Natural Sound

[PeterA]

The hybrid amp is not good sonically. I have heard 4 amps on the Sigma MAAT of which it was by far the least good, and TZBC has heard many amps on the Sigma he also had the Lamm hybrids and likes it the least. Koda, Kondo, and NAT were the 3 other amps I heard

Are you describing the ML1 or the M1.1?

 

[PeterA]

You are relentless.

Comparison to live music is not a "design philosophy".

Explaining that a manufacturer designs a product based on their experience of live music is totally useless. We obviously all listen based on our experience and idea of what things should sound like. If I had a dime for every audiophile that explains they use live music as a reference I would be rich. Everyone uses live music, starting with the instrument we hear every day - vocals. It is inevitable.

This is common sense. No qualifications are needed to understand this, it is obvious.

Where did you get the idea that Vladimir Lamm designed his amplifiers based on his experience of live music?

 

[Ron Resnick]

It is just curious to me that people like Lamm SETs but claim they are not unusual or difficult to design, and yet I keep asking for a single alternative that sounds similar and no one can suggest anything.

This is a disingenuous reply. I gave you four examples of brands that will be conceptually similar sounding amplifiers. I could've given you a list of six or eight. We could also add Jadis SET and MastersounD SET to that list. It will sound a bit different to the cognoscenti. The Lamm is not uniquely going to open up the Stargate and transport you through a wormhole in space and time to the original musical performance.

If we impaneled a group of listeners some will prefer Lamm and others will prefer each of those other brands.

If we lined up all of those SET amplifiers in your system and you auditioned them leisurely side-by-side you might still prefer Lamm the best, or you might very well prefer the Viva Aurora or Jadis SET or some other similar power SET amplifier.

The point, again, is that there is nothing quantum-like unique about Lamm's circuits. It is kind of silly for you to canonize the Lamm Russian research history and conclude there is something fabulously unique about Lamm ML2 when you yourself have not compared ML2 to a variety of other SET amplifiers your own system. You love the ML2. That's great! Why can't you just leave it there?

Why do you insist on wrapping it so fawningly in a legend about Vladimir's Russian research project the details of which are lost to the sands of history yet the magic holy grail component survives? If it weren't still produced today you'd be sprinkling on it your favorite word "coveted."

Lamm makes fantastic SET amplifiers. Other people also make fantastic SET amplifiers. There is nothing to fetishize about the ML2.

I have said that I do not like car analogies in this hobby, but here a simple one might make sense. We assemble a set of well-respected exotic cars of similar horsepower in a parking lot: Lamborghini, Ferrari, McLaren, etc. There are all beautiful, exciting, conceptually similar sports cars. Some drivers will prefer one, other drivers will prefer another. Each automobile has a pedigree and a storied design history.

One driver (named Peter) decides he subjectively likes the Ferrari best overall and chooses to fall in love with the brand and canonize the brand because of its legendary racing history. That's great -- he's a sports car enthusiast, and people love to love the sports cars they own.

But there's no objectivity to his personal love of that pedigree story and his personal preference for the Ferrari in that group of cars. Other people prefer other cars in the group. Each brand has its own storied history.

 

[PeterA]

I am relentless because you continue not to get it.

I see now you have a complete misunderstanding about Lamm’s stated design philosophy! He is on record stating that he designs to match a model of human hearing and perception, which he supposedly developed back in the USSR. Measurements are made to make sure products conform to model ideals. So, not at all based on subjective, “It sounds like live music”. I think he claimed that he doesn’t even listen to the finished product, it just has to conform to the model. Now, one can question the model validity for sure but device tuning was to match what the model predicts , not individual subjectivity.

This is also my understanding. I think Hopkins simply wants to argue and has not been following the discussion or reading any interviews with Vladimir Lamm. I commend you for your patience with him.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Aries Cerat and NAT are both less ‘dark’ sounding but both have very solid foundations to the sound. Here we refer to AC as ‘architectural’ in how well it builds a foundation and structures the soundstage. Lamm is good this way too and has excellent dynamics but is not as open up top, thus the darkish quality. The Vivas I have heard were more the classic warm sounding SET, AC, NAT and Trafomatic are making a more neutral, less bloomy sound.

As I said, conceptually similar amplifiers, each sounding a little bit different to the cognoscenti.

 

[bonzo75]

Are you describing the ML1 or the M1.1?

1.2.

 

[PeterA]

This is a disingenuous reply. I don't know why it's necessary for you to canonize the Lamm story. I gave you four examples of brands that will be conceptually similar sounding amplifiers. I could've given you a list of six or eight. We could also add Jadis SET and MastersounD SET to that list.

If we impaneled a group of listeners some will prefer Lamm and others will prefer each of those other brands.

If we lined up all of those SET amplifiers in your system and you auditioned them leisurely side-by-side you might still prefer Lamm the best, or you might very well prefer the Viva Aurora or Jadis SET or some other similar power SET amplifier.

