Sublime Sound

[bonzo75]

Sure, each to their own. I feel the language here has gone beyond the often frustrating "natural" type discussions, to something which doesn't speak to me at all, bordering on quasi mystical. That's not the hobby I relate to. There's enough of that in my profession for me to rub up against. Good luck to Peter and all those that his words and concepts chime with.

When people write what they hear, words flow easily and most can relate. When people try to force a write up, things go mystical or Shakespearean.

 

[Al M.]

Sure, each to their own. I feel the language here has gone beyond the often frustrating "natural" type discussions, to something which doesn't speak to me at all, bordering on quasi mystical. That's not the hobby I relate to.

Really? I find your Entreq grounding boxes quasi mystical.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Oh, the magic has worn off those. Al, I've already admitted I'm prone to verbose prose myself, being responsible more than most humans for vandalism of the word "epiphany". That doesn't detract from my argument.

And you're comparing apples and oranges. Or should I say, rabbit paw prints and horse hoof marks.

 

[wil]

Hello Tim,

Yes, I think you are understanding what I wrote, though if it were clearer, you might not have needed to read it multiple times or ask for further clarification.

These are my impressions or how I understand things to be, but that by no means makes them correct or testable/measurable or objective, so it may not satisfy those who are so inclined. I agree that air and energy exist in both the concert hall and in the listening room. They are perceived and are therefore of relative importance to the listener. They exist but it was not until my visit to Vienna that I was asked to think about the energy of the voices or instruments rather than their sound. I suppose it is simply a different way of thinking about things.

Managing the energy in the room is an idea introduced to me by David Karmeli. I think people have been doing this ever since they discovered that speaker placement and room treatments and furniture arrangements can alter the way we perceive the sound of our systems. Dr. Poltun and ddk simply seem to use the term "energy" more than others who discuss such things.

You seem to question our ability to "manage" the dimensions of the perceived soundstage in our rooms as representative of the information embedded on the recording of the actual recording venue when you write this: " The "undulating hills, the horizon, the sky, the edges of the field" of the concert hall shape? manage? the air and energy in the hall that hopefully is captured on the recording." I think I understand why you question this. Your question implies that the recording is the recording and the information on it should not be "managed" or manipulated if we want to hear as close a representation as possible. I agree with that, but this is where I find perception can be a bit confusing.

When I attend the BSO or a small chamber concert, the boundaries of the stage, or the room, are not very evident, just as the images of the musicians are not precisely outlined. Without the visual aids, I sense that the stage is large or small, live, or damped, perhaps wide and shallow, narrow and deep, wood, or stone. More acute listeners may even be able to sense if the air is dry or humid, or hall empty or full. I am sensing the character, not really the dimensions and boundaries. I think these are the qualities captured on good recordings.

When I had my speakers toed in toward the listener, the soundstage and images was more defined in my mind's eye, and my perception was that the stage was more shallow, wider up front with sides that tapered quickly with depth. It seemed like a wide, shallow triangle, but quite precise. Oh, and the background was more "black". This perception was reinforced by my room treatments with the acoustic panels and TubeTraps. Everything was put into stark contrast and relief. I found this to be quite "impressive" and thought "wow", now that is 3D and palpable. I now consider those to be artifacts of set up, and more representative of a "hifi" sound.

I then began a long effort to reposition the speakers in the room, to reorient them away from the listener, and to slowly remove various acoustic treatments. This altered the relationship between direct and reflected sound and changed how the energy moved around the room and was perceived at the listening seat. The result was less precise dimensions but a more convincing representation of the space's character or "atmosphere". The stage became deeper and wider from front to back. The back of the stage in particular, became much wider and was more in relation to the front of the stage. It was more of a rectangular space seen from the front rather than a triangle. The stage boundaries grew outward and upward but became less precise. The character of the stage's surfaces and how energy moves within that space became more apparent. The musicians were clearly located in place and in a "space", but less outlined and precise. The energy in my listening room became freer and less constrained.

I think "the managing of the energy within the room" is a way to describe how positioning the speakers, the listening seat, and the furnishings allows the information from the recording, the energy, out into the room to create some semblance of the character of the space in which the recording was made. The key here is to do no harm and to be faithful to the signal or energy leaving the speakers. It is a balancing act, one best made with a clear reference to how real music in real space sounds. And the whole thing is subjective and open to criticism and judgement and uncertainty. That is why I asked myself if what I was doing was more or less natural sounding to me based on my experience with life music.

