David Karmeli’s Bionor/Lamm/AS-2000 Audio System

[Bobvin]

All this talk of “imaging” as an artifact that systems reproduce differently from live — of course it is a “stereo” artifact, first a result of microphones type and placement and number of mics used. But “stereo“ is a holographic effect of intersecting waves — setup your system properly so the sound waves (from each speaker in a stereo pair) reach your ears at the same time and you recreate the sonic hologram as recorded. Some engineers have “ambient” mic feeds they mix in when mastering trying to capture some of that “energy” that is the distinctive factor recorded music just can’t quite capture no matter the system. Butt we’re listening to “recordings” after all, so we hear what the engineer (and equipment) was able to capture.

Granted, speaker type, baffle design, etc impact the arrival of the sound waves at you ears, so the effect can be more or less pronounced. A single pair of mics placed in front of an orchestra will record different acoustics depending on distance, elevation, etc. and that is about the closest ‘stereo’ effect you’ll get as it is similar to your ears if you were sitting where the mics were.

I want my system to recreate the sonic hologram, and as accurately as possible playback what was recorded. The amazing thing to me is as hifi engineers push the envelope we find amazing amounts of information exists in the grooves still waiting to be revealed, increasing the realism and getting us closer to “live” but its the “energy” of real instruments that seems to continue to be the holy grail.

 

[morricab]

My initial question leading to this quest was what the exact horn curve is...the patents drove me in the direction of a Kugelwellenhorn, later I found a patent for a hybrid curve....knowing the drawing is not scaled properly the question was there.

My trionor prototype is torn down before moving house, I'm now waiting for about a year to get this issue resolved so I can start the build. The trionor is a bionor similar build, yet with three 13" fullrange units used as fullrange coupled with a supertweeter so no crossover at 500Hz like Bionor.


Soundstage oriented means IMHO that a speaker is creating stereo 'effects' that are not there in real life, or more likley it is augmenting them, exaggerating.
Listen to a live chamber orchestra of 3 or 4 instruments and try orient instruments with your eyes closed, with that few it should be easy....yet the general location of an instrument can be pinpointed but there is no such thing as hearing the location of individual strings on a violin, let alone an idea of the depth of the soundstage since the music fills the whole concert hall. That effect is even more pronounced with a full orchestra...ultra high notes 'sing' in a different location than the instrument producing it, overtones are quite important too.

Maybe they aren’t there in real life (I woukd argue that thus largely depends on your distance to the performers though) but they often ARE there on the recording.
I have been to many many many small ensemble performances and it is easy to spatially locate performers…I disagree with both you and Peter that it is vague live…again it depends on proximity.

An system that makes recordings sound vague in imaging is doing something wrong because most stereo recordings are rather explicit in their images…a compensation for no visuals. Issues with diffraction and resonance can blur imaging…many of these vintage systems do things like that.
IMO, what the better modern horns do is get the imaging and soundstage right but don’t throw away the dynamics and density of the music that gives the live feeling.

 

[asb]

Gentlemen, back to topic please.

 

[Audiohertz2]

Maybe they aren’t there in real life (I woukd argue that thus largely depends on your distance to the performers though) but they often ARE there on the recording.
I have been to many many many small ensemble performances and it is easy to spatially locate performers…I disagree with both you and Peter that it is vague live…again it depends on proximity.

An system that makes recordings sound vague in imaging is doing something wrong because most stereo recordings are rather explicit in their images…a compensation for no visuals. Issues with diffraction and resonance can blur imaging…many of these vintage systems do things like that.
IMO, what the better modern horns do is get the imaging and soundstage right but don’t throw away the dynamics and density of the music that gives the live feeling.

There’s alot of smearing ( refraction ) taking place in the throat of a horn Speaker, excess reflections will lead to the image issue discussed ..


Regards

 

[MarcelNL]

There’s alot of smearing ( refraction ) taking place in the throat of a horn Speaker, excess reflections will lead to the image issue discussed ..


