Audiophile Sonic Terms Redux

[Amir]

Ok I see where you are coming from and I think that we can agree on this. To make my point clearer let me word it another way: every component has a transfer function; sure their transfer function may change as components age, are burned in, or wear out (tubes for instance) but if you look at components at any moment in time, they have a specific transfer function, or in audiophile lingo a “sonic signature”. I believe that the transfer function of each component is very telling in what impact it has on the spectral content/distribution or tonal balance. Like any other transfer function, these can be analyzed and characterized with a step function stimuli.This is how room acoustics are measured and analyzed.




Here again I agree with you that the auditory system is a very powerful, complex, and sophisticated system. Is everything known by science? No, but enough is to address the phenomena that we regularly refer to in this hobby.

I know we can use both method of Frequency (fourier) and time domain analyses for linear systems, so the Time domain step response or impulse response gives us some information about an audio system transfer function but it is not enough for accurate modeling of complex non-linear systems .

 

[Amir]

Several references on the book concerning the different needs of sound absorption, close listening , envelopment and sound level in professional work.

I quote just page 138 "The notion that monitoring the recording process is significantly different from
recreational listening has already been introduced and that different criteria for lateral reflections apply (see Section 8.1 and Kishinaga et al. (1979)). There it was concluded that in the creation of recordings, engineers preferred to listen in rooms with attenuated lateral reflections." ,

There are several others to add to this one.

Does your text means Floyd believes the sound absorbers are good for audiophiles?

I think you should send me another page number ?

 

[Amir]

Absent some contrary information -- which I know you do not have -- there is no reason to reject Lamm's account of his own work as revealed in his own writing and in interviews. His model of human hearing is grounded in blind and double blind testing of circuit topologies with hundreds of human listeners. Iow, it is based on what his tests revealed about how people hear. We are physically built a certain way. We cannot change how we hear. Lamm's choices are not the "sound he preferred" but the sound of equipment designed from what his studies revealed about how people hear.

I remember when Romy listened to his Lamm ML2 he said listening to ML2 was an educational experience about how an amplifier should sound.
This level of sound quality comes from an advanced audio thinking that is very rare in this industry.

 

[tima]

There is a difference between being an audio designer and an audio scientist. I respect both, but do not confound them.

You are steadfastly in a contrarian mood. I have no idea what you are trying to prove or otherwise claim. I believe you know better and simply enjoy being cantankerous. Fwiw, I have documentation to which you may not be privy.

Vladimir Lamm was an orchestral percussionist who played table tennis professtionally. He was a scientist with a university background in solid-state physics and semiconductor design (Lvov Polyetechnic, graduated 1968, Electrophysics, Solid-State Physics; completed his M.S degree at the Kiev Institute of Semiconductor Devices, Academy of Sciences.) He was Chief Design Engineer of Research and Development at the Lvov Electronics factory with an entire R&D department and a sizeable budget at his disposal. He was an empiricist who followed scientific protocol. Much of his research was funded through the Soviet military-industrial complex and considered state secret. He was a successful audio designer and builder whose audio products gained high recognition within a few years of his escaping Russia and immigrating to the United States.

 

[Amir]

Thanks for confirming my previous post. The fact that five general lines without any solid referable content summarize all we know about the subject can't make Lamm an exception in audio designing. Probably we disagree on what is meant by the word preference in stereo, I use it in the classical sense found in stereo audio research, as I have previously explained.

If someone goes against all science and empirical knowledge on a subject he must provide evidence of his findings. Peter Walker designed an unique planar speaker that he claimed was a point source - the ESL63. He created a solid mathematical and physical model to design it, that was published in an excellent article, built it and provided measurements to show it, that were repeated by others. He got the respect of all the community.

There is a difference between being an audio designer and an audio scientist. I respect both, but do not confound them.

Science now (in 2023) has no accurate model of hearing system/brain so the only way for Audio judgment is the subjective experience.
What makes Lamm special is the expert audiophiles like it.

I have told before about expert vs non-expert audiophiles

 

[Ron Resnick]

I love the sound of the Lamm electronics. There's no doubt about that. In a slightly alternative universe I probably would have all Lamm electronics.

But I think it goes too far to suggest that he made a unique mousetrap sonically far ahead of everybody else, and supernaturally superior to other electronics. If the Lamm designs somehow channeled natural human hearing more convincingly than other circuit designs why doesn't everybody -- or at least a majority -- or at least a plurality of audiophiles fall in love at first listen? Why do some people adopt Lamm electronics, and then move away from Lamm?

Lamm is great. But are Peter and Tim suggesting that Lamm discovered the sonic Holy Grail, and that Lamm electronics are somehow uniquely the best?

