What i learned from this thread is , Set lovers like to talk ,
??lol
Heh
ying and yang--Lamm ML3 and darTZeel 458
- Thread starter Mike Lavigne
- Start date
Heh
Micro, this is so much set up. Listen to tuttis at the end on Mike's Telos with the GFS. His Anna on the lower Telos could not reproduce it like that. There are alignments, pivots, linear trackers, and I think this is where DDs excel. Digital, on the other hand, cannot do the same level of natural tone and bass across the LP. Realism is a combination of all these factors, not just resolution at the end of the LP, else everyone would use Lyra into spectral into Magico.
Have you thought about the fact that even where the last half might sound compressed, you don't have to listen to the first half on...errr...digital?
Also, the analog advocates have both, while the digital advocates are more exclusively digital. Hardly any analog advocate is suggesting you stay exclusive.
Btw, my regular auditions include a great recording of argenta Espana, and the scheherazade 4th movement, both of which are to the end of the LP. While I don't compare them to the first half, the Espana is usually sonically the best sounding by far than any digital and many LPs, and wakes up the system. And do you not listen to violin and piano?
On the Scheherazade, I have the Analog Productions 33 reissue which is excellent, but the Classic 45 rpm that Mike has is better, and Tang recently got that and is preferring it to his tape.
Micro, I agree that referencing specific recordings and also music genres can be useful data points to help us relate experiences but I wonder how meaningful something as broad as Shostakovich symphonies is. Surely this is a very broad scope and limited in meaning and value as a benchmark. At this broad level anything that approximated the context and spirit of Shostakovich larger scale works say Mahler or Prokofiev symphonies could be relevant to the same data point. If you are relating to the emotional content of Shostakovich as the value then certainly Shostakovich concertos or even Barshais interpretations of the chamber music would be equally relevant.
I’d understand more if you were specifying a performance and recording say, Petrenkos Shostakovich 3 with the Liverpool or Ancerl’s 10th with the Czech Phil so we were then referencing like with like.
What quality is it about Shostakovich symphonies that draw you to using them as a reference? Is it that you are so familiar with them that it makes the spirit and intention of them so accessible to you. Surely if someone else only has very limited experience of Shostakovich that this then will make it a much less valuable data point for them.
My first Shostakovich experience was the Cello concerto No 1 and it is the foundation for me in my understanding of Shostakovich and the meaning of his music and yes every time I hear any recording of that I find it so much easier to evalate the quality of the performance and even the balance and nature of the recording because it is an experience I have a lot of previous experiences to relate to as the content of the music is a familiar bridge to cross but this then may not be that useful to anyone else unless they have also crossed that very same bridge many times before as well.
I have suggested many recordings many times - sometimes modern recordings, extremely challenging, that illustrate what digital can do at its best IMHO, as well as its limitations. And you always suggest me to listen to the same Scheherazade recording or the Espana, excellent recordings that sound impressive compared to modern recordings particularly by the way they were performed and recorded, not the media.
BTW1 , although I appreciate Sherazade - a lovely orchestral composition - I think I could not listen to it more than once a year - exactly by the reasons of its great popularity. From Wikipedia "The reasons for its popularity are clear enough; it is a score replete with beguiling orchestral colors, fresh and piquant melodies, with a mild oriental flavor, a rhythmic vitality largely absent from many major orchestral works of the later 19th century, and a directness of expression unhampered by quasi-symphonic complexities of texture and structure. " Speaking technically: IMHO, although challenging in dynamics it is not adequate for system evaluating and no way a rival to those I suggested for someone having my complicated preferences. Probably our member Al. M will have something to add here.
BTW2 - as far as I remember Sherazade ends with a few minutes quiet passage after an impressive but not particularly challenging very dynamic part - perfectly adequate to the vinyl media.
BTW3 - IMHO violin and piano depend too much on recording and system balance to be considered as a test for recording. And probably, just due to wow and flutter of 99% of existing turntables and pressings they usually sound better in top digital. Yes, I know at Mike system ...
