Forget it Jake, it's Audiophile
- Thread starter tima
- Start date
'Cause I try and I try and I try and I try
I can't get no, I can't get no
If the forums are evidence, there certainly is plenty of equipment churn. Some seem to enjoy telling us about their new audio thing as much as they like the thing itself. Do audiophile forums spur the chase or do they instill an achievable goal?
The hobo asks if there will be boxcars in heaven. Are you still an audiophile if you get off the train?
Peter,
IMHO the depicted power cable makes my system sound better - the piano is more real, decays have more information and transients are more musical. It is now powering the whole XLF/cj/dCS currently playing in my room. Surely I can't afford it and I must return it by tomorrow, but I have enjoyed this audiophile experience.
BTW do you consider that a $100 connector is "fancy" and that our four box $50k preamplifier needing very expensive matched tube sets is not "fancy"?
Fransisco, I’m glad you like the power cable. Being happy with the sound is important. I do not see how one power cable can provide power for all of those components. I see a lot of power cables but you must be talking about the one that is gold and looks different from all the rest. I don’t know if the manufacturer refers to it as an audiophile cable or not. It certainly looks fancy to me from the photograph because of the color and those attached boxes and the very big metal connectors. If it comes in really nice packaging and it costs a lot, I would say it qualifies as being fairly fancy. Congratulations on the audiophile experience and I’m sorry you can’t afford the one power cable. Maybe you could trade your unused gear for it.
I paid $100 for a black plastic Furutech connector many years ago and it came in a cheap paper and plastic box. It was not fancy and ultimately I understood then it did not sound good. The plastic body broke when I over tightened one of the screws slightly.
If you are referring to our Lamm LL1 preamplifier, I would say yes it is expensive but no it is not fancy. It’s four black boxes in thin casework and they arrive in wooden crates, not a silver flight case. The whole aesthetic is actually pretty industrial and plain with no fancy brochure or marketing campaign. I would not describe it as fancy, but it is very functional and serves its purpose well. I just bought five matched replacement sets of tubes for the preamplifier. I don’t know if they are expensive. Getting them matched from the manufacturer is a choice that the end-user makes. It is not a requirement.
You can call the experience of listening to such a preamplifier anything you want. I would describe it as akin to listening to music. There is pride of ownership, but not because it looks fancy on a rack.
I agree with Peter’s sentiments as I think I strive for something similar to himself , however I have a problem with it, for people who don’t in the main listen to acoustic instruments , and some who only listen to electronica
I am unclear what then would be “‘natural sound” as some of this music is not something you would ever even here ”live”
as it’s not to my taste this sort of music, it pretty much defines much of contemporary music
clearly far more people these days listen to this sort of music but is a heavily distorted guitar amp “natural”
I became even more puzzled when a reviewer recently said a tube amplifier couldn’t reproduce the “bite“ of a guitar amplifier only a solid state amp could in his opinion
I don’t know a lot about electric guitars , but it did seem strange to me that a tube amplifier couldn’t reproduce a tube amplifier ?
so what is Natural sound in this context?
Best blues guitaring I heard was Pnoe with Mayer 46. best rock with electric guitar was at Mike's, followed by Altec 817 with 3.5 watt push pull tube amps. Agreed that 2 of those systems are extreme outliers that cannot be used to generalize, but the VOTT is/was a standard design. That reviewer must be someone like soundstage ultra who has zero experience with SETs and whose natural is Gryphon into Magico. Most of the legendary guitarists used tube amplifiers.
You raise an interesting topic which I boil down to: can the synthesist have a reference other than himself (his personal preferences) for assessing how well his system reproduces an electronic instrument performance, say rock music?
This implies a shareable reference, in the same sense that the naturalist has a shareable acoustic reference such as an orchestra on stage or jazz trio in a club. (I won't go into the naturalist/synthesist distinction if you don't know it. You'll need to do your own catch-up homework on this. Open the above link in a separate window.)
Among electric instruments, the electric guitar (including electric bass) is probably the most common - and to the extent one can say any electric instrument has a 'standard' or known sound, - the sound of the electric guitar is probably best known when it is plugged straight into an amp and does not include pre-processing such as a wah-wah pedal or a fuzz pedal or other electronic signal manipulator. Once we get past the electric guitar the only other electric instrument I can think of that has a standardized sound - a sound I would recognize regardless of performer - is a Hammond B3 electric organ. (There may be other such instruments.)
