Natural Sound

tima said:

I did not say Lamm line stages sound better than the ARC Ref 10. I said they made a better pairing with Lamm amplifiers.

I had an all ARC system for some time, an all Atma system, and two all Lamm systems. Each presents its manufacturer's distinct character and that does not depart from one component to the next. It is unusual for, say the power supply used in the phono stage to depart from that used in the linestage. Different components from the same builder are typically built and tested with each other. Each line has their own virtues and sonic characteristics. With all three I find pairing like with like to be more synergistic -- better enabled to carry forward the 'idea' behind each manufacturer's 'model' of what musical sound should sound like.

For example, as I noted above, Lamm's empirically derived model of human hearing is the same model, not different, for each component and is represented in his high-level idea that as gain is applied the amplifier should preserve the harmonic structure and spectral balance of the musical source signal. Other manufacturers (I assume) have their models.

Don't get me wrong, the Ref 10 is an excellent linestage -- I owned one for several years paired with the Ref 10 Phono, and the ARC Ref 5SE/2SE pairing before that. Today's ARC sound remains grounded in (though evolved from) William Zane Johnsons's ideas. It is a highly articulate sound with crisp transients and a slightly cooler, very slightly silverish tone. If you want to use an ARC back-end with a different manufacturer's amplifier and create your own 'blended' sound, go ahead, but you will dilute that characteristic ARC sound. In a twisted way it is like using two different manufacturer's tires on your car -- maybe you can do it.

Click to expand...

Tim, I’ve heard OTL and SET both sound (to me) essentially natural (though different) and also in ways fundamentally accurate to the sound of instruments in live music in their characteristic nature.

I’ve ended up using an OTL based preamp with a dht SET amp in my setup as it’s worked out… I did try a couple of the OTL based LTA amps with my LTA pre and found them having many great qualities together but ultimately a touch lean as a pairing. The OTL pre with SET amp struck a more appropriate tonal balance and (new can of worms) was more true to the music.

You’ve owned both Lamm and Atmasphere amp pairings and had them in your system over good periods of time. How does the notion of natural and accurate work out comparatively between these two brands… if possible is it easy to rank them in these areas?

Atmasphere said:

So its vital for the system to sound natural and therefore accurate. You literally cannot have one without the other.

Click to expand...

Saying so does not make it so.

What is your definition of "natural"?

What is your definition of "accurate"?

hopkins said:

While I agree with the first sentence, to play devil's advocate, the two terms when used to qualify a system subjectively could be interchangeable. In other words, "natural" sound could be seen as "accurate" by many, and vice versa.

It's hard to describe sound. I like mine "dry" and "crisp". Those words have meaning to me, but are probably utterly meaningless to others!

Click to expand...

I’d agree they are very enmeshed terms subjectively but (for me) using natural sits more clearly as an area of purely subjective viewpoint whereas accurate leans into either having an objective value or can be a subjective viewpoint and brings with it a slightly different emphasis or aspect and more openess in how its likely to be interpreted. Obviously objective measurement and subjective experience doesn’t always align in the same ways for all at any rate.

The issue isn’t possibly the terminology so much as the degree that people are willing to be flexible or have latitude in trying to work through to a poster’s intention of meaning rather than sometimes using the vagaries of semantics a bit more as a debate tactic at times.

I do feel it’s important we champion people trying to explain why they prefer things rather than just saying one thing is better than the other so closing down people because they are trying to communicate in abstract terms but not using exactly the same words that we might is not helpful… when we’re dealing with subjective assessment and working in abstracts there is going to be an openess of interpretation but it’s better not to always get pinned down too much by each word but trying to look more to the whole meaning or intention in a post. I do get that this isn’t going to be always straightforward.

PeterA said:

Nice post Graham. When naming my thread and discussing what I think of as natural sounding systems, I draw on my observation and memory of my reference, live acoustic music.

Ralph introduced something completely different, which is the objective measurements of amplifier circuits. I believe he is assessing what happens to a signal as it is amplified and measuring things like distortion.

The interesting thing is the Vladimir Lamm studied listening preferences of people, and then made a mathematical model based on the results which I understand became the basis for the design of his circuits.

It would have been very interesting to listen to a discussion between Vladimir and Ralph on this topic, but sadly, Vladimir is not here to share his thoughts with us or to defend his designs from critics like Ralph.

Click to expand...

Thanks Peter, I’d completely agree that being able to have that range of diverse live acoustic music experiences as a summative reference point for us to navigate with is invaluable… it’s the essential and ultimate way for some of us.