 

[tima]

Vladimir Lamm studies helped him to find a model between his preference of stereo sound and an objective model, like many other designers. Currently all I need is finding someone who prefers the ML3 sound and wants to pay for it.

I thought his studies were based on the preferences of many test subjects, not his own preferences.

Well, we just can guess. Floyd Toole did a serious study, that was published, scrutinized and can be discussed - he created the sometimes called "Harman sound" that, as could be expected, many people prefer.

All we know from "rumors" around Valdimir Lamm is that he has developed a "model" on human hearing and it is the basis of the "Lamm sound". He was the only person speaking for the company and unique known researcher/designer, I consider this type of sound his preferred sound, that many audiophiles also prefer. But I am always happy to learn (and ask questions, BTW ).

Very few designers are like Lamm, most designers just care about measurements

True, very few designers are like Lamm.

The second part is false, IMO. Most designers care about measurements and sound quality.

Absent some contrary information -- which I know you do not have -- there is no reason to reject Lamm's account of his own work as revealed in his own writing and in interviews. His model of human hearing is grounded in blind and double blind testing of circuit topologies with hundreds of human listeners. Iow, it is based on what his tests revealed about how people hear. We are physically built a certain way. We cannot change how we hear. Lamm's choices are not the "sound he preferred" but the sound of equipment designed from what his studies revealed about how people hear.

Tim, Vladimir Lamm also drew on his own experience playing percussion in an orchestra in Russia. He used this personal experience plus the mathematical formulas he developed from studying the hearing of his test subjects. This he called natural sound. He understood the goal. Knowing his target, he set about designing the original ML2 amplifier.

Thanks for confirming my previous post. The fact that five general lines without any solid referable content summarize all we know about the subject can't make Lamm an exception in audio designing. Probably we disagree on what is meant by the word preference in stereo, I use it in the classical sense found in stereo audio research, as I have previously explained.

If someone goes against all science and empirical knowledge on a subject he must provide evidence of his findings. Peter Walker designed an unique planar speaker that he claimed was a point source - the ESL63. He created a solid mathematical and physical model to design it, that was published in an excellent article, built it and provided measurements to show it, that were repeated by others. He got the respect of all the community.

There is a difference between being an audio designer and an audio scientist. I respect both, but do not confound them.

You are steadfastly in a contrarian mood. I have no idea what you are trying to prove or otherwise claim. I believe you know better and simply enjoy being cantankerous. Fwiw, I have documentation to which you may not be privy.

Vladimir Lamm was an orchestral percussionist who played table tennis professtionally. He was a scientist with a university background in solid-state physics and semiconductor design (Lvov Polyetechnic, graduated 1968, Electrophysics, Solid-State Physics; completed his M.S degree at the Kiev Institute of Semiconductor Devices, Academy of Sciences.) He was Chief Design Engineer of Research and Development at the Lvov Electronics factory with an entire R&D department and a sizeable budget at his disposal. He was an empiricist who followed scientific protocol. Much of his research was funded through the Soviet military-industrial complex and considered state secret. He was a successful audio designer and builder whose audio products gained high recognition within a few years of his escaping Russia and immigrating to the United States.

I love the sound of the Lamm electronics. There's no doubt about that. In a slightly alternative universe I probably would have all Lamm electronics.

But I think it goes too far to suggest that he made a unique mousetrap sonically far ahead of everybody else, and supernaturally superior to other electronics. If the Lamm designs somehow channeled natural human hearing more convincingly than other circuit designs why doesn't everybody -- or at least a majority -- or at least a plurality of audiophiles fall in love at first listen? Why do some people adopt Lamm electronics, and then move away from Lamm?

Lamm is great. But are Peter and Tim suggesting that Lamm discovered the sonic Holy Grail, and that Lamm electronics are somehow uniquely the best?

Holy Irrelevancy Ronman

-or-

As Ron would say: my post has no probative value upon any issue.

 

[PeterA]

I love the sound of the Lamm electronics. There's no doubt about that. In a slightly alternative universe I probably would have all Lamm electronics.

But I think it goes too far to suggest that he made a unique mousetrap sonically far ahead of everybody else, and supernaturally superior to other electronics. If the Lamm designs somehow channeled natural human hearing more convincingly than other circuit designs why doesn't everybody -- or at least a majority -- or at least a plurality of audiophiles fall in love at first listen? Why do some people adopt Lamm electronics, and then move away from Lamm?

Lamm is great. But are Peter and Tim suggesting that Lamm discovered the sonic Holy Grail, and that Lamm electronics are somehow uniquely the best?

What are you talking about Ron?

You and others already established that we can not discuss what is best on this forum that is called what is best forum. I was chastized for even bringing up the subject.

 

[Al M.]

