Is High End Audio Gear Worth the Money?

Neutral to me is the LACK of color. It is something that plays exactly what it is fed and does not change or alter the sound. This IMO is the only definition of the term. It adds nothing and it subtracts nothing that is by definition.
What i like or anyone likes may be their favorite for various reasons but they can only be that if they do not change the signal with any color or flavor. To that end the Lamm amplifiers IMO are not neutral. They may be natural sounding to those who like them but they are not neutral.
IMO when you hear those amps say on a Wilson they change the sound dramatically of those speakers that IMO is not neutral.
I think that most would agree that electronics has some family sound. That said that a CH sounds a certain way. An Audio research sounds a certain way, A VAC sounds a certain way, A D'agostino sounds a certain way , A Soulution sounds a certain way etc. So those who own them probably believe that are neutral? or natural? or they just like the sound?
If they all sound different then which one is neutral? If it isn't neutral is it still natural even with its color added?
Are you able to articulate the differences in “sound” as characteristic to each (CH, Audio Research, VAC, D’Agostino)?
 
Exactly, he says it well. I am always amused when people claim they "know" how a recording should sound.

It always comes back to the Circle of Confusion:


Even the original sound engineer cannot precisely know what's on the actual tape and how it should sound when reproduced "neutrally" because of all the fIltering through the equipment needed to listen through it, in the studio or otherwise. In that context the question becomes, how do you *know* your reproduction is neutral or not?

Al, you would have a very interesting discussion with Ralph on this topic. He often writes about knowing what the recording should sound like because he makes his own recordings and uses them as a reference for judging system performance.
 
No you are wrong, please read my post again.

I do not say “natural sound” means more contrast, for example copper vs silver cable, David prefer copper but copper does not have more contrast.
David prefer copper because silver has artificial coloration.

Please do not mix.

I said if you want talk about the sound you should read about comparison by contrast method.

The admin closes my topic (Audio Critique) I described it there

Amir, you are able to articulate these ideas much more clearly than I could in my long system thread. Thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amir
Someone who adopts Objective 2) "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played," is likely to find Boulder electronics to be "neutral" and Kondo electronics to be "colored."
No you are basing this on tonal colouration. Also it is not clear meant specifically your analogy to refer to boulder and kondo or an SS amp and a SET
 
I always like your formulation of reminding the listener of the experience he has when attending a live performance. But doesn't experience go further than you need to? To me the "experience" of being at Walt Disney Concert Hall includes being fully dressed and being conscious of strangers sitting next to you and whispering and sneezing.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to prune "experience" back to the sum of the sound of the live event plus emotional engagement?

Forget, sneezing and coughing and smelling. There is the sound that you hear through your ears, there is the energy you feel through your body, there is the emotion that the music evokes, and there is the sense of being present with the musicians playing their instruments in the moment. There may be other things also contributing to the holistic experience.

The point is, it is much more than just sound. It is also the creation of the event in your mind that then becomes a memory which can serve as a reference to that event, and that can be used to judge the quality of the listening experience you have at home. It’s a much more complex thing than just the sound reaching your ears.

And then at home, I want to experience all the things I mention above. I want to hear a sound that is similar to that of an actual violin. I want to feel the energy coming off of the cello or brass, or timpani. I want the emotion evoked by the music on the recording. I want the sense of presence of the musicians being in front of me in the space of the recording. I want all of that at home. It is a tall order, but that is the target. It is much more than just sound.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: the sound of Tao
The frog analogy applies to me because had I known how much I would spend- how far down the rabbit hole I would go four years ago I would have likely not changed/upgraded my audio system. I'm glad I did because I love the sound but I could never have imagined myself investing so heavily into this system like I did.

Expensive is solely about cost. Performance is a different issue. If we can agree that better quality components, such as capacitors, resistors, wiring cost more, then the next step is agree that these high quality components assembled into amps, speakers, DACs and turntables result in better sound. My cousin refurbishes speakers as a hobby. He knows first hand how the quality of the speaker crossover capacitors affects the sound. I have rebuilt speaker crossovers myself in the past with good results.

