BTW, can you explain me why a recent picture of Elina and Esther Lamm shows Lamm's with a TechDas turntable and Wilson Audio XVX speakers?

 

[PeterA]

BTW, can you explain me why a recent picture of Elina and Esther Lamm shows Lamm's with a TechDas turntable and Wilson Audio XVX speakers?

I can make a guess. Vladimir is no longer with them so they made a choice based on marketing and commercial interests rather than on sound quality and the pursuit of a presentation with physicality. I picked up Vladimir’s long-term reference turntable, the American sound AS 1000 from Elina at old Esther’s house after Vladimir died.

 

[microstrip]

I can make a guess. Vladimir is no longer with them so they made a choice based on marketing and commercial interests rather than on sound quality and the pursuit of a presentation with physicality. I picked up Vladimir’s long-term reference turntable, the American sound AS 1000 from Elina at old Esther’s house after Vladimir died.

Thanks - don't you currently own the AS-2000?

 

[Ron Resnick]

I can make a guess. Vladimir is no longer with them so they made a choice based on marketing and commercial interests rather than on sound quality and the pursuit of a presentation with physicality.

Maybe not everybody likes the sound that you personally and subjectively prefer, made by the components you personally and subjectively prefer?

Are you aware that some audiophiles actually like the sound of TechDAS turntables and XVX loudspeakers? Or do you believe that every audiophile who purchases a TechDAS turntable or XVX loudspeakers is a deluded noob who was swindled by a wily salesman and is now stuck with awful sound the audiophile dreads?

Maybe, just maybe, Elina wants to show off Lamm electronics with a front end and with speakers she thinks people will like the sound of, and at the same time suggest that Lamm electronics also sound good with associated components from this century?

 

[PeterA]

Thanks - don't you currently own the AS-2000?

Yes. But I had the opportunity to listen to the AS 1000 in my own system first. I shared all of my comparative listening notes in my system thread.

 

[Al M.]

Maybe not everybody likes the sound that you personally and subjectively prefer, made by the components you personally and subjectively prefer?

Are you aware that some audiophiles actually like the sound of TechDAS turntables and XVX loudspeakers? Or do you believe that every audiophile who purchases a TechDAS turntable or XVX loudspeakers is a deluded noob who was swindled by a wily salesman and is now stuck with awful sound the audiophile dreads?

Maybe, just maybe, Elina wants to show off Lamm electronics with a front end and with speakers she thinks people will like the sound of, and at the same time suggest that Lamm electronics also sound good with associated components from this century?

The TechDAS AF1 is an excellent turntable that sounds very lively and dynamic, as I was able to recently hear at Steve Williams' house. Reports that it sounds "lifeless" are incomprehensible to me.

 

[PeterA]

Maybe not everybody likes the sound that you personally and subjectively prefer, made by the components you personally and subjectively prefer?

Are you aware that some audiophiles actually like the sound of TechDAS turntables and XVX loudspeakers? Or do you believe that every audiophile who purchases a TechDAS turntable or XVX loudspeakers is a deluded noob who was swindled by a wily salesman and is now stuck with awful sound the audiophile dreads?

Maybe, just maybe, Elina wants to show off Lamm electronics with a front end and with speakers she thinks people will like the sound of, and at the same time suggest that Lamm electronics also sound good with associated components from this century?

Ron. I was asked to give my opinion. I gave it based on conversations I’ve had about this choice of equipment. It has to do with commercial considerations because people could not buy the turntable that Vladimir used for his own personal reference.

Vladimir often showed his amplifiers with commercially available gear because he had relationships with other manufacturers and wanted to show his amplifiers in context with gear that people could actually purchase.

It has nothing to do with my personal preferences. Vladimir used what he used privately and for marketing and business reasons showed his amplifiers with gear that other people could buy. Surely as a dealer and member of the industry you understand this. Sometimes business necessity overrides personal choices.