I listened to the Sheku Kenneh Mason for the very first time just last night driving home after work... loved it, he is a great talent and yes, loved it even though it was a tidal download streaming through the car speakers all the Shostakovich magic came through. There’s also some other fantastic cello music on that recording as well, Casals arrangement of birds was new for me and quite beguiling. Reminds me a lot of Bloch’s Schlermo. Great choice and yes, I feel I can also relate to what you are experiencing of that live performance with me listening to it as a Decca recording of this because it is that same piece of Shostakovich with the same performer interpreting. It is bound by the understanding of the player for sure. Ps would have loved to have heard this live... what a brilliant moment.
Last edited:
I have suggested many recordings many times - sometimes modern recordings, extremely challenging, that illustrate what digital can do at its best IMHO, as well as its limitations. And you always suggest me to listen to the same Scheherazade recording or the Espana, excellent recordings that sound impressive compared to modern recordings particularly by the way they were performed and recorded, not the media.
BTW1 , although I appreciate Sherazade - a lovely orchestral composition - I think I could not listen to it more than once a year - exactly by the reasons of its great popularity. From Wikipedia "The reasons for its popularity are clear enough; it is a score replete with beguiling orchestral colors, fresh and piquant melodies, with a mild oriental flavor, a rhythmic vitality largely absent from many major orchestral works of the later 19th century, and a directness of expression unhampered by quasi-symphonic complexities of texture and structure. " Speaking technically: IMHO, although challenging in dynamics it is not adequate for system evaluating and no way a rival to those I suggested for someone having my complicated preferences. Probably our member Al. M will have something to add here.
BTW2 - as far as I remember Sherazade ends with a few minutes quiet passage after an impressive but not particularly challenging very dynamic part - perfectly adequate to the vinyl media.
BTW3 - IMHO violin and piano depend too much on recording and system balance to be considered as a test for recording. And probably, just due to wow and flutter of 99% of existing turntables and pressings they usually sound better in top digital. Yes, I know at Mike system ...
BTW3 - could not disagree more with this point. Solo violin / piano is great test for a system indeed. You’ll soon work out whether a system can actually reproduce timbre or not. Piano sorts out crossover issues as does cello. As for them sounding usually better on digital - I completely disagree. Total opposite.
Thanks for your comments. IMHO Shostakovitch seems particularly useful in our context as it is very demanding for the system. People who seem to dislike his music played in poorly tuned systems listen and manage to find the melodic lines in it, perceiving the orchestra sections and balance in his music. Anyway I have not demanded people to listen to Shostakovich but to present me analog recordings of equivalent quality and complexity.
Please note that in my previous posts I had specified a recording and a movement to illustrate my points, but this thread moves very fast and it is now far away - 8th Symphony, 3rd movement, Haitink, Concertegebouw Orchestra, Philips CD. I have managed to persuade the Wilson and Constellation Audio people to listen to it in a great demo ... And they loved it.
Please note that my comment only applied to our particular debate of digital versus analog. Surely piano and violin are great recordings to test systems. And our disagreement only confirms BTW3, although I see your point - "usually" is probably a question of statistics and choice of recordings, I should have avoided the word.
Micro you are completely wrong about my approach. I keep some constant recordings I have to stay consistent across systems I demo. My favorite classical pieces to listen to are in many cases different - for example, I don't use Bach's st Matthews passion on auditions, and many others. Why? I found some good recordings, and I have consistency across systems. I don't want to change the bass. I add many others if I like a system - Beethoven's Apassionata 45 rpm, Ricci Decca edition 2 Lal Symphanogle, an extremely complex Mendelssohn tutti on digital, recordings which my host has, etc.
The point is, the consistent ones are the basic tests the system/components should pass. The others are used only for stress testing. Also, there is a bruch for violin, a Rubinstein for piano, a winterreise for baritone, a couple of tuttis, same for digital. The decision is made across, and in most cases it does not pass these, as 99 percent of hifi is that way.
