sounds good. I switched from Apogees to electrostats and that was one of the major reasons. The electrostats could sound full and natural even at quite low levels...Apogees needed several db louder and then were superb. The stats I had were every bit as good as horns at low levels...they just don't scale as well.
ying and yang--Lamm ML3 and darTZeel 458
- Thread starter Mike Lavigne
- Start date
sounds good. I switched from Apogees to electrostats and that was one of the major reasons. The electrostats could sound full and natural even at quite low levels...Apogees needed several db louder and then were superb. The stats I had were every bit as good as horns at low levels...they just don't scale as well.
I agree with Morricab also. However, there are plenty members here who rarely speak of live music. Perhaps for them there reference is a more vague, a distant memory, and what really matters is "how they like it", that is, whatever flavor floats their boat at a particular moment. I see nothing wrong with this approach. There are many ways to enjoy this hobby. Trying to reproduce the sound of live unamplified instruments is only one.
When one speaks of "wanting different flavors", then I tend to think of the ice-cream analogy. One turntable, amp, cartridge today for this mood, another combination tomorrow for another mood. When one writes about recent concerts and the joy of hearing live music and trying to assemble a system which can do "all of that", then he/she seems to have a different approach. No "right or wrong" as people are fond of writing. Just different approaches and priorities and ways to enjoy the hobby.
One of the hardest sounds to replicate on my system are drum rim shots heard up close - the almost gun shot intensity is very dynamic.
I listen to a friend's small jazz combo, playing in a local pub quite regularly, and often sit in close proximity to the drummer! Sitting further away dilutes the impact considerably.
The same friend was playing my alto sax along with an art pepper album on the turntable, purely to tryout the sax not as a comparison to hifi sound. Anyway I was pleasantly surprised to realise the tone, harmonics etc compared very favourably.
As morricab says the experience of sitting close to small string ensembles, jazz etc can be reproduced on a well sorted system. Although large scale classical works are more of a challenge, I do listen much more to classical now as my system reproduces orchestral works much more convincingly than in the past.
I listen to a friend's small jazz combo, playing in a local pub quite regularly, and often sit in close proximity to the drummer! Sitting further away dilutes the impact considerably.
The same friend was playing my alto sax along with an art pepper album on the turntable, purely to tryout the sax not as a comparison to hifi sound. Anyway I was pleasantly surprised to realise the tone, harmonics etc compared very favourably.
As morricab says the experience of sitting close to small string ensembles, jazz etc can be reproduced on a well sorted system. Although large scale classical works are more of a challenge, I do listen much more to classical now as my system reproduces orchestral works much more convincingly than in the past.
I also go to concerts for enjoyment...that doesn't stop those experiences from being references...in fact there is nothing mutually exclusive about the dual purpose as it just comes naturally.
You have to look at the endeavors of the scientists (of which I am one) as an attempt to understanding why a majority of people would have a particular preference. The assumption is that distortions, of whatever kind, are the root cause for a negative impact on sound quality. The further assumption is that a majority of people will prefer distortions of some patterns over distortions of other patterns and that all distortion patterns are NOT equally accepted...given of course that no system is distortion free. So, they are attempting to generate a set of rules about the measured data that allows some degree of prediction about human evaluation of sound quality.
Whether Mike's system is truly SOTA sounging or not I have to reserve judgement since I haven't heard it myself. He has certainly invested a SOTA amount of money in it. I disagree also that one doesn't need a good experience with the real deal to come up with a SOTA system...they might get something impressive and even quite interesting but probably not all that realistic...of course exceptions do exist...
The most realistic system I have heard is the Living Voice Vox Olympian with Kondo and battery power from a couple years ago in Munich...and Kevin Scott knows live unamplified music very well and it expresses amazingly in his systems...nothing else really touched it.
As is always the case with human psychology, there will always be those that don't fit with the majority, so there is of course room to manuever. He may not need Cheever and Geddes to explain his preference but it could be that Cheever and Geddes to some degree explain his new interest in a "distortion generator" as objective measurement guys would like to call SETs.
A complete understanding would be nice but it is not really necessary. What is useful for designers and for consumers is a good correlation between design and what most would consider their preferred sound quality.
And yet you will not mistake any of them, rarely ever, with a recording played back at the same volume...that is worth considering.
Yes, a well sorted system for the smaller stuff will probably do well up to its limits with the big stuff.
I would love to think that we collectively can make intellectual progress over time on the fascinating theoretical and conceptual issues about our hobby, and what we are trying to accomplish with our audio systems, without starting from the very beginning each time these questions arise.
I like to think we established a couple of years ago at http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?19261-Introduction-and-Listening-Biases/page8 (and other threads) through thorough analysis and debate four primary, but not mutually exclusive, alternative objectives of high-end audio:
1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,
2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape,
3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and
4) create a sound that seems live.
Shall we once again begin with these first principles and discuss these issues on the thread above or on a new thread rather than continue to hijack Mike’s ML3/458 thread?
Brad, Peter, would you like to start another thread on these conceptual issues?
I like to think we established a couple of years ago at http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?19261-Introduction-and-Listening-Biases/page8 (and other threads) through thorough analysis and debate four primary, but not mutually exclusive, alternative objectives of high-end audio:
1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,
2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape,
3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and
4) create a sound that seems live.
