Natural Sound

[Steve Williams]

I must admit that in all the years that Caesar has been posting on WBF that this is the first “like I have ever given him so kudos to you Caesar. I have said here so many times that there is no right or wrong answer. There are many paths to choose and all roads lead to Rome. I have purposely limited my comments here because of all of the useless comments that IMO serve no purpose. Peter and I as well as many others here have visited Davud for an afternoon of listening. Both Peter and I spent a week with David and heard all of his systems. I think I can brag about the fact that it was I who brought to the attention of the readers here three things I learned at David’s house
1. natural sound
2. Ching Cheng power cords
3. SME 3012R tonearms

One Amigo Visits Utah To Hear 5 Reference Turntables-My Step Beyond

One of the things I have always loved about this hobby is how it has always not only allowed me to meet wonderful people over the years who also share the same passion for this hobby. Being retired has also provided that extra time to allow me to travel to places I would normally never get to...

whatsbestforum.com

my answer to Francisco OTOH I thought I answers by way of inference, that in all the years I’ve been in this hobby I am at peace with my system. What I heard in Utah was described perfectly by Peter so there was something that caught our ears. Plus I own the same electronics exactly as David. I made several changes to my system which continued to bring me closer to what I heard. These are all described here. i will however never achieve whst David has for many reasons. I like to think my speakers efficient at 95 Db but hearing Bionors at 114 Db was mesmerizing
I use all SME tonearm I use all CC PC’s except two as I described as well as the reasons I did such

so I think the comment s made that I dodge the question is utter bull crap. My system is well highlighted here

I given updates as to who I changed my seat as well as my sitting location and tge chabges I made to my speaker upper module positions. So to read stuff like that posted by Francisco somewhat insulting. There’s more on this website about my system than most other systems. I don’t have a clue about Francisco’s system and as for rbbert I found him to be a troll and I offered no comments.

My personal system thread has had almost 900,000 views and has been active longer than any other thread here

Doctor's Orders-Part Two-The New Listening Room Of Steve Williams

The History Most of you are aware by now that I moved back to Southern California in July last year after a 20 year hiatus in the SF Bay Area. It was there that I built my "dream" sound room. That room measured 18' W x 31' L x 9-12' H (sloped ceiling which was 9 feet high at the window and 12...

whatsbestforum.com

if I sound a little perturbed I am so I won’t commebt further

Caesar bailed it and I wish that post appeared in this thread earlier

So @Micro no one knows the first thing about your system but yiu sure have a lot to say about other peoples systems. No pictures. Nothing. I almost find as a result that a lot of your comments are hippocritical. You’ve read my system blog since it’s inception. You know everything about my system yet you give me an imaginary question to which I give you an answer that summed it all up. And yiu say I dodge the answer.

IMO Peter has started this thread showing his new path and look at all of the arguing, name calling and nit picking there have been in this thread.

I’ll say again…… this is just a hobby and we are grown adults. As long as we are all happy in where we are in the hobby thats all that matters. For me I can say it has been a 5 year quest Ive been on to reach “natural sound” in my system I have reached where I want to be in this hobby.


it’s all a matter of getting along, stopping the name calling and I bet Peter’s thread would be 50 pages shorter but his point would have been well articulated and I think you’d all understand the path he took.

I have found that my posts here on WBF have declined because I find I’d rather be listening to music rather than talking about it to naysayers.

 

[tima]

It means the reviewers are moving away from HP's Glossary of Audiophile Terms which certainly led me astray for many years, though I did not realize it, always chasing attributes and more is more.

I think we should give up the anti-HP focus.

Like him or not, Pearson was a pioneer. I know people were talking about sound and even natural sound (even if it wasn't labeled as such) long before his day, as exemplified in David's clip of Paul Klipsch talking about sound. But at a point published audio assessment (Audio, Stereo Review, etc.) turned into an evaluation of measurements - if it measures the same you can't tell the difference. Measurement was king. Bonzo, if you did not read Pearson, you probably do not understand his was above all else a reaction to an overwhelming objectivist perspective. HP, in his time, was responsible for a return to or revival of the idea that to evaluate audio equipment you really should listen to it. TAS was the start or restart of the subjectivist approach that we take for granted today. Yes, this all happened pre-internet.

And HP and Holt (who really came before HP) have many proteges and acolytes. Harely, Valin, He-Who- Must-Not-Be-Named, and many other took HP/Holt into their bosoms, greatly expanding on their approach, enhancing and furthering their vocabulary. These are those who influenced most of the generation coming after them. It was how one wrote about audio gear - and the vast majority of reviewers still do. (I see myself as having taken up that influence at one point but like to think I've 'evolved' - heh.)

If something is not natural, that is sufficient description to stay away if you know the listener. But to leave it at natural is just the start. We sure need a better description of why one thinks something is natural, or rather close to live, ...

