Lamm LP2.1 Deluxe

[LL21]

David, Christian:

I lost my temper yesterday; I shouldn't have. My sincere apologies.

No problem Ian, all good here , thank you!

david

Don't sweat it Ian. This is a passionate hobby. Completely understandable.

Agree with Rockitman and DDK. Having had the pleasure of actually meeting you, Ian, you're a gentleman in my book...and equally given the fact that you actually went through the trouble to mea culpa only confirms that for me. We've all had our moments...personally, i'm struggling with how piano sounds in the new room myself at the moment, and its positively killing me. Massed strings and piano mids lack weight now...ugh...

 

[ddk]

David, I was curious what 6X4 you use(d) with your lp2, having purchased second hand, what is the stock 6X4? I feel like I should hear it at least once

I think mine came with Jan GEs but I've also had Tungsols in there. Best bet is to contact Vladimir and get whatever he recommends now, what made a big difference for me was using the WE 417's that transformed the LP2. But no matter what you use the LP2 is killer, it was my reference over years until the LP1 came along.

david

 

[kleinbje]

Thanks, I'll contact Lamm. My unit had amperex 5842's to start, the WE made all all the difference, agreed. With nos 7308's and a good power cable my chinook was close to the lamm, UNTIL I changed rectifier and 5842's to the WE. It was a whole new level of sound!

Jeff

 

[bonzo75]

Ron,

re-reading my above post and with my memory jogged with a bit more time, I think being fair to the Aesthetix Io Sig I need to point out that I was told by Albert Porter at that time (approx. 14 years ago) that if I would have played around with rolling various tubes on the Io Sig that I could have lowered the noise and found a more neutral balance. this was prior to Albert being a dealer; he was all-Aesthetix then and had not yet encountered Allnic.

I never did do that when I had the Io Sig. but my perspective that it was not neutral is maybe not the whole picture.

and I have no idea how the Aesthetix Io Sig of today compares to then.

I read on the shark that the best phono is "an Aesthetix IO with carefully selected tubes in 32 positions". Apparently someone has it with the Callisto and other stuff for a total of 78 tubes, and when they once heard a problem with the left channel, they first shortlisted it down to 38 tubes.

The comments were by A/V solutions and audio.bill

 

[rockitman]

I read on the shark that the best phono is "an Aesthetix IO with carefully selected tubes in 32 positions". Apparently someone has it with the Callisto and other stuff for a total of 78 tubes, and when they once heard a problem with the left channel, they first shortlisted it down to 38 tubes.

The comments were by A/V solutions and audio.bill

well that sounds like a tube roll nightmare. I has no idea the Aesthetix had so many tubes.

 

[bonzo75]

That was possibly in jest

 

[caesar]

Precisely. Chill out people, not everyone has to like everything, even if it's the gear you favor or promote, especially when it comes to deciding to have to live with it in their own system.

There are strong subjective tastes in audio. If that were not so, why then would the diverse systems that people have be so enormously different from one another?

If you think your gear is best, then it's best for you, and that's fine. But it doesn't mean it has to be best for everybody.

Yes, unamplified live music may be an objective standard for audio reprodiction. But even people who attend the same concert perceive the sonics differently, also because they have their own subjective priorities in listening perception. And on top of that, each one may prefer to sit in different seats because things sound very differently at diverse positions in the venue.

Al, respectively disagree with you. Comparing to live music is not objective reality - it's just common practice. There are 2 perspectives at play here:

First, philosophically, Plato is alive and well! But as an Aristotelian, “reality” of high end audio systems conforming to conscious desires of hearing real, live music is just wishful thinking. Getting to hear von Karajan as in the original concert hall or Hendrix at Woodstock on a system at home just ain’t happening without heavy duty drugs, and even then, not consistently. : )

Second, let’s look at it from the psychological perspective. Live music, for some - but not by any means all- just serves as a mental model or conceptual model. And It's a very powerful model due to strong emotions engendered by music itself!

Mental models are formed through experience, training, and instruction. They work in many instances to help simplify mental processing, but they are frequently false. Kind of like plugging in an appliance into the wall at home and imagining electricity flow like water from wall into an appliance. Or Kind of like a using a pointing device such as a mouse on a computer screen is a good model for using your fingers. But they are very different things - coordinating muscle groups to use a mouse on a 2D screen vs. manipulating your fingers . That's just the reality from the psychological perspective.


So this mental model of "live music" obviously works well for you, but comparing your system to a live performance is an exercise of unhappiness for most. As good as an orchestral work, a Led Zeppelin recording, or the Grateful Dead sound in my home, it's a completely different experience than attending a live concert. And spending several million dollars won’t get one “real” either, so comparing to “real live” could make one very disappointed.

Personally, I accept that high end audio is a just a different experience. And this psychology is much more conducive to making most audiophiles happy than chasing “real”.... but we are getting way off topic here...

