Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Has nothing to with bass.
BTW, I once wrote about a horn system being best in Show:
An AXPONA 2017 highlight: BorderPatrol/Triode Wire Labs/Volti Audio
A belated report, since right after the AXPONA show I went on vacation to Europe, but now I'm back. Among other great sounds at AXPONA 2017 (for a good part experienced together with WBF member Madfloyd [Ian] and his wife Linda), for me personally the highlight was the room with BorderPatrol...
www.whatsbestforum.com
So much for your falsehood of me not liking horns.
I am thrilled that Peter has found his definition of natural sound. Many an audiophile should be so lucky to get off the upgrade train. I really like the Lamm electronics that I have first hand experience with (I own modified LP2 and LL2 but they live on my reserves bench). But based on Peter’s many YouTube videos, I suspect that corner-loaded horns aren’t for me. I prefer a more open, lively and dynamic sound which (to me) more closely approximates what I hear from a full symphony orchestra in the concert hall. Nothing wrong with preferring something different but clearly proclaiming that one way is the only right (or natural) way rubs many people the wrong way. For the record, I don’t have an inherent dislike of hornspeakers. I very much enjoyed older generation Avantgarde Trios (despite the flawed sealed sub cabinets) driven by a full suite of Kondo electronics (and cables) and a 47Labs digital source while a newer generation set of Trios driven by Datrzeel electronics just wasn’t my cup of tea. In fact, I preferred Trios driven by Tom Evans electronics to the Dartzeel electronics in the same room.
I don't think PeterA proclaims that. But others do, when they imply that people who don't recognize the superiority of that technology don't have sufficient experience of live acoustical instruments...
The state of things that SETs with efficient speakers are superior, in your view?
Nice try. I like my ML2 with my corner horns and that’s what this thread is about. You are the one who is shrugging. I don’t get it, but for some reason you can’t resist coming on here or on video threads and complaining about what other people are enjoying.
Corner horns are used for a specific room reason, or aesthetics, or both. What speaker that gives open, lively, and dynamic sound for full symphony do you recommend in a 15*15 room that is not dedicated, but is a living room?
Ps: I would suggest audionec Evo 2 with similar higher power SETs. And a Garrard or a 124. Your choice?
Has nothing to with bass.
BTW, I once wrote about a horn system being best in Show:
An AXPONA 2017 highlight: BorderPatrol/Triode Wire Labs/Volti Audio
A belated report, since right after the AXPONA show I went on vacation to Europe, but now I'm back. Among other great sounds at AXPONA 2017 (for a good part experienced together with WBF member Madfloyd [Ian] and his wife Linda), for me personally the highlight was the room with BorderPatrol...
So much for your falsehood of me not liking horns.
You are so serious you didn’t even get the pun
In a relatively small, square room I would choose a sealed box active speaker with active crossover, room gain compensation, parametric EQ for taming the most offensive peak between 30 and 300 Hz, and the ability to adjust the relative levels of low, mid and hi frequency ranges (all in the analog domain). Flavour with tube pre and phono, my choice would be Lamm. This is not a hypothetical, I have had such a system myself.
I would steer clear of ported bass alignment in a small room. Yes, I know that Peter’s former Magico speakers were sealed but they also used complex passive crossovers (also not a fan of those).
What? I was shrugging at Brad's (morricab's) implications that SETs/horns are superior. One thing led to another from there. I have never complained about people enjoying SETs/horns! I just don't like to be told by people like Brad and Bonzo what to like.
Can you please answer my question, Peter, instead of deflecting and twisting things? "Nice try" doesn't cut it.
I have never told you what to like. You like digital, inefficient speakers, not trying new stuff, and don't like videos.
I am certain others will very much disagree with your first statement. Your zealotry on the forum is well known.
I like any speakers that sound good, also very efficient speakers, including the horns that, as I posted the link in a post on top of this page, thought were best in show for me at AXPONA 2017. I just made a different choice, that's all. Also, "inefficient speakers" is in the eyes of the beholder. Mine can comfortably and authoritatively be driven by an about 80 W/ch tube amp.
