Natural Sound

[PeterA]

I don't see this as being complicated at all. I think this is a case where we should "think inside the box" rather than concoct a complication which does not exist.

Ron, I agree it is not complicated. I do not really understand what you mean by "think inside the box". I am not trying to "concoct a complication". I am describing what I hear when listening to both live music and to different stereos. I see two different ways to interpret this phrase, in sonic terms and in visual terms. That leads to confusion, and I am interested in more clarity when it comes to describing what we hear to others.

This is separation of instruments. You notice "such sound" separate from the tubas and tympani on the opposite side of the stage.

I notice distinction between the sounds of instruments based on their different timbres, volumes, and the timing of when the sound was created. Is this what you mean by "separation of instruments"? I refer to this as a sense of clarity and lack of homogenization. You describe the location of the piano or bass.

Why would there ever be a "lasting [sonic] image" of a transitory event? If you're walking on the street and you hear a car backfire, your head swivels to the source of the sound. Why would there be a lasting sound of a car backfiring after its momentary backfire?

I am not suggesting there would or should be a lasting sonic image of a sudden burst of sound. The sound radiates outward. The instrument remains stationary. The only thing lasting is the remnants of the sound filling the hall, and it does not last very long.

Why would there be a "lasting image" of a drum whack?

When I listen on my stereo to a recording of a three-piece jazz band, and I have a sense of the bass guitar player in the middle, and the piano player on the right side, and the drum kit on the left side, I am hearing "separation of instruments."

"Separation of instruments" is not the problematic "clearly delineated sonic images" which I agree with you are hi-fi artifacts which I do not hear in real life in the concert hall.

Yes, I hear that too from a three piece jazz band. General locations of instruments can be heard. You do not need a great stereo for that. I hear in from my car radio and I hear it from basically every stereo system and in the jazz club. Is that really what we are describing with the phrase, "separation of instruments"? Why not just say "I hear the piano in the middle between the double bass and the drums"?Do we need a different way to describe that?

The phrase seems to be used as a positive attribute which improves as one improves his system or upgrades a component. How exactly does it improve? What gets better? I can understand how this phrase describes a sonic distinction between timbres, volumes, and timing - the distinction between the sound of the individual instruments and the rest of the orchestra, as Tim described.

I have trouble understanding why the phrase is used to describe improvements in the visual sense of "clearly delineated sonic images". These are what I heard in that system where the instruments were isolated and separated from the rest on stage. As a sonic quality I understand it , as a visual quality as in the physical separation of instruments, it does not seem necessary, unless one is describing ever increasingly delineated images. This is what I do not hear from live music, nor from natural sounding systems.

 

[marty]

Fwiw, I was not with Peter when he heard the Boston Symphony thus I was not drawing on that in my comment on characteristics of natural sound which were made in the context of reproduction and the language we use to describe it. Thanks for your account of the sonics of various concert halls. You are fortunate to visit so many. I marvel at your ability to distinquish the third bassist in a line of eight or the leftmost timpani in a group of four, all with your eyes closed.

Tim
I'm not exceptional at performing this "trick". It's a function of the hall and the seat. Anyone can do this from a front row Lower Fadim or front row Box at Chicago Symphony Center. Those are remarkable "Catbird"" seats, and it's like listening through a sonic microscope for instrument placement. But I cannot do this at Carnegie from the first Tier, nor from any number of other great halls (Berlin, Lucerne) or from pretty much any hall especially if sitting in the orchestra stalls, especially if sitting further forward. I mean just look at this view. You can tell who farted even when wearing a blindfold!

 

[PeterA]

Tim
I'm not exceptional at performing this "trick". It's a function of the hall and the seat. Anyone can do this from a front row Lower Fadim or front row Box at Chicago Symphony Center. Those are remarkable "Catbird"" seats, and it's like listening through a sonic microscope for instrument placement. But I cannot do this at Carnegie from the first Tier, nor from any number of other great halls (Berlin, Lucerne) or from pretty much any hall especially if sitting in the orchestra stalls, especially if sitting further forward. I mean just look at this view. You can tell who farted even when wearing a blindfold!

View attachment 106720

Marty, when I was a child my parents drove me two hours into Chicago to hear the symphony 3 or four times a season. I don’t remember much about it because I was pretty young.

Are you looking for the ability to pick out individual instruments in their precise locations when listening to a recording on your stereo system at home?