I can't see reading a review saying: "It doesn't sound natural - that's all you need to know."

As I suggested earlier today in Al's thread on Peter's system - giving up "HP's Glossary" is not tantamount to abandoning analysis. One does not deny natural sound by accepting its analysis. Claiming otherwise becomes, imo, a vehicle of indulgence. It is fine for self-expression but other- expression (to others) there is required more than "its natural".

 

[PeterA]

I heard Peter's new system the other day. I guess it sounded ok. I mean, if you like natural sound and all.

I'm kidding. It was a lot more than 'ok'.

I am highly impressed with the Lamm electronics. I've owned Lamm hybrid amps in the past and I could not get a clean sound out of them in the high frequencies (perhaps that was due to the speakers I was using at the time) and added a Lamm preamp but the sound didn't work for me (at the time) and I sold it. I then heard the ML2.0 driving horn speakers (albeit with a non-Lamm preamp) and was extremely impressed; so much so that I started hunting for a pair of ML2.0 amps but could never find them (and research seemed to indicate that the ML2.1 and ML2.2 weren't as good). I eventually acquired Doshi tube electronics - which gave me a taste but wasn't the same. So I was pretty excited when I learned Peter was getting ML2.0s and I would get to hear this amp again.

Visiting Peter was almost surreal. Everything had changed - heck even the room seemed to be larger. The following is a bit of a cut-and-paste job from an email to Peter and local audiophiles:

Between the electronics and the speaker (I'm leaving the turntable out of it because I can't speculate on what it brings to the table - no pun intended) what I heard was perhaps the best wooden-based instrument tone I have ever heard - or at least in a long while. I heard wonderful timbre, fantastic body, great transients with deep bass and a great flow.

Acoustic bass had punch on every note with weight and no excess decay or blurring. It was like the bass player was in the room. Cello was great and Ray Brown's bass bowing on the Almeida/Brown recordings was the best I've ever heard it: the high notes remained 'thick' and large with a highly beautiful tone and the low notes were authoritative with great texture. I get great detail on this with my CH amps and I get nice tone with my CATS but I heard a combination of both yesterday. Oh, and the Almeida guitar was also the best I've ever heard it. I'm very envious!

I thought the horn section on Art Pepper was also the best I've ever heard it. Previously it was always too thin and metallic or thick and sluggish but yesterday it had body and sounded effortless and not congealed.

The soundstage is huge. I never realized Peter's room was 16 feet wide (also envious!) and with the speakers in the corners it was a wall to wall, ceiling to floor presentation that did wonders for orchestral music.

Congrats Peter. What a carefully planned and well executed journey!

We have Ian's listening report posted at the beginning of this thread. 1300 posts later, where are we? The thread is referenced bizaarly and inexplicably, in a thread about noise measuring devices, and then a whole new thread is started to get back on track. This is but one system, but it is my most accounts, somewhat unusual. I would have thought the discussion would go in a different direction. We now have mostly denigration and insults about something heard by only two independent WBF members.

Recently, Al posted his thoughts on the sound of the system:

Last week I listened to Peter’s system with both cartridges, the refurbished vdH, adapted to provide lower output, and the Technics MM cartridge. After a relaxed and delicious dinner at a favorite restaurant we experienced relaxed sound. Why was it relaxed? I will get to that later.

David Karmeli said that the speakers still had to settle in after not having been played for such a long time, and the progress compared to the first time I heard this system was obvious. Back then it had sounded off to me, this time the sound was very good, and I expect more progress as the system continues to settle in. We started with the vdH cartridge, and with Kenny Burrell’s “Midnight Blue”. I thought Kenny’s electric guitar sounded spectacular, with truly explosive dynamics from the notes through the reproduced guitar amp, and timbre was also very attractive.

The acoustic guitar on Almeida/Brown sounded very good, and the low register of the bowed bass was excellent. It was powerful with a round tone, but no overhang. Art Pepper plus Eleven sounded very nice, and by this time it was clear that there were no obvious horn colorations. Again the bass was excellent, in several aspects the best I have heard. The notes from the stand-up bass were very distinct, and you could follow the walking bass lines with utter ease. Peter talks about hollowness of the bass, the ability to hear the effect of the hollow body of the instrument, and in that sense I have never heard more convincing bass shy of the real thing. It’s hard to describe, you have to hear it. It is no coincidence that our friend Ian (MadFloyd) also raved about bass quality in his report towards the beginning of the thread (post #46). The sound of the music was good with the MM cartridge as well, but it was more open with the vdH.

The chamber opera Savitri by Holst showed off the spatial capabilities of the system, with stage depth from back to front. The vocals sounded dynamic and quite uncolored, but personally I would have hoped for some more air in the sound. About 5-7 minutes into the music, there was a spectacularly reproduced bass line from the chamber orchestra, very distinct and powerful.

