Natural Sound

[Mike Lavigne]

Here’s my perspective, Mike. I don’t represent anyone or any products. I am not an influencer. I don’t use influencing status to negotiate pricing. I am a hobbyist and I paid full asking price for everything in my system. I do not negotiate price. This is my system, and there is no purpose for this system thread other than for me to share my thoughts on this system.

I’m not diminishing Ralph’s knowledge and expertise. I just do not think it has any place here in my system thread. Ralph is using my system thread as a platform to promote his products over a competitor’s products. Vladimir is not here to join the discussion and possibly disagree with some of Ralph’s claims.



You are right that this is about a higher road. Manufacturers and members of the industry should be held to a higher standard. They should not diminish competitor’s products on hobbyist system threads.

Imagine David Karmeli coming onto your turntable threads and starting to tell you that his turntable is much better than all three of yours and then to explain the technical reasons. And then tell you you couldn’t possibly think your turntables represent the information on the record because the technology and implementation won’t allow it. Then telling you that you can’t use words to express your thoughts about your system in the naming of your thread.

David Karmeli would never do such a thing and you well understand this. Here we have Ralph doing just that. It does not reflect well on him and it is revealing of character. So yes, there is a higher road, this time not taken.

i certainly hear what you are saying Peter about your perspective on things. but you were always tone deaf to perspectives on the way you set your "Natural Sound" system thread apart, above and separated from other 'unknowing' efforts. in spite of repeated critical comments referencing those views. very polarizing.

and really that is all ok, and i'm happy that you are doing your own thing and are happy. but this elite secret handshake positioning and aligning yourself so strongly with ddk and his direction changes the equation for innocence. just my 2 cents. your thread has a very strong message. and it's not just yours singularly. it's something more than that. which is where my perspective comes from. and my feelings about that are not secret as Tima references. guilty as charged.

as far as me and David and his judgments over the years of my activities, he has said his share of things and sometimes i reacted, sometimes not, but i never had any threads where i set myself up like you have. my threads had limited time frames and narrow subject matters. that was and is my posting style. plenty of people take shots at me. i get it. i have my opinions and my own ego and can be defensive too. words can hurt. humble pie does not taste good.

i am not defending Ralph or his opinions or actions at all, only that in my opinion your thread and unflinching representations of your truths ask for challenges. so to pull the commercial card is not valid to me. my personal opinion.

like i said, you have a little high ground over Ralph, but only a little.

 

[morricab]

Ralph could give his lecture on any other thread about electronics or the SET thread. He does it here because of Lamm. Can he discuss typology and his products without denigrating other approaches?

His argument is that SET amplification in general and my amplifiers specifically, are not accurate, but his designs are accurate. It seems strange that he would take issue with my thread title which is not Accurate Sound.

He dismisses my preference and others who share it by simply saying we like the colorations and that he likes the colorations too and designing similar amplifiers are fun. He also threw in a snide remark about belt drive turntables. This from a member of the industry on a hobbyist’s Channel system thread.

Members who don’t have their own systems or troll others by simply giggling at all of their posts are free to share their opinions and criticize the choices other members make. However, to use Mike’s words, “it is not a good look” when a manufacturer comes onto a system thread to criticize the hobbyist’s choice of gear to promote his own. Designers should promote their gear on their own threads and discuss technical issues in threads about those topics, and they should do it without denigrating the competition.

I don’t think my thread title invites people to question whether or not my gear is technically qualified to make such a claim. It is a subjective opinion and my choice for a title. it is also the way Vladimir Lamm described the sound of his ML2 amplifier which is the cornerstone of my system.

He put me on ignore because I challenge him on his spiel, which he had laid out in multiple threads, like the SET owners thread…can you imagine? He has twisted the understanding of psychoacoustics to fit the bias and narrative of his own products.

 

[Al M.]

[Ralph’s] argument is that SET amplification in general and my amplifiers specifically, are not accurate, but his designs are accurate. It seems strange that he would take issue with my thread title which is not Accurate Sound.

[...]

I don’t think my thread title invites people to question whether or not my gear is technically qualified to make such a claim. It is a subjective opinion and my choice for a title.

Peter, are you implying that you do not strive for accurate sound? What in your view is the difference between natural sound and accurate sound?

 

[hopkins]

Peter, are you implying that you do not strive for accurate sound? What in your view is the difference between natural sound and accurate sound?

Has anyone of us heard "accurate sound"? Accuracy is an ideal. We can find flaws in any system.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Peter, are you implying that you do not strive for accurate sound? What in your view is the difference between natural sound and accurate sound?

Al it’s a challenging and interesting question so hope it’s OK to add my thoughts but I’d figure that both the notion of natural and accurate are better used as relative descriptors and that steers us clear from what are more awkward uses as absolute terms.

