Natural Sound

[Ron Resnick]

Hi Ian,

WBF has a ChatGPT on Audiophile thread. Perhaps you could start a ChatGPT on Vintage thread and tell us what you think of ChatGPT's capabilities, and what you think ChatGPT means for the future.

Based on your experiments with it with vintage audio I don't understand why ChatGPT is anything more than a self-propelled Wikipedia.

 

[MadFloyd]

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

Haha, I have nothing against vintage equipment - or any audio equipment for that matter. If it sounds good, it sounds good. Since this hobby is about enjoyment of music derived from playback systems that can't reproduce what we hear live, it's up to each of us to choose which characteristics we care about. This hobby isn't just about science, it's about art. Heck, even when two people listen to live music there's a good chance they're listening in totally different ways. Some of us just listen to the overall 'mood', some of us get into the physical vibrations, some of us zero in on an instrument, some of us the composition etc etc. When you then try to represent this music that has been recorded with tiny microphones and subsequently manipulated all bets are off. It's so subjective. I think we have to accept the shortcomings and just enjoy the music.

 

[PeterA]

These were Madfloyd's views before the AI nonesense and before I got a new turntable. I should remind those who are unaware that my speakers and NOS Ortofon cartridge are from 1960. The power cords, one IC, and speaker cables are vintage NOS. My tonearms are from the 90s. The turntable, electronics, and some cartridges are modern. It is not a vintage system, but rather a mix of what was/is good from different periods.

Ian should have waited another few days to post this on April Fools Day and in a different thread.

I wonder if AI could have come up with this listening impression:

I heard Peter's new system the other day. I guess it sounded ok. I mean, if you like natural sound and all.

I'm kidding. It was a lot more than 'ok'.

I am highly impressed with the Lamm electronics. I've owned Lamm hybrid amps in the past and I could not get a clean sound out of them in the high frequencies (perhaps that was due to the speakers I was using at the time) and added a Lamm preamp but the sound didn't work for me (at the time) and I sold it. I then heard the ML2.0 driving horn speakers (albeit with a non-Lamm preamp) and was extremely impressed; so much so that I started hunting for a pair of ML2.0 amps but could never find them (and research seemed to indicate that the ML2.1 and ML2.2 weren't as good). I eventually acquired Doshi tube electronics - which gave me a taste but wasn't the same. So I was pretty excited when I learned Peter was getting ML2.0s and I would get to hear this amp again.


Visiting Peter was almost surreal. Everything had changed - heck even the room seemed to be larger. The following is a bit of a cut-and-paste job from an email to Peter and local audiophiles:

Between the electronics and the speaker (I'm leaving the turntable out of it because I can't speculate on what it brings to the table - no pun intended) what I heard was perhaps the best wooden-based instrument tone I have ever heard - or at least in a long while. I heard wonderful timbre, fantastic body, great transients with deep bass and a great flow.

Acoustic bass had punch on every note with weight and no excess decay or blurring. It was like the bass player was in the room. Cello was great and Ray Brown's bass bowing on the Almeida/Brown recordings was the best I've ever heard it: the high notes remained 'thick' and large with a highly beautiful tone and the low notes were authoritative with great texture. I get great detail on this with my CH amps and I get nice tone with my CATS but I heard a combination of both yesterday. Oh, and the Almeida guitar was also the best I've ever heard it. I'm very envious!

I thought the horn section on Art Pepper was also the best I've ever heard it. Previously it was always too thin and metallic or thick and sluggish but yesterday it had body and sounded effortless and not congealed.

The soundstage is huge. I never realized Peter's room was 16 feet wide (also envious!) and with the speakers in the corners it was a wall to wall, ceiling to floor presentation that did wonders for orchestral music.

Congrats Peter. What a carefully planned and well executed journey!

 

[morricab]

Haha, I have nothing against vintage equipment - or any audio equipment for that matter. If it sounds good, it sounds good. Since this hobby is about enjoyment of music derived from playback systems that can't reproduce what we hear live, it's up to each of us to choose which characteristics we care about. This hobby isn't just about science, it's about art. Heck, even when two people listen to live music there's a good chance they're listening in totally different ways. Some of us just listen to the overall 'mood', some of us get into the physical vibrations, some of us zero in on an instrument, some of us the composition etc etc. When you then try to represent this music that has been recorded with tiny microphones and subsequently manipulated all bets are off. It's so subjective. I think we have to accept the shortcomings and just enjoy the music.

No, sorry "Enjoy the music" is another website...this is WBF and we have to debate endlessly damn it!

 

[morricab]

These were Madfloyd's views before the AI nonesense and before I got a new turntable. I should remind those who are unaware that my speakers and NOS Ortofon cartridge are from 1960. The power cords, one IC, and speaker cables are vintage NOS. My tonearms are from the 90s. The turntable, electronics, and some cartridges are modern. It is not a vintage system, but rather a mix of what was/is good from different periods.

Ian should have waited another few days to post this on April Fools Day and in a different thread.

I wonder if AI could have come up with this listening impression:

Yes, but has ChatGPT heard your system???

 

[MadFloyd]

Peter, you have a glorious system that you are very proud of. I wasn’t trying to insult you or your system but rather tease you and others about natural sound and vintage vs modern systems. Obviously I found it funny but you didn’t.

I was very enthusiastic the first time I heard it and very happy for you. I’ve still not heard cello or stand up bass that surpasses that experience, especially in terms of scale, presence, timbre etc.

