Sublime Sound

[microstrip]

(...) In my own case, I find equipment can make a significant difference, as much or more so as setup. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing setup as important.) I've found that without changing speaker position or acoustic treatment I can achieve pin-point images or ... this is not the right way to say it but it's a short cut ... or a more 'natural image' by changing various pieces of equipment. As I thought more on this I looked at some past reviews to see if I'd written about it.

Not quite within the current context of discussion I found in my 2009 SS review of the Lamm LL2.1 Deluxe linestage when constrating that unit to an Atma-Sphere MP1, this: "Without drawing them in precise outlines, it [the LL2.1] placed instruments in a highly realistic acoustic ambience. The Lamm painted the music's story in palpable tonal colors, and led my ear to perceive the orchestra as an integrated whole rather than as collection individuals." (...)

Tim,

I have owned the MP1 and the L2 ref (not the LL2.1 you tested) . They sound quite different and I never used them with the same amplifiers. But no way I found that the MP1 made me perceive an orchestra like "a collection of individuals." IMHO the Lamm LL2/M1.2R is darker than the Atmasphere MP1/MA2 combo, but no way I would consider one more "natural" (whatever this means) than the other. But the "natural" people reading excerpts of your MP1 review http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/revequip/atmasphere_mp1iii.htm could be very upset. IMHO your excellent old review of the MP1 reveals how artificial is this discussion about some components being more natural and less "hifi" than others based on the" pinpoint" heresy.

I quote (an agree with your findings) from your MP1 review:

"What a ride Mahler gives us. From the deep authority of an opening timpani and the lilt of a clownish clarinet in the third movement, to the individuated and dimensional voices of the choir. "
" String sections on Zarathustra displayed that shimmer that only comes from bunches of violinists stroking monofilament with horsehair in time. Musicians and instruments acquired an aural palpability within their venue. I heard the attack of the bamboo reed and percussionists damping their instruments to abate spillover into the next measure. "

"Listen to the sweet inflection from the blended voices of Dolly Parton, Linda Ronstadt, and Emmylou Harris on their Trio album [Warner Brothers 25491-1] as they sing the last line of "Those Memories of You." The MP-1 Mk III lifted and separated the singers in space, their voices clear, dynamic, and rich. "

I once wrote that the Atmasphere combo with Quad ESL63 allowed me to count the teeth of each individual singer in the chorus of Cantata Domino with holographic precision. I could easily return to such system.

The more I read on it in WBF the more I find that "natural" as being debated is not a system attribute but a listener attitude, that drives our preferences. As some wise people said, stereo is not a system standard, but a never ending individual experience.

 

[microstrip]

No and no. Listening with eyes closed is simply a method I sometimes use to exclude the influence that my eyes have on my brain. Listening this way often helps to inform me of particular attributes of live sound. It is different when my eyes are open, but I usually listen and watch live performances. It is more fun that way and less analytical. Listening with eyes shut to someone talking to you in the room is very interesting and this helped me appreciate the quality of sound in my system as I removed room treatments and repositioned my speakers. There are no musicians to watch in my listening room when listening to my system.

I have little experience with binaural listening. I have a few sample CDs with such recordings and I listened to them on my system and through headphones, but I have no real opinion.

I see. When you listen live you want all the spatial information brought by your eyes and enjoy it.
But when listening to stereo you do not want so much information and modify the signal to suppress some parts of the recording, as you enjoy it more that way. OK.

Listening with the eyes shut is a way of testing and challenge your localization training, but IMHO can't be used to appreciate and evaluate system and room setup - unless you are interested in carrying controlled blind tests, something that IMHO is not within reach of audiophiles.

 

[Tango]

I once wrote that the Atmasphere combo with Quad ESL63 allowed me to count the teeth of each individual singer in the chorus of Cantata Domino with holographic precision. I could easily return to such system.

I need to get one of this set.

The more I read on it in WBF the more I find that "natural" as being debated is not a system attribute but a listener attitude, that drives our preferences. As some wise people said, stereo is not a system standard, but a never ending individual experience.

I think it is both.

9 out of 10 people described Lamm as dark. I really don't know why. Doyou also find ML3 dark sir. I asked to rechecking myself of the term tonally dark.

 

[microstrip]

(...) 9 out of 10 people described Lamm as dark. I really don't know why. Doyou also find ML3 dark sir. I asked to rechecking myself of the term tonally dark.

