Lynn Olson
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 98
Reflecting on the last paragraph of the previous post, it is a little strange that products as different as a dynamic decoder, loudspeakers, and vacuum-tube amplifiers would all have common sonic traits. They don’t share any technology, after all, and the operating principles are completely different.
I asked my partner, Karna, last night what they all had in common, since it’s actually very difficult for me to describe what my designs sound like. She’s not an audiophile, so she doesn’t use audiophile lingo, so I was curious what her impressions were (and she’s had 30+ years of listening to my prototypes). Her answer was interesting and unexpected: she said “multidimensional”, and she meant it in the broadest sense of the word.
The more I thought about it, the more I had to agree. It must emerge from an unconscious design esthetic, because, again, all three product classes use very different technology, and work in very different ways. But everything I’ve done, from Shadow Vector, to the Audionics range of loudspeakers, to the Ariel, and the Amity and Karna all sound like I’ve designed them.
For that matter, my collaboration with Thom Mackris of Galibier Designs on his NiWatt 300B SET amplifier resulted in a strong flavor of the Karna amplifier showing up in it, despite radically different topologies. (The NiWatt is a fairly conventional capacitor-coupled single-ended amplifier, while the Karna is an unusual all-transformer-coupled fully balanced amplifier.) Yet on direct A/B comparison, which Thom and I have done, they are almost indistinguishable from each other, while being quite different compared to other commercial amplifiers. (I hope that Thom goes ahead and manufactures the NiWatt amplifier; it’s a very good example of its type.)
So there’s a subtle design esthetic that’s there, stretching from 1972 to the present. Malcolm will hear it, and it will also be there in the all-software Shadow Vector decoder. It’s kind of at right angles to the mainstream high-end audio esthetic, which has gone off in a very different direction.
The mainstream has been pursuing something they call “accuracy” and “detail” since the Eighties, while I’ve been interested in depth, spaciousness, and a natural you-are-there feeling, with the singer right in the room with you. The sound should be vivid with a strong sense of physical presence. (Hint: if you start feeling a little trippy after 10 to 15 minutes of listening, that’s perfectly normal. No, I don’t know how that sneaks in there, but it does.)
Those are the esthetic goals.
I asked my partner, Karna, last night what they all had in common, since it’s actually very difficult for me to describe what my designs sound like. She’s not an audiophile, so she doesn’t use audiophile lingo, so I was curious what her impressions were (and she’s had 30+ years of listening to my prototypes). Her answer was interesting and unexpected: she said “multidimensional”, and she meant it in the broadest sense of the word.
The more I thought about it, the more I had to agree. It must emerge from an unconscious design esthetic, because, again, all three product classes use very different technology, and work in very different ways. But everything I’ve done, from Shadow Vector, to the Audionics range of loudspeakers, to the Ariel, and the Amity and Karna all sound like I’ve designed them.
For that matter, my collaboration with Thom Mackris of Galibier Designs on his NiWatt 300B SET amplifier resulted in a strong flavor of the Karna amplifier showing up in it, despite radically different topologies. (The NiWatt is a fairly conventional capacitor-coupled single-ended amplifier, while the Karna is an unusual all-transformer-coupled fully balanced amplifier.) Yet on direct A/B comparison, which Thom and I have done, they are almost indistinguishable from each other, while being quite different compared to other commercial amplifiers. (I hope that Thom goes ahead and manufactures the NiWatt amplifier; it’s a very good example of its type.)
So there’s a subtle design esthetic that’s there, stretching from 1972 to the present. Malcolm will hear it, and it will also be there in the all-software Shadow Vector decoder. It’s kind of at right angles to the mainstream high-end audio esthetic, which has gone off in a very different direction.
The mainstream has been pursuing something they call “accuracy” and “detail” since the Eighties, while I’ve been interested in depth, spaciousness, and a natural you-are-there feeling, with the singer right in the room with you. The sound should be vivid with a strong sense of physical presence. (Hint: if you start feeling a little trippy after 10 to 15 minutes of listening, that’s perfectly normal. No, I don’t know how that sneaks in there, but it does.)
Those are the esthetic goals.
Last edited:
