Natural Sound

[microstrip]

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

Yes, but as far as see it, a key point of your particular "Natural Sound" is the perspective of Vladimir Lamm about sound reproduction, psychoacoustics and his mathematical models of human hearing. It is why I can't see how people can trace it back to HP writings.

BTW, my main objection to these two words coupling is simply that everyone in audio has had its particular and different vision of his natural sound along decades preceding WBF, making it confuse and ambiguous wording.

 

[microstrip]

(...) So maybe Natural Sound (TM) is indeed a subset of natural sound.

IMHO Natural Sound (TM) is just a stereo preference, as many others. And as such it can be the field of very interesting expositions and discussions.

 

[Bobvin]

I have not heard any Pilium gear so relatively speaking Lamm may be "warmer" than Pilium to a degree as you speculate. If that is the case, Pilium may not be for me, but I'd listen to one.

Which Lamm amps have you heard that are slightly warmer than Pilium?

A friend had Lamm gear for a time in Seattle, I don’t recall the models, they were not tube/ss hybrid amps. Its been a long while since I heard them and the entire system so perhaps my comment was out of place. My point was more about Konstantinos of Pilium describing wanting to create a very “natural” sounding amplifier — so another use of the term and my curiosity how that would compare with V.Lamm’s use of / understanding of a “natural” sound.

Also, warm and dark I consider different terms. (Peter & Ron above used “dark” it seemed it the same context.) Warm to me describes, as you have said Tim, perhaps a touch (or more) more harmonic richness in the lower octaves (In comparison to something else.) Dark, on the other hand, to me describes lacking something it the upper registers.

And for sure you should hear Pilium. You are much more disciplined in your vocabulary where I can be sloppy. You’ve heard the Lamm in review context. Should you ever do the same with Pilium I’d welcome your thoughts and conclusions. All components have different sonic signatures, assigning terms to differentiate between them, if the differences are small, seems challenging because of the readers understanding can differ so greatly, e.g. natural or warm.

And to tang… my exposure to Lamm is limited, so perhaps some other components added the milk to the espresso.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Edit: when I wrote that M1.2 review I was using audiophile cables. Tang's mention about the use of industrial wire with Lamm is spot-on. I did not fully appreciate the character of the Lamm sound until I used certain ordinary wire.

Now I am curious. What is the certain ordinary wire that allows us to appreciate the character of Lamm?

 

[PeterA]

Yes, but as far as see it, a key point of your particular "Natural Sound" is the perspective of Vladimir Lamm about sound reproduction, psychoacoustics and his mathematical models of human hearing. It is why I can't see how people can trace it back to HP writings.

BTW, my main objection to these two words coupling is simply that everyone in audio has had its particular and different vision of his natural sound along decades preceding WBF, making it confuse and ambiguous wording.

It is fair to criticize, but it becomes tiresome especially when not offering any alternative of one’s own.

 

[djsina2]

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

I wouldn’t call those specs necessarily but more the core principles of what they build. Seems quite the opposite of Lamm. Not saying either is right or wrong, just a point how two people claim natural sound with completely different approaches. I never said you said it was bad or unnatural.

 

[djsina2]

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

I have this phono and wouldn’t call it any of those terms but I don’t even know what they really mean. Dark seems to be a common word describing gear on WBF. I think my ears would be bleeding listening to some of these non-dark systems.

 

[morricab]

Yes, and just today someone told me that Lamm is described as "dark" sounding by some reviewers. I told him I do not know what that term means. I agree, I would not associate warmth with Lamm. I have never tried any audiophile wires with Lamm.

A friend has been listening to my system for about a year. He recently started to buy Lamm gear. He found a nice LL1 Signature, has his sights on a pair of ML2s, and is trying to decide on what Lamm phono to get. He told me he just read a great review of the LP2.1 Deluxe that some guy named Tim something or other wrote. I smiled and told him I was recently in Utah with THAT same Tim. He smiled and understood. You see, this friend just returned from spending five days at ddk's place and bought his new vintage speakers based on what he heard there. They will arrive next week from Japan. He also has a Micro SX 8000 II that he bought from ddk shortly after hearing mine a year ago. I've never heard him use the words warmth or dark to describe the sound of Lamm gear.

