Natural Sound

[PeterA]

Al, Thank you for the many references and search results.

Every system sounds less natural than does live music performed at the BSO. You left out the Oppo CDP system over a YouTube video sounding natural to me, plus the digital desktop system I described hearing in Ddk's office. Those two also exhibit the qualities I describe in that long list. Yes, natural sound has a broad range and there are indeed different degrees of natural sound, one being a YouTube video system or desktop digital system, the other being live sound in one of the world's great concert halls. There are many levels between the two.

Are you really going to argue that you do not have particular preferences and judgements about what systems you like (by whatever metric you judge)? You declare your system to be "satisfying". Is that your metric? Are all systems satisfying to you, or do some rise above the rest? You once told me that your mini monitors and subs do things better than other alternatives. It is best, err preferred, not to declare good, better, best, or even a favorite.

Continued....

 

[Al M.]

You once told me that your mini monitors and subs do things better than other alternatives.

Not in an absolute sense, no, only relative to the price range. With the exception of intimacy on small-scale music. But in the meantime also there I have found equal performers among other speakers.

 

[bonzo75]

Not in an absolute sense, no, only relative to the price range. With the exception of intimacy on small-scale music. But in the meantime also there I have found equal performers among other speakers.

equal but not better?

 

[Lagonda]

equal but not better?

Al recently stated that Ron's system was the best he had heard on large scale music ! So sometimes better !

 

[microstrip]

Just to remember that this thread recycles from time to time just on the semantics of "natural sound". Since long I suggested that Peter used the words Natural Sound TM or Natural Sound PS (Peter Sound) to clearly identify when he is addressing his very precise stereo sound reproduction preference.

90% of the existing audiophiles claim to aim and enjoy a natural sound - as long as very different preferences are encompassed in the same terms our debates will be mostly on semantics, with very little real audio content. And yes, please do not ask me to provide evidence of the the 90% - just read it as an illustrative way of saying most!

 

[Al M.]

Al recently stated that Ron's system was the best he had heard on large scale music ! So sometimes better !

Of course, there are many systems better than the monitor system. And even if intimacy on small-scale music was in my view the best on the monitors (which it is not): one single parameter doesn't make something the best. You have to look at the whole package of a sum of many parameters. To call the monitor/subwoofer system "the best" would be delusional. It has too many problems for that. I have always been open about its shortcomings.

Even though some systems suffer less from them than others, every system has shortcomings and compromises (to think that a given system doesn't would be delusional). That is why no system can be "best" for everyone.

For a given person a system can be a subjective "best" and it's wonderful when someone has found that, but in this hobby there can be no "objective best".

 

[Ron Resnick]

Dear Peter,

You reported recently that you "watched a system video the other day playing a CD of some classical music in an old Oppo CD player. The system was fascinating and sounded very natural."

I understand you to be saying that you can map the qualities of a natural sound system (the list of which makes perfect sense to me) to that YouTube video and to David's office desktop digital system.

You wrote recently: "My goal was to select specific components and set them up in a specific way so that I achieve a listening experience in my living room similar to that which I experience in the concert hall. The result is natural sound."

Are you suggesting that watching on your computer that system video playing a CD, and listening to music on David's office desktop digital system, achieves a listening experience which is closer to what you experience in the concert hall than would be achieved by typical full-size, full-range contemporary loudspeakers driven by typical contemporary electronics in a dedicated dealer listening room?

 

[PeterA]

Dear Peter,

You reported recently that you "watched a system video the other day playing a CD of some classical music in an old Oppo CD player. The system was fascinating and sounded very natural."

I understand you to be saying that you can map the qualities of a natural sound system (the list of which makes perfect sense to me) to that YouTube video and to David's office desktop digital system.

You wrote recently: "My goal was to select specific components and set them up in a specific way so that I achieve a listening experience in my living room similar to that which I experience in the concert hall. The result is natural sound."

Are you suggesting that watching on your computer that system video playing a CD, and listening to music on David's office desktop digital system, achieves a listening experience which is closer to what you experience in the concert hall than would be achieved by typical full-size, full-range contemporary loudspeakers driven by typical contemporary electronics in a dedicated dealer listening room?

