The meaning of measurements

[DaveyF]

I just finished reading the well written review by MF of the Lamm ML3's in the new S'phile. In the review, i noticed that MF wisely ( IMHO) made a point of stating that no audio system can truly hold a candle to the "live" event. MF then went on to write his impressions of how the top-of-the-line Lamm amps ( The ML3's) sounded on his Wilson XLF's. He seemed to really like some aspects of the sound and in some ways seemed to be a little concerned about other areas, particularly in comparison to his Dart mono blocks ( ss amps).
Then he stated another interesting point....he expected that when JA did his measurements that this time he would NOT have his pants down as he has had in the past when JA measured some of the tube amps that MF had liked. Problem is, that after reading the measurements that JA posted and commented on, I was left with the distinct impression that the amp(s) measure(s) fairly poorly. JA finished his comments by saying that the amps sounded magical with the XLF's when he heard them...But I guess not when he measured them...at least according to the graphs and measurements.
Since I am lucky enough to have heard these very amps at our good friend's Steve's place, i can say that IMHO they are superb. So, what are we to assign to the meaning of the measurements? Are the measurements that JA and others rely on really measuring the things that are important to us as humans listening to music? ( At this point in time, I think not....BUT that is truly IMHO). Therefore, the meaning, or should I say value, of measurements??

 

[JackD201]

Vladimir Lamm says he designs all his electronics following his own psychoacoustic model. He goes as far as saying that he doesn't even need to listen. I don't know of any other designer that has said done anything like this. One thing for sure is that if this is indeed the case, he got to how his products sound through measurements and measurements alone. I also know of no other brand that publishes as broad a set of measurements of their test units AND actually sends a completed test sheet for every amplifier that goes out their door.

If one were to look at the published measurements they do not win the THD wars, the ultimate flatness wars, rise time slew rate wars or whatever. What they do have is a wide and loyal (myself included) customer base that has some models being produced unchanged for over a decade. I can only surmise that the model based on measurements is one that fits a subset that prefers what the products can do.

Personally I don't give stock to measurements much beyond obvious compatibility but it isn't because I don't appreciate that I have them whenever I have taken delivery. It's just that unlike Vladimir, I do not have the ability to correlate the data and in so doing form a firm mental picture of what the products might actually sound like. It is easier for me to just listen the same way a basketball player can more easily get a rebound using his instincts rather than measuring and computing the parabolic path and speed of the ball before and after it hits the rim.

 

[MylesBAstor]

If it measures good and sounds good, it is good. If it measures bad and sounds good, you're measuring the wrong thing. Seems to be what Vlad is saying.

 

[JackD201]

I can't speculate Myles. Having known him for 7 years he seems every bit a hard nosed, by the numbers guy when it comes to his designs. His aesthetic may be another matter. Judging by his choice of demo music, the man plays a lot of cuts with intricate, filigreed detail.

 

[Steve Williams]

No comments

Come hear the amp and then let's talk. Paired with his LL1 Signature pre it is IMHO a combo difficult to beat

Did Fremer use the LL1 in his evaluation of the ML3

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

I could care less about measurements and prefer to just listen. That doesn't mean I buy blindly or don't consider them at all, but I think that measurements are too often over emphasized. I much prefer to read opinions of those with a personal history of experience on the gear in question.

Are they important? Do they need to be published? Of course yes on both counts, but I think some audiophiles take them to the extreme and dismiss gear that works very well in the real world. I've read both positive/negative reviews of the same product with the same measurements. IMO the result thereof is purely a subjective personal choice. Who's right? Who's wrong? If measurements are infallible wouldn't everyone agree?

 

[JackD201]

No comments

Come hear the amp and then let's talk. Paired with his LL1 Signature pre it is IMHO a combo difficult to beat

Stop it!

 

[mep]

We need to invite the objectivist/Double-Blind testing gang over here to this thread so they can start administering some good beatings. Oh wait, I think I hear them coming...standby!