I had some cables in my former system that had this effect. Same with some isolation platforms and acoustic treatments. It was a very particular type of sound.

 

[marty]

Are you looking for the ability to pick out individual instruments in their precise locations when listening to a recording on your stereo system at home?

Absolutely not. All I care about is the music and a pleasant enough listening experience where the system gets out of the way so I can enjoy what I hear. You're really at the mercy of the engineer and the producer for those things anyway. What you hear is what they allow to come to the microphones and how well it makes its way through the reproductive chain. . Remember we've been talking about orchestral recordings. For studio, multi-miked pop, electronica, dinosaurs etc, all bets are off.

I think we're mostly in agreement about what we like to hear at home. My main point is that the localization of natural instruments in space is entirely consistent with what you are calling natural sound, but it is not necessarily an inherent property of that per se. The two can be mutually exclusive depending on the seat and venue you experience in any given hall.

Where we probably differ is that I think no matter what you do, what speakers, amp, wires, fuses, anti-vibration devices etc you use, you can stand on your head and you will never be able to reproduce a true facsimile of what you hear in the hall, at least in this lifetime. The good news is that doesn't stop any of us from trying, even though it really is an exercise in futility!

 

[microstrip]

I posted this elsewhere, but it belongs here because it is about the motor unit and controls of my AS2000 turntable.

The motor controller can be adjusted for frequency and voltage, as well as pitch. I use the frequency adjustment to control speed when playing with the thread tension between motor and platter to get back to correct speed. The looser the thread tension, the more the platter speeds up. The tighter the thread tension the more the platter slows down. It’s a bit counterintuitive because if I simply cut the thread and let the platter spin it will spin for over half an hour very gradually slowing down. I think what is going on is it when there is tighter thread tension, the motor and platter or coupled together more and the sheer mass of the platter is slowing down the motor which then slows down the speed according to the tachometer. The motor is turning faster with tighter thread tension so when you loosen the thread gradually the platter actually speeds up. I go back-and-forth loosening the thread and adjusting the frequency to maintain 33.333 while listening and then stopping when I reach the most natural sound.

I will address only technical aspects. The AS2000 motor is synchronous - the speed is expected to be constant and independent of thread tension - at less it is what I remember from DDK presentation of it. Are you using the original controller?

What is electrically changed when you adjust pitch in the controller?

The belt tension makes a clear audible difference. Playing with voltage affects the torque and drive which becomes more important when the belt is looser but it does not seem to affect speed. More torque creates slightly more noise in the motor but I don’t know if it’s audible through the thread and platter. I have separated the motor from the main turntable chassis and isolated each under the steel plates so the only contact and influence of one over the other is the loose thread. Transients can become slightly softer or harder which affects the sense of clarity The torque does affect the sense of drive and is heard when listening for nuance and micro dynamics and decays/harmonics, basically how natural it sounds.

These are subtle effects which I would likely not have noticed in my old system which did not have the resolution necessary to hear these changes. It all has to do with the relationship between the motor and the platter and the influence and control one has over the other. My platter has an extreme amount of inertia because of its 150 lbs mass plus extremely low friction bearing, so I am trying to reduce the influence of the motor on the platter for a more natural sound with less mechanical signature.

The same for the TechDas AF1+. Fortunately there is a practical recipe for optimum tension, it can be done in a few minutes.

 

[PeterA]

I will address only technical aspects. The AS2000 motor is synchronous - the speed is expected to be constant and independent of thread tension - at less it is what I remember from DDK presentation of it. Are you using the original controller?

What is electrically changed when you adjust pitch in the controller?



The same for the TechDas AF1+. Fortunately there is a practical recipe for optimum tension, it can be done in a few minutes.

I use the original controller. I don't know what changes electrically when I adjust the pitch control. I don't touch the pitch control, it remains at 33.3. I adjust the frequency via the controls to adjust speed based on thread tension. You will have to ask someone who understands more about how this all works. I simply adjust for best most natural sound by listening.

The non stretch belt that comes with the AS2000 is the same or very similar to the AF1+ belt, or so I am told. The very specific thread ddk sent me sounds better that the belt for reasons I explained elsewhere. I did read guidelines about how to tension the Micro Seiki SX 8000II belt in a few minutes, perhaps that is a similar process to the one you mention. I tried that and found adjusting tension by ear gave me better results.