Yes, I found the ML3 to be dark - fortunately the LL1 compensates for it, it is very luminous. In fact I found that the real gem of the Lamm products is the outstanding LL1. If Vladimir could put a remote on it it would be a winner in my system.

 

[microstrip]

I need to get one of this set.

It is unbelievable when you listen to polyphonic renaissance coral music in such systems - we feel like you are singing with them and watching the contribution of each different individual member.

Although I listened to the ESL63 with the LP version, I once also got exactly the same effect with the FIM CD version in Martin Logan Monoliths.

 

[tima]

Dear Francisco - Thank you for your post and for reading my reviews. I thoroughly enjoyed the Atma-Sphere amps and preamps and yet today consider them among the very best when coupled with the speakers they are designed to drive.

It's a bit awkward addressing reviews and gear in Peter's thread as it takes the focus away from Peter's system as his curation has mentioned in the past. In my post #1628 I used examples from my writing to respond to Al M. about different ways for achieving a natural sound from equipment vs setup changes - which I thought relevant to the discussion. You're taking things farther afield so let's agree to remove this discussion if asked. Okay?

But no way I found that the MP1 made me perceive an orchestra like "a collection of individuals."

If you look at the 3rd and 4th final paragraphs in my Lamm LL2.1 review where I described what I heard from the MP-1 Mk.III and the LL2.1, I did not say the the Atma-Sphere MP-1 led me to hear an orchestra like "a collection of individuals." I described what I heard from each unit in turn. However if you want to read that as everything I said about one was not true or different from the other unit, then I'll accept that's the way you read it, although I did write it that way.

The MP-1 individuates musicians and sections with a clarity of definition that the LL2.1 does not. (Remember we're talking 1st tier vs 3rd tier gear, so it's not that surprising.) The MP-1 offers a remarkable clarity both of image and articulation. I found the Lamm preamp presentation overall more integrative, of a whole - that does not mean blurred around the edges or warm - simply, it did not lead me to 'see' individual outlines clearly defined.

I daresay yourself seems, in a way, to contradict your own claim that the MP-1 does not individuate, when you wrote about a collection of teeth in each singer:

I once wrote that the Atmasphere combo with Quad ESL63 allowed me to count the teeth of each individual singer in the chorus of Cantata Domino with holographic precision.

While I fully understand your description of the Atma-Sphere combo, what you wrote would not be a good descrption of the sound of the LL2.1. If you agree with that, then you don't disagree with what I wrote of the MP-1 in my LL2.1 review.

The topic of "is the whole greater or different than the sum of its parts" as it applies to listening could be an amusing thread. Likewise, I invite you to start a thread about "listening with your eyes: open or shut?" Or the topic of "What is Dark?" (hint: it's not Lamm gear.)

 

[tima]

The more I read on it in WBF the more I find that "natural" as being debated is not a system attribute but a listener attitude, that drives our preferences.

It's both. It's a goal and a means to achieve it. As I divied the audiophile world into naturalists and synthesists (or new realists), I characterized these as the basis of preference underlying how we go about building and assessing our systems.

Toe-in or straight. Ching-Cheng or audiophile power cords. Acoustic treatments or no. Peter's thread (if I may be so bold) is partly about his journey toward the light fulfilling of his preference for live acoustic music in the way his system delivers sound.

Both orientations are perfectly legitimate. Thus when Ian writes:

Perhaps I've missed it, but what is the supposed negative of pin-point imaging?

The answer is simple: If you enjoy it, there is nothing wrong or negative about pin-point imaging. It is a psycho-acoustic aural illusion that one can create or cause to be heard. Many people find this one of the great joys of a high-end system. Others orient their systems toward the sound of live acoustic music. You get to choose.

 

[treitz3]

Threads like this do make one wonder whether or not audiophiles actually do listen to the music or their gear.

As for pin point imaging and having to choose between this and the sound of live acoustic music? Eh, I'll take both please. No need to choose. One can have both. Well, at least within the limitations of my signature.

Tom

 

[ddk]

Threads like this do make one wonder whether or not audiophiles actually do listen to the music or their gear.

As for pin point imaging and having to choose between this and the sound of live acoustic music? Eh, I'll take both please. No need to choose. One can have both. Well, at least within the limitations of my signature.

Tom

Of course it’s a personal choice Tom but pin point/carved out imaging is a coloration that has a negative effect on tone and tonal balance. Generally ambience and background is also altered by the component to enhance the effect. The reason you see this argument here is because the thread has become about a journey towards “natural” sound and I mentioned fake imaging as an example.

david

 

[Mike Lavigne]

our own WBF version of the cancel culture. at home i wear my 'i like imaging' hat. don't dare go out in public like that, of course.