The cooking analogy is a good one. Ingredients are only one part of the recipe. How and when the ingredients are mixed together matter and then the cooking process or assembly and test matters. Better ingredients typically yields better results. Good process controls yield better results. This isn't just true for a speaker or amplifier but applies to the whole audio system as well. Better speakers, amps sources, cables and room design results in better sound- generally. Do one thing wrong and the sound might get worse. Frustration, anger and the temptation to buy headphones is the result.

Completely agree that cost to performance is not a perfect 1.0 correlation. Too many factors contribute to the success of an audio system. A few years ago I found my DAC (not my current one) was too bright, the highs too harsh. I had a power conditioner, I had room treatments but still, too many songs were just not listenable above moderate volume. I bought a better power cord for the DAC and suddenly the highs sounded wonderful. I found I could play the music louder. The whole system affected by a single power cord. People have different experiences with the same gear but we never really know the context. I could have blamed my DAC or my speakers. But experience and reviews of that DAC said otherwise. I also knew it wasn't the speakers because I play vinyl too. I gave the power cord a try and was amazed. That's something five years ago I would have flat out refused to believe.
I feel you… I upgraded the power cord on my Creek integrated to a Sablon about a year ago
No worries. Just roll in a tweeter at 12KHz or so.

I can tell you that a JBL driver converted to field coil sounds better than a stock JBL with the same diaphragm. I've heard the comparison. Worth the extra cost IMO.

I've been running them this way for over 20 years and since it sounds better, the disadvantage is apparently outweighed by the advantages. The field coil has reached a stable temperature in less than an hour.

I didn't say $3000, for the record. These days I'd start with a set of Audiokinesis subs to handle the bottom end; they are flat to 20 Hz and since there are 4 of them, standing waves are broken up so no need for room correction (90-95% of room problems are in the bass). I'd consider a refurbished Dynaco ST35, for the amp, perhaps with some upgrades. A set of Tangband full range drivers in a sealed box allowing them bandwidth to 50Hz or so can do nicely, supplemented by a Fostex tweeter or similar on top, both crossed over to prevent comb filtering. I'd use a Topping D90SE and perhaps a Shanling CD transport; no need for a preamp if digital is the only source. But if it isn't I'd get a Technics SL1200G, Hana cartridge and install an Oracle platter pad on the Technics. The stock Technics pad is terrible and if you've not heard the machine with a decent one, you've not heard it. There are plenty of preamps around that can handle a LOMC cartridge and drive the Dynaco ST35.

Inexpensive, nicely nuanced (musical) and can play a decent volume in most rooms no worries (the Tangbands are 96dB in the box with crossover), flat to 20Hz so can shake the walls.

The Dynaco (17 Watts/channel) can challenge any SET made no worries; you don't really find out why SETs went the way until you hear PP amps of similar power. The Topping DAC is extremely neutral (I have one and have compared it to master tapes). The weakness of the Tangbands is like any 'full range' driver in that the highs are beamy to a fault; easily fixed by a tweeter and a crossover for it. None of this stuff is expensive but it will cost more than $3000.00. I imagine if you were careful about things you could bring the cost down quite a lot.

We all use the same words online to describe our experience. So one person might be using the same language to describe a 1970s Pioneer receiver while the other is describing high end horns with Berning's $120,000 power amps (or whatever they cost...). The words work but the intensity of the experience is not conveyed.
 
No you are basing this on tonal colouration. Also it is not clear meant specifically your analogy to refer to boulder and kondo or an SS amp and a SET

No; you are making the mistake of assuming that you understand my definition of "colored." I agree with you that colored includes homogenization. But tonal coloration can be a source of homogenization.
 
Are you able to articulate the differences in “sound” as characteristic to each (CH, Audio Research, VAC, D’Agostino)?
Yes I could do that in my system or any quality well set up system. The differences are audible and obvious. Trying to write the differences is quite another kettle of fish and trying to explain what one hears in inadequate words is a job for someone far better at prose than I. I am not nor do I ever want to be a reviewer.
I can add others as well like Gryphon, Riviera, Thrax as all of these I have had extensive opportunities to hear.
 
I do not think my amplifiers sound colored.
Thinking is not the way to look at it IMO. if its an SET, its colored, due to its prodigious distortion signature. Many solid state amps are too (those that sound bright).

