American Sound AS-2000 Installations- Far East (Tango)

[tima]

I guess I just prefer a happy ending

Even any ending.

 

[PeterA]

Even any ending.

Buildings used to have bases, middles, and tops. Mies' Seagram building on Park Avenue is a great example, playing off of the formal classical composition of McKim', Mead, and White's Racquet and Tennis Club across the street. Then came Eero Saarinen's 1964 CBS Building, knows as the Black Rock. It had a continuous facade, with out parts, from top to bottom, giving the impression that it just goes on up forever, no beginning, and without end.

This music creates a different kind of expectation where we can not anticipate what is next. I like it for the unexpected.

I also like how the video's sound allows us to get into the music and beyond analyzing the sound of the speakers or system. I am impressed by how easily the system allowed me to make the shift.

 

[PeterA]

These guys are even more intense, they’re awesome! Wish I could find this type venue here.

david

I did not know Morticia gave Wednesday and Pugsley music lessons. I love it! Is that a screen behind them? It reminds me of the factory location in the movie "Hostel".

 

[the sound of Tao]

Buildings used to have bases, middles, and tops. Mies' Seagram building on Park Avenue is a great example, playing off of the formal classical composition of McKim', Mead, and White's Racquet and Tennis Club across the street. Then came Eero Saarinen's 1964 CBS Building, knows as the Black Rock. It had a continuous facade, with out parts, from top to bottom, giving the impression that it just goes on up forever, no beginning, and without end.

This music creates a different kind of expectation where we can not anticipate what is next. I like it for the unexpected.

I also like how the video's sound allows us to get into the music and beyond analyzing the sound of the speakers or system. I am impressed by how easily the system allowed me to make the shift.

That reaction to the modernists and the move away from form purely coming out of a simple and pure function and less is more was easily seen in the direction and shape of audio gear and in industrial design in the post modern times. That move to increasingly complex design responses shows in the generations of more complexity in everything including the move away from single ended design and the relative simplicity of something like a 2 way speaker and breaking things down increasingly into more and more parts and increasing fragmentation… a case of more is less.

The move to re-examine the modernist era vintage gear is for me likely coming out of a building reaction to post modern era design always expressing some sense of form turning its back on function and increasingly shorter design life spans and forever proposed constant advances and upgrades without really asking what has happened to the purpose and meaning in it all.

 

[tima]

This music creates a different kind of expectation where we can not anticipate what is next. I like it for the unexpected.

I also like how the video's sound allows us to get into the music and beyond analyzing the sound of the speakers or system. I am impressed by how easily the system allowed me to make the shift

That move to increasingly complex design responses shows in the generations of more complexity in everything including the move away from single ended design and the relative simplicity of something like a 2 way speaker and breaking things down increasingly into more and more parts and increasing fragmentation… a case of more is less.

There is an attitude or an approach we see here at WBF that in order to understand systems, sound or music we must decompose them into parts. The parts are described in terms of categories of our own making. Some are natural born categorizers. Analysis and synthesis battle daily for your audiophile soul.

 

[Walter66]

With a typical two way high eff. speaker the whole bandwith of hearing can be achieved. A three way speaker has a more complex freq. dividing unit, this leads towards lower efficiency. I think thats the reason, why high eff. speakers are more often two way designs.
And I don't think its easy to design such a two way freq. divider, when it comes to quality in sound. There are many popular designs from Altec etc. and there are more which aimed to outperform such popular devices.
The audio system has to be a synergistic approach. The components are not the king- the system is. Just to own one piece of the puzzle won't lead towards audio nirvana, its the system that is the only ticket. And the problem is to compose such a system. So parts alone won't let one see the whole picture, its just parts. With a puzzle, the parts are only making sense when put together at the right place and are a complete picture.

 

[Walter66]

Classical may be more your cup of tea Bill. I like the way the speakers present the whole picture of concerto. With this setup the violin has more woody sound than my Cessaro and the balance between violin and orchestra is more even. But If I play with Cessaro you will hear so much excitement from violin strings less woody and the orchestra becomes secondary.