 

[PeterA]

Where we probably differ is that I think no matter what you do, what speakers, amp, wires, fuses, anti-vibration devices etc you use, you can stand on your head and you will never be able to reproduce a true facsimile of what you hear in the hall, at least in this lifetime. The good news is that doesn't stop any of us from trying, even though it really is an exercise in futility!

Marty, We do differ in the sense that I don’t think it is futile. I remain amazed at how natural certain systems I’ve heard actually sound. They are extremely convincing on certain recordings.

 

[MadFloyd]

While vintage audio systems have a certain charm and appeal, it's important to note that they often can't reproduce sound with the same level of naturalness as modern audio systems. There are a few reasons for this.

Firstly, vintage audio systems often have limitations in terms of frequency response, dynamic range, and distortion. They may not be able to reproduce the full range of frequencies that modern audio systems can, and their dynamic range may be narrower. This can result in a sound that is less natural and less faithful to the original recording.

Secondly, vintage audio systems often rely on outdated technology that can introduce noise, distortion, and other artifacts into the sound. For example, vinyl records can be prone to surface noise and distortion, while old tube amplifiers can introduce their own unique coloration to the sound.

Finally, vintage audio systems may not be as well-suited to modern listening environments as modern audio systems. They may not have the same level of power, control, or flexibility as modern systems, which can make it harder to achieve the ideal balance of sound in a given room.

Of course, this isn't to say that vintage audio systems can't sound great in their own way. They often have a warmth and character that is hard to replicate with modern technology, and many people love the way that they sound. However, if you're looking for the most natural, faithful reproduction of sound possible, a modern audio system is likely to be your best bet.

 

[Folsom]

While vintage audio systems have a certain charm and appeal, it's important to note that they often can't reproduce sound with the same level of naturalness as modern audio systems. There are a few reasons for this.

Firstly, vintage audio systems often have limitations in terms of frequency response, dynamic range, and distortion. They may not be able to reproduce the full range of frequencies that modern audio systems can, and their dynamic range may be narrower. This can result in a sound that is less natural and less faithful to the original recording.

Secondly, vintage audio systems often rely on outdated technology that can introduce noise, distortion, and other artifacts into the sound. For example, vinyl records can be prone to surface noise and distortion, while old tube amplifiers can introduce their own unique coloration to the sound.

Finally, vintage audio systems may not be as well-suited to modern listening environments as modern audio systems. They may not have the same level of power, control, or flexibility as modern systems, which can make it harder to achieve the ideal balance of sound in a given room.

Of course, this isn't to say that vintage audio systems can't sound great in their own way. They often have a warmth and character that is hard to replicate with modern technology, and many people love the way that they sound. However, if you're looking for the most natural, faithful reproduction of sound possible, a modern audio system is likely to be your best bet.

You know what's funny is I could switch "vintage" and "modern" in that whole passage and it'd still be just as true as it is written now. It literally just depends on the exact equipment.

 

[bonzo75]

While vintage audio systems have a certain charm and appeal, it's important to note that they often can't reproduce sound with the same level of naturalness as modern audio systems. There are a few reasons for this.

Firstly, vintage audio systems often have limitations in terms of frequency response, dynamic range, and distortion. They may not be able to reproduce the full range of frequencies that modern audio systems can, and their dynamic range may be narrower. This can result in a sound that is less natural and less faithful to the original recording.

Secondly, vintage audio systems often rely on outdated technology that can introduce noise, distortion, and other artifacts into the sound. For example, vinyl records can be prone to surface noise and distortion, while old tube amplifiers can introduce their own unique coloration to the sound.

Finally, vintage audio systems may not be as well-suited to modern listening environments as modern audio systems. They may not have the same level of power, control, or flexibility as modern systems, which can make it harder to achieve the ideal balance of sound in a given room.

Of course, this isn't to say that vintage audio systems can't sound great in their own way. They often have a warmth and character that is hard to replicate with modern technology, and many people love the way that they sound. However, if you're looking for the most natural, faithful reproduction of sound possible, a modern audio system is likely to be your best bet.

you keep incorrectly and falsely stating that. Just say that is your impression of Peter’s system instead of saying vintage. You have hardly heard any vintage. You Boston guys don’t like Peter’s system that is fine. As you have heard it that is your call. Stop generalising it to other horns and vintage systems where you have not heard any. I understand you don’t want to offend Peter directly but it is worse when you make up generalisations not backed by exposure

 

[morricab]

While vintage audio systems have a certain charm and appeal, it's important to note that they often can't reproduce sound with the same level of naturalness as modern audio systems. There are a few reasons for this.