It makes a lot of the too and fro of various academic standpoints fall away and leaves us in our rooms with a singular primary contextual benchmark to assess against. Then in terms of spirit add in the value of depth of musical engagement as proof of performance and ultimately everyone’s interpretations of the measurements and theory on sound becomes more an interesting addendum. If the interpretation of the measurements doesn’t align in the experience of the sound then for me the experience reinforces that everyone’s interpretations don’t necessarily always hold water.

Neither interpreting measurements nor interpreting experiences is straightforward but either way I’m also another listener first and last.

At work I’m an academic but at home definitely not. I’m completely a happy listener and music lover. The wars of measurement and how they translate to our experience of sound are interesting and better suited for others armed in very different ways.

morricab said:

darTZeel monos and Lamm ML3 monos are not at all the same sound.

Click to expand...

I agree with this, which I learned when I had the extremely fortunate opportunity to compare directly at Mike's darTZeel 458 versus VAC 450 versus Lamm ML3.

wil said:

How would natural not be accurate? That makes no sense to me.

If that were the case, “natural“ would be, by definition, colored and Un-natural.

Click to expand...

I am certain it makes no sense to embark upon a discussion like this without a clear understanding of each other's definitions. I would have to understand your definition of accuracy and your definition of natural to make any progress toward mutual understanding.

the sound of Tao said:

Tim, I’ve heard OTL and SET both sound (to me) essentially natural (though different) and also in ways fundamentally accurate to the sound of instruments in live music in their characteristic nature.
...
You’ve owned both Lamm and Atmasphere amp pairings and had them in your system over good periods of time. How does the notion of natural and accurate work out comparatively between these two brands… if possible is it easy to rank them in these areas?

Click to expand...

As you may have garnered by now I talk little about my own system but I'm not shy in saying what I think about equipment -- which I do primarily in reviews. To do justice to your questions would take a review sized response. I would need to talk about the notions of accurate and natural. I would need to describe with music examples what I hear from the two components. And then ... answer your questions, without having them for comparison. This is not my platform for that. So, I'm going to cop out.

In consolation, I will point you to some reviews I wrote for each manufacturer's components. You can come to your own conclusion about what I think.

An excellent review, Tim! It makes me want to try this pre-amp!

Ron Resnick said:

SoundStage! Equipment Review - Lamm LL2.1 Deluxe Preamplifier (8/2009)

An excellent review, Tim! It makes me want to try this pre-amp!

Click to expand...

Thank you. That was a good choice to read because it offers a brief comparison of the Lamm unit with the Atma-Spere MP-1 preamp. I had not read it in a while and doing so took me back to that time. That was my first exposure to Lamm and I did enjoy having it in my system.

The LL2.1 Deluxe is their entry level model. Relatively inexpensive on the used market $2500 - $4000.

wil said:

How would natural not be accurate? That makes no sense to me.

Click to expand...

It makes no sense to compare and contrast 'accurate sound' and 'natural sound' if by accurate sound we mean sound described with measurements. (This is Al M's "What in your view is the difference between natural sound and accurate sound?") Talking about the difference between accurate sound and natural sound is to make a kind of of Wittgensteinian category mistake. One is known by listening the other is known by measuring.

That's one way to parse it.

Here's another in terms of reproduction and reality:

When I talk about audio (or to audiophiles) I use "natural" to describe a reproduction that is close to the sound of live acoustic music -- which I draw from my inner template of that sound built upon my listening experience. You might say the sound of live acoustic music is an archetype for the word "natural" in this context. The real v reproduction relationship.

Where does "accurate" stand in the real? Is there an experience of live acoustic music that can be called inaccurate? I can't see that. There might be an inaccurate performance where wrong notes are played, but here I'm talking about our experience. Listening to live acoustic music is indistinguishable from listening accurately, although saying that doesn't yield much light.

Where or how does this cash out in the audiophile world of reproduction? Presumably there can be an inaccurate reproduction and any reproduction where there is any distortion (however you characterize that) might be called inaccurate. The hedge you often find is 'more accurate' or 'less accurate' but that strikes me as a form of BS -- accurate is a singularity not a quantity. I am skeptical of claims of accurate reproduction beyond the theoretical or coincidental possibility of such.

However, I believe reproduction with distortion neither is or is not antithetical to a reproduction that sounds natural.

How can “live Accoustic music” be described and categorised as being either ‘Natural’ or ‘Unnatural’ when the sound waves produced are intrinsically Anthropogenic noise ? There is no such phenomenon as a “Natural Sound” created *Outside* the natural world.

Argonaut said:

How can “live Accoustic music” be described and categorised as being either ‘Natural’ or ‘Unnatural’ when the sound waves produced are intrinsically Anthropogenic noise ? There is no such phenomenon as a “Natural Sound” created *Outside* the natural world.

Click to expand...