 

[caesar]

to me...the phono stage makes the biggest impact on sound...more so than the cart given a top tier cart.

How does the table itself fit in with the phono stage and the cartridge?

 

[caesar]

Hi Rockitman,

Any additional update? Thanks

 

[rockitman]

Hi Rockitman,

Any additional update? Thanks

I plan to start a thread on the LP1 Sig soon. It is just about broken in. Last night I was listening to my other phono stage...Allnic H5000 DHT. While slightly different sounding, they are more a like than different. In fact I would call these two unit's competitive peers. At this point I cannot say which one I like better. I like both. Any difference's are pretty subtle. I feel the Lamm has a bit more dynamic speed than the Allnic. The Allnic sounds a bit more tube romantic where as the Lamm seems to have the best of both worlds... SS (Speed) and tube(bloom). It's going to take some time to flesh out the differences between the two and to be able to put it to words...I will try to do so in the near future.

I am happy to have both units. It is nice to have the option of 4 MC inputs for two TT's....excluding two additional MM inputs I could use with outboard step up transformers.

 

[rockitman]

How does the table itself fit in with the phono stage and the cartridge?

If I had to rank in order of importance...

Table
Phono Stage
Arm/Cart

In the end though...it's the synergy between all four that determines how good the music reproduction is with a particular setup.

 

[PeterA]

Al, respectively disagree with you. Comparing to live music is not objective reality - it's just common practice. There are 2 perspectives at play here:

First, philosophically, Plato is alive and well! But as an Aristotelian, “reality” of high end audio systems conforming to conscious desires of hearing real, live music is just wishful thinking. Getting to hear von Karajan as in the original concert hall or Hendrix at Woodstock on a system at home just ain’t happening without heavy duty drugs, and even then, not consistently. : )

Second, let’s look at it from the psychological perspective. Live music, for some - but not by any means all- just serves as a mental model or conceptual model. And It's a very powerful model due to strong emotions engendered by music itself!

Mental models are formed through experience, training, and instruction. They work in many instances to help simplify mental processing, but they are frequently false. Kind of like plugging in an appliance into the wall at home and imagining electricity flow like water from wall into an appliance. Or Kind of like a using a pointing device such as a mouse on a computer screen is a good model for using your fingers. But they are very different things - coordinating muscle groups to use a mouse on a 2D screen vs. manipulating your fingers . That's just the reality from the psychological perspective.


So this mental model of "live music" obviously works well for you, but comparing your system to a live performance is an exercise of unhappiness for most. As good as an orchestral work, a Led Zeppelin recording, or the Grateful Dead sound in my home, it's a completely different experience than attending a live concert. And spending several million dollars won’t get one “real” either, so comparing to “real live” could make one very disappointed.

Personally, I accept that high end audio is a just a different experience. And this psychology is much more conducive to making most audiophiles happy than chasing “real”.... but we are getting way off topic here...

Interesting post, caesar. I agree that the two experiences, in their entirety, are very much different. However, I think that Al is simply referring to the "sound" of live, unamplified instruments, in a real setting and comparing that sound to the "sound" of recorded instruments over his system in his room. I don't think he is also referring to the rest of what happens at live shows all around him, which can certainly never be reproduced in the home. He is not pretending that he can get the Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock experience in his living room. The mud, the girls, the drugs, the garbage, etc.

Another great example of reproduced sound is in Rockitman's system. I heard this system a couple of years ago. Christian told me and my friend that he traveled for years to Grateful Dead concerts and recorded many of them to tape. Christian's system reproduces very well that live, amplified, "wall of sound" of a rock concert, heard at these kinds of shows, though I am sure not all of what one experiences at a Dead concert. It also reproduces solo, acoustic instruments well.

I can't help but think that Rockitman's system is set up in part to reflect and to reproduce his memory of the sound of his live musical references. They are different in scale and type from Al's references which tend to be smaller scale, acoustic performances, but nevertheless, they are reflective of the owner's reference to the "sound" of live music.

Well, perhaps I should not write for Al or others. I try, often unsuccessfully, to reproduce the sound of a violin, voice, or piano, through my system at home. I use my memory of such sounds from the experiences I've had. It is only a guide and reference. I don't know of a better one. Others have the goal of simply enjoying or getting lost in their music, regardless of how convincing they think it is or is not. That is fine too.

 

[Bill Hart]

... I am sure not all of what one experiences at a Dead concert.

Um, a trip?

 

[DaveyF]

How many of you guys have actually brought a real instrument into your listening room and done an 'AB' between it and the reproduced?
IME, this does tend to show the vast difference between what our systems are capable of and where the enormous ( yes, that is what I believe the differences still are) sound variations that exist between what is reproduced and what is 'live'.
Plus, we are talking of one instrument, never mind a whole band or orchestra in a hall or studio!