Firstly, vintage audio systems often have limitations in terms of frequency response, dynamic range, and distortion. They may not be able to reproduce the full range of frequencies that modern audio systems can, and their dynamic range may be narrower. This can result in a sound that is less natural and less faithful to the original recording.

Secondly, vintage audio systems often rely on outdated technology that can introduce noise, distortion, and other artifacts into the sound. For example, vinyl records can be prone to surface noise and distortion, while old tube amplifiers can introduce their own unique coloration to the sound.

Finally, vintage audio systems may not be as well-suited to modern listening environments as modern audio systems. They may not have the same level of power, control, or flexibility as modern systems, which can make it harder to achieve the ideal balance of sound in a given room.

Of course, this isn't to say that vintage audio systems can't sound great in their own way. They often have a warmth and character that is hard to replicate with modern technology, and many people love the way that they sound. However, if you're looking for the most natural, faithful reproduction of sound possible, a modern audio system is likely to be your best bet.

Sorry Madfloyd but this screed is just chock full of clichés, tropes and simple misinformation. I would have expected a more thoughtful composition from you.
Please tell me what frequency response and particularly extension has to do with sounding natural.
Please explain what is outdated, sonically, about older technologies. Distortion and subjective experience is STILL a source of research in the 21st century…it is not a “solved” science. This means declaring technology obsolete just because of its age or its distortion level is at best premature. One has to wonder, if at all curious, as to why so-called obsolete technology was kept alive, in all places hyper-tech Japan and Korea, when Western engineers (and a lot of Japanese ones too) had discarded this as junk from the past. Hint: it was the sound. There is a renaissance of “old tech” it’s modern implementation “horns and SETs” because some people have realized that the modern “high tech” approach lost something along the path to “perfection “.
The simple fact is that most guys who have gone vintage or modern old tech went way down the modern tech path you are on before realizing it wasn’t getting them where they wanted to go. They then heard a good vintage or modern old tech setup and said “Hey that sounds more like the real thing to me!” and they switched, gradually or wholesale. You should reflect on this.

 

[leyenda]

my trial with SET + vintage drivers in open baffle... silent background with pin-point image, super fast sound and very clear instrument separation that my previous systems be it with magico/wilson/sf cannot match... downside - low to very low listening volume depending on complexity of music.

 

[morricab]

my trial with SET + vintage drivers in open baffle... silent background with pin-point image, super fast sound and very clear instrument separation that my previous systems be it with magico/wilson/sf cannot match... downside - low to very low listening volume depending on complexity of music.

Why do you mean by the low listening volume? Do you mean it won’t get very loud? Or it only sounds good soft? Or??

 

[XV-1]

While vintage audio systems have a certain charm and appeal, it's important to note that they often can't reproduce sound with the same level of naturalness as modern audio systems. There are a few reasons for this.

Firstly, vintage audio systems often have limitations in terms of frequency response, dynamic range, and distortion. They may not be able to reproduce the full range of frequencies that modern audio systems can, and their dynamic range may be narrower. This can result in a sound that is less natural and less faithful to the original recording.

Secondly, vintage audio systems often rely on outdated technology that can introduce noise, distortion, and other artifacts into the sound. For example, vinyl records can be prone to surface noise and distortion, while old tube amplifiers can introduce their own unique coloration to the sound.

Finally, vintage audio systems may not be as well-suited to modern listening environments as modern audio systems. They may not have the same level of power, control, or flexibility as modern systems, which can make it harder to achieve the ideal balance of sound in a given room.

Of course, this isn't to say that vintage audio systems can't sound great in their own way. They often have a warmth and character that is hard to replicate with modern technology, and many people love the way that they sound. However, if you're looking for the most natural, faithful reproduction of sound possible, a modern audio system is likely to be your best bet.

You live close to Peter right?

Is this how Peter's system sounds?

 

[tima]

I don't think of Lamm gear as vintage. I don't think my Monaco TT is vintage. My rack and platforms are not vintage, neither are the wires I use. My speakers ... what's the cutoff date? ... are less than thirty years old.