My room had been overdamped. Subtle spatial cues on the recording were lost in my listening room. Certain frequencies were attenuated or emphasized. I suppose one can never be sure or certain about reaching the perfect balance, but that is why David suggested that every change I make should answer the question of is it more or less natural sounding. It is a judgement call. One works until he is satisfied, and it helps if he has a goal or reference in mind.

This may be a very long way of describing what many here already know. I am just trying to explain what I have learned about this subject in the last year or so doing fairly careful experiments and fine tuning. People hire Jim Smith to do this kind of work. He talks in terms of allowing the music to escape the system (or something to that effect). David does it too, and he describes it as "managing the energy in the room". Good dealers and audiophiles can certainly do it too and people appreciate such efforts.

For some to think that nothing has changed in my system simply because I still have the same speakers/amps/turntable or mistaken. I hear and appreciate the changes from my myopic position. Ack heard the changes mid way through and hated the results. Al M. had, I think, mixed impressions, until recently when things finally fell into place. If nothing had changed, my friends who know my system pretty well would not have reacted that way.

Jim Smith visited my house, changed my old speaker positions, my listening seat location, and experimented with the orientation of my acoustic treatments. If these things did not result in a marked improvement in his clients' listening enjoyment, he would not have a business and his services would not be recommended.

I have learned that set up can have a profound effect on my enjoyment of my system. "Managing the energy in the room" is really about the interaction of the system and the room as perceived by the listener. I am beginning to wonder if it is not even more important than the gear itself, once that gear is of some fairly good level of performance.

Interesting in that I just read an account of a set-up Stirling Trayle did. The language used to describe what he was listening for was very similar to "managing the energy of the room." He was described, by the client, as focused on feeling the sound pressure of the room, (at least through most of the set-up process), rather than responding to the music. He also spends most of his time on setting up one speaker optimally, and then setting up the other based on the first.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Well, Peter is "getting" what these important figures have stressed to him is important, vital even. For my part, Ron R encapsulated what he liked about my sound when he visited...that 70W Class A Nat triodes plus 300W Class D subs enable my 101dB/1m Zus to truly energise my 800 sq ft/5500 cub ft room.

But I'm not certain Peter's description of energy in his room is what I've described in mine.

 

[Al M.]

And you're comparing apples and oranges. Or should I say, rabbit paw prints and horse hoof marks.

Gosh, I didn't much pay attention to the rabbit paw prints. Is that what you're stumbling over? Really?

Like others, I thought Peter had described things very well in #1772, the post preceding your criticism. He did so without resorting to that analogy.

 

[Al M.]

Nothing from your rabbit footprints description, to room energy management concept, and what sounds like a quasi religious revelation of what a guru like figure had impressed upon you previously, in any way gels or connects with me.

I don't consider David Karmeli a guru, and neither does Peter. I disagree with some things he says in terms of audio or don't take them as absolute *), and so does Peter, from what he told me.

But unlike others who apparently think less of David's ideas, I have learned a good deal from his advice and suggestions. It is obvious that David has been around the block a few times and clearly knows what he is talking about.

You can learn a lot from very diverse people, including ones who strongly disagree with one another themselves. We're all just human beings (no gurus involved), but many have good things to contribute in their own way. And you don't need to take anyone's word as absolute.

________________________

*) for example, while I severely toe out my speakers, they are not always toed out straight. I often use slight toe-in angles to adjust for tonal balance, depending on humidity etc. The main thing is to avoid the dreaded unnatural pinpoint imaging.

 

[tima]

Sure, each to their own. I feel the language here has gone beyond the often frustrating "natural" type discussions, to something which doesn't speak to me at all, bordering on quasi mystical. That's not the hobby I relate to. There's enough of that in my profession for me to rub up against. Good luck to Peter and all those that his words and concepts chime with.

Gosh Marc - I thought your high-end power cord into a turntable power supply thread was rather mystical.

 

[tima]

You seem to question our ability to "manage" the dimensions of the perceived soundstage in our rooms as representative of the information embedded on the recording of the actual recording venue when you write this: " The "undulating hills, the horizon, the sky, the edges of the field" of the concert hall shape? manage? the air and energy in the hall that hopefully is captured on the recording." I think I understand why you question this. Your question implies that the recording is the recording and the information on it should not be "managed" or manipulated if we want to hear as close a representation as possible. I agree with that, but this is where I find perception can be a bit confusing.

