Natural Sound

[PeterA]

Perhaps so. OTOH, WBF used to demonstrate open-mindedness along with critical thinking and listening, and all those characteristics appear to have fallen by the wayside

What is more open minded then discarding acoustic treatments, audiophile cabling and power cords after years of thinking they were essential? And then even more radical is hearing a completely different system with different typology and deciding to switch direction?

And I am certainly not alone. I think you’ve mischaracterized the membership here. I like WBF because it has by far the most substance when it comes to discussing audio. It is not the science forum for sure, but there is a lot to learn from reading these threads.

 

[Bobvin]

Bob, I agree about the effortlessness, ease, and flow, of good horns. I was thinking about this and an analogy that comes to mind for those few on the site who are into sailing, is the ML2/Vitavox combination is like dinghy or small boat sailing while the Pass/Magico combo is more like big boat sailing. The small dingies have tillers and are extremely responsive. One has a direct feel for the water waves and wind. Larger boat sailing or cruising involves heavy boats with keels and steering wheels. This combination is much less responsive to sudden changes in wind speed and direction and more cumbersome to maneuver. It takes more effort there is less ease, but there can be flow.

The audiophile power cords are long gone. Someone actually contacted me yesterday to see if I still had any for sale. My guess is that because the system has higher resolution, the power cords would sound even worse and their heightened accents would be extremely spotlight.

I never tried the Pass amplifiers with the corner horn speakers. The buyer for the amplifiers actually showed up at my house to pick them up the day the new speaker crates were delivered so you can imagine there was a lot of confusion here that morning.

I did try the SET amps with the Magicos before the horns arrived. The combination sounded good but it was under powered and a bit soft. But I did get an indication of the magic of these ML2s.

Thanks Peter, I appreciate a good analogy.

Before I heard the Diesis, someone could have told me all about the sound but I’d never really have understood. You don’t know what you haven’t heard. I think I have an inkling of what you are now enjoying. That’s not to say I’d feel the same

 

[rbbert]

What is more open minded then discarding acoustic treatments, audiophile cabling and power cordsafter years of thinking they were essential? And then even more radical is hearing a completely different system with different typology and deciding to switch direction?

And I am certainly not alone. I think you’ve missed characterized the membership here. I like WBF because it has by far the most substance when it comes to discussing audio. It is not the science forum for sure, but there is a lot to learn from reading these threads.

I was not specifically referring to you or your posts here, which in general have not touched on the issues I mentioned (or at least not in my mind). You have recounted your audio goals and the path you followed, which I might think unusual but only tangentially related (if even that). If I feel like further opening the other can of worms I will do it in a separate topic thread.

 

[ddk]

You bring up a number of interesting important points that I come across regularly.

Tim, I greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments. In comparison I’m an intellectually lazy SOB. Many in this hobby use live, unamplified music as a reference. I guess I’m not in that camp at all. I love to hear live music, but chamber music — just shoot me already. Classical — for years I’ve tried to like classical music. I can appreciate some large scale and powerful compositions, but for the most part I sure don’t seek out classical music. Jazz — even the jazz I hear often has an amplifier on some instrument. I don’t like crowds of people, so seldom attend big concerts unless, maybe, summer concerts outdoors at the winery. Those are always amplified, and accompanied by noisy people. When comes down to it, I listen to recorded music 99% of the time. As Van Morrison described his music “jazz, blues, and funk” I add good ol’ rock-n-roll.

My close audio buddies, I think, are similar. We all enjoy well recorded music, across a large variety of genre, including “world” music. Many in the Portland Audio Club are classical lovers (the ol’ geezers — no, wait, I’m an ol geezer) so I always ensure to have some classical vinyl to play when I host a meetup. A very long way of saying I don’t really know what the hell my reference is. I don’t think I am alone in this. But years of listening to improved levels of gear certainly has shown me differences in quality of playback. And listening to my friends systems shows how hard it can be to assemble a system that “works”, particularly given room conditions, sizes, shapes. I feel blessed to have at least once created a pretty damn good sounding system, and many times I was told “don’t F with it, what more do you want?” (I am just about finished selling off the amps and speakers, so lets see if I can do it again.)

People enjoy what they like Bob. Some use live un-amplified music as reference and others foot tapping and head bopping, ever been to a Tool concert ? There's a different reference for amplified/electronic music not that there's none.