Look, if you read what JA had to say carefully, you will understand that SE amps as a breed measure worse than their push-pull brethren which in turn measure worse than SS amps. For single-ended amps, the Lamms actually measure quite well. The output transformers used on the ML3 were found to be of very high quality. Look at the 1kHz squarewave on page 109. That squarewave is about as picture-perfect as they come no matter what the origins of the circuit are. Now having said that, the measurements overall are not impressive when compared with a push-pull amp and certainly don't come close to a competent SS amp. With JA being a man of science, it must be hard to reconcile what your measurements tell you vice what your ears tell you when you hear the amps. I believe the term used by JA to describe the sound of the ML3s driving the XLF speakers was "magical."

 

[Steve Williams]

They are magical and anyone who has heard them will agree especially if Vlad's LL1 Signature preamp is used

The amp is all of 30 wpc and if one sees the transformers on this amp and power supply you would surmise it to be a power behemoth

 

[RogerD]

Look at the 1kHz squarewave on page 109. That squarewave is about as picture-perfect as they come no matter what the origins of the circuit are.

Show me a picture perfect squarewave and forget about the rest

 

[MylesBAstor]

We need to invite the objectivist/Double-Blind testing gang over here to this thread so they can start administering some good beatings. Oh wait, I think I hear them coming...standby!

Look, if you read what JA had to say carefully, you will understand that SE amps as a breed measure worse than their push-pull brethren which in turn measure worse than SS amps. For single-ended amps, the Lamms actually measure quite well. The output transformers used on the ML3 were found to be of very high quality. Look at the 1kHz squarewave on page 109. That squarewave is about as picture-perfect as they come no matter what the origins of the circuit are. Now having said that, the measurements overall are not impressive when compared with a push-pull amp and certainly don't come close to a competent SS amp. With JA being a man of science, it must be hard to reconcile what your measurements tell you vice what your ears tell you when you hear the amps. I believe the term used by JA to describe the sound of the ML3s driving the XLF speakers was "magical."

The impression I had is that amps measured quite well and Vlad was so proud he posts the measurements on his website. Out of curiosity, how did JA's measurements compare to what Vlad posted?

 

[MylesBAstor]

We need to invite the objectivist/Double-Blind testing gang over here to this thread so they can start administering some good beatings. Oh wait, I think I hear them coming...standby!

Look, if you read what JA had to say carefully, you will understand that SE amps as a breed measure worse than their push-pull brethren which in turn measure worse than SS amps. For single-ended amps, the Lamms actually measure quite well. The output transformers used on the ML3 were found to be of very high quality. Look at the 1kHz squarewave on page 109. That squarewave is about as picture-perfect as they come no matter what the origins of the circuit are. Now having said that, the measurements overall are not impressive when compared with a push-pull amp and certainly don't come close to a competent SS amp. With JA being a man of science, it must be hard to reconcile what your measurements tell you vice what your ears tell you when you hear the amps. I believe the term used by JA to describe the sound of the ML3s driving the XLF speakers was "magical."

Sure that's it's them coming that you're hearing? You know you can't trust your hearing!

 

[mep]

I haven't looked at what Vlad posted so I don't know the answer to that question. To say that the ML3s measured "quite well" has to be qualified. I think what's important here is that regardless of how they measure, the sound they reproduce escapes the box the measurements would try to paint them in.

 

[Steve Williams]

I haven't looked at what Vlad posted so I don't know the answer to that question. To say that the ML3s measured "quite well" has to be qualified. I think what's important here is that regardless of how they measure, the sound they reproduce escapes the box the measurements would try to paint them in.

I completely agree. Anyone who has heard this amp seem to use the same adjective. "Magical"

The sound is mesmerizing.

 

[NorthStar]

I just finished reading the well written review by MF of the Lamm ML3's in the new S'phile. In the review, i noticed that MF wisely ( IMHO) made a point of stating that no audio system can truly hold a candle to the "live" event. MF then went on to write his impressions of how the top-of-the-line Lamm amps ( The ML3's) sounded on his Wilson XLF's. He seemed to really like some aspects of the sound and in some ways seemed to be a little concerned about other areas, particularly in comparison to his Dart mono blocks ( ss amps).
Then he stated another interesting point....he expected that when JA did his measurements that this time he would NOT have his pants down as he has had in the past when JA measured some of the tube amps that MF had liked. Problem is, that after reading the measurements that JA posted and commented on, I was left with the distinct impression that the amp(s) measure(s) fairly poorly. JA finished his comments by saying that the amps sounded magical with the XLF's when he heard them...But I guess not when he measured them...at least according to the graphs and measurements.
Since I am lucky enough to have heard these very amps at our good friend's Steve's place, i can say that IMHO they are superb. So, what are we to assign to the meaning of the measurements? Are the measurements that JA and others rely on really measuring the things that are important to us as humans listening to music? ( At this point in time, I think not....BUT that is truly IMHO). Therefore, the meaning, or should I say value, of measurements??