My impression of the LAMM M1.1 was that it was somewhat dark (like older Gryphon and BAT SS amps) but ML2 not really.

 

[microstrip]

It is fair to criticize, but it becomes tiresome especially when not offering any alternative of one’s own.

Curiously I offered an alternative a few post before. https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/natural-sound.32867/post-809182.

 

[ddk]

Yes, but as far as see it, a key point of your particular "Natural Sound" is the perspective of Vladimir Lamm about sound reproduction, psychoacoustics and his mathematical models of human hearing. It is why I can't see how people can trace it back to HP writings.

You ignore the full picture and are trying to pigeonhole “natural sound” as mine or in Vladimir’s perspective as if it’s somehow different from what WE, early RCA, Lancing, Altec, Klipsch, McIntosh, Scott, Fischer, Westrex, Amprex, EMT, Neumann, Telefunken, Westinghouse and many more aspired to and achieved including Lamm. It’s a clear path and a long time understood sonic aesthetic for decades but somehow it’s suddenly perplexing to some. You can call it whatever you want, hyphenate and capitalize it but please don’t decide for me or my intention of natural sound.

I don’t see the relevance of HP in this conversation, writing about something and actually doing and achieving goals aren’t the same. Many people talk a good game without understanding it! IMO he was as far away from natural sound as possible in high end and overall a very negative influence on the industry. He never even assembled and setup a system by himself that I know of.

BTW, my main objection to these two words coupling is simply that everyone in audio has had its particular and different vision of his natural sound along decades preceding WBF, making it confuse and ambiguous wording.

Your objection is noted, over and over again ! People are entitled to their notions and there’s certainly more than one way to achieve the same objectives. In general subjective concepts are very much experience and knowledge based it has nothing to do with vocabulary, simply not everyone grasps it equally. By all means come up with more acceptable term in place of “natural” and go with it, any suggestions?

david

 

[microstrip]

(...) Dark seems to be a common word describing gear on WBF.(...)

IMHO single words or short sentences can not describe a sound signature, independently of our semantics perspective . IMHO Michael Fremer did an excellent work addressing the Lamm type of sound in his review of the ML3 in Stereophile.

See https://www.stereophile.com/content/lamm-industries-ml3-signature-monoblock-power-amplifier

 

[morricab]

You ignore the full picture and are trying to pigeonhole “natural sound” as mine or in Vladimir’s perspective as if it’s somehow different from what WE, early RCA, Lancing, Altec, Klipsch, McIntosh, Scott, Fischer, Westrex, Amprex, EMT, Neumann, Telefunken, Westinghouse and many more aspired to and achieved including Lamm. It’s a clear path and a long time understood sonic aesthetic for decades but somehow it’s suddenly perplexing to some. You can call it whatever you want, hyphenate and capitalize it but please don’t decide for me or my intention of natural sound.

I don’t see the relevance of HP in this conversation, writing about something and actually doing and achieving goals aren’t the same. Many people talk a good game without understanding it! IMO he was as far away from natural sound as possible in high end and overall a very negative influence on the industry. He never even assembled and setup a system by himself that I know of.

Your objection is noted, over and over again ! People are entitled to their notions and there’s certainly more than one way to achieve the same objectives. In general subjective concepts are very much experience and knowledge based it has nothing to do with vocabulary, simply not everyone grasps it equally. By all means come up with more acceptable term in place of “natural” and go with it, any suggestions?

david

Perhaps it would be helpful if you gave some indication as to what other electronics besides LAMM can give natural sound. It is clear what kind of vintage speakers and turntables (and no digital, right?) you think work but do you honestly think only LAMM can deliver natural sound? If you think that then I respectfully cannot agree. Also, your speaker choices and TT Choices I would not consider to be exhaustive.

