The American Sound Turntable- Beyond's Minimalist!

[tima]

Ps i have a feeling a LAMM LL1.1 ML3 could certainly pull me over to the SET camp .
How ever all those tubes require a lot off maintenance i suppose .

Any tube gear does require tube replacement at some point. The LL1.1 linestage makes it pretty simple with only two types of tubes that are readily available. 4 x 6H30P (quite reliable) in each control unit and 2 x 6x4 regulators in each power supply.

 

[PeterA]

Hi Peter, I don’t quite understand here! I believe a turntable, at least in theory, should be dead (as opposed to dead sounding)! Ideally, a turntable should not have any vibration, resonance, sound signature of its own, and could block out all external vibrations, so only information embedded in the LP got passed on to the cartridge!

So when you stated “Stable but not dead turntables.”, you are referring to dead sounding, instead of physical dead / inert, correct?

As I understand it from my conversations with David Karmeli about his turntables, the internal energy is managed not killed completely. It is possible to overdo it and suck the life out of the music. If you compare the bases of the original American sound AS 1000 and the AS 2000, you will see that the proportions are different. They seem the same when you tap your knuckle on the metal, but the internal resonance behaves differently because of the proportion and dimension. This is taken to an extreme with the facets of the new turntable. You can’t eliminate the resonances completely but you can over damp them. That energy is always there, but you can direct it and change it.

This is one of the key differences between the old and new SME tone arms, and one of the differences between my SME turntable, and the Micro Seki and the American Sound designs. There is a distinct difference in the sense of energy in the presentations.

 

[mtemur]

I agree that resonance control is very important. But you don’t want dead. That’s the difference between the SME 3012R and V-12 tone arms.

• How do you know that the SME V or V-12’s resonance control has been taken further to the point of sounding dead? How can you be sure of that in absolute terms?

• Could it be the other way around—perhaps the SME 3012R resonates more due to its less advanced design, while the V-12 controls resonances more effectively?

• How do you know when good resonance control ends and unnecessary dampening begins?

I’m not trying to start an argument—honestly. I just want to hear your take and raise some doubt about the products we have. In my opinion, as long as we allow for doubt, we can investigate and evaluate our equipment more thoroughly. I’ve done that with the SME V (and V-12), and I found it to be neither a bad tonearm nor the best.

 

[PeterA]

• How do you know that the SME V or V-12’s resonance control has been taken further to the point of sounding dead? How can you be sure of that in absolute terms?

• Could it be the other way around—perhaps the SME 3012R resonates more due to its less advanced design, while the V-12 controls resonances more effectively?

• How do you know when good resonance control ends and unnecessary dampening begins?

I’m not trying to start an argument—honestly. I just want to hear your take and raise some doubt about the products we have. In my opinion, as long as we allow for doubt, we can investigate and evaluate our equipment more thoroughly. I’ve done that with the SME V (and V-12), and I found it to be neither a bad tonearm nor the best.

Excellent questions mtemur. No need to argue. I think you are right that the V 12 takes it further. It is less resonant. Some might describe it as controlling the resonances better, but I think they took it too far. The energy is killed by over dampening. The result is a very different presentation. Sounds burst fourth out of a black background, but there is no nuance. There is a high contrast to the presentation. Same with the Model 30/12 that I owned and really enjoye. The 3012R is more resonant. It sounds less damped and the presentation is more alive. There is no black background. You hear, ambience and nuance and more shades. It is also more dynamic and lively. Some might describe the design as much more primitive and less advanced. But I lived with both arms and compared them with each other over a few months of listening.

In the end, it is the presentation that matters. People choose one or the other based on preferences and values. I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with either approach, but the SME V was praised as a big advance during the age of CD. Perhaps it’s a coincidence.

I have not measured it, and I do not know it as a fact. It is only an impression based on listening. I’ve also spoken extensively to Karmeli about this subject.

I find it a fascinating topic, one that also applies to speaker cabinet designs. There are different approaches. One which aims to eliminate all resonances and one that seeks to manage those resonances. They both result in specific types of presentations.

 

[microstrip]

IMO, as usual, we are addressing semantics - a turntable that "sounds dead" is not a turntable without resonances . it is a turntable with resonances in frequencies that make it sound dead. For me, the ideal turntable would not have any resonance at all.

As Peter refers, when we enter the subjective, everything that matters is listener preference. But resonance is a physical entity, that can be measured with proper tools and methods.