Best,
Tang

Alternative version of the same Britten violin concerto on Decca SXL 6512.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

That reaction to the modernists and the move away from form purely coming out of a simple and pure function and less is more was easily seen in the direction and shape of audio gear and in industrial design in the post modern times. That move to increasingly complex design responses shows in the generations of more complexity in everything including the move away from single ended design and the relative simplicity of something like a 2 way speaker and breaking things down increasingly into more and more parts and increasing fragmentation… a case of more is less.

until it's not. sometimes more is more. but more has greater headwind to overcome to take advantage of the potential. more complexity takes magnitudes greater commitment. results might be slightly different but no less right....or maybe even better.

i'd agree that the odds of less attaining musical success are greater than more complexity.

there is not just one path....to musical reproduction success.

 

[Walter66]

Today we can overlook more than hundred years of electro-mechanical reproduction of music. We have many options and can choose the most modern equipment, we can mix the ancient with the modern or just simply stick with the ancient. Its all about making choices. I've seen people fighting hard with the obstacles of greater complexity in their audio systems. Fighting half their lifes to achieve a believable music reproduction.

For some, its all in the wideband, the highest highs and the deepest lows must be reproducable. For others, its all in the mids. And everyone has his own, highly subjective ideal of listening to music, some are on the "every detail has to be audible" path, some are on the emotional, more integrative sound path. Thats different typologies of listeners, different listening educations as well. There is and can't be only one way.

 

[Tango]

Alternative version of the same Britten violin concerto on Decca SXL 6512.

This sounds very good. But no EE. The sound doesnt energize the room. Might get more " feel" than just hearing good sound if in a smaller room.

 

[Walter66]

This is just to compare different tonal perspectives. We can't expect the famous "Wall of sound" just by using one speaker in a big room, although the recording using mp4 algorithm destroys much of the low- frequency energy that IS in the room. You will never get this back.

When sitting in front of the speaker, not much is missing. Its an all analog, full tube audio system. But this recording (the ASD wasn't available to me) lacks energy in some frequencies. It doesn't sound bad at all, but not the best. Will see what a new LCR phono could do.

 

[tima]

When sitting in front of the speaker, not much is missing.

Alas, Lubotsky is not Haendel. That not withstanding, it sounds quite nice.

 

[the sound of Tao]

until it's not. sometimes more is more. but more has greater headwind to overcome to take advantage of the potential. more complexity takes magnitudes greater commitment. results might be slightly different but no less right....or maybe even better.

i'd agree that the odds of less attaining musical success are greater than more complexity.

there is not just one path....to musical reproduction success.

Definitely also see that building headwind (nice analogy) coming about with utilising more processes then when required to turn around and re-integrate through synthesis when using complexity as a way to optimise in chasing the dragon of the sonically perfect.

Working towards more complexity by its nature leads to more and more parts and I believe that leans more into achieving strictly more sonic outcomes in improving all the parts. I’d suggest simplicity naturally attempts the breaking into less parts and is simply more easily re-integrated as we move back again towards unity (and in expressing the whole) which for me is the bringing the sounds around back into being perceived whole again as music. As you say it is possible to counteract complexity but that leads to more processing and that I believe itself has a flavour.

That inevitable cycle of atomising and turning around and going back to synthesis to pull all back into wholeness clearly becomes harder and harder the further we sail past simple and on to more complex process.

The hi-end of the last 20 years has been moving seemingly exponentially towards the increasingly extreme end of the more complex spectrum. Your system perhaps represents the cream of the current complexity. Growing recent appearances returning to simpler responses (less complex but not necessarily always less expensive though unfortunately) are perhaps also further indications of an approaching natural return phase towards origination.

You would likely know more than most of the inaffordability of being right at the boundaries and then attempting to take these things further. Also those increased challenges of re-integrating unity with complexity eventually sets the tipping point limit on complexity being at all viable or bearable and also then equitable against all the other competing needs that many have for themselves.

