It's not that simple. Perceptions and tastes change.
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
It's not that simple. Perceptions and tastes change.
Again, live music exists , but our reference is our perception of it. If the reference was solid and physical we would not have subjective audio discussions, just objective comparisons.
Second, stereo is so different from real that "getting closer to real" is nice sounding but ambiguous and meaningless - every designer and manufacturer claims it. I heard a lot that Quad was "the closest approach to the original sound" in my youth.
Do you remember Peter Walker? "We think our loudspeaker very poor, but we think that the others are even poorer!"
I do not post on people behavior, just on their opinions, comments and systems. Sometimes general comments, other times more particularly. And sorry I often say "Stereo is a personal experience", a technical comment that is very different from what you are saying.
Also still curious about why not the three signature level components. BTW, I have an open mind - I do not exclude the possibility that no one buys my Lamm's and my future system includes the LL1- ML3. They are excellent gear.
A surrogate marker is something that is often associated with the "real thing" or the actual goal (outcome), but is not causative and may be only coincidentally related. Those sonic aspects Peter describes that he used to pursue are just those sorts of things; they may occur with natural sound reproduction but they are certainly not causative nor necessary. So in that sense they are sometimes, but not always, artifacts
Of course they do, but presumably in the case of a music lover it is in the direction of more enjoyment of the music, and for an audiophile who loves music focusing on individual parts of the sound, as Peter described, should soon become tiresome and detract from the original goal of more musical enjoyment. I am aware that that process can occur at different "speeds" for different listeners, and of course musical tastes and priorities may change as well.
Definitely
More self-awareness rather than more experience or knowledge (although the latter may also be true but is unknown and IMO irrelevant to the discussion at hand).
Peter has probably spent north of 100K on his system the last couple of month, we don't all have unlimited funds to buy the Signature model components Francisco !Again, live music exists , but our reference is our perception of it. If the reference was solid and physical we would not have subjective audio discussions, just objective comparisons.
Second, stereo is so different from real that "getting closer to real" is nice sounding but ambiguous and meaningless - every designer and manufacturer claims it. I heard a lot that Quad was "the closest approach to the original sound" in my youth.
Do you remember Peter Walker? "We think our loudspeaker very poor, but we think that the others are even poorer!"
I do not post on people behavior, just on their opinions, comments and systems. Sometimes general comments, other times more particularly. And sorry I often say "Stereo is a personal experience", a technical comment that is very different from what you are saying.
Also still curious about why not the three signature level components. BTW, I have an open mind - I do not exclude the possibility that no one buys my Lamm's and my future system includes the LL1- ML3. They are excellent gear.
Simply. He stated so and I take him at his word. I do not know enough to presume otherwise. It’s also Saturday morning, it’s a beautiful day out, and I’m in a good mood listening to music.
Ron, after listening to many Magico speakers and living with lots of set up experiments over the last two years, the conclusion I have reached is different from yours about Magico speakers. I started a thread asking about whether or not magical speakers have a sound. There are a lot of interesting responses in that thread.
When you heard my system you did not think my speakers had a typical Magico sound. I would say that a lot of the sound people attribute to particular components or brands is far too generalized and based on biased notions of typology.
I may be guilty of the same, but in my opinion much of this has to do with accessories and ancillary gear and set up. Even now listening to my two different systems, I would say set up, room treatment, power cords, platforms and signal cables, have as much or more to do with the overall system Sound.
People who hate Magico speakers (and much of the gear I used to own) actually find something somewhat positive to say about my videos with my Magico speakers.
It’s not rock or concert hall, and it’s not where one sits. All these things surely have an effect on what you hear. I am talking about recognizing the sound of live instruments and voices versus Something that sounds artificial. There are different degrees of natural, but my goal is to avoid the artificial and hear the beauty that is on individual recordings. Perspectives from different recording vary, and I want my system to expose those.
Last edited:
Three reasons: cost, number of boxes, and the advice of my dealer.
Peter, has your desire as to what you want to hear changed (which drove this change)? It seems like you have heard a lot of live classical music in your lifetime. Has it been your goal to hear that in your own room? Just trying to understand your frame of reference since that’s what it is all about.
I get what you mean on surrogate markers now. I often think about this as well. People hunt down individual things but have a tree vs forest problem.
That’s a good question. I have been listening to classical music most of my life as well as jazz in live settings. I think it’s only been in the last couple of years that I began to understand what it was I was hearing. That is ironic because I haven’t heard live music in the last year or so.
It took me a long time to identify and separate what I imagined live music to sound like from what I was actually hearing both from live music and from audio systems. This process started when I listened to an audiophile acquaintance speaking in my listening room with my eyes shut.
That was a turning point to my understanding of how I perceive sound. A long series of experiments followed and then exposure to systems that presented the music differently.
I am still learning and have a lot more to understand. At least now I know more about what to listen for.
Interesting . So you had three views on real music - what you imagined, what you heard life and what you heard from stereos. Can I assume that your eduction was mostly suppressing all what your imagination added to the experience of hearing real music with closed eyes?
No I would not assume anything. It’s as simple as understanding that I became a better listener over time by learning to recognize and appreciate what I was actually hearing. It was a process of discovery and personal.
"Our reference is our perception of it". This is an incredibly important point.
Perceptions are personal.
I have always assumed, and I could easily have been wrong, that when people are putting together their systems and making changes their frames of reference is what they think an instrument or voice actually sounds like to them. For example, I listen to a lot of jazz and have heard saxophones in person for years. I want what comes out of my speakers to sound like what my brain thinks is a real saxophone. Same thing with acoustic instruments, like guitars. Electric instruments are a bit more difficult but it is the same concept.
In the end, it is all relative to the person and their perceptions.
In the end, it is all relative to the person and their perceptions.
Yes; this is why I began my post with "not necessarily in your prior system . . . "
Last edited:
Peter,
For many recordings the LL1 / ML3 Lamm's are an appropriate amplifier to the XLF's - my appreciation is mainly carried with this experience - as you know I praise mostly the positive aspects in my public opinions. I consider that in part my concern with the ML3/XLF pairing with other recordings is due to my long room characteristics.
A gear question - do you currently own the LL1 or the LL1.1? You refer the LL1.1 in your posts and signature but your first photos show the LL1. Did you compare them anytime?
Similar threads
