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

[morricab]

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.

Ok, you like vagueness of image precision that your system generates from the recording because to you that is more "live" in presentation. Just be aware that your system is smearing the imaging... as long as you are cool with that...

 

[morricab]

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.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with your preference...I can very well understand it, as I too like the way the best vintage speaker systems sound. Just don't assume that sharp, well defined imaging and depth /width must be an artifact of the system making it if your vintage system doesn't do that kind of thing.

Early recordings with simpler recording methods do stand a better chance of having a more "live" presentation. I could generate a pretty good facsimile of my ex playing violin live with a single mono condenser microphone, good mic pre and good R2R tape machine.

 

[MarcelNL]

Overall I vastly prefer simpler recordings, they do not have to be early or old!
The modernistic stereo meccano construction box recording (and mastering) I usually leave alone.

 

[bonzo75]

I could generate a pretty good facsimile of my ex playing violin live with a single mono condenser microphone, good mic pre and good R2R tape machine.

I think you are right up there with Kenneth Wilkinson recording in Kingsway

 

[morricab]

Overall I vastly prefer simpler recordings, they do not have to be early or old!
The modernistic stereo meccano construction box recording (and mastering) I usually leave alone.

Agree. One of the best classical recordings I own was made with a single stereo ribbon microphone about 5 meters (18 feet) from the stage. It has minimal compression (about 2 dB only) and a slight bit of HF eq...otherwise pretty much as is. It is a recording of Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet, made by a Canadian recording engineer using a Royer Labs microphone.

 

[morricab]

I think you are right up there with Kenneth Wilkinson recording in Kingsway

Funny how you are an expert on even the things you haven't heard.

 

[PeterA]

Ok, you like vagueness of image precision that your system generates from the recording because to you that is more "live" in presentation. Just be aware that your system is smearing the imaging... as long as you are cool with that...

I actually do not presume to know how your system presents music. And I am cool with that.

if you like pinpoint imaging and precise outlines presented from your system whether or not it’s on the recording, I’m cool with that too.

I understand that we come to these things with different priorities. I have not heard the brands that you represent.

 

[bonzo75]

Funny how you are an expert on even the things you haven't heard.

most of the forum fights are people vying to hear your recording. I am not one of the lucky ones. Heard It commands a high premium on eBay

 

[morricab]

I actually do not presume to know how your system presents music. And I am cool with that.

if you like pinpoint imaging and precise outlines presented from your system whether or not it’s on the recording, I’m cool with that too.

I understand that we come to these things with different priorities. I have not heard the brands that you represent.

You don't presume, which is good, because I haven't laid it out in much spilled ink. I don't have to presume how yours sounds...you have told us what it does and doesn't do.

 

[morricab]

most of the forum fights are people vying to hear your recording. I am not one of the lucky ones. Heard It commands a high premium on eBay

prices on ebay define a recordings quality now? ok, whatever...

 

[morricab]

Balkan Babes – Royer Labs Audio and Video Library

Simple single stereo microphone of 12 female vocalists. Doesn't get a lot simpler than this and it sounds pretty darn good.


Joby Baker and Scott Sheerin – Royer Labs Audio and Video Library

interesting one with sax and piano...here the mic is 12 feet away.


Paul Cantelon – Royer Labs Audio and Video Library

STeinway at 9feet with single stereo ribbon mic.

 

[morricab]

Dicky Simms – Royer Labs Audio and Video Library

Note in the photos where the microphones are placed...this is why you won't get a concert hall sound from a lot of piano recordings...they simply put the microphones right above the strings of the piano and you get very direct sound this way.

 

[morricab]

Ukrainian Radio and Television Orchestra – Royer Labs Audio and Video Library

This is a full orchestra recorded with one Royer Labs SF12 stereo ribbon microphone! Closest you will get to a "live" recording of an orchestra.

 

[marty]

…the whole point is to make it 3D rather than a flat image.

If the whole point is to make a 3D image, I wonder if you are attracted to the BACCH Spatial Audio approach? Have you had the opportunity to hear it?

 

[andromedaaudio]

Ukrainian Radio and Television Orchestra – Royer Labs Audio and Video Library

This is a full orchestra recorded with one Royer Labs SF12 stereo ribbon microphone! Closest you will get to a "live" recording of an orchestra

The best tape recordings i have are from professional recording engineers .
Not the " Hang one mike in the air audiophile symplicity recordings " , i have quit a few and many are awfull / waiste of money

I reckon there is a lot more to recording ... ( multi) microphone placement / mixing etc

 

[Ron Resnick]

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.

(emphasis added)

This explanation supports my sonic cues theory, which explains why – – even though we hear substantially the same thing in the concert hall in the same seat – – our stereo systems end up sounding materially different.

 

[PeterA]

You don't presume, which is good, because I haven't laid it out in much spilled ink. I don't have to presume how yours sounds...you have told us what it does and doesn't do.

You seem to presume that I am “concerned with imaging and soundstage”. I assure you I am not. My system presents much of the information that is embedded on the recording, and it sounds natural to me judging by the standard of live acoustic music. I also know this having heard the same recordings on other systems. Images and sound stage are not flat as you keep suggesting.

Images and soundstage to not seem “enhanced” in what Harry Pearson convinced us was an ever increasing effort towards precision. I pursue this type of presentation through the gear I choose and by how I choose to set up the system.

Certain gear enhances and exaggerates spatial information and it can sound artificial as a result. Wires can do the same. I refer to this as exaggeration and enhancement while you describe the opposite as bluring. That is fine. I think we both know what we want.

 

[morricab]

The best tape recordings i have are from professional recording engineers .
Not the " Hang one mike in the air audiophile symplicity recordings " , i have quit a few and many are awfull / waiste of money

I reckon there is a lot more to recording ... ( multi) microphone placement / mixing etc

The one I linked is very good.

 

[morricab]

Do you presume that I am “concerned with imaging and soundstage”. I assure you I am not. My system presents much of the information that is embedded on the recording, and it sounds natural to me judging by the standard of live acoustic music. I also know this having heard the same recordings on other systems. Images and sound stage are not flat as you keep suggesting.

Images and soundstage to not seem “enhanced” in what Harry Pearson convinced us was an ever increasing effort towards precision. I pursue this type of presentation through the gear I choose and by how I choose to set up the system.

Certain gear enhances and exaggerates spatial information and it can sound artificial as a result. Wires can do the same. I refer to this as exaggeration and enhancement while you describe the opposite as bluring. That is fine. I think we both know what we want.

Quite the opposite, you have made it clear that you are not concerned with imaging and soundstage... I need not presume anything.

I would disagree that your system presents as much of the information that is embedded in the recording if you don't get clear imaging and spatial relationships. There is likely smearing from having the speakers in the corner, diffraction from the old design horn, possible resonances from the cabinet and for sure the horn, etc. I am not suggesting anything about your system and I never said your soundstage is flat. You said that it was not very precise with regard to image specificity and location in space.

I am sure that detail can be exaggerated, through either omission or commission, and I guess this could enhance image location laterally but it will only damage imaging location on depth axis and the sense of 3d images...as it will flatten images.

Again, it is not about what we want...it is about what we get vs. what is on the recording.

 

[morricab]

(emphasis added)

This explanation supports my sonic cues theory, which explains why – – even though we hear substantially the same thing in the concert hall in the same seat – – our stereo systems end up sounding materially different.

I think most people have difficulty in making the mapping from what they heard live onto what is being produced by their stereos...