You get the recipe but not what's in the water! I'm sure you've heard an Italian or two telling you thatWhich can all be understood with sufficient chemical analysis(the icecream I mean...I am an analytical chemist afterall
.david
ying and yang--Lamm ML3 and darTZeel 458
- Thread starter Mike Lavigne
- Start date
.david
I think the way some posts read is "I go to live concerts, and so the system I own should be considered as reference. And shi**y state amps cannot recreate what I have at home, hence Mike's system cannot probably recreate live concerts".
"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"
How would you ever know unless you were right there in the studio or withe headphones on as the electronic "musician" composed his track on the computer? These are not sounds you can hear everyday, unless you are a musician or have one in the house of course. If you live with someone who rocks out with a guitar and a guitar amp then that could be considered a real reference...except that all recorded electric guitars can sound literally like anything! A classical guitar will always sound more or less the same within a fairly limited band by comparison.
Sierras Jeff. Premium compression drivers on l'cleach types with front horn bass. Duelund cabling and caps, and carbon graphite resistors. Just one each for each midrange horn. Jazz is just KILLER with these.
I don't see that anyone has said anything remotely like this but I guess you have tried to read between about 20 different lines? For myself, I never heard Mike's system with or without Lamms, so it is impossible for me to know which is more realistic; however, i can take an educated guess which I would think sounds more "real"...maybe I would be wrong...who knows?
And this doesn't do justice to Rock and electronic music? What is not there? I have horns with SET and honestly rock and electronic sound phenomenal (I especially like old ZZ top, Police, Fleetwood Mac and Dead Can Dance with this setup)
Why are you stuck on situations? What I'm saying is that we all have our personal concepts of what things "should" sound like and that is what makes up what sounds real. Our own paradigms so to speak built over time through our experiences. I've never heard Frank Sinatra live. I know it's him when I hear him. It is the same thing as that live unamplified music mantra which I think is being put on too high a pedestal. It should sound "like" a live set while it is a given that you should have actually lived a little and gone to see more than a few. You were not at the concert in the recording either, you've been to concerts but not that one. You know simply because you know what sounds realistic and that has nothing to do with having been there. Synthesized music today are made with layered samples of real sounds for the most part. The same thing applies here. The thing with synthesized music is that you have to accept that you get what you get because these are layers of imagined timbres and textures. Music that make use of a lot of synthesis is usually played in public events so there too are "life" references. Places you can be brought back too whether it is going nuts in a club or lazing in front of a beach sunset. Sorry I'm just in a bad mood but since we're nitpicking, the musicians and every other person present on the floor or behind the desk heard that session differently too so I don't know where you pulled that one from. Synthesized, amplified, unamplified, all the above, or just one, other than a few occasions, none of us were there.
With all due respect, why would that matter?
It's ML's connection to the music. That's the bottom line.
It does not do justice to music with low mid bass energy like many of my old classical run of the mill box sets. Do I think that it is the speaker and amps fault? No. I could fix that easily with a conical stylus cart for one. Put on another arm when I'm listening to something else. Come on we all do that and you horn guys probably do it more. All the guys I know save one with more carts than I do are horn guys. Coincidence, maybe, maybe not. Back to these wonderful horns, it does a lot of great things. Violin solos are breathtaking, woodwinds are glorious, well recorded voice, impact I could go on and on. Remember I said I will have one, it just isn't my main one. I'm not ANTI lates make that very clear. Oh and it does most electronic music MIGHTY FINE. It can be beat with ambient genres. What they are very intolerant of is wall of sound mixes with a lot of bleeding. This overlay of channel strip distortions are laid very very prominently and this makes most pop and rock a tiring experience despite having triodes throughout the chain. Over the last few months I've come to believe that this is mostly because of the more direct dispersion relative to conventional speakers. There's a concentration of energy that is mostly blessing but sometimes curse too. Of course the same is true the other way with conventional speakers being found distant by comparison.