Of the two I'd prefer an SET, but I also think there's better out there (similar distortion signature but much lower distortion overall, making for more neutral and more transparent).

Its probably more accurate to say the coloration of your amplifiers is innocuous. That is where thinking and reality converge.
Even the original sound engineer cannot precisely know what's on the actual tape and how it should sound when reproduced "neutrally" because of all the fIltering through the equipment needed to listen through it
Alright I'll go for the bait. This statement isn't accurate. The reason is headphones, which can be plugged directly into any 2 channel recorder, so not a lot of 'filtering through the equipment needed' is going on.

While amps and speakers continue to evolve, mics and headphones have been so good for decades on now that anyone, and I mean anyone can be fooled by them into thinking what they heard was real. I've had it happen many times, and have seen how jaundiced audiophiles react when it happens to them. So you can know quite well what's on the tape.
 
No; you are making the mistake of assuming that you understand my definition of "colored." I agree with you that colored includes homogenization. But tonal coloration can be a source of homogenization.

Tonal colouration is different from tonal colour
 
Are you able to articulate the differences in “sound” as characteristic to each (CH, Audio Research, VAC, D’Agostino)?
BTW an example of this albeit with digital rather than amplifiers please go to my website www.bendingwaveusa.com and read my clients testimonial . His experience and excitement is there the words that describe what he heard do they tell you what you need? I think the words are always inadequate but that's just me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atmasphere
Alright I'll go for the bait. This statement isn't accurate. The reason is headphones, which can be plugged directly into any 2 channel recorder, so not a lot of 'filtering through the equipment needed' is going on.

While amps and speakers continue to evolve, mics and headphones have been so good for decades on now that anyone, and I mean anyone can be fooled by them into thinking what they heard was real. I've had it happen many times, and have seen how jaundiced audiophiles react when it happens to them. So you can know quite well what's on the tape.

I'll grant you that using headphones can mitigate the problem. However, I do not think that headphone monitoring completely neutralizes it.

Headphones have colorations too, as evident from comparing different ones -- which is the absolutely "neutral" reference? Yet they do take the room out of the equation. Also, who can say that the built-in headphone amp is entirely neutral?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atmasphere
(...) I think “Natural sound” is not more close to “live sound”, Actually no audio system is close to live sound but Natural sound is more close to live music listening experience, these are two different things :
1- live music sound
2- live music listening experience

Interesting. Live music listening experience includes the complete visual and sensorial experience of being there - just what the sound engineers usually want to recreate, using stereo tricks, as referred indirectly by Peter Qvortrup.

Live music sound seems to me to be what Peter aims to ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: bonzo75
those are pretty much what David Karmeli was using with Lamm ML2 SET's at CES in 2002. the Kharma Ceramiques 3.2 which was 89db, 8 ohm. similar speaker load to the new Kharma's. 91db, 4 ohm almost equal 89db, 8 ohm. it was a good match. and popular.

at that time i had Kharma Exquisite 1D's with Tenor OTL's......another fine match. and also popular. i liked the Tenor over the Lamm at that time. the Tenor's were more open (until they ignited), in contrast the Lamm very slightly dark (not opaque at all). but liked the Lamm/Kharma combo plenty.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mtemur
What is the basis of finding your amplifiers to sound not colored unless the reference is neutral? Against what benchmark is uncolored measured if not neutrality?

The sound of acoustic instruments, and other amplifiers.

If you do not think your amplifiers sound colored doesn't that mean that you think they sound neutral?

I can’t answer the question. Are you asking me if they have a flat frequency response? Are you asking me if they sound like a wire with gain? They help to create a listening experience that is closer the experience of live music than the other amplifiers that I have heard. I can’t identify what they are adding or subtracting. I can’t know if they sound exactly like the original recording because I can’t hear them outside of the context of the rest of the system and room, and I don’t know what the original recording sounds like in the first place.

I think our exchange is going nowhere. You don’t seem to accept my answers to your question.
 
Or you don't buy low-powered Lamms in the first place.

Of course. If you want a different sound by something else. If you already have speakers you love then buy the appropriate amplifier to drive them. The amplifier speaker match is critical to having a good listening experience based on your subjective preference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al M.

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing