Natural Sound

[Ron Resnick]

I've never heard him use the words warmth or dark to describe the sound of Lamm gear.

I do not understand the logic here. How does a negative, an inaction (not describing something in a certain way) prove -- or even suggest -- anything?

Would you be offended if "some" people found Lamm components -- based on a wide variety of experiences listening to many systems over a long period of time -- to sound "slightly dark" compared to other brands of electronics?

 

[tima]

... auditory template formed from exposure to live sound.

Snip

 

[morricab]

What then is the point? I am still having trouble understanding that. It seems that only certain system types can qualify, horns or other high efficiency speakers, and low wattage SETs.

Or maybe not, even though it seems to be so in practice. Your list of things in post #5 of this thread (first page) is so vague that anything could and should qualify.

This point though is problematic:

"No analysis of the sound into bits and pieces, music experienced as a whole"

That is simply not how I experience music, period. And I never want to, it would make music utterly boring for me. I always look for musical lines that are interesting to consciously follow, which is also to analyze. Fortunately, all great classical music, jazz and a lot of rock, among others, has that. This is what makes music great and interesting for me. This is also what separates the great classical composers from the myriads of lesser composers that have been forgotten and dispersed by the winds of time towards the obscure corners of history.

Sure, this conscious following of all the happenings in the music hopefully is able to synthesize the music back into a whole at a higher level, as it reveals all the connections within it that create the overarching narrative that the composer (or improviser) intended. But this doesn't seem to be what you had in mind, since in your words your "experience of the whole" eschews analysis.

Thus I will probably never qualify for the experience of Natural Sound (TM).

So be it.

Have you tried a good SET with your speakers? It should work just fine

 

[Rensselaer]

What then is the point? I am still having trouble understanding that. It seems that only certain system types can qualify, horns or other high efficiency speakers, and low wattage SETs.

Or maybe not, even though it seems to be so in practice. Your list of things in post #5 of this thread (first page) is so vague that anything could and should qualify.

This point though is problematic:

"No analysis of the sound into bits and pieces, music experienced as a whole"

That is simply not how I experience music, period. And I never want to, it would make music utterly boring for me. I always look for musical lines that are interesting to consciously follow, which is also to analyze. Fortunately, all great classical music, jazz and a lot of rock, among others, has that. This is what makes music great and interesting for me. This is also what separates the great classical composers from the myriads of lesser composers that have been forgotten and dispersed by the winds of time towards the obscure corners of history.

Sure, this conscious following of all the happenings in the music hopefully is able to synthesize the music back into a whole at a higher level, as it reveals all the connections within it that create the overarching narrative that the composer (or improviser) intended. But this doesn't seem to be what you had in mind, since in your words your "experience of the whole" eschews analysis.

Thus I will probably never qualify for the experience of Natural Sound (TM).

So be it.

You might be able to find some kindred spirits on "The Measurement Based Audio Forum" threads?

 

[PeterA]

I do not understand the logic here. How does a negative, an inaction (not describing something in a certain way) prove -- or even suggest -- anything?

Would you be offended if "some" people found Lamm components -- based on a wide variety of experiences listening to many systems over a long period of time -- to sound "slightly dark" compared to other brands of electronics?

Ron, it is not a matter of being offended. I am rarely offended by anything. I simply do not know what it means. If you told me that Spectral gear is cold and bright and Lamm is warm and dark, I think I would understand that, but honestly, I don’t think of words like that when I listen to the Lamm gear. I guess I am not analyzing the gear or the music to enjoy it like some do. Lamm makes me want to listen to the music without the need to analyze. Some other electronics conjure up such words or other words. Lamm to me does not. This too was my friend’s point.

You once told me you prefer “warmer” sounding cartridges. There are lots of characteristics that people prefer and seek out. I prefer less or none as a characteristic.

 

[Al M.]

You might be able to find some kindred spirits on "The Measurement Based Audio Forum" threads?

Huh?

 

[Al M.]

Why de-capitalize it? "Natural Sound," as practiced by David and as adopted and written about by Peter and by Tim, means something deliberately more specific than merely sound which is generically natural. In other words "Natural Sound" is a subset of natural sound.

If that’s the case, isn't that absurd? Something either sounds natural or it doesn't.

Having said that, and as I have already stated, I do not agree with some of the characteristics outlined in post #5 on this thread. That is even though I strive for natural sound myself -- or perhaps I would rather call it realistic or believable (while at the same time I will readily concede that I also use the adjective "natural" at times). So maybe Natural Sound (TM) is indeed a subset of natural sound.

 

[PeterA]

If that’s the case, isn't that absurd? Something either sounds natural or it doesn't.

Having said that, and as I have already stated, I do not agree with some of the characteristics outlined in post #5 on this thread. That is even though I strive for natural sound myself -- or perhaps I would rather call it realistic or believable (while at the same time I will readily concede that I also use the adjective "natural" at times). So maybe Natural Sound (TM) is indeed a subset of natural sound.

Al, I agree that something either sounds natural or does not, but there are different degrees of sounding natural. Natural Sound capitalized is the title of my system thread. I may have been inconsistent in the past over hundreds of posts with the capitalization or not, I don’t know and it doesn’t really matter. Those who consistently want to trade mark the phrase are their own subset of WBF members.

 

[wil]

You might be able to find some kindred spirits on "The Measurement Based Audio Forum" threads?

You obviously haven’t understood a word he said.

 

[ddk]

Why de-capitalize it? "Natural Sound," as practiced by David and as adopted and written about by Peter and by Tim, means something deliberately more specific than merely sound which is generically natural. In other words "Natural Sound" is a subset of natural sound.