I empathize with those who struggle to wrap up their goals into as encompassing term as “natural sound”. Peter does lay out some bullet points, and I think (it seems from the many posts others agree) for the most part we all strive to create that sound from our systems. What is most interesting to me is Peters reductionist approach where many of us are in the additive mode and this might be where things get awkward. (Reductionist to the extent of removing this and that to the point of throwing the whole thing out and starting a new additive mode — thick stainless steel is surely a tweek.)

It depends on your definition of tweak, if a you consider a +700lbs rack one then we have a understanding of that term. If you're only focused on a material used in the build for your definition of tweak then everything in the system is a tweak and not a component.

If you've been in this hobby for a long time chances are that you've made mistakes and collected a lot junk along the way that you need to get rid of of or they will weigh you down. Call it reductionism, purism or whatever you like but holding on reminds me of George and his exploding wallet. The diner scene with him stuffing his other pocket with tissues to balance out his butt reminds of the rabbit hole of countering one bad tweak with another ! Don't replace the wallet with a bag either!

I am certain many would love to have a system like Peter’s before his “come to Jesus“ epiphany. No doubt his new system sounds different from his prior system, and clearly he loves this sound as well as the aesthetics it allows in his Boston home. And there’s the rub—the move from one sound pre-natural to the new “natural” is very difficult to put to words to and needs to be experienced. Lamm & vintage horns way different from Pass & Magico.

So if one‘s reference is classical concerts or chamber music, it might be easy to say “ there, that change I made, that made my system sound more like my reference” and if someone else shares that reference it might make sense. But lacking the common reference saying it made my system sound more natural is not descriptive enough. I pulled my fancy cables and added some slave labor cheap Chinese cables, and the sound of my system changed by a), b), and c). This is where “natural sound” is overly simplified. It is where the audio glossary of terms come into play. I don’t think reviewers would have much if a career if they could just get by with “I added component X and it was more natural than Y.” If we all had the same reference perhaps.

You just did the same thing as Peter and went way further than him just because you heard something you liked better. Did you make that decision listening to classical music?

Natural Sound overly simplified, is there a reason for it not to be? Maybe that's the beauty of it! I understand the lack of common reference but what I don't get is the lack of effort to grasp something before lashing out without any rhyme or reason. Peter spent over year figuring out his room, system and setup for and documented it for anyone who's interested in the process, then flew out here for a week listening to this simplistic natural sound with the cheap ass chid labor cords before deciding. It's easy to criticize but do you have a process you care to share with everyone for your decision? You just wrote a big check and made a huge change so what is your target sound, can you even define it as clearly as Peter has with his? Can you answer the same question you have for Peter's Natural Sound yourself regarding your sonic direction before demanding more from him? The inquisitors are standing by and heading your direction !

I have absolutely no problem with anyone knocking my CC cords and calling them whatever, I knew exactly what I wanted 20 years ago and clear about why I picked CC and assembled this particular cord from their parts bin. You're planning to be a high end dealer what powercords are you going to offer your clients and why that particular cord aside from looking at a menu and asking them how much they can afford? Do you have a Ching Cheng that fits every level system yet it's affordable for everyone to offer your clients? A powercord that has stood the test of time against the most expensive in the industry and doesn't become an overpriced dog leash as soon as you buy it because the next "perfect best" version is out?

And I’ll voice my own pieve wrt the term... it connotes a value judgement that I think might be what gets under some peoples skin. “My system sounds natural” has a slight inference that “your’s doesn’t — I know, I had a system like yours”. I don’t believe for a minute that is Peter’s intent, but I can see how it could be interpreted.

myThe plight of the offended and their defenders is my favorite, of course you realize that by just by having a pieve you're offending someone Bob. Did you consider for one second how offensive you are ditching your all star all American brand for foreign imports with no pedigree? Let me be very clear about it, not only is it inferred and implied that not every system sounds natural it's a fact! People might disagree on what they want but to deny that there's a good and a bad or natural and not is denying reality. Why didn't stick with your system if you actually believe the offended narrative and everything is as good as everything else? I know you're in Portland but don't let this bullshit stop from doing more and better.

david

 

[PeterA]

And I’ll voice my own pieve wrt the term... it connotes a value judgement that I think might be what gets under some peoples skin. “My system sounds natural” has a slight inference that “your’s doesn’t — I know, I had a system like yours”. I don’t believe for a minute that is Peter’s intent, but I can see how it could be interpreted.

