Natural Sound

[morricab]

Fwiw, the M1 was shown at CES in 1993 where it received the best sound at CES award. It was built while he worked for Madison Fielding but they would not put it into production, so he waited until he started his own company to go public with it. The ML2 came out in the late '90s - first reviewed in 1999.

I agree the solid-state MOSFET amps (110 Watts +) sound different from the 633C SET amps (18 W). I own both the M1.2 and the ML2.2. But to my ears on the JBLs they sound more similar than different; I prefer the ML2 overall but the additional power of the M1.2 has that advantage.

Only have heard the older 1.1 and 2, respectively.

 

[Rensselaer]

Vlad Lamm or Vlad the impaler?

I believe it was also Confucius who said; “he who go to bed with itchy butt, wake up with stinky finger”?

 

[hopkins]

You know this how? Lamm claimed to design to his model…you have inside knowledge to the contrary?

The reason why it is not a « design model » is very simple and obvious: with this approach you cannot actually innovate. You are stuck applying the same recipes - you can change the mix of components and slightly tweak things, but you won’t discover entirely new solutions.

 

[morricab]

The reason why it is not a « design model » is very simple and obvious: with this approach you cannot actually innovate. You are stuck applying the same recipes - you can change the mix of components and slightly tweak things, but you won’t discover entirely new solutions.

This is a really dumb way to think about this. The innovation was to come up with a model of hearing that can be applied to the design of an amplifier that more people would find to sound best. You are using psychoacoustic data from listener feedback to make a model that tells you the amounts and types of distortion that are ideal based on what the model tells you they should be. It is probably not trivial to design an amp that meets those criteria.

You will notice that the basic amp formula from Lamm hasn't changed...so in that sense you are correct, if you think you have it right based on the model then you say, "well that is the best we could do and we stick with it". The Lamm ML2.2 is still the same basic formula as the original ML2. The ML3 has been around unchanged for a long time as well.

If you are confident that your model gives you the best possible criteria for an amp design based on how humans perceive music, why would you go to entirely new solutions anyway?

All the technical innovation is just dancing around aimlessly if it isn't directed at how to get closer to reproducing perfectly based on how humans hear and not on ultimate specs.

Read the master's thesis of Daniel Cheever, he also comes up with a metric for predicting best sound quality based on the ear/brain's function...his conclusion was also that SET amps do the best job of providing an ideal distortion pattern for the distortion to "hide" in the ear/brain's own masking functions. Most designers do nothing of the sort and pursue ultimate low distortion through various clever technical means...we already know this doesn't always result in good sound.

 

[Amir]

Dear Peter,

You know all of these discussion are subjective so it is not possible to convince others why Lamm is better than other SET amplifiers. I strongly believe David @ddk is very expert in audio and I learn from him but there is no way to convince others why “Natural Sound” of David is more advanced than other ideas. For many years many people believed they should try to prove God exist and also many people try to prove God does not exist. Finally Karl Pooper defined the “Science” and now we know no body can prove god exist and also no body can prove god does not exist.

This debate never ends because audio subjective discussions relate to listener and there is no way to prove Lamm is better than other SET amplifiers.

I strongly believe audio is not about taste (some audiophiles like Ron believe audio is about taste so some prefer ferrari some prefer Lambo).

Finally Enjoy your beautiful Lamm and enjoy beautiful life.

 

[jeff1225]

I see I was not alone in my perception of the sound…

If there is one critique of the Lamm sound, it's that the amps are slightly dark. I've heard the ML2 with a passive preamp (Bent Audio), and it was less dark.

 

[morricab]

Dear Peter,

You know all of these discussion are subjective so it is not possible to convince others why Lamm is better than other SET amplifiers. I strongly believe David @ddk is very expert in audio and I learn from him but there is no way to convince others why “Natural Sound” of David is more advanced than other ideas. For many years many people believed they should try to prove God exist and also many people try to prove God does not exist. Finally Karl Pooper defined the “Science” and now we know no body can prove god exist and also no body can prove god does not exist.