Fwiw, In my sentence you quoted in italics and as I tend to do generally, when I write a ? after a word it is me questioning whether that word is apt, whether it is the right word I want to say. Used in that way I don't mean to write an interogative sentence.

I too believe in not trying to manipulate or manage what is on the record as retrieved by a cartridge and generally as amplified and reproduced by a system. That's probably a general tenet of the naturalist high-end and one area where I agreed with HP who talked about such as a rationale for not buying gear with tone-controls on a preamp.

Manipulating the environment in which a system operates is not manipulating what is on the recording.

I haven't worked all this out yet, but for now the way I see it is there is sound energy in the recording hall / venue largely created by a result of musicians playing their instruments. That energy is variably influenced by the hall itself - its location, construction, dimensions, furnishings, etc. And that impact is often captured on the recording to varying degrees: reflections, absorbtions, in-hall acoustic devices. Etc.

Then, there is sound energy in the listening room when music is reproduced. That energy is impacted by the system's environment. That is the environment we can manipulate. Listening chair distance, speaker arrangements, acoustic devices in the room, component support, the electricity fed to the system, etc.

Managing energy of the reproduction environment is not the same as listening to music on your stereo.

The capture and subsequent reproduction of the sound in the hall - what an audience to the performance might hear - is one of the joys of using live acoustic music as a reference. And that reference can guide us in manipulating the reproduction environment - managing the energy in the listening room for the purpose of more closely experiencing what an in-hall audience member might experience while listening to a recording.

While we can pay attention to energy created as a bow crosses strings and how that energy emits through the air and around the instruments body, and do a similar experiment on a large scale in a concert hall, we only have access to the energy that is with us, here and now: the rabbit that hops out of the speakers. The snow in the reproduction context is not the snow in the concert hall. The undulating hills of the concert hall are not the terrain of the living room. Is what we're after more closely representing the footprints of the concert hall in the listening room?

I still believe in, as you wrote you do not, in listening "to the sound of the cello to see if the timbre was correct, to see how much string texture and tone there was compared to the hollow sound of wood, its body and weight and richness; I listened to the tonal balance of the various frequencies." - at least as far as assessing or comparing gear. When listening without analysis, purely for pleasure I try to get to a point where there are no words. Part of the beauty of enjoying music is each of us can do it our own way. And it is also fun to share our experiences here - even if they are mystical.

 

[PeterA]

Fwiw, In my sentence you quoted in italics and as I tend to do generally, when I write a ? after a word it is me questioning whether that word is apt, whether it is the right word I want to say. Used in that way I don't mean to write an interogative sentence.

I too believe in not trying to manipulate or manage what is on the record as retrieved by a cartridge and generally as amplified and reproduced by a system. That's probably a general tenet of the naturalist high-end and one area where I agreed with HP who talked about such as a rationale for not buying gear with tone-controls on a preamp.

Manipulating the environment in which a system operates is not manipulating what is on the recording.

I haven't worked all this out yet, but for now the way I see it is there is sound energy in the recording hall / venue largely created by a result of musicians playing their instruments. That energy is variably influenced by the hall itself - its location, construction, dimensions, furnishings, etc. And that impact is often captured on the recording to varying degrees: reflections, absorbtions, in-hall acoustic devices. Etc.

Then, there is sound energy in the listening room when music is reproduced. That energy is impacted by the system's environment. That is the environment we can manipulate. Listening chair distance, speaker arrangements, acoustic devices in the room, component support, the electricity fed to the system, etc.

Managing energy of the reproduction environment is not the same as listening to music on your stereo.

The capture and subsequent reproduction of the sound in the hall - what an audience to the performance might hear - is one of the joys of using live acoustic music as a reference. And that reference can guide us in manipulating the reproduction environment - managing the energy in the listening room for the purpose of more closely experiencing what an in-hall audience member might experience while listening to a recording.

While we can pay attention to energy created as a bow crosses strings and how that energy emits through the air and around the instruments body, and do a similar experiment on a large scale in a concert hall, we only have access to the energy that is with us, here and now: the rabbit that hops out of the speakers. The snow in the reproduction context is not the snow in the concert hall. The undulating hills of the concert hall are not the terrain of the living room. Is what we're after more closely representing the footprints of the concert hall in the listening room?