Because they are still real things making mechanical sounds in real space.

tima said:

As you may have garnered by now I talk little about my own system but I'm not shy in saying what I think about equipment -- which I do primarily in reviews. To do justice to your questions would take a review sized response. I would need to talk about the notions of accurate and natural. I would need to describe with music examples what I hear from the two components. And then ... answer your questions, without having them for comparison. This is not my platform for that. So, I'm going to cop out.

In consolation, I will point you to some reviews I wrote for each manufacturer's components. You can come to your own conclusion about what I think.

SoundStage! Equipment Review - Atma-Sphere M-60 Mk III Mono Amplifiers (6/2006)

SoundStage! Equipment Review - Atma-Sphere MP-1 Mk III Preamplifier (10/2007)

The Audio Beat - MA-1 Mk 3.1: More Than "Another Upgrade"; Atma-Sphere MA-1 Mk 3.1 mono amps

read audio reviews, ratings, and user opinions on audio equipment before you buy an audio system

www.theaudiobeat.com

SoundStage! Equipment Review - Lamm LL2.1 Deluxe Preamplifier (8/2009)

Lamm Industries M1.2 Reference Mono Amplifiers - The Audio Beat - www.TheAudioBeat.com

read audio reviews, ratings, and user opinions on audio equipment before you buy an audio system

www.theaudiobeat.com

Lamm Industries LP2.1 Deluxe Phono Preamplifier - Positive Feedback

Lamm Industries LP2.1 Deluxe Phono Preamplifier

positive-feedback.com

Click to expand...

I did think it might not prove easy for you to briefly capture the points and then give justice to both brands… I’ve also enjoyed those reviews before but did check out the Lamm preamp review again… I’d already thought since you still have the Lamm you ultimately voted with your heart. I find that instinct to be a wise one when it comes to gear, music or fairly much any Dionysian pursuit.

morricab said:

Because they are still real things making mechanical sounds in real space.

Click to expand...

I am merely debating more the validity of the word as a descriptor for a ‘thing’ that it cannot actually represent outside of ‘Audiophile Speak’ and the way the word has become a norm , misused or otherwise.

A cello solo is not a ‘Natural’ sound , it is a series of ‘Anthropogenic’ noises forming a more structured series of noises following patterns , usually written down on a score , that we recognise as music, If the same cellist gets up on his hind legs and begins to hum whistle or even sing then that IS a ‘Natural’ sound . Contentious , even a little pedantic you might say , however since the word ‘Natural’ or otherwise has become such a weaponised term to label say a particular device made to amplify a sound signal , then it is in many ways a fundamentally incorrect use of the term , and somewhat convenient / lazy .

The reality is that nothing is "accurate", and that starts with speakers, which remain the biggest source of distortion in any system.

Introducing distinctions between "natural" and "unnatural" music, whatever that may mean, does not help clarifying things.

Let's take one of bonzo75's recent videos:


Some people would listen to the system and be ecstatic at how "natural" it sounds, because they feel it provides a life like sound with texture, etc...

Others will hear a gross misrepresentation of the tonality of instruments.

Who's right and who's wrong?

Those who like it probably do so in spite of the shortcomings, and those who don't like it won't be able to go beyond those shortcomings and appreciate some of the qualities that others find.

hopkins said:

Some people would listen to the system and be ecstatic at how "natural" it sounds, because they feel it provides a life like sound with texture, etc...

Others will hear a gross misrepresentation of the tonality of instruments.

Who's right and who's wrong?

Click to expand...

Your opinion would be ?

Argonaut said:

Your opinion would be ?

Click to expand...

Somewhere in between My opinion is irrelevant - and a video is not ideal to get a real sense of a system (though some things do transpire).

I think that I "get" what people like and dislike about different systems, having experienced a variety of systems myself (though not this one). It's largely a matter of taste. Our ability to convince people that they should not like what they are hearing based on argumentation is limited. If people are curious, they will experiment, if not, they won't.

Argonaut said:

I am merely debating more the validity of the word as a descriptor for a ‘thing’ that it cannot actually represent outside of ‘Audiophile Speak’ and the way the word has become a norm , misused or otherwise.

A cello solo is not a ‘Natural’ sound , it is a series of ‘Anthropogenic’ noises forming a more structured series of noises following patterns , usually written down on a score , that we recognise as music, If the same cellist gets up on his hind legs and begins to hum whistle or even sing then that IS a ‘Natural’ sound . Contentious , even a little pedantic you might say , however since the word ‘Natural’ or otherwise has become such a weaponised term to label say a particular device made to amplify a sound signal , then it is in many ways a fundamentally incorrect use of the term , and somewhat convenient / lazy .

Click to expand...

Not sure it helps in the discussion though…