This debate never ends because audio subjective discussions relate to listener and there is no way to prove Lamm is better than other SET amplifiers.

I strongly believe audio is not about taste (some audiophiles like Ron believe audio is about taste so some prefer ferrari some prefer Lambo).

Finally Enjoy your beautiful Lamm and enjoy beautiful life.

Amir,
A good hearing model will tell you statistically what most people would prefer, from a distortion perspective, and if that is then put into practice correctly with an amp design, it should guarantee that at least a fairly large number of people will find that amp excellent sounding. This is the case with Lamm, where most people who have heard the products think they are excellent sounding. It doesn't mean everyone will agree. Human psychology also guarantees that a good correlation might be 50-60% agreement to the model. That leaves room for a significant amount of naysayers. So, please don't compare this to the proof or absence of proof to the existence of God.

Finally, as a student of the philosophy of science (I was a chemistry major and philosophy minor in college...later Ph.D in Analytical Chemistry), Popper came up with the now adopted concept of hypothesis falsifiability. He didn't believe anything was provable...only falsifiable. You can have 1000 positive data points on a hypothesis and it only takes one negative to deem a hypothesis invalid. Nothing is ultimately provable but the best hypotheses are those that withstand efforts to invalidate them.

In his view, it wasn't science if you couldn't formulate a hypothesis that was testable and falsifiable. It doesn't mean the thing you espouse is necessarily false...it simply can't be explored by science. Human hearing and determining preference does not fall into that category, it is testable and at least potentially falsifiable.

Psychology is probably somewhere between science and non-science because there is a lack of precision in the test methods and responses that yield correlations, which at least by 'hard' science are weak, leave a lot of room for people to think differently than those that correlate well with the hypothesis or model.

So, what this means is that, if the story of Lamm using a model to design his amps is true, he was in a way kind of a pioneer in trying to merge the human psychology of hearing with circuits that deliver the best sound based on the model. This doesn't mean they will be universally hailed as the best ever but it does mean that they are likely to sound better than most to a large percentage of audiophiles.

 

[morricab]

If there is one critique of the Lamm sound, it's that the amps are slightly dark. I've heard the ML2 with a passive preamp (Bent Audio), and it was less dark.

Agree that that the ML2 is less in that direction...maybe why it is more universally hailed as THE Lamm amp...

 

[PeterA]

Dear Peter,

You know all of these discussion are subjective so it is not possible to convince others why Lamm is better than other SET amplifiers. I strongly believe David @ddk is very expert in audio and I learn from him but there is no way to convince others why “Natural Sound” of David is more advanced than other ideas. For many years many people believed they should try to prove God exist and also many people try to prove God does not exist. Finally Karl Pooper defined the “Science” and now we know no body can prove god exist and also no body can prove god does not exist.

This debate never ends because audio subjective discussions relate to listener and there is no way to prove Lamm is better than other SET amplifiers.

I strongly believe audio is not about taste (some audiophiles like Ron believe audio is about taste so some prefer ferrari some prefer Lambo).

Finally Enjoy your beautiful Lamm and enjoy beautiful life.

Wise words my friend Amir. This thread was not started to convince anyone of anything. It was started to share and to document my audio interests, and to develop my own thinking through essays. It also serves to expose interested readers to some components with which they may have little or no experience. Like many other systems, my system is a bit out of the mainstream, from the carefully chosen industrial/comercial wires to the rare vintage 1950s corner horns and replica vintage cartridge. It is certainly not for everyone, but it does indeed provide enjoyment to its owner.

 

[morricab]

If there is one critique of the Lamm sound, it's that the amps are slightly dark. I've heard the ML2 with a passive preamp (Bent Audio), and it was less dark.

BTW, you once had the PP version the ML1.1...did you ever think to try the ML2 with our JBLs? Or did the trouble you had with the Lamm leave you cold on them?