Ron, I know what I wrote, and I know what my goal is.

You are trying to achieve Checkmate and seem to think I am trying to squirm my way out of it. You continually try to trap me into a position based on a premise that I reject. You and Al first claimed I stated that certain components, or types of components, are required for natural sounding systems, yet you could never give examples. You then modified your claim and told me that I implied certain components, or types of components, are required for natural sounding systems, yet again, you presented no examples from my writings.

Instead, I presented a range of systems that I think sound natural, from a digital Oppo on a YouTube video and a digital desktop system, to a SS/cone system, and all the way to an all out assault of rare and coveted gear, both vintage and current. You now seem to be trying to get me to agree that a very specific system that seems preposterous could somehow sound more like a concert hall than some vague, general, HIEND AUDIO full range contemporary mega system in some dedicated dealer showroom.

What makes these modest and great systems all sound natural, though to different degrees, is that they all exhibit the qualities on that list I made of specific attributes. Al reposted that list. There is zero mention of gear, only of sonic qualities. I am not sure you understand that. The list is not component specific. My judgement of how systems sound and whether or not they meet my criteria on that list is what determines if they sound natural to me. The qualities on that list are very specific, and they are also what I experience when attending a live performance. That list does not include specific gear, or types of gear. Natural sound is an approach to system building and set up with a very specific sonic result.

I can not answer your question, because you have not identified a specific system. I do not know to which system you want me to judge. The question is way to general and vague to answer. I am suggesting that I like specific sonic qualities and certain values. I am stating that those two systems, the digital desktop system in David's office, and the CD played through an Oppo CDP through a much better system over YouTube, both sounded natural to me and matched the qualities I included on that list. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[tima]

I would say that there are degrees of natural sound, but just as there are different natural sounding systems, there are different natural sounding halls. And with these differences, the important thing to recognize and appreciate is that some rise above the rest. We can tell ourselves that it is all opinion, but in rare cases, those opinions seem fairly universal, in, for example, the cases of Boston, and Vienna. It is also the case with certain speakers like the WE and Seimanns Bionor, David's Beyond turntables, and certain electronics. When there is general consensus about relative quality, that should tell us something. David has spent years learning and understanding these differences. We can look to him for guidance and then listen for ourselves.

And with "We can tell ourselves that it is all opinion, but in rare cases, those opinions seem fairly universal",

you come close to making the claim of "objective best", a tendency that more recently you also received pushback for.

In summary, there is something (at least close to) "objective best", and it is top of the ladder of "degrees of natural sound". And it is mainly horns, "certain electronics" (well, we don't need to guess on this one in the context; it includes certain SETs), DDK turntables etc.

So yeah, it is clear that there is a superior minded attitude at work -- I know what is on top of "natural sound", and everything else is "degrees below".

Sounds to me like Peter is saying some components sound better than others. Or some performance venues are better than others? Is the Musikverein a better hall than your high-school auditorium? And he lists some that he thinks do. Is that controversial? Is Your Great Struggle the fight for component equity? Gawd help those who say X is better than Y, or Z is not good -- they will start another ox bow incident.

But hey, is it not all individual personal subjective opinion -- to say it with resnickian flair? Are not each of us entitled to that? Or only some of us? Or only some opinions. Is Peter or anyone not allowed to say X, Y and Z are the best. Doesn't this forum clamor for the conflict of What's Best?

Underneath all this are the real issues. I see implied (ha ha ha) in your words that Peter is arrogant by virtue of naming his thread 'Natural Sound'. Several have carried that grudge for a long time.

And on it goes blah blah blah... Until we get to the Grand Indictment

Obviously, all the things you have written (the above is just a brief synopsis) have contributed to a strong feeling among many posters here of what has been implied by you:

Ooooo. It is tempting to say STFW. But what is the point of the continual haranguing by you, resnick, lavigne and your coterie of pearl clutchers? Why the constant attack? You can't let it go. Is it merely a show of defensive self-righteous rectitude you believe will score points, or is there something else?

