yes but they had modded drivers his usual ones had a plastic diaphragm BMS driver. This system belonged to zero star general
Peter A.’s System: A Perspective on Natural Sound
- Thread starter Al M.
- Start date
yes but they had modded drivers his usual ones had a plastic diaphragm BMS driver. This system belonged to zero star general
Of course people understand what you are describing, Tim. A quick Google search produced:
Transient (acoustics)
In acoustics and audio, a transient is a high amplitude, short-duration sound at the beginning of a waveform that occurs in phenomena such as musical sounds, noises or speech.[1][2] Transients do not necessarily directly depend on the frequency of the tone they initiate. It contains a high degree of non-periodic components and a higher magnitude of high frequencies than the harmonic content of that sound.[3]
What Are Transients & Why Do They Matter to Your Mix?
What Are Transients?
Transients are the short burst of energy that you hear at the start of any sound. The loudest of transients are things like drum hits where the crack of the stick on a drumhead sends a loud sound wave out to the microphone. Transients are everywhere though – from the pick attack on your guitar strings to the consonants of your vocal. Ever used a pop filter while recording? The main goal of a pop filter is to catch plosives – loud burst of air into the microphone – much like transients.
Transients are essential to articulation. We need them to understand the shape of a sound and our ears interpret sounds differently depending on how the transient is formed. You can think of most transients in an “above average” or “below average” mentality.
"Leading edge" and transient are used interchangeably:
The SuperTweeter from Tannoy!
The ST50 SuperTweeter is designed to provide the extended high frequency response demanded by modern programme material and sources (e.g. SACD / DVDA), which have driven the requirement for loudspeakers with extended frequency bandwidth performance. By allowing the listener to experience a far wider range of bandwidth information of instruments than is currently possible with conventional loudspeakers, the new ST50 SuperTweeter from Tannoy completes the musical picture. It not only has the ability to resolve fine detail of high frequency notes but also effectively enhances the listening experience even at lower frequencies. Music contains transient information and rich harmonics beyond the range of human hearing for pure tones. Even bass notes have leading edge transients reaching 30kHz with other instrumentation extending yet further. The leading edge of a note, for instance the initial stick contact with the skin of a drum, is where vital transients occur. Conventional speaker designs with a frequency response upper limit restricted to 20kHz are unable to reproduce this essential detail. The Tannoy SuperTweeter however reproduces all these transients, operating between the roll off point of the existing loudspeakers and 54kHz; the SuperTweeter will accurately reproduce the leading edge of individual notes. This allows the listener to experience the entire bandwidth information of the recorded instruments, with the result that music information has restored to it the speed, impact and clarity.
Tom, I totally agree with you. No need to apologize.
Especially in the higher registers the tone is screechy, glassy, hard, aggressive, with artificial harmonics. Bright in the worst sense.
Yes, the duration of the initial attack (transient) doesn't sound bad, there is no hangover, but the harmonics and tonality are very wrong. So in that sense, I cannot find the transients sounding natural.
If this were my system, I'd run out of the room screaming.
Just so you know, Bonzo has a tendency to post horrible sounding videos that he thinks sound great.
Al, every system conversation can end with this doesn't sound like live.
Every hifi show conversation report can end with this doesn't sound like live or like a well set up private system.
There are a few people here who like to end mobile video conversations with this isn't like listening to a system in room or like live
I think these are the originals that used a modded Lowther. Only the later model (not this one) moved to the BMS coaxial compression driver (with its polyester diaphragm).
So the video is using doped paper cone / alnico.
Or maybe your lack of experience with respect to live and gear shows with every post Al not to mention your attitude to ruining every video thread. Who else would say leading edge in front of the concert hall and not middle of the hall? Hilarious.
Last edited:
Thank you Al for taking the time, and making the effort, to write down your thoughts and impressions of the sound of my system and for sharing them here. I do think it is confusing to have this thread separate from the main thread, because it makes it more difficult to follow the discussion, and for me personally, much more difficult to then go back and find specific posts about my new system. I take you last paragraph as in invitation to comment on your post.