 

[rockitman]

Interesting post, caesar. I agree that the two experiences, in their entirety, are very much different. However, I think that Al is simply referring to the "sound" of live, unamplified instruments, in a real setting and comparing that sound to the "sound" of recorded instruments over his system in his room. I don't think he is also referring to the rest of what happens at live shows all around him, which can certainly never be reproduced in the home. He is not pretending that he can get the Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock experience in his living room. The mud, the girls, the drugs, the garbage, etc.

Another great example of reproduced sound is in Rockitman's system. I heard this system a couple of years ago. Christian told me and my friend that he traveled for years to Grateful Dead concerts and recorded many of them to tape. Christian's system reproduces very well that live, amplified, "wall of sound" of a rock concert, heard at these kinds of shows, though I am sure not all of what one experiences at a Dead concert. It also reproduces solo, acoustic instruments well.

I can't help but think that Rockitman's system is set up in part to reflect and to reproduce his memory of the sound of his live musical references. They are different in scale and type from Al's references which tend to be smaller scale, acoustic performances, but nevertheless, they are reflective of the owner's reference to the "sound" of live music.

Well, perhaps I should not write for Al or others. I try, often unsuccessfully, to reproduce the sound of a violin, voice, or piano, through my system at home. I use my memory of such sounds from the experiences I've had. It is only a guide and reference. I don't know of a better one. Others have the goal of simply enjoying or getting lost in their music, regardless of how convincing they think it is or is not. That is fine too.

Interesting analogy Peter...I have always said...the best stereo I have ever heard for amplified music was the Grateful Dead's concert PA setup (1985-1995 Ultra Sound/Meyer PA's)...especially their outdoor concerts where the sound was not affected by room boundaries or amphitheater sheds. My system sounds quite a bit different than the last time you were here. The speaker' toe was finally adjusted optimally and the seating position is farther back closer to the rear wall where you had commented the sound seemed to be better. Next time your passing through, I encourage you to stop by for a listen. Everything over the past year has come together and I am finally satisfied that I have maximized the setup of my components....a process that takes literally years to achieve.

 

[rockitman]

How many of you guys have actually brought a real instrument into your listening room and done an 'AB' between it and the reproduced?
IME, this does tend to show the vast difference between what our systems are capable of and where the enormous ( yes, that is what I believe the differences still are) sound variations that exist between what is reproduced and what is 'live'.
Plus, we are talking of one instrument, never mind a whole band or orchestra in a hall or studio!

That is an experiment I may try with my acoustic guitar. Of course the make and type of microphone used makes a huge difference with experiments like this.

 

[PeterA]

Um, a trip?

No doubt. My point is that one is not getting that at home from his system or asking it to provide it for him.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

How many of you guys have actually brought a real instrument into your listening room and done an 'AB' between it and the reproduced?
IME, this does tend to show the vast difference between what our systems are capable of and where the enormous ( yes, that is what I believe the differences still are) sound variations that exist between what is reproduced and what is 'live'.
Plus, we are talking of one instrument, never mind a whole band or orchestra in a hall or studio!

while I agree mostly, it's not completely a closed case.

last week I did hear this experience where when the sax player played 10 feet in front of the speakers it was easy to hear the big difference between live and reproduced. but when the sax player stood between the speakers the overall sound was much more cohesive and harder to identify the live sax.

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...Dragon-Edition&p=402776&viewfull=1#post402776

 

[PeterA]

How many of you guys have actually brought a real instrument into your listening room and done an 'AB' between it and the reproduced?
IME, this does tend to show the vast difference between what our systems are capable of and where the enormous ( yes, that is what I believe the differences still are) sound variations that exist between what is reproduced and what is 'live'.
Plus, we are talking of one instrument, never mind a whole band or orchestra in a hall or studio!

The differences are vast, no doubt. Live music is simply used as a guide/goal or reference. That does not mean anyone will mistake one for the other.

I have an upright piano in my listening room. They sound different. I have heard a piano and cello sonata performance in a living room and that too sounded very different from the systems that I have heard. However, there are some close resemblances, in certain areas with the best systems.

 

[microstrip]

How many of you guys have actually brought a real instrument into your listening room and done an 'AB' between it and the reproduced?
IME, this does tend to show the vast difference between what our systems are capable of and where the enormous ( yes, that is what I believe the differences still are) sound variations that exist between what is reproduced and what is 'live'.
Plus, we are talking of one instrument, never mind a whole band or orchestra in a hall or studio!

My system does not need to play like a real instrument in my listening room - most of the time it must recreate the instrument played in a much larger room, with completely different acoustics, listened at a distance larger than the dimensions of my room. IMHO, unless you own a very large auditorium this exercise would be misleading and does not prove anything. And yes, the difference can be considered enormous, we have no absolute references, but IMHO some systems are much closer than others ...