Shall we once again begin with these first principles and discuss these issues on the thread above or on a new thread rather than continue to hijack Mike’s ML3/458 thread?
Brad, Peter, would you like to start another thread on these conceptual issues?
The “Live” as reference not only pertains to tone, tonal depth & timbre, volume and comparative levels of unamplified instruments etc. which I call “tangibles” but the other elements that exist during a performance, the “intangibles” which include emotional content, virtuosity, the sense of presence of a person/people playing there’s pressure and energy and very importantly the ambience of the venue which is it own presence. There are a lot of elements that need to be and often is captured in analog recordings which must reproduced honestly without addition or subtraction of vital cues for a natural listening experience. The intangibles are crucial IMO and what many systems and/or setups fail to reproduce, intangibles are also what’s lost in a digital chain.
You can use the ice cream analogy if you want but don’t think of it chocolate one day then orange and pistachio on other days, pick one favorite flavor and then sampling that same flavor in different favorite spots. People often use the term plain vanilla, maybe true to some degree comparing large tubs of commercial iceream but in the high end artisanal world plain vanilla is no longer bland. Using the same ingredients each master will infuse something of himself making their plain vanilla ice cream a unique tasting experience, this is what is meant when talking about different flavors.
david
Agree with your disagreement. Continuous reference to live unamplified music is key to shaping one's system for a convincing result. And it is a humbling reference, because you'll never get there, even though a certain level of illusion of it on your system can induce excitement and satisfaction.
my response to you was relative to there being a singular reference for all. and one view of and consequence of that. which was the idea you seemed to be inferring.
"Do you really know what it is in your system you are striving for?"
much of my personal posting about my system development over the last few years is exactly referring to my own reference in my head guiding my room tuning. but that reference is not any particular experience, but a combination of different things I picked up over a period of time. there were a few 'ah-ha' moments where I saw in my mind where my system was not achieving this or that attribute. and i'm open to that next 'ah-ha' moment when it comes to me.
so for me personally; i reject the idea of one reference. it's just not so simple as that. but maybe this is more semantics between us than a clear difference. maybe you too find other references in places different than live acoustic music.
and i would also say that practically speaking; having a recording as a reference, by that i mean hearing a particular thing from a recording that you are striving for, is our real world situation that we have to work with. when i'm doing room tuning i'm trying things and then listening over and over again looking for that specific result from that recording. how can that be practically done with live music. which is why i said my references are the recording, and not live music.
so relating hifi to a music reference is not so simple a process. I do feel that separating nuances of different recordings is one of my guiding goals. I do want to hear the uniqueness of each recording. i will admit that so far the Lamm ML3 goes in the opposite direction as it certainly does add an enhanced viewpoint on the music that makes what i hear from each recording and even each format more similar than the dart 458 experience which exposed all the differences so clearly. but it's too soon to really know where that goes. i'm still learning about this. it's just a first impression and an interesting one for me who has put so much into having optimal levels of performance to hear the very best of various formats.
the ML3's are more about a different experience that is enjoyable, a different flavor of ice cream, and it does not need to do all the things that the big darts can do. i'm good with that and what i wanted from them.
Last edited:
(the icecream I mean...I am an analytical chemist afterall True, you will never quite get there but it gives you a proper "compass" to direct your quest...otherwise it becomes a bit of a random walk...
"so for me personally; i reject the idea of one reference. it's just not so simple as that." It is simple to say but not simple to execute based on that idea. "maybe you too find other references in places different than live acoustic music" No, I really do not.
"specific result from that recording" Yes, but what specific result? If you don't know what these things ought to sound like?
"so relating hifi to a music reference is not so simple a process" No, not simple at all...in fact it is much harder than a relativistic "what do I like this month" approach. Maybe not as expensive though... HP struggled with it throughout his time at TAS.
Of course I wish you luck in your journey of discovery...may the force be with you!
When I was a lot younger I bought into the unamplified live music thing of HP. Now I actually think it is limiting. It's now the baseline not the peak. After all, it is only a small subset of our daily auditory processing the sum of which creates our overall sense of what sounds real. The change came when I studied sound for film where not just the score or dialogue matters, everything does. Footsteps, paper rustling on a desk, friction of cloth in the clothing, wind, still air, reverberation. What sounds most real to me is what doesn't get in the way. I can understand the allure of having loads of "wow" moments but that in itself can become tiresome if not set within the context of the music. I'll take Coltrane is playing great to Damn that sax sounds goooood! most of the time. That said who doesn't like pretty sound? I'll take that to tuning that is only communicative with only the best sounding recordings but still...ultimately I'd ALSO want to have raw physicality when the music has raw elements. So, I see no reason why someone can't go and enjoy differing presentations of works of art. I've been living with excellent horns and Lamm ML2.1s for months now. Could I live with them. yes I could. Will I? No. Would I like to have another system based on this someday, yes and I pray I will. Ultimately my compass is different. It is different because I don't hear and listen to only live unamplified music. There's nothing random about that. I think Mike and I are in similar places. We listen to a lot of amplified music and I personally listen to a lot of music with synthesized sound. Believe it or not, these are just as difficult to get sounding "real".
Similar threads