So you are incorrect about the approach, your knowledge of scheherazade is wrong as well... The 4th movement is just over 10 mins and is mostly in high tutti dynamic slam mode except for the last minute or so. Failing on Shostakovich, scheherazade, Beethoven.9th last movement, Mendelssohn tuttis, is all the same... If it can't pass one it won't pass the other, and if it passes a few of those and fails on one of those, it is immaterial
The point is, the consistent ones are the basic tests the system/components should pass. The others are used only for stress testing. Also, there is a bruch for violin, a Rubinstein for piano, a winterreise for baritone, a couple of tuttis, same for digital. The decision is made across, and in most cases it does not pass these, as 99 percent of hifi is that way.
So you are incorrect about the approach, your knowledge of scheherazade is wrong as well... The 4th movement is just over 10 mins and is mostly in high tutti dynamic slam mode except for the last minute or so. Failing on Shostakovich, scheherazade, Beethoven.9th last movement, Mendelssohn tuttis, is all the same... If it can't pass one it won't pass the other, and if it passes a few of those and fails on one of those, it is immaterial
This makes complete sense to me, the notion of some less readily accessible kinds of music as a benchmark for the way a system communicates and connects us to more challenging music types as a sign of a great setup. I often extend this same proof of performance for my own setups so I know when it is working well when I’m enjoying some more complex music types like more improv and freestyle jazz or very much something like Shostakovich or Bartok even. It’s much less of a test to communicate the girl and the guitar which is why it is so often used in show and shop demos I guess.
My sister in law just bought a pair of Harbeth 30.1s and I set them up for her. We enjoyed a lot of things but the best part was when she started really opening up to new (for her) music. I put on Brahms Deutches requiem ala Simon Rattle and all of a sudden she was being connected to a music type she has always found inaccessible and was absolutely loving it. Great systems definitely expand our musical horizons.
I know about your methodology - I think you developed it according too your preferences, as I did myself. Your ideas of complexity are different from mine, no problem. And my knowledge of Scheherazade was not incorrect - digital is very easy to check
- the Kondrashin version I could reach now is 12'18" long, the last 3 minutes after a high tutti at 9'05'' are really quite ... And sorry again, for me it not all the same, and it is not immaterial. The past weekend I was listening to Ligeti. I can have a system that sound nice with Beethoven and Mozart and sounds boring with Ligeti.
Please remember the high-end is mainly about preferences, it is natural we disagree!
Actually, I developed it accidentally, learning from others, picking up music they used to show case their system, when I thought it did, I bought it. Or if something sounded good in system X, I bought it to try it on other systems.
You don't know my methodology, you think you know what I do in a way that explains to you why we disagree on components.
Why you picked Kondrashin when I was referring to Reiner I do not know. the Reiner recording is really good as is the performance and dynamic Anyway, I thought you said it was the last 10 mins of an LP, not last 3. Are you then saying a system can pass those 9 mins, but fail on a more complex tutti? And Beethoven 9 4th movement is not complex? You are debating for the sake of it
You don't know my methodology, you think you know what I do in a way that explains to you why we disagree on components.
Why you picked Kondrashin when I was referring to Reiner I do not know. the Reiner recording is really good as is the performance and dynamic Anyway, I thought you said it was the last 10 mins of an LP, not last 3. Are you then saying a system can pass those 9 mins, but fail on a more complex tutti? And Beethoven 9 4th movement is not complex? You are debating for the sake of it
Congratulations, you succeeded in a difficult tuning - the second movement is really challenging. It carries great dramatics and is dark, but many systems do not manage to carry this message. Never listened to the Simon Rattle version, I will try to listen to it - thanks for the info.
Thanks Micro, it’s a sigh of relief when even a relatively modest setup does the magic. The Rattle version was his recent one with with the Berlin Phil... however purely as recommendation I’d give Nikolaus Harnoncourt’s a hearty two thumbs up. Yes, the second movement is where the rich moments come through unabated. Beautiful.
I agree with you Bill. It is usually vinyl that is more convincing for me, but not always. If a system has both formats, I prefer to bring over my LPs rather than my CDs.