 

[LL21]

Maybe not everybody likes the sound that you personally and subjectively prefer, made by the components you personally and subjectively prefer?

Are you aware that some audiophiles actually like the sound of TechDAS turntables and XVX loudspeakers? Or do you believe that every audiophile who purchases a TechDAS turntable or XVX loudspeakers is a deluded noob who was swindled by a wily salesman and is now stuck with awful sound the audiophile dreads?

Maybe, just maybe, Elina wants to show off Lamm electronics with a front end and with speakers she thinks people will like the sound of, and at the same time suggest that Lamm electronics also sound good with associated components from this century?

speaking of which, Ron, I just discovered that the main listening room on Mono & Stereo (Matej Isak) is a pair of Wilson XVX + dual Subsonics. Did you know about this? Would love to know if you've ever spoken with Matej about his choice there...he must have had every speaker available given the price point of the XVX + dual Subsonics.

 

[Ron Resnick]

speaking of which, Ron, I just discovered that the main listening room on Mono & Stereo (Matej Isak) is a pair of Wilson XVX + dual Subsonics. Did you know about this?

no

 

[Vinicius297]

I should amend my statement that triangles have physicality without weight. “Physicality” by definition entails “weight”; what I meant is that with a triangle there’s far less than with a bass drum, for example. I was trying to separate “physicality” from the kind of “heaviness” you get from lots of bass. Oddly, bass generally sounds less “physical” than the midrange and “presence” spectrum in the sense of reach-out-and-touch-it immediacy. But I can only guess why. My definition of “physicality” is whatever it is that, without you needing to think about and analyze, makes the listener believe it’s “live” rather than “reproduced”.
As for whether tradeoffs are inherent in audio reproduction: my point was that sound has many facets and that some of these appear to be at loggerheads with one another. I’ve said that horns, by the fundamental way they generate sound, give the impression of “physicality” that I believe is the primary factor in sounding like”live” instruments and voices. But the problem is that it’s difficult to design a horn that doesn’t have problems in other facets of sound. And to get uncompromised bass you need a really big speaker while ideally a speaker should be microphone-sized. And ideally speakers should be a single driver but it’s impossible to get a single driver to perfectly cover the entire spectrum so you need multiple drivers and crossovers. As I said, inherent tradeoffs. Which is not to say that tradeoffs can’t be optimized to suit individual requirements.
Which is why there are so many different designs.,

 

[LL21]

no

I have emailed him already.

 

[LL21]

I should amend my statement that triangles have physicality without weight. “Physicality” by definition entails “weight”; what I meant is that with a triangle there’s far less than with a bass drum, for example. I was trying to separate “physicality” from the kind of “heaviness” you get from lots of bass. Oddly, bass generally sounds less “physical” than the midrange and “presence” spectrum in the sense of reach-out-and-touch-it immediacy. But I can only guess why. My definition of “physicality” is whatever it is that, without you needing to think about and analyze, makes the listener believe it’s “live” rather than “reproduced”.
As for whether tradeoffs are inherent in audio reproduction: my point was that sound has many facets and that some of these appear to be at loggerheads with one another. I’ve said that horns, by the fundamental way they generate sound, give the impression of “physicality” that I believe is the primary factor in sounding like”live” instruments and voices. But the problem is that it’s difficult to design a horn that doesn’t have problems in other facets of sound. And to get uncompromised bass you need a really big speaker while ideally a speaker should be microphone-sized. And ideally speakers should be a single driver but it’s impossible to get a single driver to perfectly cover the entire spectrum so you need multiple drivers and crossovers. As I said, inherent tradeoffs. Which is not to say that tradeoffs can’t be optimized to suit individual requirements.
Which is why there are so many different designs.,

Indeed!