When evaluating turntables, within the limitations of my recordings and preferences, I compared turntables with my standard Studer A80. For me the closer was by far the TechDas AF1+ with Graham Phantom with vacuum on.

 

[bazelio]

Over damping is death to good sound.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Same with the Model 30/12 that I owned and really enjoye. The 3012R is more resonant. It sounds less damped and the presentation is more alive. There is no black background. You hear, ambience and nuance and more shades. It is also more dynamic and lively. Some might describe the design as much more primitive and less advanced. But I lived with both arms and compared them with each other over a few months of listening. (...)

Most people, as me, would simply say that the SME 3012R is simply more colored. Surely we have different preferences.

 

[AudioHR]

Two more photos of the rest of the system. Pretty cool.

View attachment 134423

View attachment 134424

Cool diffusers ? on the front wall!

 

[bazelio]

As I understand it from my conversations with David Karmeli about his turntables, the internal energy is managed not killed completely. It is possible to overdo it and suck the life out of the music.

Similar concepts apply to electronics. I remember talking to @dave slagle about he and Jeffrey's design philosophies around Emia phono stages. He told me that the goal is to be quiet at listening volume from the listening seat. But that everything it takes to be quiet at listening volume (no music playing) with your ear right up to the speaker also sucks the life out of the music.

 

[PeterA]

Most people, as me, would simply say that the SME 3012R is simply more colored. Surely we have different preferences.

That has been clear for years. I do not like the TechDAS AF1 at all. The presentation was clean but a bit boring and lacking life and energy. The direct comparison was to the AS2000 not a Studer tape.

 

[tima]

Vagueness in audio language springs from laziness or lack of knowledge. It often causes dispute.

"More colored" is an audio phrase that only has meaning when used in a relative relationship to something else. Absent that something else the phrase by itself has no value. In audio reproduction there is no neutral.

Saying something like "the SME 3012 has more color than the SME V" (or whatever) provides a relation between two arms but in itself that phrase is not particularly useful. It is vague and doesn't really communicate information. At most it says the two arms sound different from one another.

Rather than using 'color' (a visual word), there is more information in saying what is heard or meant. An acoustic instrument played has timbre and pitch. A claim such as "The SME 3012R presents piano timbre closer to the sound of a live piano than does the SME V" communicates information about what the listener hears.

 

[Argonaut]

Coloured …

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Similar concepts apply to electronics. I remember talking to @dave slagle about he and Jeffrey's design philosophies around Emia phono stages. He told me that the goal is to be quiet at listening volume from the listening seat. But that everything it takes to be quiet at listening volume (no music playing) with your ear right up to the speaker also sucks the life out of the music.

agree about the EMIA. quiet but not dead quiet. but comes alive with nuance, presence and sparkle with music.

same thing with my dart preamp. not the quietest with no signal. but compared to other preamps more 'not there' with music. what other preamps use to remove noise at idle relatively also reduces musical essence relatively with music. this is not a 'gross' difference but an experiential difference. not a right/wrong thing.....but a distinguishing difference. the music is never strangled, always free and easy.

maybe some parts/circuits are quieter than other parts/circuits, but which are more complimentary to the musical flow?

 

[bazelio]

Yeah and it's a general observation of mine that designing for specs as an absolutist approach just doesn't yield the most natural sound. Whether it's turntables with hyper optimized wow/flutter or speed stability, various laboratory grade anti resonance platforms, tube electronics with LCLCLCLC b+ filtering, or simply just materials (pseudo).science incorporated into footers or racks. The purely objectivist approach seems to lose every time.

 

[PeterA]

The listening experience trumps measurements. One can hear when distortion is lowered and the music comes alive and is presented naturally in the listening room.

 

[microstrip]

The purely objectivist approach seems to lose every time.

Surely if you write "The purely objectivist approach seems to lose every time" everyone agrees except Peter Walker, Vladimir Lamm and most members of ASR ...

Jokes apart, I think that there are no pure objectivists in WBF.

 

[bazelio]

I think Lamm would have agreed. That line is very obviously chasing a specific sound he liked.

 

[microstrip]

Vagueness in audio language springs from laziness or lack of knowledge. It often causes dispute.

"More colored" is an audio phrase that only has meaning when used in a relative relationship to something else. Absent that something else the phrase by itself has no value. In audio reproduction there is no neutral.

Saying something like "the SME 3012 has more color than the SME V" (or whatever) provides a relation between two arms but in itself that phrase is not particularly useful. It is vague and doesn't really communicate information. At most it says the two arms sound different from one another.