I still believe in, as you wrote you do not, in listening "to the sound of the cello to see if the timbre was correct, to see how much string texture and tone there was compared to the hollow sound of wood, its body and weight and richness; I listened to the tonal balance of the various frequencies." - at least as far as assessing or comparing gear. When listening without analysis, purely for pleasure I try to get to a point where there are no words. Part of the beauty of enjoying music is each of us can do it our own way. And it is also fun to share our experiences here - even if they are mystical.

Thanks Tim. I highlighted four sentences or sections of your post and would like to respond to each.

1. I agree that manipulating the environment in which a system operates is not manipulating what is on the recording. I view it more as creating a listening environment that allows what is on the recording to be more representative of what we remember when we experience real music in a live setting.

2. The second sentence which I highlighted is not clear to me. The two acts of managing the energy in the room and listening to one's system in that room seem related, though they are distinct activities. One is an active pursuit requiring patience and some skill/experience and having a reference in mind, the other is the passive pursuit of enjoying the fruits of that labor. I think how enjoyable the latter part is is dependent upon how successful one is at doing the former. At least, that has been the case for me.

3. I would answer YES to the question that I am after more closely representing the footprints of the concert hall in my listening room.

4. Finally, I am not sure how far apart you and I are when it comes to assessing the outcome of such set up efforts or differences between components. This next part is a bit difficult to explain because my way of thinking about the sound of instruments and audio systems has been so ingrained for so long, so please bear with me as I try to explain this.

During the process of fine tuning, managing, manipulating, and otherwise adjusting things, and also when comparing one piece of gear to another, I am increasingly making judgements in more holistic terms than I did before. All of those attributes of a cello's sound that you mention are inherently a part of my question: "Does it sound more or less natural". The difference is that now I am stepping back a bit and not focusing so closely on particular attributes but rather on the whole sound. Does it sound "right" or not? I think you are asking yourself something similar, but more precisely about the parts, the microdynamics of the bow against the string, for instance, or the degree to which the resonance of the wooden body is warm or rich sounding. You are just asking it about more specific things, you are breaking down the sound into smaller pieces. Perhaps this is because you are a reviewer and you need to convey your impressions to readers in terms they have learned to understand. I spoke that language too, for years. But over time, I am realizing that it is no longer how I hear that cello playing next to that piano, up close in a living room. The language we use and I understood for years seems no longer able to convey the full experience to me. It is somehow lacking. I guess I just no longer relate to it the way I once did.

One important way in which I think my system has improved is that it does not highlight particular attributes as often or in as stark or obvious a way as it once did. I can point to fewer things that stick out to distract me from the music. My listening is more relaxed now, and less consciously focused on the quality of the sound. I used to think that a cable was "bright" because I heard high frequency accents in massed strings or something. Now I just think that this does not sound natural because the massed strings have too much high frequency distortion, or emphasis. They simply do not sound right.

In an odd way, I am reminded now of what I used to think when listening to music years ago in my dorm room or over my car radio. I just enjoyed the music. I did not break it down and try to understand what was wrong with it. I am slowly returning to that feeling about listening to music once again over my much more sophisticated audio system now. And this once more takes me to that Jeff Day article and his "listening window". I had somehow lost that sense of abandon and unhindered enjoyment with my system. I am only now getting back to it.

Perhaps it is just splitting hairs, or perhaps I am entering the mystical realm, but this change of what I listen for, this perspective from a few steps further back, corresponds with my listening more closely to live performances about a year ago and realizing that the sound of real instruments, of real music, is not experienced by analyzing parts but by experiencing the whole, the energy that a cello makes in the room. Thinking about it this way just seemed to come as the sound from my system changed in my room.

I understand that this is very personal and that others will surely disagree or not understand this. I also understand that this simplified language will hinder communication of specific ideas about sound and audio systems on a forum such as this. However, I also think that some who experience live music and their systems in similar ways will be able to relate to what I am writing.

 

[wil]

Thanks Tim. I highlighted four sentences or sections of your post and would like to respond to each.

2. The second sentence which I highlighted is not clear to me. The two acts of managing the energy in the room and listening to one's system in that room seem related, though they are distinct activities. One is an active pursuit requiring patience and some skill/experience and having a reference in mind, the other is the passive pursuit of enjoying the fruits of that labor.

Another great post on a subject that is starting to tap on the door the mind/music experience. I'd just say I believe the listening part is just as active (not passive) as the analytical audiophile system focused part-- but focused instead on riding along the currents of the music.