As I keep saying, every system is flawed and anyone could criticize anyone else’s system fairly easily. We all enjoy what we enjoy. And if your tonearm is vintage then so is mine!

I do like to tease and while I’m certainly not hiding my personal preferences (any more than you do) I do want you to enjoy and be proud of your system.

 

[Lagonda]

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

You are a old soul Ked !

 

[Lagonda]

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

You bottle amp lovers are all nuts, transistors rule. Horns are for trucks !

 

[morricab]

You bottle amp lovers are all nuts, transistors rule. Horns are for trucks !

Now I KNOW you are using ChatGPT for your responses...

 

[pjwd]

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

They are amazing seats Marty.
Interestingly they are roughly at a similar angle to stage as recording mikes would be hung so you should get a very similar soundstage. Another advantage is the stage is acting like a mirror so you get "floor bounce" which increases volume.
You dont see many balconies that central and close
Phil

 

[microstrip]

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.

Thanks. Are you calling Pitch the 33/45 selector? I understand you adjust for preferred sound, but your explanation about the why's as written does not make sense from the technical point of view. As far as I see, you change the speed using the frequency control to compensate the variations due to tension - like the AF1+ and other turntables.

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.

Ok.

 

[tima]

I have nothing against vintage equipment - or any audio equipment for that matter.

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.

 

[MadFloyd]

Well the first quote is my actual opinion but re-reading the ChatGPT it doesn't seem that unreasonable. Is that your point, Tim?

 

[tima]

tell us what you think of ChatGPT's capabilities, and what you think ChatGPT means for the future.

That is not the issue here, imo.

How do you like not knowing if a post here comes from a person or comes from a machine?

How do you like someone claiming their post does not represent their own view because it comes from a machine? Maybe the bot told him to say that to get him out of the row his post caused? This is a very slippery slope we're on. Do you want people posting bot thought as their own?

 

[PeterA]

Thanks. Are you calling Pitch the 33/45 selector? I understand you adjust for preferred sound, but your explanation about the why's as written does not make sense from the technical point of view. As far as I see, you change the speed using the frequency control to compensate the variations due to tension - like the AF1+ and other turntables.


Ok.

No. I select the speed and then one has the option of adjusting it faster or slower. I call that pitch. I do not do that. I leave the pitch control at 33.3, not 33.2- or 33.4+. When adjusting thread tension, the speed varies from 33.333 +/- by some amount. I then adjust frequency through the controller to get back to 33.333 according to the tachometer that measures the speed of the platter. Adjusting voltage does not affect the speed from what I can tell, but it does affect the sound.

I do not know what the AF1 does. I directly compared that table to the AS2000 in the same system. The two tables sound very different. In fact, the AF1 reminds me of my old SME while the SX8000II is much closer to the AS2000. This is why I never considered buying the AF1 or variants of it. It has a very specific type of damped sound which is not my preference.

 

[PeterA]

That is not the issue here, imo.

How do you like not knowing if a post here comes from a person or comes from a machine?

How do you like someone claiming their post does not represent their own view because it comes from a machine? Maybe the bot told him to say that to get him out of the row his post caused? This is a very slippery slope we're on. Do you want people posting bot thought as their own?

Those are an interesting series of questions. The rich irony is that I was accused of not thinking for myself by Madfloyd not long ago, and in this very thread. To clear up any confusion about what is bot- thought and what is Ian-thought, I re-posted his listening impressions shared earlier in this thread about the sound of my system. We can at least presume that opinion was more or less his own and what he thought at the time.

The implications of your questions remind me too much of the Twilight Zone.

 

[Kcin]

Now this is vintage- they're real and they're spectacular....lol

 

[PeterA]

Peter, you have a glorious system that you are very proud of. I wasn’t trying to insult you or your system but rather tease you and others about natural sound and vintage vs modern systems. Obviously I found it funny but you didn’t.

I was very enthusiastic the first time I heard it and very happy for you. I’ve still not heard cello or stand up bass that surpasses that experience, especially in terms of scale, presence, timbre etc.

As I keep saying, every system is flawed and anyone could criticize anyone else’s system fairly easily. We all enjoy what we enjoy. And if your tonearm is vintage then so is mine!

I do like to tease and while I’m certainly not hiding my personal preferences (any more than you do) I do want you to enjoy and be proud of your system.

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:

I appreciate you trying to unscramble this Ian.

What I find curious is what you must be thinking about to ask ChatGBT to "explain why modern systems sound better than vintage systems", the first time you asked the machine for its opinion. So many possible questions about anything at all, and you chose to ask it this specific question, and then post it here in my system thread without any acknowledgment. One wonders if you would have explained anything if the reactions from Bonzo, Brad, and Tim would have been different.

Tim, and now I, have reason to question the owners about this going forward and to wonder how reliable your future posts can be.

 

[Ron Resnick]

This is RonBot. Ron asked me to report that Ron no moderate.

 

[marty]

They are amazing seats Marty.
Interestingly they are roughly at a similar angle to stage as recording mikes would be hung so you should get a very similar soundstage. Another advantage is the stage is acting like a mirror so you get "floor bounce" which increases volume.
You dont see many balconies that central and close
Phil

Absolutely right Phil. The only other seats that comes close in my experience, for "central and close" are in the Dress Circle Boxes at Powell Hall in St. Louis. I spent 12 years in Box N Seats 1 and 2 in that hall. Sound to die for. Actually kept the seats for 2 years after I moved to Dallas but I didn't use them enough to keep them in perpetuity so I gave them up. I still regret it!