Scheherazade showed solid body on low brass and some good air on the solo violin, particularly with the vdH cartridge, and with the latter also good resolution of the sound texture of the massed strings. The MM cartridge failed to show such resolution; if that was inherent to the cartridge or due to the less pronounced HF response which, in the context of a system that shows some HF roll-off to begin with, was insufficient, is not quite clear. Yet overall the sound was also quite good with the MM cartridge on most material.

The sound of the system was large, not surprising with corner horns in a 16 feet wide room, but it could scale appropriately where needed. Depending on the LP played, overall dynamics of the sound ranged from good to spectacular (highlight Kenny Burrell’s guitar). Especially with the vdH cartridge I found the sound of Peter’s system very enjoyable. It was a nice evening.

Following these we have some rather strange reactions:

Ron Resnick said:
Dissecting sections of the audible frequency spectrum is, I think, the antithesis of Peter's approach.

I am inquiring about the tonal balance - and I was not addressing Peter or anyone else but Al

Al M. said:
Interestingly, none of Peter's bullet points about "Natural Sound" mentions timbre:

From your point of view, and if you have your own definition of natural sound, do you think timbre is a part of it and how significant would it be amongst other attributes


So I asked about timbre, micro-dynamics et al, and you responded:

Al M. said:
As I said on top of my opening post, this is a continuation of my report that started in Peter's "Natural Sound" thread. Link is given.

"In this post, I will try to define, from my perspective, what is a central part of the essence of Peter’s Natural Sound compared to other system sounds that strive to portray a natural sound."

So none of these attributes are central part of the essence of Peter's [whatever] compared to other systems... Hmmmm…..

Al M. said:
It is a particular perspective relative to live sound, and can be considered valid. Yet it is not necessarily more valid than others.

If we were to get to the bottom of it, in one word: did you like what you heard, or not


I feel like we are in theTwilight Zone. These subsequent requests (demands) for answers from the one person besides me and Ian who is willing to share his thoughts about the sound of my new system, could have easily been answered by simply reading one of my opening posts about the sound of the system. (Post # 9, page 1). Or, simply by reading Al's and Ian's two accounts. There is plenty of mention of timbre, bass, all the things claimed to be missing from the discussion. This all seems to be forgotten in the emotion of the topic. It is almost as if people are not even reading what is being written about the sound of the system. This is really strange. It would be wonder if we could just put our differences aside, and get this thread back on topic. I understand completely if people have lost interest and want to move on at this point.

In time, I will post more videos, photos of the new rack, and reports about Jeffrey_T's visit and the impressions of David's efforts fine tuning the system.

 

[ddk]

Steve,

I regret you find my questions insulting. They are the typical questions that are asked in audiophile forums concerning stereo systems build-up and preferences. A pity they are becoming taboo in some threads in WBF.

We all understand Peter path and are happy he is happy. It is a pity you find that members that do not have your preferences or ask questions are just naysayers.

I regret WBF is becoming an anti-audiophile forum, some time ago it was an extremely popular with a large community actively participating, not just posting likes, and an open forum where we debated all kind of audio subjects. But as I said before, it is your forum, and I will respect such aspect.

Why are questions about your systems and your impressions of them not relevant and typical audiophile questions? Your systems were the first in the possible "natural sound" system list so it's very relevant and of we want to know about them and have a discussion about your experience and move towards or away from "natural sound" and why. As you pointed out you have your perspective on this so please share.

david

 

[Lagonda]

I have no doubt on that.



Not so sure. We have different perspective and approaches to stereo. I am being analytical, you are not interested in such aspects.



I always try to avoid the word better - we want a different sound that we enjoy more. Better and bigger are just causes of disagreement.

I understand your route - your reference was David sound, something solid, that exists physically and is permanent. You do not tell me that your reference was an individual perception of the real. You changed your perspective on the hobby and want stability - no problem. You enjoy your great system and you seem to not endorse theories on "stripping".



A few people can't pretend to re-define the semantics of the hobby to fit their preferences and expect others to accept their controversial views that question physical evidence without some debate ...

Francisco you are probably more occupied with semantics and the technical/theoretical part of audio reproduction than the average WBF member, most of us are pretty happy(temporarily at least) when it sounds good ! Why F. Toole thinks it sounds good, and what words he used to describe it, does not matter that much to me !

 

[PeterA]

I’ve been listening to the vdH GC cartridge that was returned to me with lower output. it is now a better match for this high-efficiency system giving me more range with the volume knob. It now has close to 40 hours on it. There was a time when people debated these cartridges and many claimed they had extreme amounts of excessive high frequency energy. Others claimed they had far too much sibilants for their taste.