 

[wil]

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.

I was responding to your flippant response to Al's remarks about how he listens to music. (posts 2839, 2841 and 2843). It's a subject I find interesting, unlike tired and sad analog/digital debates which have nothing to do with what he was saying. Try reading those posts again without having a knee-jerk reaction. You might also read one of Aaron Copeland's books on listening to music where he goes into great detail about how music listening is both an analytical and emotional process and experience.

 

[morricab]

You ignore the full picture and are trying to pigeonhole “natural sound” as mine or in Vladimir’s perspective as if it’s somehow different from what WE, early RCA, Lancing, Altec, Klipsch, McIntosh, Scott, Fischer, Westrex, Amprex, EMT, Neumann, Telefunken, Westinghouse and many more aspired to and achieved including Lamm. It’s a clear path and a long time understood sonic aesthetic for decades but somehow it’s suddenly perplexing to some. You can call it whatever you want, hyphenate and capitalize it but please don’t decide for me or my intention of natural sound.

I don’t see the relevance of HP in this conversation, writing about something and actually doing and achieving goals aren’t the same. Many people talk a good game without understanding it! IMO he was as far away from natural sound as possible in high end and overall a very negative influence on the industry. He never even assembled and setup a system by himself that I know of.

Your objection is noted, over and over again ! People are entitled to their notions and there’s certainly more than one way to achieve the same objectives. In general subjective concepts are very much experience and knowledge based it has nothing to do with vocabulary, simply not everyone grasps it equally. By all means come up with more acceptable term in place of “natural” and go with it, any suggestions?

david

Have to disagree about HP…whether or not he could construct a good system is not relevant…the conversation he started and the thinking about recreation of live , unamplified music in real space at home (aka natural sound) was and remains highly relevant. You have benefitted from those philosophical musings as well whether you want to admit it or not!

 

[microstrip]

You ignore the full picture and are trying to pigeonhole “natural sound” as mine or in Vladimir’s perspective as if it’s somehow different from what WE, early RCA, Lancing, Altec, Klipsch, McIntosh, Scott, Fischer, Westrex, Amprex, EMT, Neumann, Telefunken, Westinghouse and many more aspired to and achieved including Lamm. It’s a clear path and a long time understood sonic aesthetic for decades but somehow it’s suddenly perplexing to some. You can call it whatever you want, hyphenate and capitalize it but please don’t decide for me or my intention of natural sound.

I do not see "such clear path and a long time understood sonic aesthetic for decades". The point is that you only pick a few pieces of gear from these manufacturers according to your preference, not the general brand sonics. Your best and more clear posts on the subject referred to Vladimir Lamm influence on your views, as well as your introduction in WBF. For most of us it will be closest we can go in your references. The reality is that most people around the "Natural Sound" umbrella in WBF own Lamm.

Do you have a reference on a good accessible article on the path you describe?

I don’t see the relevance of HP in this conversation, writing about something and actually doing and achieving goals aren’t the same. Many people talk a good game without understanding it! (...)

david

We fully agree on this sentence.

Your objection is noted, over and over again ! People are entitled to their notions and there’s certainly more than one way to achieve the same objectives. In general subjective concepts are very much experience and knowledge based it has nothing to do with vocabulary, simply not everyone grasps it equally. By all means come up with more acceptable term in place of “natural” and go with it, any suggestions?

david

No suggestions. Preferences can't be summarized in a short word. But people just looking at your list would think "particular vintage" as more meaningful.

 

[Elliot G.]