Is there an archetype sound for an electric guitar? I'm sceptical, but willing to hear the case for such. I am curious if there may be an archetype sound derived from 'live' performances for an electric guitar played by a specific performer, against which one can assess the relative believability of a system in reproducing it. I played keyboards in rock bands for several years and there is a definitive sound of a Fender guitar into an Fender amp as contrasted to say a Gibson guitar into a Fender amp - when heard live.
Going further: are the characteristics by which we assess the reproduction of an acoustic performance (tone, dynamics, timing, ambience) applicable to electronic music. I don't know - I'm fairly confident that for much of electronic music there are no such characteristics; consider for example, Kraftwerk or Trentemoller. But Chet Atkins ...?
I invite you (or anyone) to start a thread on this topic if you're willing to provide a cogent opening statement and a position. I only add the proviso as you express your own scepticism or uncertainty about where to go with this. It could be a great thread.
As @bonzo75 observes, a lot great rock guitarists used tube amplifiers. Hendrix and Clapton played Fender Stratocasters and used Marshall (tubes) and sometimes Fender (tubes) amplifiers (among others.) With regard to questions about amplifiers reproducing amplifiers and amplified sound - I see no basis for thinking there is an inherent bias or necessity for tube or solid state amps. This comes down to the same question - what assemblage of a system reproduces rock music in a way that is closer or farther from what you hear live.
Natural sound and high fidelity sound are often at odds with one another because Natural sound is often low fidelity.
You wanna start the fight all over again here lol.
I see it more as about personal taste , which cannot be debated really .
Does one wants to debate ones car choice or house style or which wine or whiskey .
Its childish really .
Regarding speakers for example :
i wouldnt want to have a horn speaker like JBL or Westminster or AG in my house even if you gave it to me .
Does it make it right or wrong off course not.
Personal taste is all fine and good. There is no right or wrong. But it doesn't require voluminous threads to justify, either. More often than not, it really is that simple.
These are two different axes. You can have NS in Lo-fi or hi-fi, and you can fake sound in lo fi or hi fi.
It's possible. I think Tang might have NS hifi. It's very easy, though, to spend big bucks on low fi.
He does, and there are others, and the point is you don't need a half million speaker.
Bingo, gryphon and Magico or insert other the same speaker type
interesting I heard a wonderful SET recently and not having a lot of experience with anything other than 300B was deeply impressed by its quality especially the feeling you were getting a rendition of the instruments which fitted well with my internal reference of how I think they should sound , which I term “ natural” once again I demur on the electronica but appreciate that Stratocaster, Les Paul, etc have distinctive qualities easily detected by players , which escapes me ….
I always struggle with this Tim. I get where you are coming from in that what the synthesist is attempting to do is fundamentally synthetic but everything we do within our recording and audio systems is about synthesis. None of it is real, just purely synthetic reproduction. So successful synthesis is in the end much like Keyser Soze (aka Lagonda) as the ultimate trickster in The Usual Suspects.
Why the importance of synthesis resonates for me is that traditionally in design process synthesis is the final stage of bringing all the parts back together in hopefully some right coherent wholeness of experience at the end as opposed to the preceding phases of analysis (the opposition to synthesis) where we are drawn to pull things apart to evaluate the separate constituents, a trait which some systems can do in inappropriate measure and seemingly sounding in ways essentially relatively less natural or less real.
So I’d propose that successful synthesis in a system designed to replay recorded music is the actual goal of the listener who uses acoustic instruments and live music as their summative reference. That the best outcome of successful synthesis in systems designed for recording and the replaying of music is the essential final element that results in systems playing together and sounding natural when benchmarked by live acoustic music and potentially even more real sounding than systems that seem noticeably artificial when they attempt to replay live acoustic music.
Bringing the experience to a proper and natural and realistic sounding wholeness is I’d suggest what then leaves us more comfortably listening to the music and more centred in the limbic.
Synthesis is about bringing parts to a coherent union and so right synthesis in the composer (initially bringing the notes successfully together out of the inspiration and process for the music) or the performers in an orchestra or band playing those notes together successfully and true and in complete tune with each other and the composers intention. Then in the engineers most successfully and faithfully recording and in the mixing and mastering and successfully synthesising it faithfully to a recorded medium and so finally in our own system’s if designed to replay with apparent sonic rightness and coherency and truthfulness to the recording leading us back to the performance itself and the composers original creation of music. The synthesists whose aim is fidelity all along the way can work to successfully complete the phenomenon that is the composer-performer-listener relationship. Proper synthesis throughout is what leads to rightness and then in musical authenticity and wholeness.