 

[PeterA]

When people write what they hear, words flow easily and most can relate. When people try to force a write up, things go mystical or Shakespearean.

Yes and people are very quick to criticize or dismiss that which they do not understand or can not relate to. It also happens when conventional wisdom is questioned.

This is also a members virtual system thread and I think there should be some latitude given to how the author chooses to express himself. This is not a formal published review nor is it a specific thread opened to discuss a specific component, or some aspect of audio engineering sciences.

It is simply my take on what I am hearing and experiencing from my system based on its evolution and my changing response to it.

That people read it and then criticize it for style or language and dismiss it because they are left feeling cold Is fascinating to me given that this kind of reaction does not generally happen when people describe their systems using the audiophile glossary of terms.

These reactions started showing up when an increasing number of people started to describe things in terms of sounding natural and began to question the way Audio has been discussed or thought about over the last few decades.

I wonder why.

 

[microstrip]

I don't consider David Karmeli a guru, and neither does Peter. I disagree with some things he says in terms of audio or don't take them as absolute *), and so does Peter, from what he told me.

Al M.,
Audiophiles are curious. Can we know what are your other disagreements?

But unlike others who apparently think less of David's ideas, I have learned a good deal from his advice and suggestions. It is obvious that David has been around the block a few times and clearly knows what he is talking about.

It is not a question of thinking more or less. It is simply that our current preferences and objectives are different from those of David.

*) for example, while I severely toe out my speakers, they are not always toed out straight. I often use slight toe-in angles to adjust for tonal balance, depending on humidity etc. The main thing is to avoid the dreaded unnatural pinpoint imaging.

I can't understand this dogmatic fixation on straight speakers and pinpoint imaging. People have used straight speakers and used toe-in to create an image they like since long. Toe-in set up depends on speaker dispersion and room acoustic properties. How can we expect that there is an unique position for all cases?

BTW, you reported more than once excellent sound quality from Goodwins and several other places. Where they affected by the "the dreaded unnatural pinpoint imaging"?

 

[PeterA]

Another great post on a subject that is starting to tap on the door the mind/music experience. I'd just say I believe the listening part is just as active (not passive) as the analytical audiophile system focused part-- but focused instead on riding along the currents of the music.

Thank you Wil. I do agree with your comment that both parts are active. I guess the distinction I would make is that one is focused more on the sound and the other is focused more on the music.

 

[Al M.]

Al M.,
Audiophiles are curious. Can we know what are your other disagreements?

No, it is not "we" or "audiophiles", it is you who is curious.

BTW, you reported more than once excellent sound quality from Goodwins and several other places. Where they affected by the "the dreaded unnatural pinpoint imaging"?

I don't remember the imaging at every Goodwin's audition from a time where I did not find pinpoint imaging objectionable. At the last audition, of Rockport Lyra speakers with the Vivaldi stack as source, imaging was fine. IIRC the speakers were completely toed out (as they were with every Rockport audition).

 

[tima]

.... All of those attributes of a cello's sound that you mention are inherently a part of my question: "Does it sound more or less natural". The difference is that now I am stepping back a bit and not focusing so closely on particular attributes but rather on the whole sound. Does it sound "right" or not? I think you are asking yourself something similar, but more precisely about the parts, the microdynamics of the bow against the string, for instance, or the degree to which the resonance of the wooden body is warm or rich sounding. You are just asking it about more specific things, you are breaking down the sound into smaller pieces. Perhaps this is because you are a reviewer and you need to convey your impressions to readers in terms they have learned to understand. I spoke that language too, for years. But over time, I am realizing that it is no longer how I hear that cello playing next to that piano, up close in a living room. The language we use and I understood for years seems no longer able to convey the full experience to me. It is somehow lacking. I guess I just no longer relate to it the way I once did.

From a larger perspective I don't believe there is much difference in the way you and I listen to music or regard the importance of system setup in our respective rooms. Or put differently I believe we are more in agreement than not. And we share the preference of using live acoustic music as a reference. If the two of us sat together and listened to a few pieces of music we both enjoy, I bet a discussion afterwards would find much in common in terms of how we talked about what we heard.