Regards

what issue please?

 

[morricab]

There’s alot of smearing ( refraction ) taking place in the throat of a horn Speaker, excess reflections will lead to the image issue discussed ..


Regards

Modern horn designs are optimized to reduce HOMs significantly. Also, some designs roll back the edge of the horn to eliminate edge defraction...

 

[Audiohertz2]

Modern horn designs are optimized to reduce HOMs significantly. Also, some designs roll back the edge of the horn to eliminate edge defraction...

Agree on edge refractions, waterfall plots or even impedance plots with mag/phase will show , modern horns designs are a big improvement over older versions but its still there vs say point source type drivers..

Regards

 

[PeterA]

We listen to systems, judge by some reference or other means, and then make our choices. The point I was making is that when I listened to a live chamber performance the other night in a medium sized performance hall with a couple of friends, I did not hear or perceive strong imaging or soundstage cues. I could sense relative placement and scale, but not pinpoint imaging or outlines, and certainly not anything really specific. I heard and felt the energy launching and expanding effortlessly into the room, and lingering. No black backgrounds. That was my takeaway from the evening regarding audiophile stuff.

I agree that this information is embedded in some or most recordings, and it may well be an attempt to make up for the lack of visual cues when listening to a system, but it is an effect of the reproduction process. Some systems/speakers/components enhance or accentuate this effect way beyond what is on the recording or ever experienced live. Personally, I avoid such components and assembled my own system (placement, set up, and selection) to remind me of the experience I had the other night listening to that quartet. Each of us is free to approach the hobby as we wish.

Back to the topic of this thread: David Karmeli's Bionor/Lamm/American Sound system is the deliberate result of the kind of experience he wants based on the live music reference. I have heard this system twice. There is a very strong sense of presence, that you are there with the musicians in a space where they are making music. The timbre is realistic, the sense of energy is profound, the sound is effortless, and the scale and placement of those musicians is convincing. I had the impression that I was hearing more of the the information on the records presented more clearly and more completely than I had heard from any other system. Of course, not everyone will agree, and they will certainly make different choices in their pursuit of their goals.

 

[tima]

I want my system to recreate the sonic hologram, and as accurately as possible playback what was recorded. The amazing thing to me is as hifi engineers push the envelope we find amazing amounts of information exists in the grooves still waiting to be revealed, increasing the realism and getting us closer to “live” but its the “energy” of real instruments that seems to continue to be the holy grail.

I think the psycho-acoustic effect of stereophony (2 sources) in the audio room is partly responsible for the 'sonic hologram' in our head. Whereas in the concert hall there is no hologram, there is directly experienced reality. This may be one reason why the two experiences will forever be different.

edit: I wrote my msg to Bob before reading Peter's which I see as an example of the above. Funny how that happens.

The point I was making is that when I listened to a live chamber performance the other night in a medium sized performance hall with a couple of friends, I did not hear or perceive strong imaging or soundstage cues. I could sense relative placement and scale, but not pinpoint imaging or outlines, and certainly not anything really specific. I heard and felt the energy launching and expanding effortlessly into the room, and lingering. No black backgrounds. That was my takeaway from the evening regarding audiophile stuff.

 

[MarcelNL]

while they will be different I tend to think that some speaker systems make the difference more pronounced than others...

And what is wrong with some good mono '-)

I've heard GREAT mono recordings played back with two speakers that probably painted a better 'picture' than many stereo recordings.

 

[Bobvin]

I think the psycho-acoustic effect of stereophony (2 sources) in the audio room is partly responsible for the 'sonic hologram' in our head.

Tim, besides 2 sources that are (partly) needed for the ‘sonic hologram’ what other parts? Are you meaning to say the entire upstream process(s) and components?

 

[Ron Resnick]

I could sense relative placement and scale, but not pinpoint imaging or outlines, and certainly not anything really specific. I heard and felt the energy launching and expanding effortlessly into the room, and lingering. No black backgrounds.