 

[morricab]

I agree with you. SETs and natural sound are not synonymous, and yet some claim it is strongly implied here in this very thread. It is utter nonsense. Same with horns. I have heard good and bad of each. These kinds of blanket statements are not what I right about here, nor is it my intention to imply anything similar. I have such limited experience with SETs and horns, that I could not begin to make such an assertion, explicitly or implicitly.

Regarding Lamm, both SS/hybrid and tube, that happens to be my preference, but there are others. For years I enjoyed Pass Class A amplifiers, starting with my first Aleph 3. I followed the linear path and owned six Pass amps, each bigger and more expensive than the last. I kept the Aleph 3, sold the rest. It is not as neutral or transparent as the Lamm ML2, but it sounds quite natural in my system. So does my old Thule CDP.

My old SS/cone system also sounded quite natural by the time I was finished with two years of getting rid of stuff and adjusting the set up. It is amazing how wires, connectors, acoustic treatments, and platforms can move the system away from what I refer to as natural sound. Interestingly, some visitors liked the changes, others did not. That system was with the large SS Pass XA160.5. I tried the XA160.8, but they did not sound natural in that system.

If I were to look for non Lamm amplification in my current system, I would look to some vintage amplifiers and something like FirstWatt. I almost bought a pair of SIT1s. (These comments are based only on amps with which I have direct experience. I am sure there are others. And it is only my opinion, for my preference.) The big Sony VFET amps (designed by Pass) driving Sony speakers in a digital four channel system at RMAF in a large ballroom was one of the most natural portrayals of male choral singers that I have ever heard.

A lot more than just the right amp and speaker are needed for a system to sound natural, though. Again, only in my opinion.

Why not try some other SETs? You can get some for reasonable money used to try and resell when you want for relatively low loss. As of right now, with LAMM being your only SET, I don’t think you can make a statement about SET and natural sound. I would say that SET is necessary to get natural sound but that needs to be with compatible speakers…which is also trial and error.

 

[PeterA]

Why not try some other SETs? You can get some for reasonable money used to try and resell when you want for relatively low loss. As of right now, with LAMM being your only SET, I don’t think you can make a statement about SET and natural sound. I would say that SET is necessary to get natural sound but that needs to be with compatible speakers…which is also trial and error.

I am not trying to make a statement about SET. The only thing I’ve said about my amplifier is that I use so much less than it’s Power rating that the distortion level is very low because my speakers are very efficient and easy to drive.

I am not searching for alternatives. I have found what I like. My priorities have changed, but I’m happy to listen to alternatives if I encounter them.

 

[morricab]

I am not trying to make a statement about SET. The only thing I’ve said about my amplifier is that I use so much less than it’s Power rating that the distortion level is very low because my speakers are very efficient and easy to drive.

I am not searching for alternatives. I have found what I like. My priorities have changed, but I’m happy to listen to alternatives if I encounter them.

Ok, but you don't know from own personal experience that it is the "most natural sound" for your speakers... you take this on faith.

You shouldn't worry so much about the power or what Ralph says about % power that sounds good. I get amazing sound now from a 3.5 watt 2A3 amplifier with my 98dB Horning speakers. I am sure with music peaks I push a few watts but the amp just sounds wonderful. I also have 30 watt and 20 watts SETs at home but the littlest one sounds just as dynamic and powerful.

I am not saying the Lamm isn't the best...it might be...but until you give some others a shot you are not relying on your own experience you are relying solely on DDKs experience and what he finds to be natural. Do you know whether or not DDK frequents live, unamplified music concerts? Just wondering because otherwise, how does he know what truly natural sounds like?

Oh, and I would say that it does require SET for natural sound. I think DDK would probably agree (although he would be even more specific that it takes Lamm SET). With all due respect to Ralph and those touting the latest big SS amps, their stuff just doesn't sound as natural, meaning like real live acoustic music. They can sound good and even "kind of" natural but that's where it stops.

IMO, your speakers are too lacking in extension in the highs to be truly natural for percussion like cymbals, chimes etc. and some brass instruments/flutes. It is a minor weakness but one I would try to remedy with a good supertweeter, for example.