Bob, That interpretation would be very incorrect.

I am not on a hilltop shouting, "My system sounds natural and yours doesn't. I am simply telling people here on this thread that I went to David's place in Utah, and all FOUR of his systems sounded natural. I spend a week listening to them and learning why.

Perhaps what I did not make clear is that this very system - the exact turntable with the same arm and cartridge, the exact corner horn speakers, the same amp and phono stage models, and the two box Lamm preamp instead of my four box preamp - is the system that I ended up buying. David simply shipped it to my house in stages as I decided what parts I wanted and when. He even sent the interconnects, speaker cables and power cords. My new system is one of his old systems.

So it is not a question of "my system sounds natural" and thus inferring yours does not. It is: All of David's systems sound natural, this is why, and now I have one of those systems in my own house. It has absolutely nothing to do with your system or others' systems. The name of this thread is "Natural Sound". The reason I called it that is because that is what I heard in Utah. It is what I bought in Utah, and it is what I now hear in my listening room.

 

[PeterA]

Hey Ron - you're back! Hope you enjoyed your tropical getaway with the missus.

I agree that Peter's list of attributes and listening experiences (name it what you will) reflect and identify his personal choices based on his listening at Davids. It is important that he wrote them down.

If one understands the approach to system building that yields natural sounding reproduction, grounded in the use of live acoustic music as a guide, then the phrase "natural sound" may be all that is needed to encapsulate that paradigm. The ability to communicate via a list or cogent description is more important than the name it is given but having some representative name is also important. David has been talking about natural sound long before many of us heard from him; I gather Peter naming his new system thread Natural Sound is as much a tribute to David as it is Peter's description of his new system.

The activity surrounding the whole natural sound affair taking place in a variety of threads at WBF over the past few years is movement towards the codification and clarification of an idea, a listening experience, and the language we use to talk about those.

Ostensive definition is simple: sit here and listen, first in the concert hall and then in the audio room. with a naturally sounding system. Do that 10-20 or however many times work for you and the notion of natural sound may become obvious. Yet talk about both experiences in an audio forum where ostensive definition is not at hand and years may pass.

We are at the interface between reality (live music) and reproduction (stereo listening) and as we try to communicate our experiences with each other it should be obvious how very difficult that is to do with words. I appreciate the efforts of anyone, including Peter, who attempts such. Describing the sonics associated to a live music experience is hard, but if you can do some of that you'll gain the background to describe the sound from your own stereo and find where the latter does and does not approach the former.

The tendency has been to say "I don't hear that in the concert hall" Black backgrounds, pin-point imaging, etc. Sometimes looking the other way - from concert hall to stereo - may prove insightful.

Absent a reference nothing grounds your view in terms of description, improvement and assessment. If you do have an approach that can be communicated, words still matter. If one has their own ground their own basis for sytem creation and enjoyment (synthesism) then state it clearly. Maybe this is why we see complaints about natural sound - one doesn't need have a guide or well understood set of communicable listening preferences to complain. Maybe this is why people do not communicate approaches that lead somewhere desirable that is not, or is different from, natural sounding. (Maybe it is sufficient for some to take their audio goals from magazines.)

If you have or believe in an approach that does not lead to a natural sounding system, lay it out. If your notion of natural sound is not based on a reference to live acoustic music, what is it based on? Lay it out. Rather than argue with someone complaining about the notion of natural sound, challenge them to make a positive contribution by describing the destination of their own audio journey and how to get there. If your goals are essentially the same as those propounding a natural sound approach then elaborate.

Some think the discussion goes nowhere. Some don't have the patience. It's easy to play devil's advocate without a framework or developed set of priorities.

Go to a concert - how about Shostakovich's Leningrad Symphony (#7) that is playing in the background as I type - then give us a full single-spaced page about what you heard. Then do that in your audio room - Bernstein is a good choice - describing the sonic differences between the two performances. Do that 10-20 times until you are confident you can generalize a core set of values or attributes that apply across the listening sessions.

How well does a sonic description from your listening room work for the live performance? What attrilbutes from a live performance correspond to what you believe is natural sound from your stereo? Or use the points in Peter's list as a starter. Ron you said those are not an objective compass, perhaps not objective but they may serve as compass until one comes to his own directions. Use those to make a list. Compare your list with 5 of your audio brothers to arrive at a shared set of attributes about the similarities and differences between live and reproduced and what is needed to bring the latter closer to the former.