Interestingly, the high frequency energy was not accentuated in this system with the higher output version. I found it well-balanced sounding. There was simply too much energy across-the-board pushing through the system which made the sound seem a bit “forced”. Some listeners did not agree, but to my ears, this across-the-board push seemed to affect or diminish nuance. That is why I liked the Technics moving magnet cartridge so much. It sounded very natural in the system, but it did lack the last bit of resolution. This may be why some people prefer the Magico system videos.

This lower output GC has all of the resolution and nuance that my higher output version had in my former system. It does not have excessive sibilance or an aggressive leading edge the people so often complain about. I’m really enjoying it and look forward to seeing if David can squeeze out a little bit more performance with improved set up.

 

[Al M.]

I’ve been listening to the vdH GC cartridge that was returned to me with lower output. it is now a better match for this high-efficiency system giving me more range with the volume knob. It now has close to 40 hours on it. There was a time when people debated these cartridges and many claimed they had extreme amounts of excessive high frequency energy. Others claimed they had far too much sibilants for their taste.

Interestingly, the high frequency energy was not accentuated in this system with the higher output version. I found it well-balanced sounding. There was simply too much energy across-the-board pushing through the system which made the sound seem a bit “forced”. Some listeners did not agree, but to my ears, this across-the-board push seemed to affect or diminish nuance. That is why I liked the Technics moving magnet cartridge so much. It sounded very natural in the system, but it did lack the last bit of resolution. This may be why some people prefer the Magico system videos.

This lower output GC has all of the resolution and nuance that my higher output version had in my former system. It does not have excessive sibilance or an aggressive leading edge the people so often complain about. I’m really enjoying it and look forward to seeing if David can squeeze out a little bit more performance with improved set up.

The weird thing is that, when I first heard it in your system, Peter, the vdH did have an incredibly aggressive leading edge, as I describe in this post on your thread Sublime Sound from July 2, 2020:

"On the other hand, the sound of the vdH Grand Cru was very different. That cartridge constantly presented itself as "detail king" as Ian would say. It was incredible what this cartridge could extract out of the grooves of Uranus from Holst's Planets, for example. The detailed skin sound of the timpani, the high-pitched percussion, detail on low brass tone were all etched out in an enormously impressive manner.

"Yet note that I said "etched out". Herein lies the problem in my view. It was a hyper spotlighting of detail as I do not hear it in unamplified live music. Also transient edges did seem etched, which could lend extra 'detail', for example, to violin tone on Beethoven's string quartet op. 59/1 (Quartetto Italiano). But I did not find that to sound real.

"The frequency area of upper midrange was also spotlit, and the upper treble seemed a bit detached and 'tizzy'. Overall, I could not escape, the more I listened, a certain 'nasal' quality of the sound."

Ian who listened with us agreed with me, as he said a few posts down from above link.

You disagreed at the time. Interesting, how your perceptions change.

Now you find the transients in my system too pronounced, whereas back then you did not hear at all that to us obvious "etching" in your system, an unpleasant etching of transients that far exceeded the more pronounced leading edge of transients in my system compared to your current system.

***

It turns out, it was all the context of system configuration at the time, and got much better even with the Pass/Magico combo, starting with the metal plates under your components, having much better power over time etc.

It culminated for me in the sound that I reported on in my post from October 8, 2020. It includes, apart from a very favorable sonic report -- in my view, still deservedly so -- also the following:

"I have to say that I am astonished by the sublime way the vdH Gran Cru cartridge now sounds -- what a long way from my first unfavorable impressions back in July where also the tonal balance was completely different. The integration into the system is now so much better, also with a new AC power structure feeding the system, and with I think some modifications to the cartridge by van den Hul."

There was no "etching" of transients whatsoever at the time of that report, very different from what Ian and I heard a few months earlier in July. I thought transients were pretty fantastic, actually.

 

[Joe Whip]

Why the hell can’t members here let other members enjoy their systems without chiming in that there is something wrong or lacking, ear unheard? There is stuff people wax on about here that I think is a bit much but so what? Who the hell am I to claim that they really shouldn’t be loving what they hear. I keep my stuff forever, speakers since ‘97, pre since 1992 amp just as long until I had the same guy who designed and built it rebuild it. I have upgraded my digital a couple of times as a lot has happened in that space in that time. I keep my stuff because, I am cheap and because I carefully pick out what I like. It sounds fantastic to me. Whether someone here or elsewhere doesn’t like it means squatah to me. Kudos to Peter, Steve and Al M for finding a system they love and spend their time listening to and enjoying rather than over analyzing and essentially chasing their tails and spending more and more dinero.