 

[Joe Whip]

What does or does not constitute natural sound is simply personal preference. There is no objective standard,. Some of the posts here are just silly. Like what you like. It does not matter to me. Endless bickering over what amounts to first world problems.

 

[PeterA]

Ok, but you don't know from own personal experience that it is the "most natural sound" for your speakers... you take this on faith.

You shouldn't worry so much about the power or what Ralph says about % power that sounds good. I get amazing sound now from a 3.5 watt 2A3 amplifier with my 98dB Horning speakers. I am sure with music peaks I push a few watts but the amp just sounds wonderful. I also have 30 watt and 20 watts SETs at home but the littlest one sounds just as dynamic and powerful.

I am not saying the Lamm isn't the best...it might be...but until you give some others a shot you are not relying on your own experience you are relying solely on DDKs experience and what he finds to be natural. Do you know whether or not DDK frequents live, unamplified music concerts? Just wondering because otherwise, how does he know what truly natural sounds like?

Oh, and I would say that it does require SET for natural sound. I think DDK would probably agree (although he would be even more specific that it takes Lamm SET). With all due respect to Ralph and those touting the latest big SS amps, their stuff just doesn't sound as natural, meaning like real live acoustic music. They can sound good and even "kind of" natural but that's where it stops.

IMO, your speakers are too lacking in extension in the highs to be truly natural for percussion like cymbals, chimes etc. and some brass instruments/flutes. It is a minor weakness but one I would try to remedy with a good supertweeter, for example.

Brad, Thank you for all of your advice. I have spoken to people about adding super tweeters to speakers like mine. They have reported very mixed results. I’ve actually experimented with the crossover adjustment lowering the output of the horn relative to the woofer. I respect your opinion about the way you perceive sound.

I’m not just relying on faith, I’ve heard these amplifiers drive a variety of speakers, including my former Magico Q3. I like the sound. I am not simply relying on what DDK told me. This is not about DDK.

I happen to enjoy the pairing with my speakers, and I happen to know that Vladimir Lamm recommended my speakers for his amplifier. His endorsement simply confirms when I myself am hearing. I understand full well that I do not know much about SETs. I am not making any claims about them except that I like the sound of my amplifier with my speakers in my room. I don’t know if there’s a more natural sound, nor am I claiming they are the best.

I do not understand this line of reasoning from you. You’re arguing against something I have not said or implied. As I have said before, audio is one of four hobbies that I enjoy. I do not have an insatiable appetite to try lots of different things. Now, that desire is even less. I really like what I have now and I’m going to enjoy my record collection when I have the time to listen to my music.

 

[PeterA]

What does or does not constitute natural sound is simply personal preference. There is no objective standard,. Some of the posts here are just silly. Like what you like. It does not matter to me. Endless bickering over what amounts to first world problems.

Joe, The standard for natural sound is live acoustic music. Yes, it is about personal preference and values and how one chooses to pursue whatever is his goal.

I don’t see anyone advocating that one should like something other than what he likes. There are many other forums and threads to discuss other topics that one might care about.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Brad, Thank you for all of your advice. I have spoken to people about adding super tweeters to speakers like mine. They have reported very mixed results. I’ve actually experimented with the crossover adjustment lowering the output of the horn relative to the woofer. I respect your opinion about the way you perceive sound.

I’m not just relying on faith, I’ve heard these amplifiers drive a variety of speakers, including my former Magico Q3. I like the sound. I am not simply relying on what DDK told me. This is not about DDK.

I happen to enjoy the pairing with my speakers, and I happen to know that Vladimir Lamm recommended my speakers for his amplifier. His endorsement simply confirms when I myself am hearing. I understand full well that I do not know much about SETs. I am not making any claims about them except that I like the sound of my amplifier with my speakers in my room. I don’t know if there’s a more natural sound, nor am I claiming they are the best.

This is all fair enough, of course. I actually am like you. I don't need to survey every alternative -- or any alternative -- to be happy and content with what I have.

But instead of dancing around Brad's question why don't you just forthrightly say: "You are correct. In my room on my current loudspeakers I have never compared any other SET amplifier to the ML2."