Then publish that - heh heh - and see what responses you get.

We hear from some how Pearson, Holt and other early writers misled their readers. Peter eschews audiophile glossaries. Listening is a private singular activity. Yet, this and other forums and Webzines and yes, magazines, show that audiophiles like to communicate with one another. Words matter to understanding and learning. How comfortable are we with the safe position of 'everything is preference', 'everything is subjective'? Your own choices are not subjective to yourself.

Some want to learn. Some want advice on gear and music. Imo, the natural sound affair is helping to re-evaluate a vocabulary mis-trusted (by some) or improve or enlarge the audiophile vocabulary. There is value in being able to describe what you hear and what you want from your stereo. Vocabulary influences preferences and choices and purchases. As we've seen from early TAS, HP influenced manufacturers over what they made and dealers over what they sold. All he had was words - and a bunch of gear sent to him for review.

This is a nice post Tim.

You commented on the name of the thread in the early paragraph I highlighted in bold. The name of this thread is "Natural Sound". It is partly a tribute to David, but it is more. I called my new system thread "Natural Sound" because that is what I heard in Utah. I spent a week learning about it and trying to describe it. It is what I bought in Utah, and it is what I now hear in my listening room. It is the essence of David Karmeli's approach to audio and my new system is an example of it.

 

[cal3713]

What is more open minded then discarding acoustic treatments, audiophile cabling and power cordsafter years of thinking they were essential? And then even more radical is hearing a completely different system with different typology and deciding to switch direction?

And I am certainly not alone. I think you’ve mischaracterized the membership here. I like WBF because it has by far the most substance when it comes to discussing audio. It is not the science forum for sure, but there is a lot to learn from reading these threads.

I agree.

Unfortunately ASR and the other science folk just want to ignore the ears in a domain that's solely about them. I'm a scientist (or at least was for ~20 years) and still just can't get over their hard number bias... I tried to use their perspective for a while when I was younger, but it didn't take too long to hear that it just doesn't pan out.

Audiogon is good for learning about gear, but otherwise is just a rational-less shouting/pissing match. Usually the reason something sounds better is because the poster owns it, no other rational offered. And unfortunately all the idiotic shouting is chasing away the good people.

DIYAudio is fabulous, but often frowns on all-out-assaults and has a touch of an ASR tilt. 24h free global tech support is just so wonderful when you're getting your hands dirty though. And it's a true community with people sending free parts and truly sacrificing time and effort to help one another.

The other places don't seem to get enough traffic.

People here care about mechanism, perfection, and are often ready to use DIY because manufacturers won't solve the problems in the right ways. It's a good combination of values. I too have learned a lot here.

 

[marty]

Bob, I agree about the effortlessness, ease, and flow, of good horns. I was thinking about this and an analogy that comes to mind for those few on the site who are into sailing, is the ML2/Vitavox combination is like dinghy or small boat sailing while the Pass/Magico combo is more like big boat sailing. The small dingies have tillers and are extremely responsive. One has a direct feel for the water waves and wind. Larger boat sailing or cruising involves heavy boats with keels and steering wheels. This combination is much less responsive to sudden changes in wind speed and direction and more cumbersome to maneuver. It takes more effort there is less ease, but there can be flow.

An interesting analogy, Peter. I'll have to think about that one for a while even though I don't sail!

 

[tima]

Let's hope that when Tima moves, he can start an interesting thread.

I'll try.

I don't know what my next speaker will be. I've had the Alexia 2s for over 5 years after owning the Alexia 1s for several. The 2s are a major improvement over the 1s.

I still enjoy listening to the Alexias though I doubt they'll be a 'final' speaker. I do recognize their limitations. (As an aside - Wilson takes very very good care of their customers. It would be a real positive to find another company like that, but that might be wishful thinking.)

I believe I've learned a lot since acquiring the Wilsons, mostly from this forum. I doubt I'll do the 'travel 'round the country sampling' thing. I have no intrinsic allegiance to box speakers. My first 'high-end' were Magnepans.