 

[PeterA]

I should amend my statement that triangles have physicality without weight. “Physicality” by definition entails “weight”; what I meant is that with a triangle there’s far less than with a bass drum, for example. I was trying to separate “physicality” from the kind of “heaviness” you get from lots of bass. Oddly, bass generally sounds less “physical” than the midrange and “presence” spectrum in the sense of reach-out-and-touch-it immediacy. But I can only guess why. My definition of “physicality” is whatever it is that, without you needing to think about and analyze, makes the listener believe it’s “live” rather than “reproduced”.
As for whether tradeoffs are inherent in audio reproduction: my point was that sound has many facets and that some of these appear to be at loggerheads with one another. I’ve said that horns, by the fundamental way they generate sound, give the impression of “physicality” that I believe is the primary factor in sounding like”live” instruments and voices. But the problem is that it’s difficult to design a horn that doesn’t have problems in other facets of sound. And to get uncompromised bass you need a really big speaker while ideally a speaker should be microphone-sized. And ideally speakers should be a single driver but it’s impossible to get a single driver to perfectly cover the entire spectrum so you need multiple drivers and crossovers. As I said, inherent tradeoffs. Which is not to say that tradeoffs can’t be optimized to suit individual requirements.
Which is why there are so many different designs.,

Do you think achieving the perception of physicality from a system’s presentation inherently necessitates a sonic trade-off of some kind? I accept that some will find compromise involving speaker size, speaker complexity, speaker positioning, or speaker price.

 

[Rexp]

Do you think achieving the perception of physicality from a system’s presentation inherently necessitates a sonic trade-off of some kind? I accept that some will find compromise involving speaker size, speaker complexity, speaker positioning, or speaker price.

I haven't heard your system Peter but horn systems like yours are not top tier when it comes to physical sound so you are accepting a compromise. Generally you need a flatter frequency and uniform response to achieve the illusion of a singer physically standing in front of you.

 

[microstrip]

I should amend my statement that triangles have physicality without weight. “Physicality” by definition entails “weight”; what I meant is that with a triangle there’s far less than with a bass drum, for example.

I don't see it that way. For me "physically" is related to emanating energy, not mass or weight. We must be fooled to believe that the sound is coming from the illusionary object.

I was trying to separate “physicality” from the kind of “heaviness” you get from lots of bass.

Yes, completely different thinks.

Oddly, bass generally sounds less “physical” than the midrange and “presence” spectrum in the sense of reach-out-and-touch-it immediacy. But I can only guess why. My definition of “physicality” is whatever it is that, without you needing to think about and analyze, makes the listener believe it’s “live” rather than “reproduced”.

IMO if we do not analyse such thinks in depth it will be just a vague concept with nebulous contours. For example, I address physicality as perceived in the listening room, not in the corridor or next room. I consider that physicality needs proper size of the image - bigger than life kills it. Physicality also needs the proper details - feeling how the instruments are played helps such sensation. Sometimes even feeling that the singer is moving towards the microphone or backing can reinforce his real presence.

As for whether tradeoffs are inherent in audio reproduction: my point was that sound has many facets and that some of these appear to be at loggerheads with one another. I’ve said that horns, by the fundamental way they generate sound, give the impression of “physicality” that I believe is the primary factor in sounding like”live” instruments and voices. But the problem is that it’s difficult to design a horn that doesn’t have problems in other facets of sound. And to get uncompromised bass you need a really big speaker while ideally a speaker should be microphone-sized. And ideally speakers should be a single driver but it’s impossible to get a single driver to perfectly cover the entire spectrum so you need multiple drivers and crossovers. As I said, inherent tradeoffs. Which is not to say that tradeoffs can’t be optimized to suit individual requirements.
Which is why there are so many different designs.,

Trade offs are intrinsic part of high-end stereo sound reproduction, as most audiophiles accept manipulating the signal to enhance their particular enjoyment.

 

[PeterA]

I haven't heard your system Peter but horn systems like yours are not top tier when it comes to physical sound so you are accepting a compromise. Generally you need a flatter frequency and uniform response to achieve the illusion of a singer physically standing in front of you.

You are responding to a question I did not ask and making presumptions about a system never referenced. Perhaps you should reread my post.