Returning to something more essential and simpler in the big picture may just be about going with the flow and in the inevitability of eventually travelling home again and possibly to some simplicity after the age of the epic excursion out to the edge in great complexity.

I do just see these as choices also but I believe that the flavour of complexity is different to the flavour of simplicity and completely still just a choice in which is best for each of us… and to each their own in it etc etc as always.

 

[Tango]

This is just to compare different tonal perspectives. We can't expect the famous "Wall of sound" just by using one speaker in a big room, although the recording using mp4 algorithm destroys much of the low- frequency energy that IS in the room. You will never get this back.

When sitting in front of the speaker, not much is missing. Its an all analog, full tube audio system. But this recording (the ASD wasn't available to me) lacks energy in some frequencies. It doesn't sound bad at all, but not the best. Will see what a new LCR phono could do.

Everyone using mobile phone to record is on the same format. I know what they can and what they cannot capture. I did expect the sound to be like a guy shouting in the middle of open football field as it did though. That's why I said it could sound better in a smaller room, sir/mam.

 

[Walter66]

Thanks for your feedback, much appreciated. I see it the same way, too low energy on the recordings.

There are two main things, one I learned yesterday. Many people record with mobile phones, but some are using an external microphone, which will clearly lead to better recordings. I can audition this here, the phone micro cuts the low frequencies nearly completely. So I will try to use an external mic in future.

The other problem is with just one speaker vs. two. This is a different story, but its a prototype speaker and in this state, its more easy to engineer with one instead of two. Most of the energy that you mean comes from the front-end. The Neumann DST is big in sound, an Ortofon isn't that big, means less energy. And the preamp delivers energy. My preamp is in a state where it has to be upgraded to further lead towards the goal of high energy output.

From the technical point of the speakers, its not that different. You use an old theater system, mine too. Both speakers had been designed for audiences far greater than the rooms they actually play in. Both are capable of throwing big energies into the room.

 

[PeterA]

Some of the videos of Tang’s new speakers seem to have plenty of low frequency energy even on a simple iPhone with built in cheap mic. This quality comes through anyway.

It is also not just about the bass extension but also the bass quality. This is clearly audible on the simple recording.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Definitely also see that building headwind (nice analogy) coming about with utilising more processes then when required to turn around and re-integrate through synthesis when using complexity as a way to optimise in chasing the dragon of the sonically perfect.

Working towards more complexity by its nature leads to more and more parts and I believe that leans more into achieving strictly more sonic outcomes in improving all the parts. I’d suggest simplicity naturally attempts the breaking into less parts and is simply more easily re-integrated as we move back again towards unity (and in expressing the whole) which for me is the bringing the sounds around back into being perceived whole again as music. As you say it is possible to counteract complexity but that leads to more processing and that I believe itself has a flavour.

That inevitable cycle of atomising and turning around and going back to synthesis to pull all back into wholeness clearly becomes harder and harder the further we sail past simple and on to more complex process.

The hi-end of the last 20 years has been moving seemingly exponentially towards the increasingly extreme end of the more complex spectrum. Your system perhaps represents the cream of the current complexity. Growing recent appearances returning to simpler responses (less complex but not necessarily always less expensive though unfortunately) are perhaps also further indications of an approaching natural return phase towards origination.

You would likely know more than most of the inaffordability of being right at the boundaries and then attempting to take these things further. Also those increased challenges of re-integrating unity with complexity eventually sets the tipping point limit on complexity being at all viable or bearable and also then equitable against all the other competing needs that many have for themselves.

Returning to something more essential and simpler in the big picture may just be about going with the flow and in the inevitability of eventually travelling home again and possibly to some simplicity after the age of the epic excursion out to the edge in great complexity.