 

[jeff1225]

Dear Francisco - Thank you for your post and for reading my reviews. I thoroughly enjoyed the Atma-Sphere amps and preamps and yet today consider them among the very best when coupled with the speakers they are designed to drive.

It's a bit awkward addressing reviews and gear in Peter's thread as it takes the focus away from Peter's system as his curation has mentioned in the past. In my post #1628 I used examples from my writing to respond to Al M. about different ways for achieving a natural sound from equipment vs setup changes - which I thought relevant to the discussion. You're taking things farther afield so let's agree to remove this discussion if asked. Okay?



If you look at the 3rd and 4th final paragraphs in my Lamm LL2.1 review where I described what I heard from the MP-1 Mk.III and the LL2.1, I did not say the the Atma-Sphere MP-1 led me to hear an orchestra like "a collection of individuals." I described what I heard from each unit in turn. However if you want to read that as everything I said about one was not true or different from the other unit, then I'll accept that's the way you read it, although I did write it that way.

The MP-1 individuates musicians and sections with a clarity of definition that the LL2.1 does not. (Remember we're talking 1st tier vs 3rd tier gear, so it's not that surprising.) The MP-1 offers a remarkable clarity both of image and articulation. I found the Lamm preamp presentation overall more integrative, of a whole - that does not mean blurred around the edges or warm - simply, it did not lead me to 'see' individual outlines clearly defined.

I daresay yourself seems, in a way, to contradict your own claim that the MP-1 does not individuate, when you wrote about a collection of teeth in each singer:



While I fully understand your description of the Atma-Sphere combo, what you wrote would not be a good descrption of the sound of the LL2.1. If you agree with that, then you don't disagree with what I wrote of the MP-1 in my LL2.1 review.

The topic of "is the whole greater or different than the sum of its parts" as it applies to listening could be an amusing thread. Likewise, I invite you to start a thread about "listening with your eyes: open or shut?" Or the topic of "What is Dark?" (hint: it's not Lamm gear.)

Tim,
Thank you for posting your review. Although I own the LL2.1 Deluxe, I have to admit that I’ve never read any reviews of it. When I purchased the LL2.1 I had the venerable Hovland 100 in my system. The Hovland was sweet and performed more “audiophile” tricks than the Lamm. The Lamm, however, made music more enjoyable overall and allowed me to listen fatigue free for hours.

I think your review really captures the nature of the Lamm. Well done.

 

[spiritofmusic]

our own WBF version of the cancel culture. at home i wear my 'i like imaging' hat. don't dare go out in public like that, of course.

Luckily there's no Cancel Culture on WBF, otherwise my Zus would already have been thrown in our creek by "mainly peaceful audiophiles".

 

[dan31]

our own WBF version of the cancel culture. at home i wear my 'i like imaging' hat. don't dare go out in public like that, of course.

I’m with you Mike. I have wanted to comment a few times but I see no point. At least Peter seems happy for the time being.

 

[wil]

I see. When you listen live you want all the spatial information brought by your eyes and enjoy it.
But when listening to stereo you do not want so much information and modify the signal to suppress some parts of the recording, as you enjoy it more that way. OK.

Listening with the eyes shut is a way of testing and challenge your localization training, but IMHO can't be used to appreciate and evaluate system and room setup - unless you are interested in carrying controlled blind tests, something that IMHO is not within reach of audiophiles.

Can you elaborate on that? Why would listening with eyes closed interfere with evaluating your system?

I find that listening with eyes closed, whether live or stereo, to sometimes help me listen deeply without distraction

 

[morricab]

Of course it’s a personal choice Tom but pin point/carved out imaging is a coloration that has a negative effect on tone and tonal balance. Generally ambience and background is also altered by the component to enhance the effect. The reason you see this argument here is because the thread has become about a journey towards “natural” sound and I mentioned fake imaging as an example.

david

Ultimately, David, this should be recording question, not gear question. I have recordings where the imaging is extremely precise and you feel like you could walk into the stage and place all the musicians on the stage and even the heights of the performers and percussion etc. Then there are recordings where this is more, shall we say impressionistic, and you know vaguely where things are located but not pinpoint sharp. I never adhered to the Art Duddleyeque idea that imaging doesn't matter and that only tone and dynamics matter. With stereo recordings, the spatial information is, to one degree or another encoded information. If it is retrieved correctly you will have the right tone, dynamics and yes space and imaging. IMO, good imaging and natural sound are by no means mutually exclusive. IMO, if a system has a bold tone and dynamics but a wall of undifferentiated sound then that system has an issue...probably resonance control and/or distortion. If a system has pinpoint imaging but no tone and dynamics are flat then it is also flawed in other ways. Stereo recordings are all about "fake" imaging because you don't have visual cues to allow that localization to be supported with your eyes. A system should be able to decode this to create a credible image and soundstage.

