Natural Sound

[Al M.]

Al, you extol the virtues of physical CDs and used to do the same for monitor/subs as much or more than the few actually here who own SET/horns. And many of those guys have now left. A solution is simply to not click on the few threads if it is so off- putting.

Apples and oranges.

The difference, Peter, is that I have never claimed exclusivity of quality for physical CDs and monitors/subs.

One thing is enthusiasm for one's stuff, quite another is an air of superiority about what is "the best" and which path the most enlightened and "experienced" ones are to follow.

 

[PeterA]

Apples and oranges.

The difference, Peter, is that I have never claimed exclusivity of quality for physical CDs and monitors/subs.

One thing is enthusiasm for one's stuff, quite another is an air of superiority about what is "the best" and which path the most enlightened and "experienced" ones are to follow.

Al, exclusivity of quality is something I do write about in terms of the components that stand the test of time and survive over decades to remain popular. I have referred to those as the few rare and coveted items. But I don’t tell people what to buy. The things I have in my system are hardly available and most members would never want them.

I do extol the virtues of my system just like you do yours. I’ve never told anyone what kind of system to buy. I don’t have the knowledge or experience or the risk tolerance to even attempt that. I did once suggest that you listen to floor standing speakers that were more full range and that you could perhaps ditch the subs in the process. You basically told me thanks but no thanks People make their own choices. I’m glad we have choices to make.

It may seem that this system thread promotes and pushes an approach because of the enthusiasm with which I wrote when I started this thread, but this thread is still alive and well after two years and 260 pages, and that is not my doing. It attracts some very vocal members, for whatever reason.

Bonzo has been telling the Boston group of us to listen to horns for years. Don’t confuse his efforts with mine.

 

[Al M.]

Al, exclusivity of quality is something I do write about in terms of the components that stand the test of time and survive over decades to remain popular. I have referred to those as the few rare and coveted items. But I don’t tell people what to buy. The things I have in my system are hardly available and most members would never want them.

I do extol the virtues of my system just like you do yours. I’ve never told anyone what kind of system to buy. I don’t have the knowledge or experience or the risk tolerance to even attempt that. I did once suggest that you listen to floor standing speakers that were more full range and that you could perhaps stitch the subs in the process. You basically told me thanks but no thanks People make their own choices. I’m glad we have choices to make.

It may seem that this system promotes and pushes an approach because of the enthusiasm with which I wrote when I started this thread, but this thread is still alive and well after two years and 260 pages, and that is not my doing. It attracts some very vocal members, for whatever reason.

Bonzo has been telling the Boston group of us to listen to horns for years. Don’t confuse his efforts with mine.

Don't worry, Peter, I don't confuse your efforts with those of Bonzo.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Al might post a video of his system when you post a video of yours. Is anyone willing to bet which happens first?

I checked the calendar, looking for the date when hell freezes over. Couldn't find it.

Think that Marty has that one covered already.

 

[Rensselaer]

I see your point, but an electronic device and a real music instrument are two different things generating different sounds. They will have different characteristics just as different instruments or different pianos playing the same note will sound different.

It was a poor choice of model. It shows my exasperation with members of this thread that insist on arguing that David Karmeli could/should have used the term “accurate” when three years ago (when you started this thread) he defined the sound you were looking for as “natural”.

Do you believe David himself actually meant to say “accurate”, or that he agrees that “accurate” is fully interchangeable with “natural” for describing the music character one can achieve by going through all that you went through in building your ultimate system, or do you believe your casting off of Magico’s and transistor amps to obtain better sound rubbed those with such the wrong way and all this stuff about Accuracy is just attempts to shoot holes in the process and choices you took to make a naturally-sounding world-class system (with horns and SET’s ).

 

[PeterA]

It was a poor choice of model. It shows my exasperation with members of this thread that insist on arguing that David Karmeli could/should have used the term “accurate” when three years ago (when you started this thread) he defined the sound you were looking for as “natural”.

Do you believe David himself actually meant to say “accurate”, or that he agrees that “accurate” is fully interchangeable with “natural” for describing the music character one can achieve by going through all that you went through in building your ultimate system, or do you believe your casting off of Magico’s and transistor amps to obtain better sound rubbed those with such the wrong way?

No, I do not think David meant to use accurate to describe what I am hearing from my system. The term came from Vladimir Lamm. David heard the ML2 for the first time and was astonished. He asked Vladimir “What is that?” Vladimir simply said “That is natural sound.” My system is built around that amp.

After that trip to Utah, I realized I had gone as far as I wanted with my old system. A month later as the Micro Seiki arrived with various Lamm electronics, I compared the phono stages, preamps, and amps, and that was it. I sold the old system within a week and bought the new one.

It was a pretty radical shift. Some claim the language I used rubbed some people the wrong way. I don’t think it was the wholesale abandonment of the more mainstream approach to audio, but who knows? I do not think it matters. It was all discussed up thread.

 

[wil]

It was a poor choice of model. It shows my exasperation with members of this thread that insist on arguing that David Karmeli could/should have used the term “accurate” when three years ago (when you started this thread) he defined the sound you were looking for as “natural”.