As for "not trying new stuff": No, I don't follow your peculiar wishes if that's what you mean (you do).
Actually, I am more of a SETs (or more generally amps that are single ended rather than push/pull or balanced) are a superior form of amplification (or other single ended topologies that similarly don't use feedback) all things being equal and in the here and now of the 21st century where a linear amplification device does not exist.
I like horns because, when done well, they can get the best out of this amplification type. However, I like all well done high sensitivity speakers, including cones/domes in a box if sufficiently easy to drive (Like Living Voice OBX-RW speakers...for example...Grandinote Mach speakers or the original Wilson X1). So, I am not married to horns, although I find having a compression driver on high frequency with a horn/waveguide often adds to the realism of the sound over other tweeter types.
I guess you could say I am an electronics first, rather than a speaker first, audiophile. If I am not mistaken, both TimA and Peter are similarly motivated, having found the the profound importance of electronics with an absence of "synthetic" sound artifacts on the realism of reproduction.
Is this the “male bonding” that Kedar spoke of?
The state of things is a reference to my thread and its activity and current affairs which are prohibited from discussing here, not to your assumption that I think sets with efficient speakers are superior. I noticed you changed it from sets and horns after I argued that efficient cones also worked very well with my amps.
Superior is a loaded term. I do not have the knowledge or experience to make such a claim. I have a preference for that combination, specifically for my exact combination, in my room over what I had before. I also have a preference for the approach in the examples of various systems I heard in Utah over other approaches I have heard. But as I said, my experience is not broad.
To answer your question, I am not going to state here now that is SET’s and efficient speakers are superior in my view.
Al, now that we got that out-of-the-way, perhaps you can answer my question, which I asked pages and pages ago,for you to define and explain the differences between the terms natural and accurate.
And I have another question for you. Why do you keep coming onto this thread and video threads. They seem to frustrate you.
Last edited:
Always interested remarks by Ralph. I would like to hear a really good horn.
Does this answer my question, Peter? Hmm. Others can decide.
Sound is natural when it is reminiscent of the sound of live unamplified instruments.
Accurate is exact reproduction of what is on the recording.
It is in principle unknowable if reproduction is accurate or not, certainly when it comes to those not involved in the recording process. See also Audio's Circle of Confusion by Sean Olive, who even seems to claim that the problem also affects recording engineers themselves:
Audio's Circle of Confusion
Audio’s “Circle of Confusion” is a term coined by Floyd Toole [1] that describes the confusion that exists within the audio recording and r...
seanolive.blogspot.com
I like controversy. I also like interesting discussion. There is the occasional frustration with some posters.
As for video threads, I haven't commented on them in a while (I couldn't find any post of mine there in at least a month). I do get good laughs out of them when I visit them, which is rare these days.
Al's distinction between Natural and Accurate is interesting.
But I think the bottom line for anyone listening to recorded music in a room is if it manages to meet one's idealized concept/memory of music. For me, the instruments need to sound as close as possible to the real thing in the space of the recording. I want to get a sense of the human presence and musical intention in that space.
I can't see Accuracy and Naturalness existing independent of one another.
I also can't hear Natural/Accurate sound if the listening room sound is getting in the way.
But I think the bottom line for anyone listening to recorded music in a room is if it manages to meet one's idealized concept/memory of music. For me, the instruments need to sound as close as possible to the real thing in the space of the recording. I want to get a sense of the human presence and musical intention in that space.
I can't see Accuracy and Naturalness existing independent of one another.
I also can't hear Natural/Accurate sound if the listening room sound is getting in the way.
Sure, in this more subjective approach to the term "Accurate" the two terms, Natural and Accurate, are more bound to converge.
My point was that per "Audio's Circle of Confusion" it is objectively unknowable what is on the recording (including actual tonal balance; look at the in-room frequency graph for studio monitors used for monitoring recordings in the link above), certainly for those not present at the recording process, and potentially beyond.
Therefore, if what exactly is on the recording is unknowable, then what is objectively accurate reproduction of the recording is unknowable as well. If things sound subjectively Accurate to you that is a different thing. I strive for that kind of "accuracy" too, but that's not really Accurate.
Similar threads