 

[jazdoc]

our own WBF version of the cancel culture. at home i wear my 'i like imaging' hat. don't dare go out in public like that, of course.

I've seen the videos of your types out in Portland, wearing your "Pinpoint imaging or death" hats, screaming at audiophiles as they try and listen to their SME tonearms...

 

[ddk]

Ultimately, David, this should be recording question, not gear question. I have recordings where the imaging is extremely precise and you feel like you could walk into the stage and place all the musicians on the stage and even the heights of the performers and percussion etc. Then there are recordings where this is more, shall we say impressionistic, and you know vaguely where things are located but not pinpoint sharp. I never adhered to the Art Duddleyeque idea that imaging doesn't matter and that only tone and dynamics matter. With stereo recordings, the spatial information is, to one degree or another encoded information. If it is retrieved correctly you will have the right tone, dynamics and yes space and imaging. IMO, good imaging and natural sound are by no means mutually exclusive. IMO, if a system has a bold tone and dynamics but a wall of undifferentiated sound then that system has an issue...probably resonance control and/or distortion. If a system has pinpoint imaging but no tone and dynamics are flat then it is also flawed in other ways. Stereo recordings are all about "fake" imaging because you don't have visual cues to allow that localization to be supported with your eyes. A system should be able to decode this to create a credible image and soundstage.

The stereo image and what's on the recording isn't the issue, the presentation changes from one recording to another and those images aren't highlighted the same way in every recording you playback and tonal balance isn't manipulated by a cable to draw the same picture over and over again and then hailed as real. These are two different things.

david

 

[treitz3]

Gentlemen, let's the keep any and all references to politics OUT of this discussion. Even political "swipes" and things that you know will only lead to a negative impact for this thread and for the forum.

If you want to discuss politics, the admin team will gladly offer you an involuntary vacation so that you may comment about all things political on boards other than this one. This is the first and ONLY official warning you will receive.

Politics are not to be discussed on the WBF in any way, shape or form. This is not up for debate. Thank you.

Tom

 

[treitz3]

Of course it’s a personal choice Tom but pin point/carved out imaging is a coloration that has a negative effect on tone and tonal balance. Generally ambience and background is also altered by the component to enhance the effect. The reason you see this argument here is because the thread has become about a journey towards “natural” sound and I mentioned fake imaging as an example.

Fake imaging to me is what an MBL speaker offers. I have never seen a live violin player with a 6 foot wide image. Yes, it's "airy" and "spacious" but grossly overaggressive in perceived size. This is one extreme.

The other extreme IME and on my system is pin-point locationality cues that allow the listener to still know exactly how big the venue is, where the singers are up on stage. How high the stage is in relation to the listening position, where the instruments are located, even so much as to where they are changing the notes of a guitar in relation to where they are plucking, while still being able to distinguish where each respective instrument is up on stage.

A perfect example of this would be Al Di Meola, John McLaughlin and Paco de Lucía's, "Friday Night in San Francisco". I can perceive all of the aforementioned on this album with no detectable negative effect on tone and tonal balance. This is the best of the best.

Now with that said, I can put in another album and every aspect changes. I concur with morricab in that it's more the recording instead of the gear. This is confirmed (to me) with listening to the same album on different formats with different mastering of the same exact album. All aspects of everything that both you and I have mentioned so far can and most of the time, will be different.....yet the gear never changes.

Tom

 

[morricab]

The stereo image and what's on the recording isn't the issue, the presentation changes from one recording to another and those images aren't highlighted the same way in every recording you playback and tonal balance isn't manipulated by a cable to draw the same picture over and over again and then hailed as real. These are two different things.

david

Any time a system presents recordings in the same way regardless of the recording has some kind of wrong to it. If a system ALWAYS etches the imaging, this is wrong just like if a system always presents no real soundfield this is also wrong.