I don't think the 'vintage' appellation is particularly helpful. It is too vague, too broad and too divisive. Show me the guy who believes that newer, by definition, is inherently better and you'll find someone who is a really good customer. Good sound doesn't have a sell-by date.

Peter's system thread, Natural Sound, seems to attract contention seekers who are unhappy with the thread title (presumptious, arrogant they cry) or question gear choices or don't like Peter, or don't like David or don't like the concept of natural sound or disagree with its characteristics as laid out in, I believe it was Peter's post #5. Its very existence seems to cause discomfort that breeds a need to come here to justify their own systems by bashing others in this thread -- that comes across as weakness. Plenty of ankle-biters tag along to play the game of 'likes'. Owners love it. Its classic FWB.

For what feels like the thousandth time I say extol your own system, say what you're trying to achieve, describe your audio journey, tell us why your choices lead to "naturalness" or whatever it is you're after. Do it in your own thread and do it in a positive way without the need to question what someone else is doing in order to explain yourself.

Can you imagine Peter, or someone who appreciates his evolution, or bases their choices on the natural concept going into someone else's system thread and out-of-the-blue say "While modern audio systems have a certain charm and appeal, it's important to note that they often can't reproduce sound with the same level of authenticity as vintage audio systems."

 

[morricab]

I don't think of Lamm gear as vintage. I don't think my Monaco TT is vintage. My rack and platforms are not vintage, neither are the wires I use. My speakers ... what's the cutoff date? ... are less than thirty years old.

I don't think the 'vintage' appellation is particularly helpful. It is too vague, too broad and too divisive. Show me the guy who believes that newer, by definition, is inherently better and you'll find someone who is a really good customer. Good sound doesn't have a sell-by date.

Peter's system thread, Natural Sound, seems to attract contention seekers who are unhappy with the thread title (presumptious, arrogant they cry) or question gear choices or don't like Peter, or don't like David or don't like the concept of natural sound or disagree with its characteristics as laid out in, I believe it was Peter's post #5. Its very existence seems to cause discomfort that breeds a need to come here to justify their own systems by bashing others in this thread -- that comes across as weakness. Plenty of ankle-biters tag along to play the game of 'likes'. Owners love it. Its classic FWB.

For what feels like the thousandth time I say extol your own system, say what you're trying to achieve, describe your audio journey, tell us why your choices lead to "naturalness" or whatever it is you're after. Do it in your own thread and do it in a positive way without the need to question what someone else is doing in order to explain yourself.

Can you imagine Peter, or someone who appreciates his evolution, or bases their choices on the natural concept going into someone else's system thread and out-of-the-blue say "While modern audio systems have a certain charm and appeal, it's important to note that they often can't reproduce sound with the same level of authenticity as vintage audio systems."

Yeah but your speakers are "vintage" ...

 

[MadFloyd]

OK, I need to confess: I was playing around with ChatGPT and having too much fun (while not perfect it's damn impressive) and I couldn't resist having some fun with you guys. Yes, I was trolling but not maliciously.

Interestingly enough when I took the opposite approach and asked ChatGPT to explain why vintage systems sounded better than modern systems, I got this:

There is a common belief that vintage audio systems sound better than modern ones, but this is actually a subjective matter and not necessarily true. While vintage audio systems have a certain charm and character, they often do not perform as well as modern systems in terms of accuracy and fidelity. Here are some reasons why:

Technology and materials: Vintage audio systems often rely on older technology and materials, which may not be able to produce the same level of accuracy and detail as modern systems. For example, vintage speakers may not have the same precision of modern speakers, or vintage amplifiers may not be able to produce as much power or have the same level of control over the sound.

Wear and tear: Vintage audio systems are often several decades old, and they may have deteriorated over time. Components may have degraded or become worn, which can result in a degraded sound quality.
Room acoustics: Vintage audio systems were designed to perform optimally in the acoustic environments of their time, which may not be the same as modern listening environments. This can result in a less accurate and less balanced sound.

Bias and nostalgia: Finally, it is important to consider the role of bias and nostalgia when it comes to vintage audio systems. People may prefer the sound of vintage systems because of their association with a particular era or because they have a sentimental attachment to them.

In conclusion, while vintage audio systems may have a certain appeal and nostalgia factor, it is important to keep in mind that modern systems can offer better accuracy and fidelity. Ultimately, the choice between vintage and modern audio systems depends on personal preference and the specific requirements of the listener.