Some choose to synthesise in artificial ways, to commandeer the sound while others choose to synthesise in what they feel is sonically authentic and musically right and towards the more real and natural sounding. For a great synthesist it’s transparency of synthesis and rightness that can be the achievement. That is the alchemy of perfect art and perfect design.
Systems that are sonically inappropriately fragmented and disparate and not coherently whole reflecting unsuccessful and artificial sounding replays with wrong tonalities or exaggerated or over highlighted sound fields or weird inky blacknesses are the ones that snap our minds back into analysis where the consciousness seeks to then amend perceptions to better align with expectation from retentions referenced from live instruments and live music heard before.
I’d propose that the best we can be is actually successful synthesists all the way and that anything recorded as live acoustic music that sounds out of place (ironic in itself) and noticeably wrong and artificial is just a failed synthesis.
The successful synthesists who bring all the parts together with a perceived sense of fidelity and musical and sonic authenticity along each step and complete to keep things in the end recognisably whole and seemingly natural sounding with perhaps even moments of something approaching realness are the great success.
So I’d suggest when the outcome at the very end is very purely and clearly reflective of our previous experiences of similar live music and the illusion of the recorded replay in our homes is in such an authentic way that our minds just hear no disparate or recognisably artificial renderings and so that we are largely left with just a coherent and reflective whole all the way from the very inspiration of the original musical idea through to its very real performance and eventually through to our experience of it in the replay of recorded live performances in our homes I’d suggest it is then that our best synthesists are to be thanked. Perhaps the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he was to be found in the details.
Last edited:
Hi Graham, thanks for your considered reply. I'm not sure from your post if we're talking within the same domains. I admitted from the outset that my word 'synthesist' is not the best word to use for contrasting to 'naturalist' and I'm open to alternatives. I do not tie the word to 'synthetic' and admit the derivation from one to the other makes my word confusing. But imo, the concept is not. The fundamental difference being that the naturalist uses live acoustic music as his reference for assessing sound quality, making progress and choosing system modifications. Whereas the synthesist does not use live acoustic music in those ways.
That leaves alternative approaches pretty much wide open for the synthesist in terms of some other reference or no reference. One of many possibilities could be someone who uses live electronic music as a reference. Another could be someone who uses personal pleasure or satisfaction with his reproduction system - not really a reference imo, so the absence of one. Or someone who combines characteristics in a variety of ways - there is a type of synthesis.
I picked up on Awsmone's comments about "people who don’t in the main listen to acoustic instruments , and some who only listen to electronica" and his mention of electric guitars, to speak about, for example, someone who listens to rock music.
I was not meaning to speak to a wholly generalized process of doing or thinking (synthesis) as it does not help me differentiate what I thought Awsmone was picking up on which was Peter's comments about natural sound and how those comments could or could not apply to electronic music. Perhaps I am missing a broader point you are making relative to my post.
Edit: I don't know if you'll see this Graham... we kinda had this conversation before
The Mysterious Case of the Listening Window! By Jeff Day, Positive Feedback
I’m glad this thread took a sidetrack for a moment and some humor crept in. (Not what you wrote Tango, before that. i much appreciated your last post.)
www.whatsbestforum.com
Last edited:
Please define “Natural” sound and low fidelity Brian. Which systems are you basing it on when you claim this is often the case, must have been many!
david
Thanks to both of you( Tima and Tao), i think you understand my meaning broadly
maybe if I can give an example
there is a wonderful documentary on Peter Wispelway recording the Bach cello suites for the third time and in it there are clips from his live performances
‘when I watch this I have the distinct feeling that I am listening to the concert, the experience is uncanny every time
to me that is an “ natural sound” experience
it is made even more enlightening by his use of different cellos or tuning at various times clearly audible
maybe if I can give an example
there is a wonderful documentary on Peter Wispelway recording the Bach cello suites for the third time and in it there are clips from his live performances
‘when I watch this I have the distinct feeling that I am listening to the concert, the experience is uncanny every time
to me that is an “ natural sound” experience
it is made even more enlightening by his use of different cellos or tuning at various times clearly audible
I can see there could be an expectation dichotomy here, at times I think ‘natural sound “ at first could be perceived as low fidelity only on more direct observation realise it is more deeply correct, in an example a live piano when heard is often taken for granted when heard Reproduced correctly there may be an initial reaction to take it for granted in the same breadth so to speak,
I have have been at many “audiophile” events where a “high fidelity” reproduction drew gasps of appreciation only to have me protest that the sound bore little representation of a real piano , pretty “tinkles” may sound flashy, but the complexity of real pianos is far interesting and complex and faceted than that >……
Similar threads