Brad,
I think if we were listening to both the Lamm ML3's and then the dart 458's back to back in my system, we would have much to talk about. and it would involve preferences for sure. but the truth of certain things would also be undeniable.
maybe some day it might happen.
I dont understand the better thing really.
I Just wanna get An audiothrill when i cranck the system up.
Hifi is pretty simple .
Lanm. Dartzeel i suppose its all good stuff
I Just wanna get An audiothrill when i cranck the system up.
Hifi is pretty simple .
Lanm. Dartzeel i suppose its all good stuff
JackD201 said:
Hi morricab, hi Jack,
I think I understand and appreciate what you're both saying.
For me, trying to reproduce the sound of live unamplified instruments is perhaps a worthy goal in theory, but impossible in practice. Our systems cannot ever reproduce the sound of live unamplified instruments because that sound is fundamentally ephemeral - an event that starts and stops in time and must be perceived by a perceiver. If one is not present, one cannot perceive it.
Our systems attempt to reproduce a recording of an event in time, which is completely dependent on the presence of a recording mechanism. That is, we’re never ever listening to the sound of live unamplified instruments via prerecorded music - only live unamplified instruments as “perceived” by an interdependent chain of mic, mic-pre, recording device and recording medium. Once the music hits the mic diaphragm, it is no longer live, nor unamplified - it is transformed into electrical energy, and then stored, and I cannot percieve that electrical energy save for a mechanism to convert it back to sound.
So we are always listening to a mechanism stored in a medium replayed via another mechanism, not an event (since the event itself no longer exists in time).
The recording mechanism is itself always subject to the preferences of the one who is tasked with recording, not only in terms of gear selection, but also mic placement, all of which are done relative to subjectivized choices on behalf of the recording engineer.
Therefore, I do not need a system that references the sound of live unamplified instruments since I cannot be everywhere where live unamplified music happens, particularly if it happened before my existence - it is its own entity that lives and dies in time. I need a system that can convey the intention of the recording engineer, and much more importantly, the intention of the musicians as slaved to the recording mechanism. It’s musical intention that differentiates Cortot from Rubinstein, Page from Iommi, Nine Inch Nails from KMFDM, Ella from Aretha - even in as much as there are sonic differences.
How can I know what is more real, especially if there is no precedent for what Nine Inch Nails should sound like? By understanding what it is about each musician’s intention that makes them unique, and sound more like themselves, and less like a clone of themselves.
To me the best systems are not ones that attempt to imitate a sound that can only ever be perceived by the individual subjectively in time - for just as the event is perceived subjectively, so too the recording mechanism is subjectivized, as is the playback mechanism. To me the best systems are the ones that most differentiate why Cortot sounds nothing like Rubinstein and vice versa. That the ML3 may convey as aspect of what makes each musician's intention unique in a way that is different to say, the way the 458 conveys it, providing additional insight into the how and why of musical artistry, sounds like a great way of appreciating what each musician brings to a piece of music, even when playing the exact same piece of music.
Best,
853guy
Last edited:
Not sure why any of the comparisons between our perceptions of the ‘live’ event and Mike’s reason for the acquisition of the ML3’s is relevant??
Anyhow, as I said before, I completely understand where Mike is coming from, having done something similar myself. SS amps have a certain flavor...and excel in certain areas, tube amps have a slightly different flavor, and excel in other areas. Having the ability to hear both in your system makes perfect sense to me.
I would go even further, and say that it should be almost mandatory that if an a’phile has the means to accomplish it, that acquiring both technologies be done.
BTW, whenever I have played my Taylor ( acoustic steel 6 string guitar)to any of my visiting a’phile friends and then gotten their feedback, the one thing that is consistent (besides the dropped jaw) is the comment that the sound ‘explodes’ into the room, unlike anything they have ever heard reproduced. That is in many ways the difference between the ‘live’ experience and the reproduced, and why most of us can instantly tell if it is ‘live’ or memorex!