 

[morricab]

Brad, Thank you for all of your advice. I have spoken to people about adding super tweeters to speakers like mine. They have reported very mixed results. I’ve actually experimented with the crossover adjustment lowering the output of the horn relative to the woofer. I respect your opinion about the way you perceive sound.

I’m not just relying on faith, I’ve heard these amplifiers drive a variety of speakers, including my former Magico Q3. I like the sound. I am not simply relying on what DDK told me. This is not about DDK.

I happen to enjoy the pairing with my speakers, and I happen to know that Vladimir Lamm recommended my speakers for his amplifier. His endorsement simply confirms when I myself am hearing. I understand full well that I do not know much about SETs. I am not making any claims about them except that I like the sound of my amplifier with my speakers in my room. I don’t know if there’s a more natural sound, nor am I claiming they are the best.

I do not understand this line of reasoning from you. You’re arguing against something I have not said or implied. As I have said before, audio is one of four hobbies that I enjoy. I do not have an insatiable appetite to try lots of different things. Now, that desire is even less. I really like what I have now and I’m going to enjoy my record collection when I have the time to listen to my music.

No one is discounting your like of the amp or its pairing...no need to keep repeating this. You have taken it on faith that those Lamm ML2s (and pre and phono) are the best match for your Vitavox speakers. That is because you have not tried anything else with them to draw any conclusion about it one way or the other...yet you believe.

Let's not forget that you started a huge thread on this topic, so now claiming you don't care about this or that but just want to enjoy music is more than a big disingenuous. If you tell me now that you have no interest in finding out if your system is really as natural sounding as it can possibly be then I won't comment further on your thread... in fact you should just then close your thread to further comments because you are done and have found, for you, sufficiently natural sound to be done with system building.

 

[Joe Whip]

Joe, The standard for natural sound is live acoustic music. Yes, it is about personal preference and values and how one chooses to pursue whatever is his goal.

I don’t see anyone advocating that one should like something other than what he likes. There are many other forums and threads to discuss other topics that one might care about.

Sure Peter, it is. The problem is that you may perceive it with your senses and processor differently than someone else. In the video world for example, we have a standard that can be set via a computer with specially designed cameras and software. A display can be objectively correct even though we may or may not like the picture. Even that is a matter of taste.

 

[Amir]

What does or does not constitute natural sound is simply personal preference. There is no objective standard,. Some of the posts here are just silly. Like what you like. It does not matter to me. Endless bickering over what amounts to first world problems.

All of audio judgments are subjective so every audiophile could claim his judgment is right but the key point is some audiophiles like David (@ddk) have so much more experience than me and many audiophiles in the world.
Smart audiophiles learn from their experience and the learning process change their ideas across the time.

Here Peter describes his opinion about right sound after a long time experience so he changed many things and found his right way. You or others may not agree him now but god knows you may agree him 5 years later.

I have lost over $10k + over 1000 hours for computer playback and finally bought a CEC TL0 transport. Both Romy and David agree the computer playback is not as good as CD transport but you see most audiophiles think computer playback is better than CD transport.

different opinions does not mean there is no valid truth/fact

 

[PeterA]

No one is discounting your like of the amp or its pairing...no need to keep repeating this. You have taken it on faith that those Lamm ML2s (and pre and phono) are the best match for your Vitavox speakers. That is because you have not tried anything else with them to draw any conclusion about it one way or the other...yet you believe.

Let's not forget that you started a huge thread on this topic, so now claiming you don't care about this or that but just want to enjoy music is more than a big disingenuous. If you tell me now that you have no interest in finding out if your system is really as natural sounding as it can possibly be then I won't comment further on your thread... in fact you should just then close your thread to further comments because you are done and have found, for you, sufficiently natural sound to be done with system building.

Brad, there’s an entire thread about SETs. You can decide whether or not to follow this thread. I’m sharing what I have done for those who are interested. The sound recently improved with changes to room acoustics and an upgraded phono.

Yes this is a long thread. It is about my system and a particular approach to the hobby. It is my system thread describing what I am doing.

Ron tells me what to write on my system thread, and you tell me that I should shut it down if I do not compare lots of different amplifiers in my system and share the information with everybody. So much unsolicited advice.