Natural Sound

[morricab]

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.

Yes, I agree the hybrids sound very different. I think they were developed later and to meet market niches (possibly from distributor pressure) and were probably not designed with the original philosophy, which would be difficult given how differently they measure.

 

[morricab]

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

How do you think most psychological studies are conducted? You often have to ask the person what they think…thus the fuzziness in most scientific studies on humans.

 

[morricab]

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.

You and Peter then have a lot in common. I like the sound but find some other amps to fit my “natural” sound more closely…I could for sure live happily with a Lamm ML2 or ML3.

 

[microstrip]

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.

Did you listen to the the lower cost hybrids?

 

[Ron Resnick]

My only point is that Lamm was a fantastic designer, but his classified Soviet research . . . wasn't divine inspiration.

This is what I've been trying to say!

 

[Ron Resnick]

How do you think most psychological studies are conducted? You often have to ask the person what they think…thus the fuzziness in most scientific studies on humans.

I am unqualified to discuss psychology or statistically valid human psychological testing methodologies.

All I know is that there is no objective or quantitative way to prove that you like chocolate ice cream more than I like vanilla ice cream.

 

[jeff1225]

This is what I've been trying to say!

I think you said it quite eloquently with this statement: "As I've said many times I love the Lamm electronics. I just don't care to join in apotheosizing Vladimir."

 

[hopkins]

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

you win.

 

[PeterA]

I think you said it quite eloquently with this statement: "As I've said many times I love the Lamm electronics. I just don't care to join in apotheosizing Vladimir."

I read people sharing their opinions about how good they think the Lamm SET’s sound. I must have missed the posts where people were “apotheosizing Vladimir” or presuming some kind of divine intervention in his design process.

 

[hopkins]

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

P.S. I hope you realize the irony that while arguing that Lamm’s designs are based on scientific study of what constitutes good sound, you are the only one so far expressing criticism of his equipment.

For the record, I have indeed never listened to the brand and have no interest in doing so (or Aries Cerat) as I consider those to be “structurally” limited (and absurdly expensive).

 

[morricab]

I am unqualified to discuss psychology or statistically valid human psychological testing methodologies.

All I know is that there is no objective or quantitative way to prove that you like chocolate ice cream more than I like vanilla ice cream.

What other way to do a correlation between listener preference and measurements? You need this kind of data to build a useful model. You can’t do it by measurements alone because the ultimate ‘detector’ is the human ear/brain.

 

[morricab]

P.S. I hope you realize the irony that while arguing that Lamm’s designs are based on scientific study of what constitutes good sound, you are the only one so far expressing criticism of his equipment.

For the record, I have indeed never listened to the brand and have no interest in doing so (or Aries Cerat) as I consider those to be “structurally” limited (and absurdly expensive).

There is no irony, nothing is perfect and the model that Lamm based the design on is also not perfect. You seem to struggle with ambiguity and want it all black or white.

How can you consider them limited when you have never heard them??? This is absurd. As to the price…well value is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[PeterA]

What other way to do a correlation between listener preference and measurements? You need this kind of data to build a useful model. You can’t do it by measurements alone because the ultimate ‘detector’ is the human ear/brain.

Brad, how do you think this research was carried out? Did Vladimir Lamm play music through various circuits to a large audience of test subjects who then responded with their preferences for realism? I understand the Test group was quite large, so there was likely the opportunity to form statistically, valid, preferences, toward a type of sound and then somehow he applied that data to mathematical models. It’s way beyond my ability to understand, but I’m wondering if you could speculate.

 

[hopkins]

There is no irony, nothing is perfect and the model that Lamm based the design on is also not perfect. You seem to struggle with ambiguity and want it all black or white.

It is not a “design” model.

How can you consider them limited when you have never heard them??? This is absurd. As to the price…well value is in the eye of the beholder.

I have seen the light

 

[morricab]

It is not a “design” model.

I have seen the light

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

 

[morricab]

We have different perceptions about this. What matters to me is the final listening assessment in my room. It did not sound dark in my system through the Magico Q3. It did not sound dark when I heard the amplifiers in Utah. It does not sound dark on Tim’s videos when he uses the amplifier instead of the ML2. To me.

We all listen to various things, use different references, and compare relative strengths and weaknesses, and then make our choices. I do not know how they compare to the amplifiers you represent as I’ve not heard Aries Cerat.

It’s all good Peter, if I put IMHO is it easier for you to accept? I heard this amp many times and always came away with a similar impression.

 

[hopkins]

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

this is getting stupid

 

[tima]

The M1.1 also sounds a bit dark.

I think I understand what you are saying here however I'm not sure about the chosen adjective.

When I choose adjectives to describe sound characteristics I often consider the opposite of a considered word to see if the word makes sense in the context of the description as to what it is not. The antonym of 'dark' is 'bright' or 'light'.

Here is what I wrote about the M1.2 in 2015:

"Some find the overall sound of the M1.2 as slightly dark; and by contrast with certain amps there is that relative difference. I found the M1.2s sounding whole within themselves, and from the perspective of their overall presentation, music teemed with harmonic information, with the antonym of their tonality being not light but lean."

Ask different dictionaries about the adjective 'lean' and you'll get different results. In the one I'm looking at now -- thesaurus.com - the strongest antonym of lean is 'whole'. That strikes me as more appropriate than 'fat'.

 

[tima]

Yes, I agree the hybrids sound very different. I think they were developed later and to meet market niches (possibly from distributor pressure) and were probably not designed with the original philosophy, which would be difficult given how differently they measure.

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.

 

[morricab]

I think I understand what you are saying here however I'm not sure about the chosen adjective.

When I choose adjectives to describe sound characteristics I often consider the opposite of a considered word to see if the word makes sense in the context of the description as to what it is not. The antonym of 'dark' is 'bright' or 'light'.

Here is what I wrote about the M1.2 in 2015:

"Some find the overall sound of the M1.2 as slightly dark; and by contrast with certain amps there is that relative difference. I found the M1.2s sounding whole within themselves, and from the perspective of their overall presentation, music teemed with harmonic information, with the antonym of their tonality being not light but lean."

Ask different dictionaries about the adjective 'lean' and you'll get different results. In the one I'm looking at now -- thesaurus.com - the strongest antonym of lean is 'whole'. That strikes me as more appropriate than 'fat'.

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