Al and I had a long and interesting talk on the phone last night about this thread, my system, and my list of observations of David's four systems. The discussion was mostly about the two subjects Al discusses in the post above: Balanced sound and how it relates to specific aspects of a system sticking out, and Relaxing, zero fatigue. I understand that we all hear differently, have different preferences, and different experiences and that Al is simply sharing his perspective of what he is hearing from my system. However, I disagree with Al's observations here. Some readers of my thread called for "independent" impressions of the sound of my new system. I suspect those readers will dismiss my thoughts here because they are not independent. Others wanted to know what my friends Al, Ian, and Tasos think. Well, we have no heard from both Al and Ian. Tasos does not think timbre is a priority of mine based on my listed observations of Natural Sound, so he is likely not interested in hearing my system. I do not think we would even be having a discussion about, or referring to anything as "natural sounding" if timbre were not believable or convincing. That just seems silly.
My list does not mention the usual audiophile list of terms, with the exception of "dynamic", as Al pointed out to me last night. The reason is that when I listened to David's four systems, I was drawn into the music, and the systems did not have an identifiable sound as such. I could not dissect them pointing to specific areas which called attention to themselves. The music and the system did not lend themselves to be thought of in terms of bits and pieces. This is precisely because they were balanced sounding. Because of this, the systems disappeared, and the music was left. There was nothing to distract me from the music. My mind could not easily focus on sonic aspects of the presentation. This is the whole key, the main point, of what these systems had in common, and precisely what I experience when listening to live music in the concert hall, or jazz club, or chamber setting. This is why the systems sound "Natural".
Now, this whole idea is contrary to the HP's glossary of audiophile terms. I think this is why my list is met with so much resistance. Al was telling me that the list is extremely vague, the bullet points can be applied to any system by any owner. I reject that. David's four systems do not bring attention to themselves. They do not shout, "listen to me". They disappear, and this is what distinguishes them from almost all other systems I have heard. As Al says that his posts are only his observation, as say the same. This opinion is mine, only mine, and people are free to disagree.
The discussion about transients/leading edges is fascinating. As I wrote in my other thread, people have varying ideas about this, and here too based on that violin video Bonzo just posted. Al does not hear a pronounced leading edge from my system. Some have read his comments to mean that transients are missing from my system. I agree that there is no pronouncing, no enhancing, no exaggeration of leading edge. I consider it to be balanced with the rest of the presentation, Al does not. In contrast to this, Al does not think this aspect of the presentation from his system is pronounced where I do. I hear it as a constant across all music. He hears it as recessed across all music in my system. Where does this leave us? I don't know. I guess we hear things differently, but this is a primary condition for a system to sound natural FOR ME. It is as Tima wrote in his Lamm LP2.1 review. Paraphrasing: "transients/leading edges are are somewhat less pronounced, but that is more like the way I hear them in the concert hall."
I disagree with Al about transients drawing attention to themselves, especially when heard way up close in the concert hall. Everything is more pronounced when one is sitting closer to the live instrument. Transients are no different from the energy in the midrange, the weight of the lower frequencies, it is all more, but the key is it remains in balance. When a system highlights the transients above and beyond the rest of what is going on, I think there is an issue, an imbalance, and that does not sound natural to me.
When closer, natural resolution becomes detail. I make the distinction between the two because I hear some systems pronounce "detail". It sticks out as if spotlit. I don't hear that at concert hall. It is an artifact created by the electronics or something else in the chain, at the expense of something else. Sure, when sitting right next to a piano, or a violin, there is all sorts of detail heard. But this is as it is. A system should portray that in a natural way, not in an artificial, enhanced way. Al disagreed with this last night and argues that resolution and detail are different. I argue that resolution presents detail when appropriate and based on the listening perspective. Systems can mess with this fine/subtle distinction. David's systems did not, and that is why that is on the list.
