Sublime Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Peter, struggle no more. I will remove the post as you wish. I simply, after doing a search, responded to Tim's statement that happened to reside in this thread.
Much of the discussion in the “State of the Industry” thread has been mistakenly been put there inappropriately as it has nothing to do with the Roy Gregory Editorial that was the topic of the OP. Specifically, the “natural sound” discussions have continued ad nauseum among several members and are really a misguided off-shoot of the more appropriate “Sublime Thread” , “Natural Sound” or the Changing Variables” threads, all started by Peter. I’m therefore posting this comment here (the oldest thread but it could have been posted on any of the 3 threads mentioned) where it is more relevant.
The incessant berating of Peter, Tim and others for expressing their points of view has been an unnecessary distraction and IMHO, ill-advised. I have enjoyed Peter’s thread from the beginning as he is a thoughtful and articulate contributor. More importantly, I have enjoyed and learned from his comments. And yet here’s the key- I don’t agree with a lot of what he has to say! Specifically, I am not a horn fan, I don’t think that any system that places a subwoofer several feet behind the mains has any chance of producing excellent bass, and the discussion of what comprises natural sound is as close to mental masturbation as things can get when discussing reproduced music. The list goes on and on. But what I very much appreciate in Peter’s journey is the reasoning he expresses and the joy he finds in his changed perspectives.
Who among us has the same views on what sounds good personally now, as they did 20 years ago? I certainly do not hold the same things as dear as I once did. For example, I went through a long period using dsp because I felt that room frequency response and subwoofer timing alignment were holy grails. While I think those are both of seminal importance, that perspective has changed somewhat with time; in part due to improved gear, in part due to changing biases, and in part due to listening experiences. But the key is that over a long period of time, Peter has expressed his thoughts graciously and with clarity. And that’s what I relate to and appreciate. Agreeing with everything he embraces is hardly the point, and frankly, it’s irrelevant to my enjoyment and learning. The same is true of some of the writings of some of my other favorite audiophiles who contribute to the forum (you know who you are). But busting Peter’s balls seem to be the raison d'etre for many postings recently. Frankly, it’s just stupid and annoying although I readily admit, it has been somewhat entertaining especially if some quips are witty and humorous. Fortunately, we’re still the most informative forum of its kind. I’m just hoping the derision we've seen recently doesn’t derail future readership as there is surely a lot more to learn from audiophiles everywhere.
The incessant berating of Peter, Tim and others for expressing their points of view has been an unnecessary distraction and IMHO, ill-advised. I have enjoyed Peter’s thread from the beginning as he is a thoughtful and articulate contributor. More importantly, I have enjoyed and learned from his comments. And yet here’s the key- I don’t agree with a lot of what he has to say! Specifically, I am not a horn fan, I don’t think that any system that places a subwoofer several feet behind the mains has any chance of producing excellent bass, and the discussion of what comprises natural sound is as close to mental masturbation as things can get when discussing reproduced music. The list goes on and on. But what I very much appreciate in Peter’s journey is the reasoning he expresses and the joy he finds in his changed perspectives.
Who among us has the same views on what sounds good personally now, as they did 20 years ago? I certainly do not hold the same things as dear as I once did. For example, I went through a long period using dsp because I felt that room frequency response and subwoofer timing alignment were holy grails. While I think those are both of seminal importance, that perspective has changed somewhat with time; in part due to improved gear, in part due to changing biases, and in part due to listening experiences. But the key is that over a long period of time, Peter has expressed his thoughts graciously and with clarity. And that’s what I relate to and appreciate. Agreeing with everything he embraces is hardly the point, and frankly, it’s irrelevant to my enjoyment and learning. The same is true of some of the writings of some of my other favorite audiophiles who contribute to the forum (you know who you are). But busting Peter’s balls seem to be the raison d'etre for many postings recently. Frankly, it’s just stupid and annoying although I readily admit, it has been somewhat entertaining especially if some quips are witty and humorous. Fortunately, we’re still the most informative forum of its kind. I’m just hoping the derision we've seen recently doesn’t derail future readership as there is surely a lot more to learn from audiophiles everywhere.