 

[PeterA]

The weird thing is that, when I first heard it in your system, Peter, the vdH did have an incredibly aggressive leading edge, as I describe in this post on your thread Sublime Sound from July 2, 2020:

"On the other hand, the sound of the vdH Grand Cru was very different. That cartridge constantly presented itself as "detail king" as Ian would say. It was incredible what this cartridge could extract out of the grooves of Uranus from Holst's Planets, for example. The detailed skin sound of the timpani, the high-pitched percussion, detail on low brass tone were all etched out in an enormously impressive manner.

"Yet note that I said "etched out". Herein lies the problem in my view. It was a hyper spotlighting of detail as I do not hear it in unamplified live music. Also transient edges did seem etched, which could lend extra 'detail', for example, to violin tone on Beethoven's string quartet op. 59/1 (Quartetto Italiano). But I did not find that to sound real.

"The frequency area of upper midrange was also spotlit, and the upper treble seemed a bit detached and 'tizzy'. Overall, I could not escape, the more I listened, a certain 'nasal' quality of the sound."

Ian who listened with us agreed with me, as he said a few posts down from above link.

You disagreed at the time. Interesting, how your perceptions change.

Now you find the transients in my system too pronounced, whereas back then you did not hear at all that to us obvious "etching" in your system, an unpleasant etching of transients that far exceeded the more pronounced leading edge of transients in my system compared to your current system.

***

It turns out, it was all the context of system configuration at the time, and got much better even with the Pass/Magico combo, starting with the metal plates under your components, having much better power over time etc.

It culminated for me in the sound that I reported on in my post from October 8, 2020. It includes, apart from a very favorable sonic report -- in my view, still deservedly so -- also the following:

"I have to say that I am astonished by the sublime way the vdH Gran Cru cartridge now sounds -- what a long way from my first unfavorable impressions back in July where also the tonal balance was completely different. The integration into the system is now so much better, also with a new AC power structure feeding the system, and with I think some modifications to the cartridge by van den Hul."

There was no "etching" of transients whatsoever at the time of that report, very different from what Ian and I heard a few months earlier in July. I thought transients were pretty fantastic, actually.

Thank you for those reminiscences, Al. I got that first vdH Colibri Master Signature after I heard my Colibri XPP. I was astonished at the shear amount of resolution from this new design. After two weeks, I quickly ordered a second one. Despite the many faults of my system at that time, I heard something with that cartridge that was very special*. I had never heard anything like it before. At the time, I was in a rapid learning phase with my former system. Each week it seemed I was changing and learning more. I came to understand that the Japanese cartridges that you and Ian liked so much, particularly the MSL Sig. Gold, and that I liked too for a while, were actually quite colored. I did not realize that earlier because of my system's lack of resolution caused mostly by the multitude of tweaks, supports, room treatments, and cables and cords. As I shed those and learned about set up, the flavor of those Japanese cartridges became much more apparent and after a year of little to no use, I sold them.

At the same time, the extreme resolution of the Colibri became more balanced with its other attributes, and the system setup changes, with the steel plates, and speaker positioning mostly, allowed for a more natural presentation from that cartridge. You heard it and reported on it. It retained the outrageous resolution, but other issues with the high frequencies diminished. I think it was less the actual cartridge, and more the system set up. I now realize that some of those issues were due to electronics too. My new system no longer has those issues.

I do not have the experience in the hobby that you and Ian have, so my tastes, preferences, and priorities have shifted more rapidly. Things I used to seek out like more detail, and accents, and spectacle, no longer interest me. And as my tastes change, I have a new perspective on other systems. I was able to overlook the issues in my system at that time with the Colibri because through it all, I heard the magic from this cartridge. Perhaps I tolerated the high frequency issues of my system more than that from other systems because I recognized something good and had to learn how to get rid of the bad. It has been quite a learning period, and I am sure it is not finished.

Your observations of the system evolving with the Colibri bring all of that back. Thank you. The point of my post above is simply to update anyone interested with the sound of the lower output version as it breaks in in my new system. It is a much better match for the phono stage and the speaker efficiency , in my opinion.

EDIT: * This "something special" that I heard then from the Colibri Master Signature despite the flaws in the system, happened again to me recently. In Utah, despite the room constraints, and frankly poor speaker set up, I heard "something special", a magic, from the Vitavox speakers, even though as corner horns, I had pulled them out into the room and listened to them pointed straight ahead. I kept playing Holst's Savitri. I even made of video of this set up and kept listening to it after I returned home. That magic even comes through on the simple iPhone video.

One more example was just a few weeks ago after I had been listening to the all Lamm electronics chain with the Magicos. As soon as I had hooked up the ML2 SET amps, I knew I had to own them. Again, a poor pairing, wrong set up, highly flawed, and yet, and yet, I heard "something special" from the ML2 in that difficult to drive Magico speaker.

The point is, that despite poor set up, other flaws in the system, here are three cases, where I was able to hear something from these three components that made me want to own them. I would do what it would take to get the rest of the system in shape to more fully demonstrate their abilities. The important thing was being able to recognize their potential when hearing them for the first time in less than optimal set ups.