 

[jeff1225]

Wise words my friend Amir. This thread was not started to convince anyone of anything. It was started to share and to document my audio interests, and to develop my own thinking through essays. It also serves to expose interested readers to some components with which they may have little or no experience. Like many other systems, my system is a bit out of the mainstream, from the carefully chosen industrial/comercial wires to the rare vintage 1950s corner horns and replica vintage cartridge. It is certainly not for everyone, but it does indeed provide enjoyment to its owner.

Peter, have you listed the different industrial/commercial wires that you've tried in your system and are currently using?

 

[PeterA]

Peter, have you listed the different industrial/commercial wires that you've tried in your system and are currently using?

No Jeff, I have not listed them, nor do I really know what they are. I listened to ones that DDK sent me and suggested I try. The only one now still available is a Belden IC. The other ICs and both speaker wires are old and no longer made.

 

[hopkins]

This is a really dumb way to think about this.

If you say so. But...

All the technical innovation is just dancing around aimlessly if it isn't directed at how to get closer to reproducing perfectly based on how humans hear and not on ultimate specs.

This is a caricature. Things don't happen this way (if you set aside the 100€ Chi-fi designed to please the ASR crowd).

 

[Al M.]

I strongly believe audio is not about taste (some audiophiles like Ron believe audio is about taste so some prefer ferrari some prefer Lambo).

Sure, audio is about the objective truth which you appear to have (or at least pretend to).

 

[microstrip]

(...) This debate never ends because audio subjective discussions relate to listener and there is no way to prove Lamm is better than other SET amplifiers.

No, at best we can do statistically analysts of how many audiophiles Lamm and how man prefer other SET amplifiers.

I strongly believe audio is not about taste (some audiophiles like Ron believe audio is about taste so some prefer ferrari some prefer Lambo).

It depends on what you mean about taste. High-end audio is all about preference.

 

[jeff1225]

No Jeff, I have not listed them, nor do I really know what they are. I listened to ones that DDK sent me and suggested I try. The only one now still available is a Belden IC. The other ICs and both speaker wires are old and no longer made.

Then you fail in one of the key mission statement of your thread "It also serves to expose interested readers to some components with which they may have little or no experience."

 

[PeterA]

Then you fail in one of the key mission statement of your thread "It also serves to expose interested readers to some components with which they may have little or no experience."

Yes, Jeff. That is true in that sense, but I don’t think of this as my mission. With some of my wires, I do not know what they are or where David Karmeli found them. They are decades old and lost.

This thread is not about making recommendations. You are right in this case I don’t have the information that you seek. I presume he found these on eBay. I don’t know what they are, and I can’t name them. But I have been very clear in this long thread and my old system thread Sublime Sound to share my opinion that wires do matter and should be carefully chosen, and that they do not need to be fancy new expensive wires.

I have said many times that often commercial grade stuff is worth investigating. So you may be frustrated that I’m not able to tell you what wires sound good in my system so that you can go out and buy them. I suggest you contact David Karmeli directly and discuss the wires with him.

 

[jeff1225]

Yes, that’s true in that sense, but I don’t know what they are or where David Karmeli found these old wires. I presume on eBay. I don’t know what it is, and I can’t name it. But I have been very clear in this long thread to share my opinion that wires do matter and should be carefully chosen, and that they do not need to be fancy new wires. I have said many times that often commercial grade stuff is worth investigating. So you may be frustrated that I’m not telling you what sounds good so that you can go out and buy it. I suggest you contact David Karmeli directly and discuss the wires with him.

Same old story. A bunch of secret tweaks discussed, promoted, and photo graphed, but when you ask about them you are directed to go directly to DDK.

Smart marketing Peter.

 

[PeterA]

Same old story. A bunch of secret tweaks discussed, promoted, and photo graphed, but when you ask about them you are directed to go directly to DDK.

Smart marketing Peter.

Actually, the latest speaker wires, I have not photographed. If you’d like, I’ll post a photograph and you can try to find them. I think they’re from the 1970s and were used for very long runs at concerts. No idea what they are because they are ultra thin and stiff. And they have no names and even David Karmeli knows little about them. He did buy a spool and likes the way they sound and suggested I try them. Do you want me to ask him for you so that you don’t have to contact him directly?