The point, again, is that there is nothing quantum-like unique about Lamm's circuits. It is kind of silly for you to canonize the Lamm Russian research history and conclude there is something fabulously unique about Lamm ML2 when you yourself have not compared ML2 to a variety of other SET amplifiers your own system. You love the ML2. That's great! Why can't you just leave it there?

Why do you insist on wrapping it so fawningly in the legend about Vladimir's Russian research project the details of which are lost to the sands of history yet the magic holy grail component survives? If it weren't still produced today you'd be sprinkling on it your favorite word "coveted."

Lamm makes fantastic SET amplifiers. Other people also make fantastic SET amplifiers. There is nothing to fetishize about the ML2.

I have said that I do not like car analogies in this hobby, but here a simple one might make sense. We assemble a set of well-respected exotic cars of similar horsepower in a parking lot: Lamborghini, Ferrari, McLaren, etc. There are all beautiful, exciting, broadly conceptually similar sports cars. Some drivers will prefer one, other drivers will prefer another. Each automobile has a pedigree and a storied design history.

One test driver (named Peter) decides he subjectively likes the Ferrari best overall and chooses to fall in live with the brand and canonize the brand because of its legendary racing history. That's great but there's no objectivity to his personal love of that story and his personal preference for the Ferrari in the group of cars. Other people prefer other cars in the group. Each brand has its own storied history.

Ron, I don’t have the experience nor the interest in canonizing any amplifier. Perhaps that is your perception. I simply asked you to give me an example of an amplifier that you think sounds similar to the ML2. Apparently you have not made any direct comparisons so I was mistaken. Thanks for your list.

 

[hopkins]

I am relentless because you continue not to get it.

I see now you have a complete misunderstanding about Lamm’s stated design philosophy! He is on record stating that he designs to match a model of human hearing and perception, which he supposedly developed back in the USSR. Measurements are made to make sure products conform to model ideals. So, not at all based on subjective, “It sounds like live music”. I think he claimed that he doesn’t even listen to the finished product, it just has to conform to the model. Now, one can question the model validity for sure but device tuning was to match what the model predicts , not individual subjectivity.

LOL.

Natural Sound

Easy. Different goals and values, some say preferences and tastes. How do you explain it? Not to repeat myself, but… In light of the topic of your thread, it is easy to conceive that people having the same goals (and similar experience of live sound) could choose different systems because no...

www.whatsbestforum.com

"As Chief Design Engineer of Research and Development at the Lvov Radio & Electronics factory in the Soviet Union, Lamm had both the resources and large pools of test subjects for conducting hundreds of blind and double-blind listening experiments. From these he accumulated massive amounts of data about what happens when people hear certain sounds, including a complex sound like live music. With data in hand he used differential equations to develop scientific models that described mathematically what he calls "the human hearing mechanism." He converted those equations into electro-mechanical models and implemented them in specific circuit topologies."

Somehow he is able to "measure" people's appreciation of sound and this becomes "objective" instead of "subjective". Give me a break... You are very gullible.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Somehow he is able to "measure" people's appreciation of sound and this becomes "objective" instead of "subjective".

Based on the incomparability of interpersonal utility I agree with this skepticism about the measurement of people's appreciation of sound.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Aries Cerat and NAT are both less ‘dark’ sounding but both have very solid foundations to the sound. Here we refer to AC as ‘architectural’ in how well it builds a foundation and structures the soundstage. Lamm is good this way too and has excellent dynamics but is not as open up top, thus the darkish quality. The Vivas I have heard were more the classic warm sounding SET, AC, NAT and Trafomatic are making a more neutral, less bloomy sound.

I understand that some people feel the Lamm has a slightly "dark" sound. I know what they are trying to describe by that.

I don't happen to agree with that. I think the Lamm is incredibly natural sounding. I don't hear the highs as dark or not completely open; I hear the highs as natural and convincing.

As I've said many times I love the Lamm electronics. I just don't care to join in apotheosizing Vladimir.

 

[bonzo75]

LOL.

Natural Sound

Easy. Different goals and values, some say preferences and tastes. How do you explain it? Not to repeat myself, but… In light of the topic of your thread, it is easy to conceive that people having the same goals (and similar experience of live sound) could choose different systems because no...

www.whatsbestforum.com

"As Chief Design Engineer of Research and Development at the Lvov Radio & Electronics factory in the Soviet Union, Lamm had both the resources and large pools of test subjects for conducting hundreds of blind and double-blind listening experiments. From these he accumulated massive amounts of data about what happens when people hear certain sounds, including a complex sound like live music. With data in hand he used differential equations to develop scientific models that described mathematically what he calls "the human hearing mechanism." He converted those equations into electro-mechanical models and implemented them in specific circuit topologies."

Somehow he is able to "measure" people's appreciation of sound and this becomes "objective" instead of "subjective". Give me a break... You are very gullible.