Madfloyd, Al M., and I just heard live three Brahms sonatas for violin and piano. We were 10'-15' from the instruments. The setting was a large private living room in Boston. What an experience. Two days later, I listened to a violin and piano recording on LP to evaluate a system at a dealer. Both were experiences I will not soon forget. When listening so close to these instruments live, I was struck by the immense amount of detail and energy filling the room. Listening to the recording played over this incredible system less than 48 hours later, what struck me about the audition was the amount of detail/resolution, the string texture, dynamics and tone that presented the instruments extremely convincingly. I have only heard that level of resolution and realism from vinyl in systems that were extremely well sorted.
it's almost like I don't want to mess up the flow here and get back on my own thread. I've enjoyed all this talk about references, both vinyl and digital. I'm all about that stuff.
I don't have the frequent live orchestral listening background myself, but I do know what my system can do with big music. and I have a 'wall of truth' with almost 100% of all the 45 rpm reissues ever made that do full justice to warp (fill in the blank number) level playback. and however hard I push it, my physical body cannot endure what the system can easily reproduce. and the nuance does not get lost in that effort, either. and with the Taiko Tana now under both the dart pre and the NVS, it's even more finely rendered and has greater ease than when Ked heard it.
and as I mentioned to Micro back close to 100 posts now as far as digital bringing a knife to a gun fight, as great as the digital sounds with big music, the vinyl launches to a few gears beyond that point with the additional information, tonal solidity, and ease on the peaks. there is just more 'there' there.
and that's not a matter of preference or special system analog synergy, it's just higher levels of musical truth.
I don't have the frequent live orchestral listening background myself, but I do know what my system can do with big music. and I have a 'wall of truth' with almost 100% of all the 45 rpm reissues ever made that do full justice to warp (fill in the blank number) level playback. and however hard I push it, my physical body cannot endure what the system can easily reproduce. and the nuance does not get lost in that effort, either. and with the Taiko Tana now under both the dart pre and the NVS, it's even more finely rendered and has greater ease than when Ked heard it.
and as I mentioned to Micro back close to 100 posts now as far as digital bringing a knife to a gun fight, as great as the digital sounds with big music, the vinyl launches to a few gears beyond that point with the additional information, tonal solidity, and ease on the peaks. there is just more 'there' there.
and that's not a matter of preference or special system analog synergy, it's just higher levels of musical truth.
Last edited:
I will comment just the last sentence. People have preferred the tape feed to the mic feed in instrumental recording conditions, claiming it was more true and sounded more like the real piano being recorded. Is it a preference or a musical truth?
Mike, if you don't listen to a lot of live orchestral music, how do you go about assessing the truth, or "wall of truth" with almost 100% of your 45 rpm reissues? Musical truth may well be different for each of us. For some, it is feeling the emotional impact of the recording, the musicians' intent, the composer's genius, the feeling of getting "lost in the music". For others it may be some of that plus how close it sounds to their memory of live music. What do you, Mike Lavigne, mean by musical truth? Are there different versions as seem presented by your now two alternatives, the Dart and the ML3?
You have written much about your goal of developing a system which gets out of the way of the music. Let's get this thread back on the topic of your two different amplifiers. Which presentation gets out of the way of the music more? And which better conveys your idea of musical truth? You recently wrote up thread that it is a "Dart based (optimized) system" with "Lamm as frequent visitor" or something like that. I like that clarification of priorities. If both amps present a different version of musical truth, in their own unique way, does either truly "get out of the way" of the music, or is that notion still elusive and evolving for you?
This seems to be at the crux of the thread and what you seek in your audio journey.
Hi there,
I've been following this discussion, it seems you got in the way of your own thread! Congratulations on an interesting journey you've embarked on with two very different variables in your source of the illusion. The discussion has become pedantic at times ... What an opportunity you've created for your self in understanding two very different approaches to amplification- I'm sure you're thrilled with what you've learned and outcome you've arrived at.
Best wishes.
Similar threads