 

[howiebrou]

One more example was just a few weeks ago after I had been listening to the all Lamm electronics chain with the Magicos. As soon as I had hooked up the ML2 SET amps, I knew I had to own them.

Come on, just admit it. You just didn't want to pay the return shipping on those ML2s

 

[rockitman]

Impressive Peter. Congratulations!

 

[howiebrou]

I described my system and preferences in hundreds of posts along years.

Francisco, please don't feel you are being bullied into showing your system which, imo, is not appropriate in any forum. My wish to see your system simply comes from not being aware of the threads where you did post and describe it and as one of the more prolific members, I am genuinely interested in seeing and hearing about it. If you can point me to a thread (however old) I would love to have a look. Thanks.

 

[PeterA]

Impressive Peter. Congratulations!

Thank you Christian. I thought of you the other day. You must be enjoying the ponies in the good weather. It is good to hear from you.

 

[Andrew S.]

I’ve been listening to the vdH GC cartridge that was returned to me with lower output. it is now a better match for this high-efficiency system giving me more range with the volume knob. It now has close to 40 hours on it. There was a time when people debated these cartridges and many claimed they had extreme amounts of excessive high frequency energy. Others claimed they had far too much sibilants for their taste.

Interestingly, the high frequency energy was not accentuated in this system with the higher output version. I found it well-balanced sounding. There was simply too much energy across-the-board pushing through the system which made the sound seem a bit “forced”. Some listeners did not agree, but to my ears, this across-the-board push seemed to affect or diminish nuance. That is why I liked the Technics moving magnet cartridge so much. It sounded very natural in the system, but it did lack the last bit of resolution. This may be why some people prefer the Magico system videos.

This lower output GC has all of the resolution and nuance that my higher output version had in my former system. It does not have excessive sibilance or an aggressive leading edge the people so often complain about. I’m really enjoying it and look forward to seeing if David can squeeze out a little bit more performance with improved set up.

Peter,

Do you feel the change to a 3012R assisted with attenuation in your system? - or was/is it more a sum of the whole? If I am not mistaken you heard the vDH GC with David. I am not sure if you took your SME or not with you.

Have you experimented with other MM cartridges with your current system? I once thought MC was inherently superior (probably because they were more expensive), but came around to the view that when well matched to the type of music one listens to, and with a sympathetic phono stage, a MM sounded very well indeed, and at much lower cost. More forgiving, as well.

Do you have any view on this?

Oh, I changed my user name from my nom de plume of Tom, back to my actual name. You may recall me last from 2016. I sold the Nadac to Ian.
Hello again, Al & Ian!

 

[Al M.]

Oh, I changed my user name from my nom de plume of Tom, back to my actual name. You may recall me last from 2016. I sold the Nadac to Ian.
Hello again, Al & Ian!

Hi Andrew, nice to see you again!
Al

 

[Andrew S.]

Hi Andrew, nice to see you again!
Al

Thank you Al, nice to be back. Have enjoyed this thread and your and Ian's impressions on Peter's system very much. Not sure how it all got sidetracked a little.

All the posts under Tom Stopforth are mine - family names. Apologies for the ruse de guerre, thought I would quietly pop back up. I figured it was safe to go back in the water now.

I must catch up on the latest to your system again. And Ian's. I have been checking in periodically on all of your systems since I left, along with a few others.

I see the "like" button made it as a permanent addition....

 

[Tango]

Why the hell can’t members here let other members enjoy their systems without chiming in that there is something wrong or lacking, ear unheard?

A video poster must realize and accept that their will be criticism once posting a video of his system on an audio forum... actually once he puts the video on Youtube. People hear differently for 108 reasons. Negative comments will always be there together with positives. Often poster does not even have to defend because people who make positive comment would jump in to say differently. I am only talking about comments on video not the subject of Natural Sound.

 

[Al M.]

Thank you for those reminiscences, Al. I got that first vdH Colibri Master Signature after I heard my Colibri XPP. I was astonished at the shear amount of resolution from this new design. After two weeks, I quickly ordered a second one. Despite the many faults of my system at that time, I heard something with that cartridge that was very special*. I had never heard anything like it before. At the time, I was in a rapid learning phase with my former system. Each week it seemed I was changing and learning more. I came to understand that the Japanese cartridges that you and Ian liked so much, particularly the MSL Sig. Gold, and that I liked too for a while, were actually quite colored. I did not realize that earlier because of my system's lack of resolution caused mostly by the multitude of tweaks, supports, room treatments, and cables and cords. As I shed those and learned about set up, the flavor of those Japanese cartridges became much more apparent and after a year of little to no use, I sold them.