Last edited:
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
+1
I was thinking of reposting it so people would reread it and we can continue on that interesting topic. These other threads also have value and interest just maybe not to the same group. IMO
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
I am only referring to the discussion splitting apart and IMO being taken in a direction that wasn't IMO again the intent of the thread. I do not have issue with your posts or anyone else's however I do think some of these things would be better served, more focused and perhaps better addressed if they were separate topics.
Roy's article was truly about the way the Industry works, the politics in it and although I see your points I don't believe that was what he( and I for posting it) was looking at talking about.
I see many threads here get pulled way off course when again IMO the topic would be better served in a separate thread.
I also see a few , not all, really just want to draw attention to themselves and I believe like to derail the subject.
I ( my group) LOL do not care to be involved with the difference between vintage/new/cone/.panel/horn whatever since my personal beliefs are not about the technology but feel that the system isn't separable from the parts by the technology. I only care about the end result. Mike L system is totally different from mine, so is Marty's and so is yours. They may all be wonderful or all be less than that but they are all a system and it is not the fact that Mikes or Martys are cones that alone IMO tells the story. Having said all that this too had nothing to do with Roy's article. Roy was pointing out the problems, politics, issues, disparities and some facts about how the business works.
AS many of us are in the business we have a very different view and experience than those who are hobbyist's. Its just reality. I would love to be totally honest about all of those things but the fall out would be bad for me, my business and I doubt many would like to hear such things.Dirty laundry is just that. There are others here and on YT that have some of the information but like everything else in our world today they don't know the full history. Most current events for example like the Ukraine situation have beginnings along time ago not just from the last few months or years. I don't want to go there just making a point about knowing how all of this began and then being able to take it forward.
I hope this helps explain me and what I meant
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
That's not exactly what I said. How can I or others in the business share dirty laundry? I have made many comments about the Industry and have had harsh words with Lee about a few things said here. The review process is flawed, valid, but flawed. The distribution channels are flawed as they are in many industries. The lack of qualifications, virtually no training and very low cost of entry are things that have been mentioned. The most important thing is how big is your checkbook. What does it tell you if your dealer has a laundry list of products and commitments to none? Every time I do bring up history and facts I get rebuked because someone is offended by the facts. Business is by nature conflict and it is in every field. Is it right that some companies have more influence on the market than others? Ask your reviewers about the product obtaining process, long term loans, accommodations etc. The make up your own minds you don't need me or others to lay it out.
These are valid points but even if I told all I know it would be just fodder here since I will offend someone. This just happened with Mark Levinson a few days ago. I only stated the facts but when history for many started last year or 4 years ago they don't know what happened. I am more than happy to talk to you or anyone lese and share what I know but I can't do it all here Peter no more than you can bear your business secrets to your customers or clients etc.
Peter finally came ashore from his summer sailing adventures long enough to let me listen in person to the Peggy Lee cut on his system, which I wished to hear as a comparison with the sonic impression given by his eponymous YouTube video.
The impression was Extraordinary for what it taught me.
First, this recording, on this system, provided the most natural-sounding presentation of plucked string bass I have ever heard. I didn't muse about 'extension' or 'air around the instrument': I felt the performance, its nuances and what it gave me musically and emotionally.
Second, if I were a recording engineer, I feel some confidence that I would be able to identify both the microphone used for Peggy Lee's vocal, and the console level setting for the reverb added to her voice, such was the combination of natural sound rendition, technical excellence and most importantly, perhaps, transparency of the presentation to the original performance.
Third, and this is discernible to a surprising degree in the YouTube video, there is genuine shock value in the percussive punctuation that follows Ms Lee's vocal lines. Believe me when I say this effect is stunningly, even memorably better presented through the system when heard in person.
Finally, the shimmer of symbols, and their seemingly perfect sound throughout their sound's decay is mesmerizing. And -- other than noting the reverb added to Ms Lee's vocal track-- I didn't comment upon her voice because I didn't note anything to comment upon, such was the transparency of the presentation. I should mention that this song's vocal presentation is stronger than many, if not most, songs: its explosive leading edge labials and rapid, effortless decay are powerfully exclamatory, like punctuation.