+1

 

[tima]

Tim, besides 2 sources that are (partly) needed for the ‘sonic hologram’ what other parts? Are you meaning to say the entire upstream process(s) and components?

We can talk about a system and it's components, though here the relevant notion is that it is a stereo system. As we may agree, some components and some systems sound better than others and some are better suited to engage the holography in our heads. I think there is information on a recording that we use or interpret to generate the hologram, but is not inherently directional or dimensional. Without our innate ability to geolocate, parse and interpret into a reality that we already know there is no realism to assess.

 

[morricab]

We listen to systems, judge by some reference or other means, and then make our choices. The point I was making is that when I listened to a live chamber performance the other night in a medium sized performance hall with a couple of friends, I did not hear or perceive strong imaging or soundstage cues. I could sense relative placement and scale, but not pinpoint imaging or outlines, and certainly not anything really specific. I heard and felt the energy launching and expanding effortlessly into the room, and lingering. No black backgrounds. That was my takeaway from the evening regarding audiophile stuff.

I agree that this information is embedded in some or most recordings, and it may well be an attempt to make up for the lack of visual cues when listening to a system, but it is an effect of the reproduction process. Some systems/speakers/components enhance or accentuate this effect way beyond what is on the recording or ever experienced live. Personally, I avoid such components and assembled my own system (placement, set up, and selection) to remind me of the experience I had the other night listening to that quartet. Each of us is free to approach the hobby as we wish.

Back to the topic of this thread: David Karmeli's Bionor/Lamm/American Sound system is the deliberate result of the kind of experience he wants based on the live music reference. I have heard this system twice. There is a very strong sense of presence, that you are there with the musicians in a space where they are making music. The timbre is realistic, the sense of energy is profound, the sound is effortless, and the scale and placement of those musicians is convincing. I had the impression that I was hearing more of the the information on the records presented more clearly and more completely than I had heard from any other system. Of course, not everyone will agree, and they will certainly make different choices in their pursuit of their goals.

Peter, you have to realize that 99% of your recordings are a construct and never intended to simulate a live experience. If you or Karmeli are twisting your systems to make a large % of recordings sound like what you remember from live experience that this something altogether different from the intent of most recordings and probably the inventors of your vintage gear as well. It’s all good but now falls outside the realm of reproduction and into some strange kind of recreation.

What I do is somewhat different. I use gestalt of my live experience to use as a map of what general traits I should find in a system to be realistic based on my sonic template. However, I am still cognisant of the fact that many recordings SHOULD have better resolution, imaging and soundstage than most live performances because of how they are recorded, mixed and edited. Realism of tone, dynamics and weight can be replicated and still keep the inherent hifi traits that are a part of the stereo process and a desirable trait at that to nearly all audiophiles. It enhances visual cues that are absent from stereo playback…that visual aspect is important.
Honestly you might as well listen to mono as your speakers were originally designed for that anyway and you won’t have to worry about imaging and soundstage.

You are right that most high end systems throw out the baby with the bath water and pursue detail and spatial aspects at the expense of the all important “realism factors” if you will. But that doesn’t mean you have to sacrifice the important visual aspects to gain the tone, dynamics and weight. Vintage systems developed in the mono era never had those in mind, so it’s not surprising that they perhaps don’t excel in the visual aspects of stereo reproduction.

 

[morricab]

We can talk about a system and it's components, though here the relevant notion is that it is a stereo system. As we may agree, some components and some systems sound better than others and some are better suited to engage the holography in our heads. I think there is information on a recording that we use or interpret to generate the hologram, but is not inherently directional or dimensional. Without our innate ability to geolocate, parse and interpret into a reality that we already know there is no realism to assess.

It’s also encoded in stereo recordings…so it is inherent in stereo. Just like a stereo picture…the whole point is to make it 3D rather than a flat image.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Peter, you have to realize that 99% of your recordings are a construct and never intended to simulate a live experience. If you or Karmeli are twisting your systems to make a large % of recordings sound like what you remember from live experience that this something altogether different from the intent of most recordings and probably the inventors of your vintage gear as well. It’s all good but now falls outside the realm of reproduction and into some strange kind of recreation.