At the same time, the extreme resolution of the Colibri became more balanced with its other attributes, and the system setup changes, with the steel plates, and speaker positioning mostly, allowed for a more natural presentation from that cartridge. You heard it and reported on it. It retained the outrageous resolution, but other issues with the high frequencies diminished. I think it was less the actual cartridge, and more the system set up.

You're welcome for the reminiscences, Peter. Yes, as your system progressed, the vdH fell into place more naturally, and the MSL fell out of place. In July last year the system configuration was not optimal, but in that context the MSL worked wonderfully. As the vdH favorably matured into a more optimized system context, the MSL turned darker and more colored. It was not a good fit anymore.

I do not have the experience in the hobby that you and Ian have, so my tastes, preferences, and priorities have shifted more rapidly. Things I used to seek out like more detail, and accents, and spectacle, no longer interest me. And as my tastes change, I have a new perspective on other systems. I was able to overlook the issues in my system at that time with the Colibri because through it all, I heard the magic from this cartridge. Perhaps I tolerated the high frequency issues of my system more than that from other systems because I recognized something good and had to learn how to get rid of the bad. It has been quite a learning period, and I am sure it is not finished.

Don't shortchange yourself, Peter. Given the vast amount of highly useful suggestions for improving my system that you have given me over the years, I cannot agree with the idea that you have less experience. I may have had a more constant perception of things related to audio over the years, which can be helpful. At the same time I try to adjust my conclusions as I become confronted with new experiences and thus data points, just as you do.

Your observations of the system evolving with the Colibri bring all of that back. Thank you. The point of my post above is simply to update anyone interested with the sound of the lower output version as it breaks in in my new system. It is a much better match for the phono stage and the speaker efficiency , in my opinion.

I can see that.

EDIT: * This "something special" that I heard then from the Colibri Master Signature despite the flaws in the system, happened again to me recently. In Utah, despite the room constraints, and frankly poor speaker set up, I heard "something special", a magic, from the Vitavox speakers, even though as corner horns, I had pulled them out into the room and listened to them pointed straight ahead. I kept playing Holst's Savitri. I even made of video of this set up and kept listening to it after I returned home. That magic even comes through on the simple iPhone video.

Yes, this is one of the rare instances where I found a video comparison very useful (yay!).

The point is, that despite poor set up, other flaws in the system, here are three cases, where I was able to hear something from these three components that made me want to own them. I would do what it would take to get the rest of the system in shape to more fully demonstrate their abilities. The important thing was being able to recognize their potential when hearing them for the first time in less than optimal set ups.

Good philosophy. When I bought my new system 3 years ago, there were, as it eventually turned out, some substantial problems with the sound, while a number of things were very good to excellent from the start. Yet instead of trying to mask the problems by creating a more "favorable" or "unproblematic" sound through gear changes that ultimately would have reduced sound quality, I decided to confront the problems head on, which had been revealed by the resolving nature of the new gear. That involved a lot of further improvements in room acoustics and optimization of gear set-up in the room, as well as an upgrade to a much better preamp, and I am very satisfied with the end result, even though I know it is still not perfect (it never is). In the process, also the great strengths of the sound that had been there from the beginning were driven to new heights. In great contrast to that, a substantially lower level of reproduction would have been the result had I tried to mask the problems by chasing a more "forgiving" sound.

 

[tima]

The way you have written about HP is so positive that once Ron puts up his system he might name the thread Absolute Sound

I come neither to praise HP nor to bury him but to take a broader view of the past. This is all just memory so others are invited to correct the details.

In a large sense HP had a positive effect on the industry overall. That was described in my post #1419, prior to yours. He slew the objectivist dragons and emphasized listening based assessment. In a sense he democratized audiophilery - only a few had the equipment to publish detailed measurement but everyone has a pair of ears. HP encourage you to listen for yourself.

In the early days of TAS he would compare multiple products in a single review, something rare today. For several years he would not accept any advertising (which people saw as 'noble'), then put all advertising in the back of the magazine, but eventually succumbed to ads everywhere. He started with four issues per year but had a terrible time keeping a schedule. He commissioned original artwork for his journal sized publication.

He covered records too, and his original 'HP's List' was carried by audiophiles searching record bins. His list is actually pretty good, although Valin took it up and expanded it but not imo at the same quality. HP raved about many original RCA Shaded Dogs, Mercury Living Presence and Decca - and was responsible for many of those becoming rare, thus leading to reissues. (Reissues not equal to originals but were hugely welcomed by those who would never have an original - it was access to the music, even if not the very best in sound.) Some will remember how, thanks to HP, the soundtrack to "Casino Royale" (COMO-5005) with Dusty Springfield singing "The Look of Love" and the Malcom Arnold album "English, Scottish & Cornish Dances" (Lyrita SRCS 109) became hard-to-find coveted magic albums.