But ... I've used through reviewing and through ownership Lamm electronics for several years, so if that counts I've already 'moved' - some of the way. In my personal opinion, that is half, perhaps more than half, of the difference made in Peter's switch/upgrade. Granted I've not heard the Vitavox and by all reports they are a significant part of where Peter is now. I note his observation that he thought quite highly of the LP2.1 + M1.1 Ref with his Magicos and Micro Seiki. Add the LL1.1 Sig as he did later and perhaps (pure speculation) he would ... no I'll drop that train of thought.

I'll likely hang on to the M1.2 Ref monoblocks forever. Besides being one of the truly great amplifiers I want to have sufficient flexibility for reviewing. That doesn't rule out a different amp for personal use - but my funds are somewhat limited such that moving to different speakers I need to be judicious. We'll see.

 

[bonzo75]

I'll try.

I don't know what my next speaker will be. I've had the Alexia 2s for over 5 years after owning the Alexia 1s for several. The 2s are a major improvement over the 1s.

I still enjoy listening to the Alexias though I doubt they'll be a 'final' speaker. I do recognize their limitations. (As an aside - Wilson takes very very good care of their customers. It would be a real positive to find another company like that, but that might be wishful thinking.)

I believe I've learned a lot since acquiring the Wilsons, mostly from this forum. I doubt I'll do the 'travel 'round the country sampling' thing. I have no intrinsic allegiance to box speakers. My first 'high-end' were Magnepans.

But ... I've used through reviewing and through ownership Lamm electronics for several years, so if that counts I've already 'moved' - some of the way. In my personal opinion, that is half, perhaps more than half, of the difference made in Peter's switch/upgrade. Granted I've not heard the Vitavox and by all reports they are a significant part of where Peter is now. I note his observation that he thought quite highly of the LP2.1 + M1.1 Ref with his Magicos and Micro Seiki. Add the L1.1 Sig as he did later and perhaps (pure speculation) he would ... no I'll drop that train of thought.

I'll likely hang on to the M1.2 Ref monoblocks forever. Besides being one of the truly great amplifiers I want to have sufficient flexibility for reviewing. That doesn't rule out a different amp for personal use - but my funds are somewhat limited such that moving to different speakers I need to be judicious. We'll see.

I don't think you will know till pandemic is over and you visit drastically new approaches that you are unable to relate to today. Given your music choice, you will easily shift over

 

[tima]

Tim, I greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments. In comparison I’m an intellectually lazy SOB. Many in this hobby use live, unamplified music as a reference. I guess I’m not in that camp at all. I love to hear live music, but chamber music — just shoot me already. Classical — for years I’ve tried to like classical music. I can appreciate some large scale and powerful compositions, but for the most part I sure don’t seek out classical music. ..

Thank you Bob. And I appreciate the care you took in writing the post to which I'm responding as well as several other of your posts made recently. I think you captured very well your view and what may be the view of others.

I get it that you don't listen to Classical music very much. I suspect more audiophiles have other musical genres as their preference. In the real world, Classical remains something of a niche and the heyday of big orchestras and movie star conductors is behind us. (Aside - for a fun read about this check out Norman LeBrechts "The Life and Death of Classical Music".)

So if one‘s reference is classical concerts or chamber music, it might be easy to say “ there, that change I made, that made my system sound more like my reference” and if someone else shares that reference it might make sense. But lacking the common reference saying it made my system sound more natural is not descriptive enough. ... This is where “natural sound” is overly simplified. It is where the audio glossary of terms come into play. I don’t think reviewers would have much if a career if they could just get by with “I added component X and it was more natural than Y.” If we all had the same reference perhaps.

I took the salient portions of your post to be more about two issues:
1. Having a reference versus not having a reference.
2. The issues or 'consequences' around evaluating a system for one primarily listening to recorded music (studio music, and what I'll call 'fabricated' music that doesn't even require a studio).

These are, imo, interesting topics. Probably worthy of their own threads. I invite you to start either one and I promise to participate. Otherwise it will take a while for me to address them from my perspective.

But ... one related item I'll touch upon that is brought up by Brad:

While you of course are not required to have live, unamplified music as Your reference that doesn’t change the fact that it is THE reference. If your system can reproduce this convincingly then it should be good for the other music you like that doesn’t fit in that category.

If you have no reference, you will be forever changing Gear as your mood, your hearing etc. changes . Any way the wind blows...

Not sure I agree with that. Perhaps if you listen to primarily to that kind of music. Why should I consider a violin to be a reference if I seldom listen to one? I don't know a perfectly strung violin from one less so.