(emphasis added)

This discussion is interesting because to me it sounds in the matrix of alternative high-end audio objectives. In fact the same words used in this discussion ("reproduction" and "recreation") are used in the terms of the differing objectives.

The idea of "recreation" suggests the objective of:

"1) recreate the sound of an original musical event," or 4) create a sound that seems live."

The idea of "reproduction" suggests the objective of:

"2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape."

 

[tima]

What I do is somewhat different. I use gestalt of my live experience to use as a map of what general traits I should find in a system to be realistic based on my sonic template.

Consider something as elementary as serial ordination. That is not empirical.

The "gestalt of your live experience" is a function of what you imbue upon your perceptions, the raw data coming at your senses is not inherently anthropomorphic.

I am content that we fundamentally disagree.

 

[cjfrbw]

Microphones plus mastering manipulations plus storage rendering device plus transmission device means at best a simulacrum program played on a playing piano (stereo system etc.).

Any resemblance to the original 'live' performance (even assuming people were listening as such) may be welcome but likely purely coincidental, and could just as likely be an artifact of the playing piano that coincidentally resembles a live performance with a particular recording. There is no standardization for such an experience. That doesn't mean the simulacrum program can't be quite moving and involving.

Any stock rendering, even from a high end system, can become familiarized by the hearing apparatus as a recognized but imposed patterned repetition and the ear can become inured to it, leading possibly from bliss to nervosa over time.

Shaking things up with the dither of different devices from time to time can be helpful to tame this inurement process. So the guys with different systems and changing components within the system might not be so crazy after all.

I just want a very nice playing piano in general. The live experience is its own thing.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, you have to realize that 99% of your recordings are a construct and never intended to simulate a live experience. If you or Karmeli are twisting your systems to make a large % of recordings sound like what you remember from live experience that this something altogether different from the intent of most recordings and probably the inventors of your vintage gear as well. It’s all good but now falls outside the realm of reproduction and into some strange kind of recreation.

What I do is somewhat different. I use gestalt of my live experience to use as a map of what general traits I should find in a system to be realistic based on my sonic template. However, I am still cognisant of the fact that many recordings SHOULD have better resolution, imaging and soundstage than most live performances because of how they are recorded, mixed and edited. Realism of tone, dynamics and weight can be replicated and still keep the inherent hifi traits that are a part of the stereo process and a desirable trait at that to nearly all audiophiles. It enhances visual cues that are absent from stereo playback…that visual aspect is important.
Honestly you might as well listen to mono as your speakers were originally designed for that anyway and you won’t have to worry about imaging and soundstage.

You are right that most high end systems throw out the baby with the bath water and pursue detail and spatial aspects at the expense of the all important “realism factors” if you will. But that doesn’t mean you have to sacrifice the important visual aspects to gain the tone, dynamics and weight. Vintage systems developed in the mono era never had those in mind, so it’s not surprising that they perhaps don’t excel in the visual aspects of stereo reproduction.

Brad, I am not sacrificing important visual aspects. I get scale, location and mass. The presentation is dimensional. There’s a sense of presence as though I am in the space with the musicians. These aspects vary by recording and they are the qualities that are important to me. I do not get pinpoint precision or outlines, and I am not searching for those because I do not experience them when attending a live performance.

Others may have those priorities. If it is a good recording made to represent a live event or a construction made to seem like a live event, the result is pretty similar to what I experience when listening to live music.

 

[MarcelNL]

Just listen to what Decca did in the early days of Stereo https://abbeyroadinstitute.co.uk/bl...ets-behind-the-legendary-recording-technique/

Or the BBC recording training manual.

Leaving the recording methods/quirks out of the comparison as that stays the same for both systems I still favor most vintage systems over modern systems.