When I write about what I hear I often do a 'deeper dive' into describing what I hear using the language of music and the language of listening. To me, for a review, there are two parts to that:

1) The fundamentals start with what's in the score: tonality, dynamics and timing. (This is where I believe Jim Smith and I are close.) Notes, their emphasis, loudness and softness, and their duration. Those are not separate elements as the latter apply concurrently to the notes. As performance art music happens in time, but when describing that performance (what I hear with the equipment under review) one breaks that into words that describe the various elements individually. It comes out as analysis but the parts are of a whole.

2) Then there is the 'standard' audiophile vocabulary. We dicker over meanings and whether various items in the vocabulary are useful. We talk about micro-dynamics, transients, flow, etc. Some of it is about what we've come to call psycho-acoustic effects - stuff not on the score - stuff that happens largely in our heads as we listen, but also stuff that enough of us seem to share in common as experiences, such as depth or air. I think the audiophile vocabulary is actually fairly sophisticated, but one needs be careful how it is used. I also think it can be misleading at times and different people will place emphasis on certain words and phrases differently. Words such as "slam" or "musical" I won't use.

If we do disagree (and maybe we don't) it may be here: I believe one can convey to others one's experience with the two above "analytical" elements, but that does not preclude also including a holistic experience or naturalist perspective.(1) It does not preclude a summing up, or asking what sounds natural - does it sound natural? - and discussing what is "natural." We need both ways of talking. One focus is not antithetical to or the opposite of the other. I dare speculate you will come to acknowledge this in time.

When I say "Managing energy of the reproduction environment is not the same as listening to music on your stereo." I agree with you that these are related. But I don't believe one can satisfactorily describe what one hears solely in terms of energy. We can talk about hearing the bow draw across strings and sound emanating into the room, but, imo, we can't soley describe listening to that piece of music in that way. We can talk about changing system gear or setup to better manage energy in the room, but we do not have a real vocabulary for describing listening to music in those terms. No doubt there is a language of sound energy, but it is not the language of music or listening.

Sure, saying something like "I found placing 6 rubber rings between steel plates beneath my turntable sounds more natural than 10 rings" is fine. You, or whomever says that, understands quite well what it means. Or "think in terms of managing energy in the room." Perfectly legitimate and it works in practice. But when describing those things to others, they alone may not be enough, those phrases alone may be inadequate to get a meaning across. Or put differently, we have countless posts and pages here trying to come to grips with what these things mean amongst each other. Fwiw, I think those discussions have proved quite fruitful in building concurrence among some of us. We each have our different personal experiences, but a key characteristic of being an audiophile is sharing those.

(1) In the next post, I quote passages from two reviews I wrote six years apart. Coincidentally they are both for Lamm components. For those uninterested, feel free to skip over them.

 

[tima]

2009 Soundstage Lamm LL2.1

"We can describe music and its reproduction via a core analysis of dynamics, rhythm, and tonality. But apart from an orchestra conductor’s internal vision, looking at these elements of a score does little to communicate the art of a performance. I found that the LL2.1 revealed its character not through analysis but holistically. Listening through it was like sitting farther back in the hall -- not in terms of image scale or dynamic impact, but in the sense that it seldom pulled my perceptions into tight diagnostic focus. While I never forgot that I was reviewing the Lamm, this awareness seldom took me out of the moment -- in fact, just the opposite. While I heard gobs of musical minutiae, the LL2.1’s personality was of a whole; it delivered music with the completeness of its designer’s vision."

By the end of my listening sessions, the audiophile words tended to fall away. The LL2.1’s expressive flow, stalwart bass, and superb dynamics, combined with a wonderful sense of acoustic presence and harmonic rightness, made me stop thinking about componentry, and drew me in for many a joyful night of musical satisfaction. Its virtue is its guileless blending of these attributes into a unified whole. To my ears, it just felt like home. I described the Lamm’s sound as holistic -- a word that might take on more meaning for you after you’ve heard it. When you have, tell me if you think otherwise. I say "Thank you, Vladimir" -- it’s good to be an audiophile. "

2015 The Audio Beat Lamm M1.2 Ref

" ... They delivered sound with concert-hall authority, realistic tonality and unflinching honesty that caused me to immediately engage with the music. The emotional pleasure we get when we lose ourselves in music and arrive at that locus of disbelief, slipping out of our audio systems and into the reality of the performance, is the apex of enjoyment for many an audiophile. It’s what I call the audiophile miracle, a kind of sonic transubstantiation whereby metal, glass and wire turn into joy.

The Lamm amps are limbic-driving joy machines -- miracle makers that kept me up all night begging for just one more record. These are amps for musicians, not analyticians. ..."