I agree with Brad that live acoustic music is THE reference, though it may not be for music that is largely fabricrated (synthesized, computer generated, etc.).

First, it doesn't have to be classical music or a violin. You said you've heard live guitar music. Jazz-in-a-club may be amplified, but the group likely doesn't practice with amplification. Consider some of the Duke Ellington recordings for example - they're done is a studio with real acoustic instruments. Stand-up bass, drum kit, piano, saxophone Listen to a high school or college band or the Marine Corps play Stars and Stripes Forever. Trumpets. Summerfest. Surely Portland has folk music groups. Acoustic music without studio added effects is everywhere.

As Brad observes, a system that can play acoustic music well should be good for other music.

On the other hand, maybe "it sounds good to me" is all you need.

The question for you and others who do not use acoustic music as a reference is: how do you evaluate your system? It would be great (honestly) to read accounts of that from folks in your position.

 

[spiritofmusic]

I heard a fair number of speakers that were 2die4 on classical and jazz, ticking most if not all of Peter's Natural Sound manifesto. And they fall flat on their face playing any rock beyond the most basic, electric jazz, electronica.
It's good that Peter has his mantra for what matters to him. But Natural Sound is almost a non-sequitur in anything other than classical, acoustic jazz, vocals, girl (or boy) and (acoustic) guitar.

 

[bonzo75]

I heard a fair number of speakers that were 2die4 on classical and jazz, ticking most if not all of Peter's Natural Sound manifesto. And they fall flat on their face playing any rock beyond the most basic, electric jazz, electronica.
It's good that Peter has his mantra for what matters to him. But Natural Sound is almost a non-sequitur in anything other than classical, acoustic jazz, vocals, girl (or boy) and (acoustic) guitar.

It's a pity you don't listen to videos, else the ones on the rock and drums videos thread have horns that can do both. Of course you can go listen to them but that actually requires you to leave the country

 

[spiritofmusic]

Ho hum, here we go again. Ked, YOU leave the country. I'm happy to listen to gear in the UK. Maybe I should go abroad to test drive cars, or choose a kettle or fridge as well.
There are no shortage of horns and ribbons demos to be had in the UK.
But that's not my point. My point is that many spkrs that are supremely good at classical and jazz along the lines Peter approves, are sorely lacking on other genres.
Thus his house rules on Natural Sound aren't applicable.
Then again there are a small handful of horns that excel all round, their supremacy in classical and jazz extended to other genres too.

 

[morricab]

I heard a fair number of speakers that were 2die4 on classical and jazz, ticking most if not all of Peter's Natural Sound manifesto. And they fall flat on their face playing any rock beyond the most basic, electric jazz, electronica.
It's good that Peter has his mantra for what matters to him. But Natural Sound is almost a non-sequitur in anything other than classical, acoustic jazz, vocals, girl (or boy) and (acoustic) guitar.

Depends on those recordings that are generally poorer. I would say though that one needs to revisit those speakers and one might realize they are in fact unbalanced somehow.

 

[Lagonda]

Ho hum, here we go again. Ked, YOU leave the country. I'm happy to listen to gear in the UK. Maybe I should go abroad to test drive cars, or choose a kettle or fridge as well.
There are no shortage of horns and ribbons demos to be had in the UK.
But that's not my point. My point is that many spkrs that are supremely good at classical and jazz along the lines Peter approves, are sorely lacking on other genres.
Thus his house rules on Natural Sound aren't applicable.
Then again there are a small handful of horns that excel all round, their supremacy in classical and jazz extended to other genres too.

The Vitavox use a 15 inch, fast paper driver in a large cabinet with corner bass reinforcement, i am sure they play most music very well !

 

[bonzo75]

I guess we can award this post the Most Off Topic prize.

Pot calling the kettle black

 

[morricab]

Diesis needs a bit of oomph. They have their own hybrid. I have compared with kondo ongaku and absolare. It needs the later in pentode, not triode mode

I heard it with Ongaku and their own hybrid. I found it to be stunning with both.

 

[spiritofmusic]

The Vitavox may well be great across the board. My point is I've heard other spkrs that excel at what Peter loves to listen to, yet fail abjectly on other genres.

 

[morricab]

The Vitavox may well be great across the board. My point is I've heard other spkrs that excel at what Peter loves to listen to, yet fail abjectly on other genres.

Yes, this can happen...so?