Come on Brad, this is getting ridiculous and ruining Peter's thread over nothing.
david
Sublime Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
david
I'd like to not derail this system thread any further and try to return to the topic of my system and the incoming Micro Seiki turntable. There are many threads about David's system. I will soon post a new thread about my recent visit in which we can further discuss the natural sound in Utah. Thank you.
steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
I laud Peter's desire to follow a path that he found to be described as natural. It is an enlightening experience to make the trip to Utah and spend a week listening to david's system and hearing his philosophy that less is more in most cases. I too have tried to achieve the same in my system but TBH it is difficult to compete with his system where the speakers are 112Db efficient so each "little grasshopper"has to make decisions based on how things sound in his own system. Nonetheless it is interesting to me that those who have spent more than just an afternoon of listening all come back with a similar desire as Peter has. So because this is Peter's blog which is his diary of the systematic changes in his system I would like to ask everyone to keep their off topic comments out of the dialog. So let's move on
Peter,
I understand Keith point. You already owned a "natural" sound source system and were quite happy with it. Why did you decide to change the turntable and not the speakers, that use the ring-radiator Revelator ScanSpeak tweeter and a lot of Mundorf exotic components, considered to be not "natural" friendly?
BTW, it seems to me that you told us what is not needed to get "natural" sound but not what is needed except listening to the Bionors!
Peter is an analog head. That always was clear. Nothing to do with natural sound, CD player or analog Magico is Magico, and that is irrespective of whether you like it or not.
Nothing wrong with that. It is like a tweaks junkie will visit someone and come back and buy the same cables or footers.
If Peter changes to SETs and high efficiency based on this visit I will accept it was about natural sound
Nothing wrong with that. It is like a tweaks junkie will visit someone and come back and buy the same cables or footers.
If Peter changes to SETs and high efficiency based on this visit I will accept it was about natural sound
Steve,
Besides set up by David and an SME3012r, what steps and decisions did you make in your system to sound "natural"? It seems to me you are also in part pursuing Keith view - the speakers are the key difference between systems.
BTW, I appreciate a lot your own path, of selecting and keeping what you like, not what is officially supposed to sound "natural".
Im not sure to what you are referring but the Q3 he has uses a berylium dome tweeter ( it probably originates form scanspeak / but modded by magico ).
The magico V3 and mini use a ringradiator tw design from scanspeak,.
whats suddenly wrong with those lol
i love my illuminator ring radiators.And i ve tried a lot of tweeter designs also very expensive designs
The ring radiators do have a " natural " softdome fabric just like any softdome
And now suddenly mundorf components are also no good ??
Its most likely a wrongly designed speaker you heard either regarding the FR , units or filter topplogy itself .
Last edited:
Fransisco, it is a matter of degree. Yes, I describe my system as sounding natural and I am extremely happy with it, especially after I learned to properly set up a cartridge/arm. The turntable is simply the first step. I may stop there or I may go further. David's system is the best I've heard, call it natural or whatever. I simply want to take my pedestrian system a few steps closer to what I heard in Utah. It's really that simple.
No, what is needed is not the Bionors. What is needed is a different approach than the one I had been following. I won't talk about other systems. In my system, I had for years a sound I really liked, but as I started to remove things, and change the set up, I liked the sound more and more. A few people heard it before COVID while it was in transition and I was still trying to figure things out. They have freely and openly criticized it, some rather loudly in public. That is fine, it does not matter to me because I am pleased and confident in what I am doing. I listened and continued to work on it, whether or not I agreed with those criticisms. I now like it more and more. The changes have been evolutionary and I began to recognize a completely different sound. I then heard this similar sound at David's, just to a higher degree.
I do not know what is needed specifically in terms of gear. I do not have enough experience. What I can say is that my system, like David's, is not about accessories, fancy cables and cords, audiophile room treatments. Some people may want or need that stuff, but I have learned it is not necessary. What is necessary and needed is a recognition and appreciation for natural sound. One either has it or learns it. One needs to be open minded to the possibilities of something not mentioned in the reviewer magazines, or audiophile glossary of terms.
Exposure is needed, and an open mind. Also a willingness to shift direction. Tang has these things. Bonzo was right about hearing more. I am sure he will keep reminding me of it if my system continues to change. I would also say that one needs to understand live music so that he recognized natural sound.