Dear Ron,
The phrase "natural sound" isn’t my invention nor the naturalness I strive for somehow different or a subset. Natural sound isn’t a trademark but an ideal sonic aesthetic that I value as do many people I meet all around the world. Of course there are degrees of naturalness but the question is why in this forum some try so hard to twist it?

david

 

[djsina2]

Al, I agree that something either sounds natural or does not, but there are different degrees of sounding natural. Natural Sound capitalized is the title of my system thread. I may have been inconsistent in the past over hundreds of posts with the capitalization or not, I don’t know and it doesn’t really matter. Those who consistently want to trade mark the phrase are their own subset of WBF members.

Audio Tekne developed their complete system of what they call “natural sound” about 45 years ago. I find it interesting that what you and ddk call natural sound are based on principles that Audio Tekne says cannot create a natural sound.

 

[ddk]

Audio Tekne developed their complete system of what they call “natural sound” about 45 years ago. I find it interesting that what you and ddk call natural sound are based on principles that Audio Tekne says cannot create a natural sound.

What are those principles, ours and AT’s?
david

 

[PeterA]

If that’s the case, isn't that absurd? Something either sounds natural or it doesn't.

Having said that, and as I have already stated, I do not agree with some of the characteristics outlined in post #5 on this thread. That is even though I strive for natural sound myself -- or perhaps I would rather call it realistic or believable (while at the same time I will readily concede that I also use the adjective "natural" at times). So maybe Natural Sound (TM) is indeed a subset of natural sound.

Al, respectfully, this is what I wrote as an introduction to post #5:

"Hearing David’s four systems play music over seven days allowed me to understand the qualities of a “Natural Sound” system. I came up with this list to describe what I heard."

It is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. These are my observations of what I heard from four systems at David's house over seven days. They are my listening notes from those sessions. How can you disagree with my observations? They are mine, and only mine to make.

I do not understand your incescent pushing on this topic. You told me you no longer like WBF and don't participate much. Yet you are here, loud and clear. You are free to disagree but why argue so much about it? You say you strive for natural sound yourself. Why do you not describe what you mean over on your own Monitor/sub system thread and share with its readers how your system and others you like, achieve the sound you are looking for? If you do not like what I am discussing here, do your own thing elsewhere. I suggest we move on.

 

[djsina2]

What are those principles?
david

From what I’ve learned via their site (bad translation) and talking with them and reading docs they sent me…

All permalloy transformer coupled, no caps in the signal path, p2p wiring, transformer attenuation, push-pull circuits with no NFB, only copper cabling, and extreme measures to eliminate vibration in the entire path. Other tech details are way over my head.

I think you called it “dark” before.

 

[Al M.]

You are free to disagree but why argue so much about it? You say you strive for natural sound yourself. Why do you not describe what you mean over on your own Monitor/sub system thread and share with its readers how your system and others you like, achieve the sound you are looking for?

I don't have to, Peter, because I did not call my system thread "Natural Sound". I called my thread "My monitor/subwoofer system", a factual title that has never been called into question by anyone.

 

[bonzo75]

From what I’ve learned via their site (bad translation) and talking with them and reading docs they sent me…

All permalloy transformer coupled, no caps in the signal path, p2p wiring, transformer attenuation, push-pull circuits with no NFB, only copper cabling, and extreme measures to eliminate vibration in the entire path. Other tech details are way over my head.

I think you called it “dark” before.

All permaloy was also yamamura I think and maybe the other stuff was too can't be sure Gian can confirm. The Mayer pnoe system also had no caps in the signal path and no crossover.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Yes, Peter, I think a bit of the confusion, at least on my part, comes from your prior capitalization of natural sound. That suggested to me that you were describing a set of sonic characteristics which comprise Natural Sound. This is why I thought the capitalized term meant something specific and, therefore, was a subset of the generic, uncapitalized term.

 

[Rensselaer]

You obviously haven’t understood a word he said.

Consider the following:

Some have, perhaps sarcastically, implied that one needs Lamm electronics in order to get “Natural Sound”. They either miss the point, or are deliberately trying to divert attention from the obvious reason many seem unable to understand how one can experience a listening event without dissecting it into component parts.

PeterA, the fellow who started this thread “Natural Sound”, does apparently have Lamm electronics, but he also has a Micro Seiki turntable. He obtains “Natural Sound” by listening to analogue LP’s.

I see that both you, and Al M, lack any sort of LP playback device (or reel-to-reel) in your listed equipment sections so suspect that both of you listen to digital. Perhaps that explains why you cannot conceive of a music playback system capable of presenting a Natural Sound.

 

[ddk]

From what I’ve learned via their site (bad translation) and talking with them and reading docs they sent me…

All permalloy transformer coupled, no caps in the signal path, p2p wiring, transformer attenuation, push-pull circuits with no NFB, only copper cabling, and extreme measures to eliminate vibration in the entire path. Other tech details are way over my head.

I think you called it “dark” before.

Come on Derek you’re quoting specs ! I don’t see any contradiction in their build or sonic aspirations.
The only pieces of AT I ever owned was their graphite tt system and a mid level phono stage, the post you’re referring to mentioned that I found the tt on the darker side of things but never said that it was bad or unnatural.

david

 

[bonzo75]

Come on Derek you’re quoting specs ! I don’t see any contradiction in their build or sonic aspirations.
The only pieces of AT I ever owned was their graphite tt system and a mid level phono stage, the post you’re referring to mentioned that I found the tt on the darker side of things but never said that it was bad or unnatural.

david

The AT phono and amp I heard, the phono recently 20k euro, was dark, slow and colored. Pietro also knew the amp was slow and colored so he put in a very high gain pre from Sakuma to charge it up in one of his systems. Gian mentioned they had some particular models that were not colored