So I’d suggest a system or a component can be considered as more natural or less natural when used as a holistic subjective abstract in assessing… whereas using more accurate or less accurate could be (less successfully) used in a general objective way or (more successfully) if used as a very specific objective assessment eg. in a measurement.

Accurate as a defining term is probably at its weakest and hardest to define when used in purely subjective assessment. Defining something as more or less natural sounding comes with its own challenges but I’ve always seen value in using the term where appropriate.

 

[tima]

Has anyone of us heard "accurate sound"? Accuracy is an ideal. We can find flaws in any system.

Accurate as a term is probably at its weakest and hardest to define when used in purely subjective assessment.

It's easy to stick adjectives onto nouns and think there is a reality in the description.

My best guess goes like this...

"The sound is accurate if it sounds like what I think it should sound like."

 

[hopkins]

Accurate as a defining term is probably at its weakest and hardest to define when used in purely subjective assessment. Defining something as more or less natural sounding comes with its own challenges but I’ve always seen value in using the term where appropriate.

While I agree with the first sentence, to play devil's advocate, the two terms when used to qualify a system subjectively could be interchangeable. In other words, "natural" sound could be seen as "accurate" by many, and vice versa.

It's hard to describe sound. I like mine "dry" and "crisp". Those words have meaning to me, but are probably utterly meaningless to others!

 

[morricab]

It's easy to stick adjectives onto nouns and think there is a reality in the description.

My best guess goes like this...

"The sound is accurate if it sounds like what I think it should sound like."

Well, there is also the objectivist view of accurate, which is minimize measurable distortion. In = out. However, and this is the tricky part, a distortion analyzer is not what is listening to music. So, that definition of accurate, while rather simple to understand, is not the kind of accurate that serious audiophiles strive for. The reason for this is also simple; many of us have been down the "measurements first" road early in our audio adventure and are left wondering, "Why doesn't this technical perfection add up to sonic realism?" Then, at a show or shop that has "alternative" equipment we get a wow moment where something, usually that doesn't measure that well, shocks us with a blast of realism.

What seems to be clear is that HOW you reduce distortion has a huge impact on the perceived sound because whatever residual distortion is left after you have applied your distortion reduction methodology is directly impacted by the methodology and it's sonic consequences. There is no free lunch.

What I find hilarious is a guy coming on here claiming SETs are unnatural because they have high even order harmonics. One look at how the ear's own self-generated harmonic pattern looks like will tell you right away that any cancellation of even order harmonics (as in push/pull and balanced circuits) is in fact UNNATURAL, as in this kind of odd order dominated pattern doesn't really exist in nature...only a few instruments (like clarinet) are odd order dominated..of course instruments are not inherently from nature either.

The difficulty objectivists have is that human preference is very fuzzy. There are correlations with certain attributes but these are not strong correlations and exceptions are common. Nonetheless, attempts to correlate listening preference to measurements indicates that patterns that more closely mimic nature will be overall preferred to those that don't. The resurgence of SET and high sensitivity speakers is not nostalgia and its not a cult. People are hearing it and finding it generally preferable to the more mainstream systems.

 

[morricab]

While I very much can understand your perspective, Peter, I don't read Ralph's contributions that way.

It does not seem to me that he wants to sell products on your thread, but that he simply has strong technical opinions about fidelity to the signal that he wants to communicate. As he indicates, the strong claim of your thread title does invite musings about Natural Sound and if it is technically achievable with your gear.

I may not agree with all of Ralph’s technical points either (and I have a feeling he might have objections to the design of my Octave tube preamp/power amp as well), but I find his posts a highly interesting read.

Unfortunately Al, you are not correct. It has been known for a long time that Ralph does exactly that...he puts down other technologies to promote his own. Art Dudley noted this in a review of the Joule Electra VZN80mkIII OTL:

"As a consequence, Karsten's place in OTL history was secured. (Sadly, he has also become known for denigrating the achievements of fellow designers past and present, including the late Julius Futterman himself, whose circuit "should never have seen the light of day," according to Karsten. See www.atma-sphere.com/papers/otl.html.)"

This comment was from 2007... he hasn't changed..except to shift his view to his own GaN Class D amps and quoting Bruno Putsey's...who would laugh at the "high distortion" from Ralph's previous love, the OTL tube amp.

What he does is twist what is known about psychoacoustics to fit his own products narrative and then sells that as "Facts".

 

[tima]

Well, there is also the objectivist view of accurate, which is minimize measurable distortion. In = out. However, and this is the tricky part, a distortion analyzer is not what is listening to music. So, that definition of accurate, while rather simple to understand, is not the kind of accurate that serious audiophiles strive for. The reason for this is also simple; many of us have been down the "measurements first" road early in our audio adventure and are left wondering, "Why doesn't this technical perfection add up to sonic realism?" Then, at a show or shop that has "alternative" equipment we get a wow moment where something, usually that doesn't measure that well, shocks us with a blast of realism.
...
Nonetheless, attempts to correlate listening preference to measurements indicates that patterns that more closely mimic nature will be overall preferred to those that don't.

Yes -- your entire post is well put, Brad. We hear in a certain way that may or may not correlate with particular objective measurements. The in-out distortion measurement is not the in-out of perceptual cognition. The ear operates in its own ways. Those that understand human hearing through testing and observation may be more apt at codifying that understanding into a circuit that produces sound agreeable to how we hear non-amplified acoustic music. Who are the circuit designers that have done that?

 

[Audiohertz2]

Unfortunately Al, you are not correct. It has been known for a long time that Ralph does exactly that...he puts down other technologies to promote his own. Art Dudley noted this in a review of the Joule Electra VZN80mkIII OTL:

"As a consequence, Karsten's place in OTL history was secured. (Sadly, he has also become known for denigrating the achievements of fellow designers past and present, including the late Julius Futterman himself, whose circuit "should never have seen the light of day," according to Karsten. See www.atma-sphere.com/papers/otl.html.)"

This comment was from 2007... he hasn't changed..except to shift his view to his own GaN Class D amps and quoting Bruno Putsey's...who would laugh at the "high distortion" from Ralph's previous love, the OTL tube amp.

What he does is twist what is known about psychoacoustics to fit his own products narrative and then sells that as "Facts".

Matters not if a system is Naturally Accurate or Accurate Naturally [Personal attack omitted - Please refrain from comments like this again] ...

 

[PeterA]

Peter, are you implying that you do not strive for accurate sound? What in your view is the difference between natural sound and accurate sound?

What do you mean by accurate sound, Al?

I strive for a sound that reminds me of the listening experience, I have when listening to music performances with musicians and singers.

 

[Al M.]

What do you mean by accurate sound, Al?

I strive for a sound that reminds me of the listening experience, I have when listening to music performances with musicians and singers.

You are not answering a question by throwing back the question, Peter.

Can you please answer my question(s)? Thanks.

 

[PeterA]

Al it’s a challenging and interesting question so hope it’s OK to add my thoughts but I’d figure that both the notion of natural and accurate are better used as relative descriptors and that steers us clear from what are more awkward uses as absolute terms.

So I’d suggest a system or a component can be considered as more natural or less natural when used as a holistic subjective abstract in assessing… whereas using more accurate or less accurate could be (less successfully) used in a general objective way or (more successfully) if used as a very specific objective assessment eg. in a measurement.

Accurate as a defining term is probably at its weakest and hardest to define when used in purely subjective assessment. Defining something as more or less natural sounding comes with its own challenges but I’ve always seen value in using the term where appropriate.

Nice post Graham. When naming my thread and discussing what I think of as natural sounding systems, I draw on my observation and memory of my reference, live acoustic music.

Ralph introduced something completely different, which is the objective measurements of amplifier circuits. I believe he is assessing what happens to a signal as it is amplified and measuring things like distortion.

The interesting thing is the Vladimir Lamm studied listening preferences of people, and then made a mathematical model based on the results which I understand became the basis for the design of his circuits.

It would have been very interesting to listen to a discussion between Vladimir and Ralph on this topic, but sadly, Vladimir is not here to share his thoughts with us or to defend his designs from critics like Ralph.

 

[Al M.]

Ralph introduced something completely different, which is the objective measurements of amplifier circuits. I believe he is assessing what happens to a signal as it is amplified and measuring things like distortion.

The interesting thing is the Vladimir Lamm studied listening preferences of people, and then made a mathematical model based on the results which I understand became the basis for the design of his circuits.

It would have been very interesting to listen to a discussion between Vladimir and Ralph on this topic, but sadly, Vladimir is not here to share his thoughts with us or to defend his designs from critics like Ralph.

You are creating an entirely false juxtaposition, Peter. Ralph is also concerned with subjective human hearing and subjective audibilty of distortions, leading to his emphasis that not all distortion is equal. This is obvious from his posts, the content of which you misrepresent.

 

[PeterA]

You are not answering a question by throwing back the question, Peter.

Can you please answer my question(s)? Thanks.

Well, Al, as a starting point I need to understand what you mean by accurate sound. Accurate by observation and perception or by measurement? Can any reproduced sound be truly accurate if it is distinguishable from the original sound? But since you won’t answer that, I will take a guess.