Do you believe David himself actually meant to say “accurate”, or that he agrees that “accurate” is fully interchangeable with “natural” for describing the music character one can achieve by going through all that you went through in building your ultimate system, or do you believe your casting off of Magico’s and transistor amps to obtain better sound rubbed those with such the wrong way and all this stuff about Accuracy is just attempts to shoot holes in the process and choices you took to make a naturally-sounding world-class system (with horns and SET’s ).

It was a poor choice of model. It shows my exasperation with members of this thread that insist on arguing that David Karmeli could/should have used the term “accurate” when three years ago (when you started this thread) he defined the sound you were looking for as “natural”.

Do you believe David himself actually meant to say “accurate”, or that he agrees that “accurate” is fully interchangeable with “natural” for describing the music character one can achieve by going through all that you went through in building your ultimate system, or do you believe your casting off of Magico’s and transistor amps to obtain better sound rubbed those with such the wrong way and all this stuff about Accuracy is just attempts to shoot holes in the process and choices you took to make a naturally-sounding world-class system (with horns and SET’s

Try to detach from all the audiophile agenda divisiveness and think about what could be the difference between natural and accurate sound? If you listen to a guitar string plucked with all its harmonics, or the sound of a wave crashing on the beach, how is the sound you hear more natural than accurate? Or more accurate than natural?

When used to describe sound or live and recorded music they’re really just two words to describe the same thing, imho.

That is, unless they’re being twisted and weaponized in some audiophile argument.

With recorded music played through electronics it’s an ideal to be strived for.

 

[Ron Resnick]

No, I do not think David meant to use accurate to describe what I am hearing from my system. The term came from Vladimir Lamm.

I second this. I never heard David talk in terms of "accurate." (I never talk in terms of "accurate" either.)

 

[Kingsrule]

Natural, accurate, etc.?? These are all open to the interpretations discussed over and over again. Maybe Lamm telling David its "natural sound" was because he had limited experience with the English language and that was the best descriptor in his vocabulary. Natural sound is vague and defenseless. Unfortunately it has stuck with many here and propagated by PeterA into an almost cult class of an audio system.

Try this instead:

"We all know real when we hear it"

Does the system sound real or not?

Real is real and indisputable.....

 

[wil]

I second this. I never heard David talk in terms of "accurate." (I never talk in terms of "accurate" either.)

The two words may have different subjective connotations, but I doubt anyone can tell us how they are fundamentally different with regards to sound.

In terms of marketing terminology, I would always choose “natural.” It’s a more warm and appealing term.

 

[Argonaut]

I second this. I never heard David talk in terms of "accurate." (I never talk in terms of "accurate" either.)

Does his new money spinner not run “accurately” to its design brief , Or was It designed to run “Naturally ? Presumably the former No .

 

[Argonaut]

Natural, accurate, etc.?? These are all open to the interpretations discussed over and over again. Maybe Lamm telling David its "natural sound" was because he had limited experience with the English language and that was the best descriptor in his vocabulary. Natural sound is vague and defenseless. Unfortunately it has stuck with many here and propagated by PeterA into an almost cult class of an audio system.

Try this instead:

"We all know real when we hear it"

Does the system sound real or not?

Real is real and indisputable.....

Bravo … Bravo.

 

[wil]

Does his new money spinner not run “accurately” to its design brief , Or was It designed to run “Naturally ? Presumably the former No .

When talking about a machine, that’s a different use of the words. When talking about sound, the words meanings are interchangeable in my opinion.

You could say, that hopefully, his turntable is relatively accurate and thus produces a relatively accurate /natural sound.

 

[Rensselaer]

5,214 posts and none the wiser. You must be flattered that your thread has gone on for so long.

 

[Al M.]

5,214 posts and none the wiser. You must be flattered that your thread has gone on for so long.

The magic that a provocative thread title can do.

 

[PeterA]

Natural, accurate, etc.?? These are all open to the interpretations discussed over and over again. Maybe Lamm telling David its "natural sound" was because he had limited experience with the English language and that was the best descriptor in his vocabulary. Natural sound is vague and defenseless. Unfortunately it has stuck with many here and propagated by PeterA into an almost cult class of an audio system.

Try this instead:

"We all know real when we hear it"

Does the system sound real or not?

Real is real and indisputable.....

I have been told that reviewers have used the term for a long time and that it was not anything new. I really don’t know. Yes, it seems to have stuck with many. I wonder why that is and why you think it is so unfortunate.

There are plenty of threads about Magico too.

 

[PeterA]

The magic that a provocative thread title can do.

I considered calling the thread Real Sound, but I thought it would be too provocative. If only I had known people like Kingsrule would relate to it better.

 

[Al M.]

I considered calling the thread Real Sound, but I thought it would be too provocative. If only I had known people like Kingsrule would relate to it better.

Well, it seems you weren't aware how provocative the current title would be when you chose it.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Well, it seems you weren't aware how provocative the current title would be when you chose it.

seriously? poking the bear is always fun. and this was very much that.

 

[PeterA]

Well, it seems you weren't aware how provocative the current title would be when you chose it.

It is true that I was not aware. And now, as then, I could not care less about how provocative others think it is. Why does it matter? I chose it over several alternatives, none of which were Accurate Sound. It describes in two simple words my listening experience.