The influence of Harry Pearson was huge and his legacy, no matter what one hater thinks, remains today. The very ideas we speak of and the terms we use are from HP. The whole high end has evolved and grown from his words and work. THe characterization that HP never had good sound or systems that produced good sound or that they were non musical is total nonsense. Just about anyone that was part of the birth a nd growth of Higfh End Audio was influenced, affected, educated by, listened with and or read Harry pearson.
Audio Research, Dahlquist,Conrad Johnson, Mark Levinson Audio Systems. Infinity, Magnepan, VPI, Goldmund, MIT, Transparent, Koetsu, VTL, Wilson, Accuphase, and I could go on for hours was there listening and discussing.These companies and others formed the foundation of what we today are listening too I was fortunate to have HP as a mentor and friend and I learned so much from him along with these other Industry founders. One persons very negative opinion aside this is not the reality of what happened.
I was there. I know almost all of these players and people and if you go back and read HP from the beginning you will have an idea of his influence and his achievements.

 

[gian60]

I had all Audio tekne products,the product with permalloy trans was good,misical and little on dark side,but the products made with superpermalloy trans and bigger than the permalloy trans are really very special,neutral transparent and very musical
Yamamura did same but with circuit and components more crazy to give more power,energy

 

[ddk]

Perhaps it would be helpful if you gave some indication as to what other electronics besides LAMM can give natural sound. It is clear what kind of vintage speakers and turntables (and no digital, right?) you think work but do you honestly think only LAMM can deliver natural sound? If you think that then I respectfully cannot agree. Also, your speaker choices and TT Choices I would not consider to be exhaustive.

My list of boxes isn’t going to enlighten when so many accomplished innovators and creators failed to do so, it’s moot in this context. I never said that only Lamm gear sound natural but there are different levels of naturalness IME Lamm’s the most natural sounding of all. Of course in the context of a properly setup system, a single audiophile power cord and anything natural will be gone!

I've heard natural from CDs, it's a different type of sound than analog but that's not what defines natural majority of analog systems can and are very unnatural.

Have to disagree about HP…whether or not he could construct a good system is not relevant…the conversation he started and the thinking about recreation of live , unamplified music in real space at home (aka natural sound) was and remains highly relevant. You have benefitted from those philosophical musings as well whether you want to admit it or not!

That's fine Brad we can disagree about him. His writings were mostly in context of systems that didn't deliver what he aspired to or claimed to value. There was also a lot of advice on what to buy, that's my problem with him. Philosophically judging sound with live acoustic music as a reference wasn't an original thought by him.

david

 

[ddk]

The influence of Harry Pearson was huge and his legacy, no matter what one hater thinks, remains today. The very ideas we speak of and the terms we use are from HP. The whole high end has evolved and grown from his words and work. THe characterization that HP never had good sound or systems that produced good sound or that they were non musical is total nonsense. Just about anyone that was part of the birth a nd growth of Higfh End Audio was influenced, affected, educated by, listened with and or read Harry pearson.
Audio Research, Dahlquist,Conrad Johnson, Mark Levinson Audio Systems. Infinity, Magnepan, VPI, Goldmund, MIT, Transparent, Koetsu, VTL, Wilson, Accuphase, and I could go on for hours was there listening and discussing.These companies and others formed the foundation of what we today are listening too I was fortunate to have HP as a mentor and friend and I learned so much from him along with these other Industry founders. One persons very negative opinion aside this is not the reality of what happened.
I was there. I know almost all of these players and people and if you go back and read HP from the beginning you will have an idea of his influence and his achievements.

You're doing it again Elliot! If you're going to make everything personal and call me names you should do it in your own threads so I can properly address you and have your thread shut down by mods.

You fail to mention all the names that he purposely/maliciously ignored or destroyed! Nor do you want to acknowledge the false information he peppered in his reviews and outright recommendations!

david

 

[Al M.]

It is fair to criticize, but it becomes tiresome especially when not offering any alternative of one’s own.

I did offer some thoughts here, with most posts concentrated on the first thread page:

"Natural" Sound

I reported that I found that Steve's system playing vinyl sounded very "natural." As our self-designated hyperbole and introspection control policeman am I guilty of hyperbole when I describe a system's sound as "natural"? What do we mean by "natural" when we say an audio system sounds...

www.whatsbestforum.com

Ande on page 3 I very much agreed with you!