Like several of us here I've been reading Stereophile (reviews & all) since I can remember (the 70s), and that's a very long time.
We all have seen over and over the differentiations between assessments from the reviewer's own set of ears in his own room with his own gear and the performed measurements as illustrated on graphs by microphones and electronic tools which over the years improved (changes and modifications) in their bettering accuracy.

The reviewer's viewpoint is his own because his room is unique and his ears too and the matching of all his components and wires between them.
...Even his own electrical grid (electric power to his own house). ...Plus one day to the next is never the same, and no two people on this planet are exactly alike (cloning we ain't there just yet; human cloning).

There is a just balance, I think, between listening and measuring, and it is this very balance that is the denominating factor at interpreting those measurements to the best of our assessing capabilities (judgement). Our experience at listening and measuring is key, I think; none goes without the other.

We are searching for the most accurate representation (reproduction) of the live musical event, and even bettering it in several aspects (acoustics & all).
And the more tools we have at our disposition (ears and mics and electronics), the more chances at finding the right ingredients to audio nirvana bliss on the road to the holy grail.

 

[DaveyF]

We are searching for the most accurate representation (reproduction) of the live musical event, and even bettering it in several aspects (acoustics & all).
And the more tools we have at our disposition (ears and mics and electronics), the more chances at finding the right ingredients to audio nirvana bliss on the road to the holy grail.

Yes, Bob, agreed. However, I think this article and the set of measurements that JA provides clearly shows that the measuring parameters ( or perhaps device) that we are using ( or that JA is using) do NOT necessarily have anything to do with what the amp sounds like. Therefore, would it not be true to say that perhaps we are looking to measure the wrong things?
The reason I brought up this particular article, is that I have personally heard the amp under review...OK Steve, with the LL1 Sig preamp....and it sounded superb to my ears. A lot of us dismiss gear under review simply due to the graphs and measurements that are produced that show the failings under "scientific testing". Like I said to Steve when I visited, i personally couldn't give a rat's ass about measurements IF they correlate to what I am hearing, great...IF not then the measuring device or parameter is faulty....not my ears, IMHO.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Yes, Bob, agreed. However, I think this article and the set of measurements that JA provides clearly shows that the measuring parameters ( or perhaps device) that we are using ( or that JA is using) do NOT necessarily have anything to do with what the amp sounds like. Therefore, would it not be true to say that perhaps we are looking to measure the wrong things?
The reason I brought up this particular article, is that I have personally heard the amp under review...OK Steve, with the LL1 Sig preamp....and it sounded superb to my ears. A lot of us dismiss gear under review simply due to the graphs and measurements that are produced that show the failings under "scientific testing". Like I said to Steve when I visited, i personally couldn't give a rat's ass about measurements IF they correlate to what I am hearing, great...IF not then the measuring device or parameter is faulty....not my ears, IMHO.

I've been saying that over and over again since the day I joined this forum. That opinion has usually fallen on deaf ears (barring a few members).

 

[DaveyF]

I've been saying that over and over again since the day I joined this forum. That opinion has usually fallen on deaf ears (barring a few members).

John, I think you and I listen for the same thing and like the same types of music. IMHO, our ears ( and minds) are NOT blocked

 

[Steve Williams]

For anyone in my neck of the woods who want to hear this special amp/preamp combo please PM and come by. There aren't that many in operation world wide so grabbing this chance will be well worth it

 

[microstrip]

I haven't looked at what Vlad posted so I don't know the answer to that question. To say that the ML3s measured "quite well" has to be qualified. I think what's important here is that regardless of how they measure, the sound they reproduce escapes the box the measurements would try to paint them in.

I have not yet got the Stereophile issue and never listened to the ML3 - although I hope some day I will - but from what I see at the Lamm site the measurements are poor by current standards and we should assume it. If they really sound magical in the appropriate system this only means that current standards can not be applied at this level of performance.