Perhaps accurate sound is what you hear on a telephone when talking to your mother. You recognize the sound of the voice as belonging to your mother. In that sense, it is accurate enough for you to know who it is on the other end of the line. But it does not sound indistinguishable from her actual voice, so is it really accurate? Perhaps a recording of your mother‘s voice might strive to sound exactly like your real mother‘s voice. But I’ve never heard one that is the same. So in that case, can something ever actually be accurate sound?

Ralph is talking about measurements of amplifier circuits being accurate in terms of low distortion. At least that’s what I understand from his posts. Some designs have lower distortion than others. They can be assessed as more or less accurate I suppose based on the amount of distortion. And he claims that we can now measure everything we need to in order to know the accuracy of the circuit or amplifier.

The problem is that we also have our ears to assess and judge. And we put two amplifiers next to each other in the same system and we listen. And we judge.

It is not enough to simply say that Peter prefers the sound of the distortion and that he likes the colorations. That is dismissive when I think one design with more measured distortion sounds more real than another design with with vanishing levels of distortion. How does one explain that? Some distortion patterns result in a sound that is more natural, realistic, and convincing resulting in the perception of more accuracy.

I have not directly compared a Lamm amplifier to one of Ralph’s designs in the same system. I will say that I think my system sounds more natural to me, meaning more like actual acoustic instruments, then the couple of systems I heard with Ralph’s amplifiers. That doesn’t mean much to anybody else.

If you are asking whether or not I want my audio system to remind me of the sound of actual acoustic instruments, and this accuracy, then yes that’s what I. But Ralph argued that my system is not capable of being accurate because of the levels of distortion.

To your question:

1. I strive for a sound that is natural, that means one that sounds like real instruments as judged only by me and my abilities to make assessments based on my observation and perception of reality. If you defined that as accuracy, then I strive for an accurate sounding system. I do not strive for an inaccurate sounding system, if that means one that does not sound real or natural. I also do not strive for a system that has high levels of distortion if they are audible and result in a sound that is unnatural.

2. The difference between natural sound and accurate sound is that the former is based on observation and perception and is a subjective valuation. It is what one experiences in the room when listening to an audio system. Accurate sound, I presume, is objective and based on measurements with instruments and tools to help us better understand some of what is going on.

Natural sound is an expression used by some to describe a listening experience confirmed by observation. Accurate sound is an expression used by some to describe low levels of distortion confirmed by measurements.

There are degrees of how natural a system sounds just as there are degrees of accuracy. Natural is relative. But Ralph uses accuracy as an absolute. He claims my amps, and by extension my system, is not accurate because my SETs have high levels of distortion. Ro I think my system sounds natural and he claims it does not because the measurements show inaccuracies on the form of distortion.

The disagreements arise when someone says an amplifier sounds real and another person says that’s not possible because of its measured distortion.

Vladimir Lamm designed amplifiers that sound like real music, in my opinion. Call it whatever you want.

 

[PeterA]

You are creating an entirely false juxtaposition, Peter. Ralph is also concerned with subjective human hearing and subjective audibilty of distortions, leading to his emphasis that not all distortion is equal. This is obvious from his posts, the content of which you misrepresent.

I understand that and I have read his posts. That’s why I’m so surprised about his tactic. He dismisses Vladimir Lamm’s work in this very area, based on his measurements of distortions from the SET designs claiming that the distortions cannot produce accurate sound. He’s argument here in my system thread is all about measured distortion. Read his posts here. He says that the amplifiers are not accurate, cannot be accurate based on measurements, but that people like them because they like their colorations. Only Ralph’s designs are accurate. This is pure product promotion by denigrating a competitor’s designs on a users system thread.

It’s actually kind of shameful in my opinion, but apparently this is his reputation. He can come on my system thread, knowing I know nothing about technology and cannot argue against him. And if someone is able to argue against him, Ralph puts them on his ignore list. Lamm is an easy target because Vladimir is not here to defend his work.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

i think darTZeel has similarities with Lamm in a sense, as their perspective is "listen first, measure afterwards". accurate is a concept that should be recognized in the process, but natural and real are the standards. Herve did not do the human listening studies Vladimir did; he had his own approach.

in 2000 Herve Deletraz wrote this before he started his company, about his DIY amp project; "Every human being has his or her own taste in music reproduction. I just tried to build what I believe is the sound I can hear live, with real musicians, without any electronic artifact between them and me."

 

[bonzo75]

“. I just tried to build what I believe is the sound I can hear live, with real musicians, without any electronic artifact between them and me."

This sounds like Peter. He can use dartzeel

 

[PeterA]

This sounds like Peter. He can use dartzeel

I suppose so, but I would not use a phrase like “without electronic artifact “. My friend MadFloyd had some Dartzeel for a while. I heard it.