 

[microstrip]

No, it is not "we" or "audiophiles", it is you who is curious.

Yes, I am curious on such audiophile matters. I have told it many times. I appreciate to know and discuss the whys's. Perhaps you are right, people are not curious anymore in WBF - it is probably why this thread is becoming mystical.

 

[the sound of Tao]

From a larger perspective I don't believe there is much difference in the way you and I listen to music or regard the importance of system setup in our respective rooms. Or put differently I believe we are more in agreement than not. And we share the preference of using live acoustic music as a reference. If the two of us sat together and listened to a few pieces of music we both enjoy, I bet a discussion afterwards would find much in common in terms of how we talked about what we heard.

When I write about what I hear I often do a 'deeper dive' into describing what I hear using the language of music and the language of listening. To me, for a review, there are two parts to that:

1) The fundamentals start with what's in the score: tonality, dynamics and timing. (This is where I believe Jim Smith and I are close.) Notes, their emphasis, loudness and softness, and their duration. Those are not separate elements as the latter apply concurrently to the notes. As performance art music happens in time, but when describing that performance (what I hear with the equipment under review) one breaks that into words that describe the various elements individually. It comes out as analysis but the parts are of a whole.

2) Then there is the 'standard' audiophile vocabulary. We dicker over meanings and whether various items in the vocabulary are useful. We talk about micro-dynamics, transients, flow, etc. Some of it is about what we've come to call psycho-acoustic effects - stuff not on the score - stuff that happens largely in our heads as we listen, but also stuff that enough of us seem to share in common as experiences, such as depth or air. I think the audiophile vocabulary is actually fairly sophisticated, but one needs be careful how it is used. I also think it can be misleading at times and different people will place emphasis on certain words and phrases differently. Words such as "slam" or "musical" I won't use.

If we do disagree (and maybe we don't) it may be here: I believe one can convey to others one's experience with the two above "analytical" elements, but that does not preclude also including a holistic experience or naturalist perspective.(1) It does not preclude a summing up, or asking what sounds natural - does it sound natural? - and discussing what is "natural." We need both ways of talking. One focus is not antithetical to or the opposite of the other. I dare speculate you will come to acknowledge this in time.

When I say "Managing energy of the reproduction environment is not the same as listening to music on your stereo." I agree with you that these are related. But I don't believe one can satisfactorily describe what one hears solely in terms of energy. We can talk about hearing the bow draw across strings and sound emanating into the room, but, imo, we can't soley describe listening to that piece of music in that way. We can talk about changing system gear or setup to better manage energy in the room, but we do not have a real vocabulary for describing listening to music in those terms. No doubt there is a language of sound energy, but it is not the language of music or listening.

Sure, saying something like "I found placing 6 rubber rings between steel plates beneath my turntable sounds more natural than 10 rings" is fine. You, or whomever says that, understands quite well what it means. Or "think in terms of managing energy in the room." Perfectly legitimate and it works in practice. But when describing those things to others, they alone may not be enough, those phrases alone may be inadequate to get a meaning across. Or put differently, we have countless posts and pages here trying to come to grips with what these things mean amongst each other. Fwiw, I think those discussions have proved quite fruitful in building concurrence among some of us. We each have our different personal experiences, but a key characteristic of being an audiophile is sharing those.

(1) In the next post, I quote passages from two reviews I wrote six years apart. Coincidentally they are both for Lamm components. For those uninterested, feel free to skip over them.

Shared music can create connections, words tend to dissect and so can easily go either way.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Sure, saying something like "I found placing 6 rubber rings between steel plates beneath my turntable sounds more natural than 10 rings" is fine. You, or whomever says that, understands quite well what it means. Or "think in terms of managing energy in the room." Perfectly legitimate and it works in practice. But when describing those things to others, they alone may not be enough, those phrases alone may be inadequate to get a meaning across. Or put differently, we have countless posts and pages here trying to come to grips with what these things mean amongst each other. Fwiw, I think those discussions have proved quite fruitful in building concurrence among some of us. We each have our different personal experiences, but a key characteristic of being an audiophile is sharing those. (...)

Yes, but as soon as you start using this "managing energy" nomenclature you put an end to any effort trying to merge the objective and subjective, the main aim of most audiophile discussions. You start mixing the hall and the room acoustics, and sharing experiences becomes simply an entertaining narrative, no more a learning experience.