In small aspects of the differences between the Ortofon and the vdH cartridges, there were some details that are perhaps worth a mention. Both gave a strong impression of the recording venue: the vdH was the more delicately nuanced of the two to my ears, but with the power of this recording, that refinement might not be an advantage.
Finger snaps with the Ortofon, by contrast, sounded as though they might have been recorded separately and dubbed in, where with the vdH these snaps sounded fully integrated into the sound track. Vocally there were differences, but neither cartridge seemed to stand out over the other in this frequency range. Bass was stunningly presented by the Ortofon, authoritatively. The ambiance of the recording venue, in my opinion, was differently depicted by each transducer.
For my listening preference, and not knowing the recording that Peter graciously played at my request ( specifically because I had recently listened to the YouTube video ) I feel the Ortofon just flat out had balls. While I did not *by any means* dislike the van den Hull's presentation, the Ortofon's presentation better suited this recording's stringent sonic demands by a substantial margin. I found this one of the most informative comparative demonstrations I've experienced in this hobby.
I remain surprised that so many of these distinctions can clearly be discerned in videos that are easily made with technology that is accessible to most of us. The fact that the differences can readily be heard is due in part, I hypothesize, to the most uncommon resolution capability of Peter's system, carefully assembled around components that match each other with Exceptional, Elusive and Exemplary complementarity. It's like a musician whose licks seem effortless when they result from decades of listening and perfecting one's 'sound', or as Ansel Adams used to say, "Yes, it only took 1/60th of a second to make the photograph.... and forty-two years”.
The impression was Extraordinary for what it taught me.
First, this recording, on this system, provided the most natural-sounding presentation of plucked string bass I have ever heard. I didn't muse about 'extension' or 'air around the instrument': I felt the performance, its nuances and what it gave me musically and emotionally.
Second, if I were a recording engineer, I feel some confidence that I would be able to identify both the microphone used for Peggy Lee's vocal, and the console level setting for the reverb added to her voice, such was the combination of natural sound rendition, technical excellence and most importantly, perhaps, transparency of the presentation to the original performance.
Third, and this is discernible to a surprising degree in the YouTube video, there is genuine shock value in the percussive punctuation that follows Ms Lee's vocal lines. Believe me when I say this effect is stunningly, even memorably better presented through the system when heard in person.
Finally, the shimmer of symbols, and their seemingly perfect sound throughout their sound's decay is mesmerizing. And -- other than noting the reverb added to Ms Lee's vocal track-- I didn't comment upon her voice because I didn't note anything to comment upon, such was the transparency of the presentation. I should mention that this song's vocal presentation is stronger than many, if not most, songs: its explosive leading edge labials and rapid, effortless decay are powerfully exclamatory, like punctuation.
In small aspects of the differences between the Ortofon and the vdH cartridges, there were some details that are perhaps worth a mention. Both gave a strong impression of the recording venue: the vdH was the more delicately nuanced of the two to my ears, but with the power of this recording, that refinement might not be an advantage.
Finger snaps with the Ortofon, by contrast, sounded as though they might have been recorded separately and dubbed in, where with the vdH these snaps sounded fully integrated into the sound track. Vocally there were differences, but neither cartridge seemed to stand out over the other in this frequency range. Bass was stunningly presented by the Ortofon, authoritatively. The ambiance of the recording venue, in my opinion, was differently depicted by each transducer.
For my listening preference, and not knowing the recording that Peter graciously played at my request ( specifically because I had recently listened to the YouTube video ) I feel the Ortofon just flat out had balls. While I did not *by any means* dislike the van den Hull's presentation, the Ortofon's presentation better suited this recording's stringent sonic demands by a substantial margin. I found this one of the most informative comparative demonstrations I've experienced in this hobby.
I remain surprised that so many of these distinctions can clearly be discerned in videos that are easily made with technology that is accessible to most of us. The fact that the differences can readily be heard is due in part, I hypothesize, to the most uncommon resolution capability of Peter's system, carefully assembled around components that match each other with Exceptional, Elusive and Exemplary complementarity. It's like a musician whose licks seem effortless when they result from decades of listening and perfecting one's 'sound', or as Ansel Adams used to say, "Yes, it only took 1/60th of a second to make the photograph.... and forty-two years”.
Similar threads