That's the most essential thing, I would argue, otherwise you don't know which direction to go.
To be more specific, the reference of live sound of unamplified instruments. Look forward to refresh my memories after Covid.
If live music is 100, and assuming all systems are less than live, how do you know if your system is at 10 or 90? Generally, newbies, actual musicians etc just accept it is not live and extrapolate the system sound to live, hence they live with highly compromised systems.
If you hear only one system, you won't care where on the scale it is. As you investigate more you will clearly know which zone it is in.
At the end of the day, you don't need to tell us your thoughts, but you need to be honest to yourself, something difficult in this hobby. It is much easier to debate with me than to be honest to oneself.
So, if you liked that system, the faster you sell off the pass and Magico the better, especially the latter. If you didn't like it, keep them.
If you hear only one system, you won't care where on the scale it is. As you investigate more you will clearly know which zone it is in.
At the end of the day, you don't need to tell us your thoughts, but you need to be honest to yourself, something difficult in this hobby. It is much easier to debate with me than to be honest to oneself.
So, if you liked that system, the faster you sell off the pass and Magico the better, especially the latter. If you didn't like it, keep them.
The interesting thing is then I remember the way you described David’s system to me after you heard it and your description is nothing like what I heard.
I don’t mind if you continue to assume things about me or if you continue to tell me what to do. It must be part of your nature.
Yes, I was mistaking the Q3 for the V3. I also like the ring radiators, I owned several great speakers using them, including the Krell LAT1000 and the Sonus Faber Stradivari.Im not sure to what you are referring but the Q3 he has uses a berylium dome tweeter ( it probably originates form scanspeak / but modded by magico ).
The magico V3 and mini use a ringradiator tw design from scanspeak,.
whats suddenly wrong with those lol
And i ve tried a lot of tweeter designs also very expensive designs
The ring radiators do have a " natural " softdome fabric just like any softdome
And now suddenly mundorf components are also no good ??
Its most likely a wrongly designed speaker you heard either regarding the FR , units or filter topplogy itself .
As far as I see it now any exotic capacitor or wire is non "natural" - please note the commas around natural.
@PeterA
It will be interesting to see how the Micro performs vs the SME right out of the box. There are also experiments regarding the different drive types (string or belt) that could be fun. Also, you should see if you like the sound of the vacuum hold down. Some say it deadens the sound and some say it brings focus.
Will you have the same VDH GC on both arms? I really think you need to experiment with some vintage MM and SPU's as well. I really enjoy the differences in sound. SPU for Jazz and VDH for classical. Of course I have a lessor VDH so the GC might do it all for you.
@Steve Williams
Do you use the vacuum hold down on the AF1?
It will be interesting to see how the Micro performs vs the SME right out of the box. There are also experiments regarding the different drive types (string or belt) that could be fun. Also, you should see if you like the sound of the vacuum hold down. Some say it deadens the sound and some say it brings focus.
Will you have the same VDH GC on both arms? I really think you need to experiment with some vintage MM and SPU's as well. I really enjoy the differences in sound. SPU for Jazz and VDH for classical. Of course I have a lessor VDH so the GC might do it all for you.
@Steve Williams
Do you use the vacuum hold down on the AF1?
It is something that puzzles me. I would expect that "natural" sound would look for our perception of a live sound, irrespective of exact instrument timbre or orchestral details - in summary just for our lifetime of listening experience without any active training. I never read from David referring to the life sound of instruments or references. IMHO the definition of "natural" should go against any educated references.
Perhaps Peter can tell us what were the recordings he used to set up his tonearm recently - it would help.
Exactly.
With the audiophile genus concepts of the naturalist and the synthesist I've suggested that one know to the point of "being honest with oneself" what is one's basis of preference. Once you answer or know that, a way is laid out for you and decisions become self directed and easier... and happier.
Coming to know or understand one's basis of preference can take time, sometimes years. In some cases it is a matter of gaining exposure to what is possible, in some cases exposure is not required and one engages in a search toward best fulfillment. And this engagement can, as we've seen, lead one to change their mind and preference about what counts for them, forming a new basis of preference.
steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Similar threads
