That is flatly incorrect, Dave. I don't want to argue with you. My suggestion is go to the Lamm site and read a few of the published interviews with Mr. Lamm.
https://lammindustries.com/pages/interviews/
The Mysterious Case of the Listening Window! By Jeff Day, Positive Feedback
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
That is flatly incorrect, Dave. I don't want to argue with you. My suggestion is go to the Lamm site and read a few of the published interviews with Mr. Lamm.
https://lammindustries.com/pages/interviews/
You asked David, but I will answer your question from my perspective. The designers design their gear as they see fit. The user listens to the gear and selects which one he prefers to listen to using whatever criteria he chooses. I’ve been selecting my gear by listening and referencing
live unamplified music.
I still have a lot to learn so I’m going to embark on some more listening and may someday change my gear.
Last edited:
Yeah, I've read most of that. Your suggestion to "read up on it" said in that manner is slightly offensive.
Maybe you can mention why you disagree? Sorry you see it as an "argument", I'd rather see it as a discussion, I'm completely open to hearing why you think the listening tests you refer to relate directly to electronic circuit design, and the lack of "voicing" done by Mr Lamm on his gear? He says he already knows how it's going to sound... imo that's because he's experienced and has an intuitive understanding of circuit design.
I agree with your analysis Tim and while the word "natural" might not be universally comprehensive it has been sufficient for some here and also helped majority of my clients to enjoy this hobby more going that direction. These conversations aren't meant to impress or change attitudes of the past 30-40 years not at all my goal. For the most part they're an opportunity to engage others in the conversation and maybe they pick up something that they can use. Of course at times these threads threaten some business interests
.david
Last edited:
That's totally reasonable, my question was about the criteria chosen, specifically it's conspicuous lack of, and actual rejection of in many cases, an objective basis of understanding. (edit: not yours, ddk's. I don't expect most to understand exactly how audio works, just like you don't need to know how to build an engine to drive a car. But, if you're in the business of making cars, expectations are higher!)
Last edited:
I agree with your analysis Tim and while the word "natural" might not be universally comprehensive it has been sufficient for some here and also helped majority of my clients to enjoy this hobby more going that direction. These conversations aren't meant to impress or change attitudes of the past 30-40 years not at all my goal. For the most part they're an opportunity to engage others in the conversation and maybe try something they pick up reading the exchanges. Of course at times that these threads threaten some business interests
david
Yes. And I get it that neither you nor Peter aim to be revolutionaries. Natural is fine and lends itself well to those conversations and, for those to whom it is sufficient, it works. Maybe I'm being too didactic as a reaction to the lengthy discussion.
Sure, discussion, no argue.
I'll quote myself from 5 years ago:
"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 Desighmmmn 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."
edit: fixed link
Last edited:
Well David, you say there are thousands of articles and books on your "natural" and you can't nominate a single one that you have a copy to share. Curiously the old ones from the 50's I could find do not agree with your views - they presented classical views on stereo sound reproduction, including the need for pinpoint imaging. Can you make an effort and give us a few accessible references?
Yes. And I get it that neither you nor Peter aim to be revolutionaries. Natural is fine and lends itself well to those conversations and, for those to whom it is sufficient, it works. Maybe I'm being too didactic as a reaction to the lengthy discussion.
So, Tim, what is your answer to Mark question?
So, Tim, what is your answer to Mark question?
Refresh me about which of Mark's questions you refer.
I have a local Audio friend who knows my system pretty well and seems to be going down a similar path at least in terms of the sound and set up, not necessarily the gear choices.
He has started to remove sound absorption panels from his listening room, he is using all stock power cables, and he has repositioned his speakers straightahead.
In terms of this thread and relating to the thread topic, I would say his listening window has widened. I had found certain string sounds to be a bit shrill in his system before and the images were much more focused and outlined and his background was more black. All that is changing, and to me more music is enjoyable in his system precisely because the presentation is much more natural.
In my case, this was about finding the right balance between absorption and reflection and the relationship between the speaker positions and the room boundaries. But it also had to do with getting rid of accessories which accentuated or dramatically altered what I perceived to be the energy captured in the recording from the original event.