 

[bonzo75]

OK, I need to confess: I was playing around with ChatGPT and having too much fun (while not perfect it's damn impressive) and I couldn't resist having some fun with you guys. Yes, I was trolling but not maliciously.

Interestingly enough when I took the opposite approach and asked ChatGPT to explain why vintage systems sounded better than modern systems, I got this:

There is a common belief that vintage audio systems sound better than modern ones, but this is actually a subjective matter and not necessarily true. While vintage audio systems have a certain charm and character, they often do not perform as well as modern systems in terms of accuracy and fidelity. Here are some reasons why:

Technology and materials: Vintage audio systems often rely on older technology and materials, which may not be able to produce the same level of accuracy and detail as modern systems. For example, vintage speakers may not have the same precision of modern speakers, or vintage amplifiers may not be able to produce as much power or have the same level of control over the sound.

Wear and tear: Vintage audio systems are often several decades old, and they may have deteriorated over time. Components may have degraded or become worn, which can result in a degraded sound quality.
Room acoustics: Vintage audio systems were designed to perform optimally in the acoustic environments of their time, which may not be the same as modern listening environments. This can result in a less accurate and less balanced sound.

Bias and nostalgia: Finally, it is important to consider the role of bias and nostalgia when it comes to vintage audio systems. People may prefer the sound of vintage systems because of their association with a particular era or because they have a sentimental attachment to them.

In conclusion, while vintage audio systems may have a certain appeal and nostalgia factor, it is important to keep in mind that modern systems can offer better accuracy and fidelity. Ultimately, the choice between vintage and modern audio systems depends on personal preference and the specific requirements of the listener.

so does your Bot take one data point to generalize an algorithm? Or are you feeding the GPT instructions through your CH and complex crossovers, because the instructions will be corrupted through that signal path and it will spew out incoherence

 

[bonzo75]

Bias and nostalgia: Finally, it is important to consider the role of bias and nostalgia when it comes to vintage audio systems. People may prefer the sound of vintage systems because of their association with a particular era or because they have a sentimental attachment to them.

so people who weren’t born during Led Zep’s or Beethoven’s time and who listen to them do so due to bias and nostalgia? How many of those who like vintage equipment today were there when when vintage speakers were made? The bias and nostalgia is to what you grew up with, which is shitty state with the most marketed name in audio showing blinkered tastes.

i am for vintage drivers with modified crossovers, remagnetized drivers where required, modern TT and carts, and modern electronics though the SET amplifier might in many cases have vintage tubes. And vintage LPs. Modern digital.

I select era as and where applicable, you seem stuck in a biased era and in your focus to hit out against Peter and ddk you are trashing excellent equipment. We expect more from you Ian, if you think they were wrong then two wrongs don’t make a right

 

[morricab]

OK, I need to confess: I was playing around with ChatGPT and having too much fun (while not perfect it's damn impressive) and I couldn't resist having some fun with you guys. Yes, I was trolling but not maliciously.

Interestingly enough when I took the opposite approach and asked ChatGPT to explain why vintage systems sounded better than modern systems, I got this:

There is a common belief that vintage audio systems sound better than modern ones, but this is actually a subjective matter and not necessarily true. While vintage audio systems have a certain charm and character, they often do not perform as well as modern systems in terms of accuracy and fidelity. Here are some reasons why:

Technology and materials: Vintage audio systems often rely on older technology and materials, which may not be able to produce the same level of accuracy and detail as modern systems. For example, vintage speakers may not have the same precision of modern speakers, or vintage amplifiers may not be able to produce as much power or have the same level of control over the sound.

Wear and tear: Vintage audio systems are often several decades old, and they may have deteriorated over time. Components may have degraded or become worn, which can result in a degraded sound quality.
Room acoustics: Vintage audio systems were designed to perform optimally in the acoustic environments of their time, which may not be the same as modern listening environments. This can result in a less accurate and less balanced sound.

Bias and nostalgia: Finally, it is important to consider the role of bias and nostalgia when it comes to vintage audio systems. People may prefer the sound of vintage systems because of their association with a particular era or because they have a sentimental attachment to them.

In conclusion, while vintage audio systems may have a certain appeal and nostalgia factor, it is important to keep in mind that modern systems can offer better accuracy and fidelity. Ultimately, the choice between vintage and modern audio systems depends on personal preference and the specific requirements of the listener.

Good one...now your views without the bot...