Science now (in 2023) has no accurate model of hearing system/brain so the only way for Audio judgment is the subjective experience.
What makes Lamm special is the expert audiophiles like it.

I have told before about expert vs non-expert audiophiles

Yeah, you are an expert and those who disagree with you, or with others who think like you, are the non-experts. Thank you for the enlightenment.

 

[tima]

Right on schedule bonzo ! this is hilarious !

 

[bonzo75]

Yeah, you are an expert and those who disagree with you, or with others who think like you, are the non-experts. Thank you for the enlightenment.

Wheat and chaff redux

 

[Al M.]

Wheat and chaff redux

Exactly.

Back then, that didn't end well.

 

[Argonaut]

A counterbalance perhaps to the Lamm ’Propaganda’ fest into which this thread appears to have morphed.

Lamm ML2.2 monoblock power amplifier

The challenge is biblical in character, if not in scope: A half year after railing, in these pages, against our industry's overabundance of products that cost more than $20,000, fate has given me such a thing to review.

www.stereophile.com

 

[Amir]

If the Lamm designs somehow channeled natural human hearing more convincingly than other circuit designs why doesn't everybody -- or at least a majority -- or at least a plurality of audiophiles fall in love at first listen? Why do some people adopt Lamm electronics, and then move away from Lamm?

Ron
This is a good question, my answer is :
Many Audiophiles are not enough civilized/expert to understand the value of Lamm sound.
My english is not good, so "Talent" or "flair" or "aptitude" I do not know which word is better to describe it.
I have seen many audiophiles in Iran and I saw their audio results , finally there are big differences between experts like David and other non-expert audiophiles.

 

[Amir]

Yeah, you are an expert and those who disagree with you, or with others who think like you, are the non-experts. Thank you for the enlightenment.

No , I am not expert as said before many times in this forum.
If you talk to audiophiles and also listen to their audio systems (audio results) and try to experience many audio components in controlled condition then you reallize the most audiophile's ideas are just opinions not facts. Opinions are different to facts.
expert audiophiles are rare and you can hear the facts from them.
When I visited WBF for the first time I did not know David (@ddk) but after reading his posts I reallized he is different to other members.

 

[Argonaut]

When I visited WBF for the first time I did not know David (@ddk) but after reading his posts I reallized he is different to other members.

At least you are correct about something

 

[microstrip]

Does your text means Floyd believes the sound absorbers are good for audiophiles?

I think you should send me another page number ?

He deals with the subject of sound absorbing extensively in the book, either for professionals and audio consumers. And sorry, please use the search function in the book. It looks you forgot all you have read ...

 

[Al M.]

No , I am not expert as said before many times in this forum.
If you talk to audiophiles and also listen to their audio systems (audio results) and try to experience many audio components in controlled condition then you reallize the most audiophile's ideas are just opinions not facts. Opinions are different to facts.
expert audiophiles are rare and you can hear the facts from them.
When I visited WBF for the first time I did not know David (@ddk) but after reading his posts I reallized he is different to other members.

Great audio engineers are experts when it comes to designing and implementing their preferred circuits. But their opinions about the sonic merits of other circuits and topologies are still just that -- opinions. Maybe better, or even much better, informed than other opinions, but still just opinions.

Sonic facts (not engineering facts) in audio are elusive. They are often not facts, but personal perceptions and preferences. Again, opinions.

David Karmeli (ddk) is opinionated, for sure. But you can disagree with his opinions, and I personally disagree with a good number of them. Having said that, I have learned from some of his opinions as well, which I am grateful for.

One thing is certain, ddk is no audio god. Nobody is.

 

[microstrip]

Science now (in 2023) has no accurate model of hearing system/brain so the only way for Audio judgment is the subjective experience.

As you should know F. Toole also said that "the only way for audio judgment is the subjective experience." - nothing new here. But he says more - subjective experience in non biased conditions and properly analyzed, something that separates him from most audiophiles, such as you and me.

What makes Lamm special is the expert audiophiles like it.

Sorry, this statement is ridiculous. Lamm deserves better discussions.

 

[bonzo75]

Great audio engineers are experts when it comes to designing and implementing their preferred circuits. But their opinions about the sonic merits of other circuits and topologies are still just that -- opinions. Maybe better, or even much better, informed than other opinions, but still just opinions.

Sonic facts (not engineering facts) in audio are elusive. They are often not facts, but personal perceptions and preferences. Again, opinions.

David Karmeli (ddk) is opinionated, for sure. But you can disagree with his opinions, and I personally disagree with a good number of them. Having said that, I have learned from some of his opinions as well, which I am grateful for.

One thing is certain, ddk is no audio god. Nobody is.

keep in mind you have to declare someone God so that you can earn the messenger title, delivering his commandments. Otherwise you might be relegated to a nobody