When David responded to Francisco saying that it never had to do with Ching Cheng power cords specifically but rather avoiding power cords that added or removed stuff from the sound. All four sets of audiophile power cords I tried in my system homogenized or otherwise added something to the sound which was unpleasant and unnatural. Thicker gauge power cords or cords that reduce noise are fine in principle as long as they do no harm to the music. For me, it is a simple as that.
I don’t think anyone writing on this audio forum is going to change the direction of the industry. However, if you look at some of those videos that Bonzo posted in the female vocal thread, it is clear that an awful lot of audiophiles are getting great sound using different approaches. I guess one could say we are all under a very large tent. We should enjoy it. And we should be able to enjoy a variety of music on our systems.
He has started to remove sound absorption panels from his listening room, he is using all stock power cables, and he has repositioned his speakers straightahead.
In terms of this thread and relating to the thread topic, I would say his listening window has widened. I had found certain string sounds to be a bit shrill in his system before and the images were much more focused and outlined and his background was more black. All that is changing, and to me more music is enjoyable in his system precisely because the presentation is much more natural.
In my case, this was about finding the right balance between absorption and reflection and the relationship between the speaker positions and the room boundaries. But it also had to do with getting rid of accessories which accentuated or dramatically altered what I perceived to be the energy captured in the recording from the original event.
When David responded to Francisco saying that it never had to do with Ching Cheng power cords specifically but rather avoiding power cords that added or removed stuff from the sound. All four sets of audiophile power cords I tried in my system homogenized or otherwise added something to the sound which was unpleasant and unnatural. Thicker gauge power cords or cords that reduce noise are fine in principle as long as they do no harm to the music. For me, it is a simple as that.
I don’t think anyone writing on this audio forum is going to change the direction of the industry. However, if you look at some of those videos that Bonzo posted in the female vocal thread, it is clear that an awful lot of audiophiles are getting great sound using different approaches. I guess one could say we are all under a very large tent. We should enjoy it. And we should be able to enjoy a variety of music on our systems.
Dave, I understand that at your level you actually believe twisting some wires and adding some plugs makes you a designer but in the real world there are actually designers of actual high end components who're giants of the industry like Vladimir Lamm. You don't the know the man or even understand why he's revered by so many yet in your imagination actually compare yourself to him, pathetic! Sad to burst your bubble but you have nothing in common with Vladimir.
Funny enough and sadly for you in a head to head the content of that alibaba cart kicked your ass for everyone
! What's there to reconcile Dave, I'm powering electronics not looking to kill or alter their sound with some pseudo designer power cords. david
Sure, discussion, no argue.
I'll quote myself from 5 years ago:
"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 Desighmmmn 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."
Ok, I can see what you're getting at.
The way you write it, I'm thinking you mean that the data was used to actually create the circuit design. When you state that "he used differential equations to develop scientific models", differential equations describe a great majority of physical phenomenon, the same equations that define the behavior of a beam bending describe heat transfer, and on and on... this is why many feel there's a universal theory of everything. All these seemingly complex physical phenomenon can be reduced into relatively simple differential equations. A set of simple starting states can perpetuate into something of great complexity. Electrical and mechanical phenomenon can then be used almost interchangeably in some cases, for example Thiele/Small parameters... So I do see the possibility that a mathematical model of hearing could somehow be translated into an electrical model, but this is purely theoretical, and then you still need to get from an electrical model to a functional amplifier!
As far as amplifiers go, it's pretty hard to come up with anything new. Not too many folks can make a claim that they came up with new tube amplifier circuits that are totally unique, so my thought were this model of hearing was used to make engineering design choices for the amplifier. For example, preferring SET because it's distortion spectra most closely correlates with the model he developed. Biasing the tube a certain way, using negative feedback or other error correction, etc... because it best fits the model.
Lamm's product descriptions indicate the circuits he uses were chosen as a best fit and are not a completely unique result of translating a differential equation describing the human hearing mechanism directly into a novel circuit. Here's a quote from his site:
The M1.2 Reference is a masterful blend of design and engineering simplicity. It is a pure class A amplifier featuring high-speed MOS-FET transistors in the output stage with no overall feedback and special switch-selectable bias/voltage settings for 8- or 4-Ohm operation.