I do just see these as choices also but I believe that the flavour of complexity is different to the flavour of simplicity and completely still just a choice in which is best for each of us… and to each their own in it etc etc as always.

another perspective.

i think like anything we rely on good design of the pieces to have the capacity to potentially result in music cohesion. and true that more complex speaker systems are more challenged to be cohesive. but i guess i don't agree that there is an unobtainable flavor of simplicity from more complex systems. maybe musical character aspects unique to drive types, both positive and negative. sure. for some this might equal the flavor of simplicity. or maybe it's just a flavor. that too much musical information is missed in the trade off for simple. you listen for that 'one magic thing' and miss other things of value.

which 'horn viewpoint' is correct? the one where you get lots of tone but relatively miss the details, or the other way? it's all flavors at the end of the day. i'm sure some do both, and there are many shades of balance on those things. just like more complex designs.

yet i agree that simpler approaches more likely have sins of omission than sins of commission. and that given a choice that failing might be preferred between the two.

i feel no guilt or regrets having a full range system. and enjoy it's coherency. no, it does not sound like a horn, but i think it sounds like music. so can horns.

 

[PeterA]

another perspective.

i think like anything we rely on good design of the pieces to have the capacity to potentially result in music cohesion. and true that more complex speaker systems are more challenged to be cohesive. but i guess i don't agree that there is an unobtainable flavor of simplicity from more complex systems. maybe musical character aspects unique to drive types, both positive and negative. sure. for some this might equal the flavor of simplicity. or maybe it's just a flavor. that too much musical information is missed in the trade off for simple. you listen for that 'one magic thing' and miss other things of value.

which 'horn viewpoint' is correct? the one where you get lots of tone but relatively miss the details, or the other way? it's all flavors at the end of the day.

yet i agree that simpler approaches more likely have sins of omission than sins of commission. and that given a choice that failing might be preferred between the two.

i feel no guilt or regrets having a full range system. and enjoy it's coherency. no, it does not sound like a horn, but i think it sounds like music. so can horns.

Sometimes it is not as simple as saying all approaches involve compromises or tradeoffs and therefore different flavors. Some horns have both tone and detail, as do some non horns. It does not have to be a choice of more one or the other. The best products and systems that I have heard have the fewest sonic compromises or tradeoffs, and the result is less flavor and more of the music on the recording. Tang seems to be moving in that direction.

 

[ddk]

another perspective.

i think like anything we rely on good design of the pieces to have the capacity to potentially result in music cohesion. and true that more complex speaker systems are more challenged to be cohesive. but i guess i don't agree that there is an unobtainable flavor of simplicity from more complex systems. maybe musical character aspects unique to drive types, both positive and negative. sure. for some this might equal the flavor of simplicity. or maybe it's just a flavor. that too much musical information is missed in the trade off for simple. you listen for that 'one magic thing' and miss other things of value.

which 'horn viewpoint' is correct? the one where you get lots of tone but relatively miss the details, or the other way? it's all flavors at the end of the day. i'm sure some do both, and there are many shades of balance on those things. just like more complex designs.

Who's horn viewpoint are we talking about and what are they, I never heard such a thing? Tone, tonal depth and tonal range all are considered detail, if a speaker has that much resolution what is it that you believe it's missing. Specifically please and examples would be good.

yet i agree that simpler approaches more likely have sins of omission than sins of commission. and that given a choice that failing might be preferred between the two.

To really have a conversation we need examples of these sins of omission and what's needed for natural realistic sound and what you mean by simpler designs. It's too broad a statement as it stands, what do you mean by simpler design? Throwing a bunch of drivers in a box isn't a sign of complexity. There's such a thing as sophistication in design, best minimalists understand this very well.

i feel no guilt or regrets having a full range system. and enjoy it's coherency. no, it does not sound like a horn, but i think it sounds like music. so can horns.

I doubt anyone was guilting you Mike, it's always a personal choice! Plenty of proof that technology alone doesn't guarantee results!

david

 

[Walter66]

Some of the videos of Tang’s new speakers seem to have plenty of low frequency energy even on a simple iPhone with built in cheap mic. This quality comes through anyway.

It is also not just about the bass extension but also the bass quality. This is clearly audible on the simple recording.

Unfortunately, with simple phones mic, the qualities of the woofers don't come through. I don't own a new iphone and will not in the near future. So we will see, what an external mic can do.