This is marketing speak

 

[Mike Lavigne]

owned the ML3's for 4 months in my current system, back in the day did some compares with the ML2.0 and the Tenor 75 watt OTL's on Kharma's.

Lamm's SET's have a beguiling purity, solidity and freeness. maybe the ML2 more pure than the ML3 but not quite as sexy if memory serves. very special.

 

[jeff1225]

Introducing political aspects. This has nothing to do with the research of any of the aforementioned, and it's also against the TOS of this forum.

Tom

It's really interesting that you see politics in a non-political historical event.

 

[jeff1225]

Lamm’s hybrid amp has the tube somewhere in a middle stage of the smp, not the output. I was never impressed with the sound of their hybrid amps. The ML2 is quite good, if a bit darkish in tonality.

Thank you for the correction, you are correct it is part of the voltage gain stage.

 

[jeff1225]

No Jeff, I did not know that. Which Lamm and which Mark Levinson amps do you mean? I had the M1.1 hybrid driving my Magicos for a while and they sounded great. The few times I heard Mark Levinson amps, the systems sounded a bit dark.

You make it sound as though his designs could be easily copied. Are you aware of any other brand of amplifiers that sound similar enough to Lamm that they can be used as a substitute?

I do not know anything about Lamm’s research, and did not investigate before I bought his gear. I simply listened to his gear and heard something I liked.

I was told this when I brought in the M2.2 to my local repair facility, they are a licensed Levinson repair center. They also said that the tube implementation was "extremely innovative" and it was the "best amp they ever heard at their shop."

My only point is that Lamm was a fantastic designer, but his classified Soviet research built on other successful designs and wasn't divine inspiration.

 

[microstrip]

Over the years I've come to realize you are intractable and you simply can't help yourself in creating your responses.

I meant what I said, namely that both manufacturers have a view that human hearing works in certain ways and they design their equipment in accordance with what they beleve are the rules of human hearing. Lamm used hundreds of hours of testing and evaluation of human listeners to arrive at his conclusions. This is not some vague theory, as confirmed to me by Lamm himself. Karsten read other's work to come to conclusions along with his own experience as he has conveyed to me in private correspondence. You forget I have worked directly with both across five reviews -- there is no reason to misrepresent either. I encourage you to be less cavalier with other people's words.

The answer we could expect - your inability to present facts or debate a subject in a proper and civilized way drives you to personal attacks to the messengers. You just repeat the same words in a circular way adding your usual condescending speech. Surely I do not expect everyone to appreciate a science perspective in this forum, but it is part of life.

IMO scrutinization must be part a subjective hobby where everything can go and marketing is essentially diffuse and even abusive. If all you have is UFO type theory you are not allowed or do not want to release, we have arrived at an end. Bye.

 

[PeterA]

I was told this when I brought in the M2.2 to my local repair facility, they are a licensed Levinson repair center. They also said that the tube implementation was "extremely innovative" and it was the "best amp they ever heard at their shop."

My only point is that Lamm was a fantastic designer, but his classified Soviet research built on other successful designs and wasn't divine inspiration.

Thank you, Jeff. I do not think there was any divine intervention either in the design process. But then again, I don’t know anything about design circuits. I’m not sure how this discussion even got started. My focus is simply on how the thing sounds in a given system.

 

[microstrip]

Lamm’s hybrid amp has the tube somewhere in a middle stage of the smp, not the output. I was never impressed with the sound of their hybrid amps. The ML2 is quite good, if a bit darkish in tonality.

I have onwed the LL1, ML2.2 and ML3, as well as the L2ref and the M1.2 Ref at the same time.

The pure tube amps sounded very different from the hybrids. A night and day difference, as audiophiles like to say.

 

[morricab]

As I said, conceptually similar amplifiers, each sounding a little bit different to the cognoscenti.

About as similar as different craft beers…

 

[morricab]

LOL.

Natural Sound

Easy. Different goals and values, some say preferences and tastes. How do you explain it? Not to repeat myself, but… In light of the topic of your thread, it is easy to conceive that people having the same goals (and similar experience of live sound) could choose different systems because no...

www.whatsbestforum.com

"As Chief Design Engineer of Research and Development at the Lvov Radio & Electronics factory in the Soviet Union, Lamm had both the resources and large pools of test subjects for conducting hundreds of blind and double-blind listening experiments. From these he accumulated massive amounts of data about what happens when people hear certain sounds, including a complex sound like live music. With data in hand he used differential equations to develop scientific models that described mathematically what he calls "the human hearing mechanism." He converted those equations into electro-mechanical models and implemented them in specific circuit topologies."

Somehow he is able to "measure" people's appreciation of sound and this becomes "objective" instead of "subjective". Give me a break... You are very gullible.

How do you think psychoacoustic studies are conducted? It’s your lack of understanding here that is the issue, not Lamm’s explanation.