This seems to describe a fairly typical amplifier, no global feedback Mosfet amp. Certainly by all accounts an excellent implementation and no BS design. However, to credit the circuit design as being a direct result of his human hearing model may be a bit of a stretch. But I'm open to the possibility, I just don't see it here.
Dave, I understand that at your level you actually believe twisting some wires and adding some plugs makes you a designer but in the real world there are actually designers of actual high end components who're giants of the industry like Vladimir Lamm. You don't the know the man or even understand why he's revered by so many yet in your imagination actually compare yourself to him, pathetic! Sad to burst your bubble but you have nothing in common with Vladimir.
Funny enough and sadly for you in a head to head the content of that alibaba cart kicked your ass for everyone
david
Again, you seem angry.
I've built my entire system from source to speaker driver btw, and had a hand in the actual design of the midrange driver. I will have final prototypes of my speaker done very soon. My cables have been out for many years now and I have plenty of great reviews and I have won quite a few awards including TAS Best of Show, Cost No Object at RMAF. I have other best in show awards, best in class awards, editors choice, I can go on. You've never tried any of my products. You're ranting like an angry old man. It makes no sense, it's just mean.
But that's what happens when you've got nothing, David. Just anger... no logic, no reason, no discussion. Just your anger.
Do you even read what I write or just throw something out because you don't want to answer my questions? Please show me where I said books on natural or any reference to it in that post. I simply said that science of sound reproduction was already mature and there are thousand of books and articles to reference;
If you want a specific recommendation try Beranek's Music, Acoustics and Architecture, on page 54 he has a copy of his exchanges with Stokowski about hall acoustics, I'm giving you this information so it might bring you back to the thread. But now I'm curious please you tell me which classic 50's books that specifically mention the phrase pinpoint imaging, I'd like to understand the context and hopefully learn something here after all this.
david
Dave, you played this angry card already, it's stupid and the only thing it says is that you're a wuss. The rest of your drivel is just that and will never change the fact that your ass was kicked by cheap ass Chinese wires. Tell me if I'm wrong
!david
Dave, you played this angry card already, it's stupid and the only thing it says is that you're a wuss. The rest of your drivel is just that and will never change the fact that your ass was kicked by cheap ass Chinese wires. Tell me if I'm wrong
david
Well, it's true... you're an angry old man. You're ranting, you're angry, you're making personal insults and NOT ANSWERING my question about how you can reconcile your entirely subjective approach to stereo with loving Lamm gear. It makes no sense at all, your approach is exactly the opposite. Further, you seem to have absolutely no technical knowledge of anything at all. You can't reply to me with facts, it's all emotion, it's full of logical fallacy and ad-hominem attacks... and that's why you're not worthy of debating.
You're totally wrong, as usual. And you're totally ridiculous.
My understanding is that once he arrived at a mathematical model, Lamm built amplifiers with different topologies and then exposed those to listening audiences. He came to the conclusion that only a small number of topologies were 'acceptable' based on further listening tests regarding how listeners heard sound and music. Thus the process was not purely theoretical. To me this is a condensed description of a creative development research process. I suspect the exact details of such are not described to us and quite possibly there was some back-and-forth. Once he was satisfied that a particular topology was successful, he did not need to repeat the process.
Please understand my responses are primarily directed to your claim about the absence of listening tests.
Please understand these are my interpretations of the process as I've read about and heard from VL.
Similar threads
Members online
- Downtheline
- Blake
- asiufy
- execution
- Notdead
- Jackl3y
- Jazzjunkie
- Tlay
- CKKeung
- No Regrets
- WildPhydeaux
- willgall
- kswanson27
- skids929
- Giotrude2
- cd45123
- Gregadd
- AudioHR
- daytona600
- adamaley
- ecwl
- sleepysurf
- Pokey77
- oldmustang
- Basile: Locrian Audio
- Holli82
- sbo6
- ariess
- 3776Meters
- DonH50
- Nsxturbo
- sbnx
- alfa100
- Sharok
- Tuckia
- gtaphile
- Cantus
- Walnut Horns
- davidavdavid
- thekong
- moby2004
- nattonrice
- TDX
- MRJAZZ
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |