Audiophile Sonic Terms Redux
- Thread starter Karen Sumner
- Start date
Respectfully, Peter, when you and Tim are backed into a logical corner with no apparent means of escape you tend to revert to disingenuousness, and Tim tends to revert to disingenuousness and sarcasm.
Of course you can discuss what you think is "best on this forum." Claiming that you cannot discuss what you think is "best" is disingenuous.
The controversy arises (repeatedly, even if on different threads and in different contexts) when you cloak what you believe is objectively best inside of a discussion wrapper composed of elements which, while not saying explicitly what you think is best, have the net effect of suggesting that if people don't hear the way you hear, and if people don't choose components to achieve a sound which you think is most believable, then their audio systems are objectively inferior to the David Karmeli curated systems.
While not declaring explicitly what you think is objectively "best" your sequence of statements leads ineluctably to that unstated conclusion.
If it weren't for the way in which your posts imply objectivity (instead of the subjectivity in which they should be grounded) none of this would be a source of controversy.
Last edited:
Well stated, Ron. A post of mine on the Natural Sound thread touches on this problem from a slightly different perspective, but it addresses the same underlying attitude:
Well, let's face it. The idea is that there are many approaches to natural sound. But in the words of the "Natural Sound" proponents, natural sound comes in degrees. And to the perception of many, including mine, there seems to be implied that only one limited approach, certain high-efficiency speakers with certain SET amps, gives you the true Natural Sound. Everything else is second rate, and contains some degree of "unnatural sound", or "artificial sound". It is this superior minded attitude that has rubbed many people the wrong way, and has caused so much controversy since the thread started a year ago. It implies that all other approaches are less "natural".
Tim's oft-repeated assertion that there should be nothing controversial to the Natural Sound idea, because it simply strives to approach the sound of unamplified live music, seems in this context just a diversion from the real issue. There are many audiophiles who strive to approach the sound of unamplified live music with their systems, but their chosen system types are outside of the exclusive circle of "Natural Sound".Thus, they appear to count only as second rate in that circle.
David has impeccable taste in audio gear, and a rare ability to find equipment and accessories that are complementary to each other, without always choosing the most expensive route !
But he is definitely not a god of any kind !
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
yes but its the same old Sh-t again and again. I dint mean to imply Ron did it was just a point to jump in on.
There are plenty of threads to argue the other subjects....again and again.
Ron, Tim and I are not suggesting that Lamm discovered the Holy Grail, nor are we claiming that his electronics are "somehow uniquely the best". I can not see from our posts that we are making such a suggestion. What prompted you to ask such a silly question? That is why I asked you what you are talking about.
Into what logical corner am I backed into? I simply responded to Fransisco that it is my understanding that Vladimir Lamm conducted studies about human hearing using a large number of test subjects, and I mentioned to Tim that Mr. Lamm also used his experience playing percussion in an orchestra. Tim, of course knows that. These are my only two comments about Lamm, the man, not even the gear. That is basically the extent of my contribution to this Lamm discussion. It is Amir and Fransisco who began the discussion on Lamm and then you wrote how much you like the sound of the gear, "Lamm is great". I have not said anything like that in this thread.
The thread devolved because people got upset and personal and used these words:
1. Holy Grail - Ron
2. God- Bonzo
3. Messenger - Bonzo
4 Religion - Mike L
5. Cult - Al M
These are pretty interesting words to throw around in a thread about audio language. And now Al is quoting himself from my Natural Sound system thread to stir things up further. I agree with Elliott G. that it might be nice to get back on the topic of Karen Sumner's opening post. It is about language and how we describe and think about what we hear.
Last edited:
1. Holy Grail - Ron
2. God- Bonzo
3. Messenger - Bonzo
4 Religion - Mike L
5. Cult - Al M
6 Jungle -Peter
Jungle is synonymous with natural sound
Which should make me an expert as i spend a lot of time there ( in the Jungle )
2. God- Bonzo
3. Messenger - Bonzo
4 Religion - Mike L
5. Cult - Al M
6 Jungle -Peter
Jungle is synonymous with natural sound
Which should make me an expert as i spend a lot of time there ( in the Jungle )
Last edited:
Ron
We have also this conversation in Iran, one of the audiophiles in Iran visited kevin in munich show 2014 and listened to his Living Voice Vox Olympian there. Living voice/kondo was very wonderful in 2014 (you can see the comments about moc 2014) but he does not surprised. I know him and I listened to his audio system (awful sound) in Iran and after 40 years of trial an error he does not know what good sound means!
yes he is in this hobby more than 40 years but he is beginner in this game. He also think he has many experience and others should follow him.
Long story short I think not all opinions are facts .
We have also this conversation in Iran, one of the audiophiles in Iran visited kevin in munich show 2014 and listened to his Living Voice Vox Olympian there. Living voice/kondo was very wonderful in 2014 (you can see the comments about moc 2014) but he does not surprised. I know him and I listened to his audio system (awful sound) in Iran and after 40 years of trial an error he does not know what good sound means!
yes he is in this hobby more than 40 years but he is beginner in this game. He also think he has many experience and others should follow him.
Long story short I think not all opinions are facts .
If he is happy with his system better leave him alone as he has reached nirvana already.
Even worse then listening to bad sounding audio equipment is so called audio experts who want to prescribe what you should listen to / should buy .
It absolutely kills the hobby
No he is not happy with his system and he changes his system every 6 month.
Most beginners always change their components without getting any valuable result but continue to upgrade every 6 month.
It is the hell circle
I know him since 2004 and I am audio distributor since 2020 , I never sold any audio components to him. Audio is not my business and it is my hobby.
Hi Peter,
I assure you I am not the slightest bit "upset." I literally never get "upset" about WBF discussions. For me, they are never "personal." I am happy to engage in these back-and-forth discussions endlessly.
Your continued focus on the explicit ("I can not see from our posts that we are making such a suggestion") and not re-posting and responding to the substance of my post:
The controversy arises (repeatedly, even if on different threads and in different contexts) when you cloak what you believe is objectively best inside of a discussion wrapper composed of elements which, while not saying explicitly what you think is best, have the net effect of suggesting that if people don't hear the way you hear, and if people don't choose components to achieve a sound which you think is most believable, then their audio systems are objectively inferior to the David Karmeli curated systems.
While not declaring explicitly what you think is objectively "best" your sequence of statements leads ineluctably to that unstated conclusion.
If it weren't for the way in which your posts imply objectivity (instead of the subjectivity in which they should be grounded) none of this would be a source of controversy.
. . . suggests to me that you still are not understanding the issue and the underlying source of the controversy.
Last edited:
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
these are terms that Karen did not refer to I think .1. Holy Grail - Ron
2. God- Bonzo
3. Messenger - Bonzo
4 Religion - Mike L
5. Cult - Al M
6 Jungle -Peter
Jungle is synonymous with natural sound
Which should make me an expert as i spend a lot of time there ( in the Jungle )
The subject of language being distorted to fit an agenda is far more interesting to me than the other topic which are to me boring and irreleavent.
The real time distortion of the language and meaning of words to drive an agenda is now prevalent in our entire culture, audio being the topic dujour.
It is the reason that we get such widely diverse reactions to the same thing and why it is never discussed that learning to listen and what to listen for are IMO far more important than what "you" like. The equipment grinders are searching for mysteries without any clues yet the public endorses this behavior as long as "their" opinion allows permission to enjoy what "we" own or like.
IMO there are more more excellent products than there are excellent systems. Why because it is financially beneficially for the audio business and for peoples egos.
Like they say its not the arrow its the Indian, its not the stove its the chef. Its not the instrument its the player and in audio its not the gear its the system. Is he the one that buys and sells the most gear the expert? If one bitches enough about something long enough does that make it right?
IMO Roy Gregory laid alot of unpopular truth saying that MOC ( and in turn all the shows) are doing a very poor job of presenting what HE audio is actually about.
Yet two very experienced reviewers ( at least ) had almost completely opposite reactions to the same thing. In my mind the ever expanding circle of mediocre is sad.
Karens post IMO is really more about the lack of education and the opportunity to experience what audio is and should be. THe infantcy that she discusses will either end or be the demise we seem to be headed to an all expert society. Audio is only the latest example as we are here.
High end audio happiness is buying what you want and don t listen to others but listen to your system instead .
Most " education programs " in audio are business driven with the aim to sell more of the gear they put in the market .
There is not much more to it imv.
For some in this thread it might be ego driven ( even worse ) as it is absent of logic
Most " education programs " in audio are business driven with the aim to sell more of the gear they put in the market .
There is not much more to it imv.
For some in this thread it might be ego driven ( even worse ) as it is absent of logic
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
Interesting, but we debated it a lot. It included Ron audiophile objectives, Sean Olive and other people courses on how to become a better listener, and surely some theory on stereo. As stereo is a non natural kind of sound, learning must be part of it. The question is that it is an individual learning, that includes strong biases. Guided learning is a form of education that most of us are not keen to accept. We want to enjoy the hobby our own way.
We can't change the world, the shows and the reviews. These last two have positive and negative aspects, they are part of the structure that keeps the high-end alive. IMO the real problem is not their quality, but the lack of a network of good and knowledgeable local dealers with good demonstration facilities is. Also the large diversity of excellent equipment is not making things simple in an hobby where there are almost no rules.
People should understand that opposite reactions are normal in the high-end. And IMO something being unpopular does not make it the truth. I can't see why shows are doing a poor job of presenting what the HE audio is actually about. Just MHO , YMMV.
Similar threads