HP wrote well and was witty. For several years he was new and popular.

He never had a formal glossary apart from the magazine (that was Holt) but he did introduce/create much of the terminology we see carried forth today. And of course his thing was an ideal, "The Absolute Sound" which was taken largely as meaning the sound of live acoustic music.

However ... some of his vocabulary and descriptions did not live up to his ideal. This is where the damage was done. Some of his vocabulary and descriptions were, er, not congruent with what we hear in the concert hall. That is what, imo, is being rejected today to the point of casting him in a negative light. Much of that is a function of other reviewers adopting and promoting some of his concepts and descriptions not aligned with live music. We discuss that here. The 'black backgrounds' topic is a prime example and there are others. The damage as I called it came when other reviewers used those poor examples - which seemed novel at the time - and greatly influenced audiophiles and stereo end-users who went looking for such in their purchases - and continue doing so today. Dealers 'fell victim' to it as well. There was scant scepticism of his descriptions at the time - he was taken as a guru and largely unquestioned except by the objectivists. Until recently.

The importance of @ddk's natural sound is an effort to get at or return to a true or truer ideal. I applaud him for this and think his effort extremely important. To point out, at least indirectly, the emperor's new clothes and to go back to the pre-objectivist days when different words and expressions were used to describe the listening enjoyment of natural sound, believable sound. Nonetheless the vast majority of audiophiles today - and this is where we see the push-back - have taken a bite of HP's apple, and once tasting its sweet fruit and having 'invested' their systems in it, find it neigh impossible to allow the scales to fall from their eyes. (Okay - maybe that was a bit over the top. ;-o). We see where we are in the discussions we're having now.

 

[howiebrou]

I come neither to praise HP nor to bury him but to take a broader view of the past. This is all just memory so others are invited to correct the details.

In a large sense HP had a positive effect on the industry overall. That was described in my post #1419, prior to yours. He slew the objectivist dragons and emphasized listening based assessment. In a sense he democratized audiophilery - only a few had the equipment to publish detailed measurement but everyone has a pair of ears. HP encourage you to listen for yourself.

In the early days of TAS he would compare multiple products in a single review, something rare today. For several years he would not accept any advertising (which people saw as 'noble'), then put all advertising in the back of the magazine, but eventually succumbed to ads everywhere. He started with four issues per year but had a terrible time keeping a schedule. He commissioned original artwork for his journal sized publication.

He covered records too, and his original 'HP's List' was carried by audiophiles searching record bins. His list is actually pretty good, although Valin took it up and expanded it but not imo at the same quality. HP raved about many original RCA Shaded Dogs, Mercury Living Presence and Decca - and was responsible for many of those becoming rare, thus leading to reissues. (Reissues not equal to originals but were hugely welcomed by those who would never have an original - it was access to the music, even if not the very best in sound.) Some will remember how, thanks to HP, the soundtrack to "Casino Royale" (COMO-5005) with Dusty Springfield singing "The Look of Love" and the Malcom Arnold album "English, Scottish & Cornish Dances" (Lyrita SRCS 109) became hard-to-find coveted magic albums.

View attachment 78791 View attachment 78792


HP wrote well and was witty. For several years he was new and popular.

He never had a formal glossary apart from the magazine (that was Holt) but he did introduce/create much of the terminology we see carried forth today. And of course his thing was an ideal, "The Absolute Sound" which was taken largely as meaning the sound of live acoustic music.

However ... some of his vocabulary and descriptions did not live up to his ideal. This is where the damage was done. Some of his vocabulary and descriptions were, er, not congruent with what we hear in the concert hall. That is what, imo, is being rejected today to the point of casting him in a negative light. Much of that is a function of other reviewers adopting and promoting some of his concepts and descriptions not aligned with live music. We discuss that here. The 'black backgrounds' topic is a prime example and there are others. The damage as I called it came when other reviewers used those poor examples - which seemed novel at the time - and greatly influenced audiophiles and stereo end-users who went looking for such in their purchases - and continue doing so today. Dealers 'fell victim' to it as well. There was scant scepticism of his descriptions at the time - he was taken as a guru and largely unquestioned except by the objectivists. Until recently.

The importance of @ddk's natural sound is an effort to get at or return to a true or truer ideal. I applaud him for this and think his effort extremely important. To point out, at least indirectly, the emperor's new clothes and to go back to the pre-objectivist days when different words and expressions were used to describe the listening enjoyment of natural sound, believable sound. Nonetheless the vast majority of audiophiles today - and this is where we see the push-back - have taken a bite of HP's apple, and once tasting its sweet fruit and having 'invested' their systems in it, find it neigh impossible to allow the scales to fall from their eyes. (Okay - maybe that was a bit over the top. ;-o). We see where we are in the discussions we're having now.

Very nicely put. You should be a reviewer.