Anyhow, as I said before, I completely understand where Mike is coming from, having done something similar myself. SS amps have a certain flavor...and excel in certain areas, tube amps have a slightly different flavor, and excel in other areas. Having the ability to hear both in your system makes perfect sense to me.
I would go even further, and say that it should be almost mandatory that if an a’phile has the means to accomplish it, that acquiring both technologies be done.
BTW, whenever I have played my Taylor ( acoustic steel 6 string guitar)to any of my visiting a’phile friends and then gotten their feedback, the one thing that is consistent (besides the dropped jaw) is the comment that the sound ‘explodes’ into the room, unlike anything they have ever heard reproduced. That is in many ways the difference between the ‘live’ experience and the reproduced, and why most of us can instantly tell if it is ‘live’ or memorex!
I think it is relevant because Mike just wants two versions of music, with amps in this case, and not just one. Like you, what I am wondering about is why this is a big deal. You don't see debates like this when he changes cart or tape head right? Like all of us he is finding his way and enjoying while he's at it. I like the continuous learning. For me that makes the hobby more fun. If I were forced to listen to music one way, I'd go nuts.
Depends on the venue, recording and the system Davey, that same explosion heard 5' away will be barely noticeable if played at a typical rock venue stadium, amplify and crank it up as you want but it's the not same. Context matters.
david
PS. 1:1 reproduction isn't essential to having a natural and realistic experience with reproduced sound, the mind is a complex instrument and as long as enough natural queues are present without competition and distraction then the brain can fill up the gaps.
david
Last edited:
I get this. After 3+ years of isolation, grounding, emi/rfi shielding...at volume 1 the music feels surprisingly 'whole' and dynamics feel akin to being further away from a performance (ie, quieter, but you still hear the 'swells' in the music). But it took all that time to get it right and hone, hone, hone away the noise. I am sure there is more to go, but this dynamic capability has changed a lot during this time to where listening at 1 is sometimes all i need at 3am...while 28 (now) also seems fine and perfectly at ease...and not at all 'shimmering/shaking' due to dynamics the system cannot handle.
Ron,
Given our collective discussion on ice cream last nite, how about this?
Given that there is no perfect audio system, what are your personal priorities in sound when you select a system/component? (you can select your own):
- Detail Retrieval
- Full-range Extension
- Midrange magic
- Effortless all out dynamic range
- Absolutely ruler-flat technical performance
- Absolutely extended, filigreed highs...but not one iota of harshness
- Deep propulsive bass
I do very much get and appreciate your approach and the way you validate your experiences, I’ve said it before that I figure I would probably very likely love your choices of gear as I also share appreciation of the types of gear that you champion. I just have softened through time on my aims and see latitude in a range of approaches being valid and being all able to end in the notion of connecting to the music rather than any one held judgement on sound. I do find that when you stop looking at the sound the music just comes through easier and that identification with sound may be an impediment to music.
I do very much respect everyone’s right to create and validate their experiences in the framework they need as in the end an experience is ultimately singular even when it’s shared so it’s just for me these notions of only one way to get there that I just can’t agree with.
Pursuing understanding with science or philosophy or through art and music are all wonderfully valid systems but also they are discretely separate dimensions of being. If we set up our systems just to play music that is all we need to evaluate the quality of our efforts and this is only ever a purely individual evaluation. If our aim is to reproduce sound that is a different matter again. The meaning or purpose of a thing sets up the only true rules of assessment and these may be different for each of us and even different for any of us at different times. I’m not sure that being conscious of any of it is even essential to any full and real experience. Being conscious of a thing can be something of a double edged sword. It may prove to be a limit in our appreciation.
One thing that I am sure of is that there is a remarkable amount of effort put in by many in trying to get a hang on how experience relates to reality and this music and audio journey is certainly a rich experience whether we come to any conclusions or not.
Similar threads