Continued below:
Continued:
Regarding Relaxing, no Fatigue: Al hears my system as having a "mid hall" perspective. This leads to a more relaxed presentation. The music is presented at more of a distance from the listener. At the BSO, this would be from about 80-100 feet back from the stage, I suspect. My bullet point list is not about that. It is about the mood David's system put the listener in when he sits down and plays that first record. The listener is not presented with fireworks, bits and pieces of sound to be digested, analyzed, taken apart and criticized. No, he is left with the music in front and around him. The mind does not have to work to understand what the heck is going on. There is an ease to the presentation, much like anything is experienced in nature. Nothing has to be reconciled. The mind/listener is relaxed, and he is free to enjoy the music. Al is talking about the presentation of my system, while I am talking about the mental state of the listener.
Mid hall perspective: This is perhaps where I disagree the most with Al. Last night, and for the last couple of months, I have listened to a large variety of music on my system. Solo piano or violin sounds close to me while sitting there on the sofa. Symphony, large choral music, organs, sound distant. Jazz groups, string quartets sound about in the middle. For the most part, this system distinguishes between recording perspectives and venues and scale, size of performers better than my former system, because it is more resolving. All seems to imply that every recording sounds similar with a somewhat distant perspective. I agree that Al's system, on some specific recordings, sounds extremely up front and close, more so than mine, but my system certainly does not present all music from a consistent mid hall perspective. I do not know what else to say about that.
Again, I thank Al for his thoughts. This is what I like about good respectful exchanges about the hobby and how it is understood by different people. This is how we learn, and this is what makes such threads interesting. Thank you Al, we will have much more to discuss and time to enjoy each other's company over the years to come.
Regarding Relaxing, no Fatigue: Al hears my system as having a "mid hall" perspective. This leads to a more relaxed presentation. The music is presented at more of a distance from the listener. At the BSO, this would be from about 80-100 feet back from the stage, I suspect. My bullet point list is not about that. It is about the mood David's system put the listener in when he sits down and plays that first record. The listener is not presented with fireworks, bits and pieces of sound to be digested, analyzed, taken apart and criticized. No, he is left with the music in front and around him. The mind does not have to work to understand what the heck is going on. There is an ease to the presentation, much like anything is experienced in nature. Nothing has to be reconciled. The mind/listener is relaxed, and he is free to enjoy the music. Al is talking about the presentation of my system, while I am talking about the mental state of the listener.
Mid hall perspective: This is perhaps where I disagree the most with Al. Last night, and for the last couple of months, I have listened to a large variety of music on my system. Solo piano or violin sounds close to me while sitting there on the sofa. Symphony, large choral music, organs, sound distant. Jazz groups, string quartets sound about in the middle. For the most part, this system distinguishes between recording perspectives and venues and scale, size of performers better than my former system, because it is more resolving. All seems to imply that every recording sounds similar with a somewhat distant perspective. I agree that Al's system, on some specific recordings, sounds extremely up front and close, more so than mine, but my system certainly does not present all music from a consistent mid hall perspective. I do not know what else to say about that.
Again, I thank Al for his thoughts. This is what I like about good respectful exchanges about the hobby and how it is understood by different people. This is how we learn, and this is what makes such threads interesting. Thank you Al, we will have much more to discuss and time to enjoy each other's company over the years to come.
There is little, if any, evidence for this disingenuous comment.
Dissecting sections of the audible frequency spectrum is, I think, the antithesis of Peter's approach.
This post completely misses the point of natural sound. Natural sound is full range, full spectrum sound where nothing calls specific attention to itself. Just like live music should sound.
Ron, I think people do this all the time. The point I was making about David Karmeli‘s four systems is it’s extremely difficult to do that. In many other systems it is very easy to do that. That is the distinction.
many who subscribe to the absolute sound approach need to break systems apart and music apart. For them more is more. More extension more dynamics more slam more bass weight more air. These are the things I did not hear in Utah
Last edited:
This system plays the violin exceptionally even through video. Where can I get this record?
G. I should put on ignore list anyone who cannot appreciate it, but I keep them on for giggles. Fun cracking WhatsApp jokes about them
I am inquiring about the tonal balance - and I was not addressing Peter or anyone else but Al
Similar threads