Surely Tim. It was why I posted that I used as a reference a professional tape machine (Studer A80) in standard form, as used to record and master recordings, that was manufactured in high numbers - more than 20 000 units along 20 years.

Rather than using 'color' (a visual word), there is more information in saying what is heard or meant. An acoustic instrument played has timbre and pitch. A claim such as "The SME 3012R presents piano timbre closer to the sound of a live piano than does the SME V" communicates information about what the listener hears.

As expressed by many authors and very well summarized by F. Toole in his writings about the "circle of confusion" you will depend on a particular recording being used for such comment, depending mostly on the speakers and studio being used to master it. Besides, pianos have very different timbre. Such comment could be made if statistically validated, something that transcends our audiophile activity.

The word "colored" has been used for many decades with success in the audio press and nowadays in forums with a meaning that most audiophiles understand within reasonable error bars - from the Gordon Holt audio glossary :
coloration An audible "signature" with which a reproducing system imbues all signals passing through it.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I think Lamm would have agreed. That line is very obviously chasing a specific sound he liked.

my recollection is that Mr. Lamm had done serious studies of human listening and found relationships between human preferences and some measurements. then he built his products that measured complimentary to those measurements. so he built objectively to specific references from those studies and really not based on how they sounded to him. his liking it one way or the other was beside the point.

assuming i got the essential story right; does this mean he was an objectivist or subjectivist? seems like a case can be made both ways.

apologies if i've butchered this too bad or missed the point. or maybe i'm dead wrong? i recall reading a very old Lamm review (Dick Olsher?) and this was discussed.

 

[tima]

my recollection is that Mr. Lamm had done serious studies of human listening and found relationships between human preferences and some measurements. then he built his products that measured complimentary to those measurements. so he built objectively to specific references from those studies and really not based on how they sounded to him. his liking it one way or the other was beside the point.

assuming i got the essential story right; does this mean he was an objectivist or subjectivist? seems like a case can be made both ways.

apologies if i've butchered this too bad or missed the point. or maybe i'm dead wrong? i recall reading a very old Lamm review (Dick Olsher?) and this was discussed.

Dick Olsher wrote: "…How does Vladimir Lamm do it? Beats the living heck out of me. Ask him and he will tell you it is all engineering and painstakingly precise artisanal manufacturing. Press him and he will explain that every Lamm component is designed in compliance with his mathematical model of human hearing, and there his explanation ceases." TAS Dec 2008

So yes, you got it right at a high level. As far being an objectivist or subjectivist, I think it more accurate to say he was an engineer and a scientist. If I understood him correctly he could tell largely, generally, how a piece of electronics sounds by looking at certain measurements. The subjective element comes in through in his belief that people perceive sound and music in certain ways. Vladimir Lamm was very guarded about the details of his work.

Here's the Lamm vetted account of his development methodology in my M1.2 Ref review:

"The design of the M1.2 (and the M1.1 before it) derives from Vladimir Lamm’s research into psychoacoustics, undertaken during his work in the Soviet military-industrial complex. As a percussionist, music lover and avid listener with a university background in solid-state physics and semiconductor design, Lamm sought answers to a simple question: Why does some audio gear sound better than other audio gear? As Chief Design Engineer of Research and Development at the Lvov Radio & Electronics factory, 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 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.

Lamm tested his circuit designs with hundreds of human listening subjects to demonstrate that, given human physiology, only a few combinations of audio circuitry will work for us as listeners. We cannot change how we perceive sound or music, even in the face of what passes for good specs. "As humans," Lamm observes, "we are created in a certain way. We perceive sound on various levels: conscious as well as subconscious or intuitive. We perceive sound not just with our ears, but with the whole body." From his research he developed a set of theoretical ideals against which he evaluates any amplifier. He called these constructs the Absolute Linearity of a System -- a sort of unified field theory of amplifier design that explains how an amplifier should measure if it is to reproduce sound congruent with the way people naturally perceive it. Without going into detail about the specific measurements Lamm uses, the basic high-level idea is this: as gain is applied the amplifier should preserve the harmonic structure and spectral balance of the musical source signal. Lamm’s evaluation criteria also places specific emphasis on the types and values of feedback utilized in an amplifier.

With a design based on the way we actually hear with the ears we have, the M1.2 is like a deductive conclusion that follows mathematically from Lamm’s codification of countless hours of real-world testing with real human listeners. If you ask Vladimir about how his ten-year-old amplifier design remains viable today, his response is emphatic: "Its foundation in how humans perceive sound remains unchanged."