Is High End Audio Gear Worth the Money?

[Amir]

Please read here about audio critique:

Audio Critique

I would like to share my idea about Right/Trusted Audio Critique in the High End Audio because Most Magazines need a better understanding of Audio Reviewing. I ask this question because me (when I was young) and my friends have spent many many times/efforts/money according to (and trusting)...

www.whatsbestforum.com

 

[hopkins]

In that context the question becomes, how do you *know* your reproduction is neutral or not?

Good question. @Atmasphere will answer by making his own recordings. You can also take measurements (frequency response being the obvious candidate, but it obviously does not capture everything) to see what things look like. But how "flat" should things be? Endless debate.

I wish I had perfect pitch, but I don't. I'm pragmatic and find it is a question of proportion.

 

[Al M.]

Good question. @Atmasphere will answer by making his own recordings.

I know. But that is exactly what Peter Qvortrup addresses.

You can also take measurements (frequency response being the obvious candidate, but it obviously does not capture everything) to see what things look like. But how "flat" should things be? Endless debate.

Good point.

 

[PeterA]

Funny that you mention Peter Qvortrup's article in support for "natural sound" because this is what he has to say about it in his article:

"Listeners claiming an inside track by virtue of having attended the recording session are really responding to other, perhaps unconscious, clues when they report significant similarities between recording session and playback. As previously asserted, no one can possibly know in any meaningful way what is on the master tape or the resulting software, even if they auditioned the playback through the engineer's "reference" monitoring system. Anyone who thinks that there exists some "reference" playback system that sounds just like the live event simply isn't paying attention: or at best doesn't understand how magic works."

The problem I see here is that natural sound is not some "reference" playback system that SOUNDS just like the live event. Natural sound attempts to deliver an holistic listening experience that reminds the listener of the experience he has when attending a live performance. The focus on SOUND is misplaced. It is important, but it is more than that. It is a more complete experience resulting in a connection to the music and emotions. The emphasis on sound alone is hifi. I see a distinction with a difference.

 

[Elliot G.]

You wrote: "If there is a character across instruments and recordings, I consider the system or component, if it can be isolated, as being colored. I do not have that impression of Lamm SET amps." (October 30, 2023)


You are welcome to disavow it, but you wrote what you wrote. You cannot wriggle off the hook.

1) You love your ML2s.

2) You don't want your "amps to sound colored."

3) Why are you unwilling to say that you believe the ML2s do not sound colored?

4) If they do not sound colored, how can you not feel that they sound neutral?

Neutral to me is the LACK of color. It is something that plays exactly what it is fed and does not change or alter the sound. This IMO is the only definition of the term. It adds nothing and it subtracts nothing that is by definition.
What i like or anyone likes may be their favorite for various reasons but they can only be that if they do not change the signal with any color or flavor. To that end the Lamm amplifiers IMO are not neutral. They may be natural sounding to those who like them but they are not neutral.
IMO when you hear those amps say on a Wilson they change the sound dramatically of those speakers that IMO is not neutral.
I think that most would agree that electronics has some family sound. That said that a CH sounds a certain way. An Audio research sounds a certain way, A VAC sounds a certain way, A D'agostino sounds a certain way , A Soulution sounds a certain way etc. So those who own them probably believe that are neutral? or natural? or they just like the sound?
If they all sound different then which one is neutral? If it isn't neutral is it still natural even with its color added?

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

I cannot fathom why you spend so much time ranting about this
Either the sound pleases you and make you relax and enjoy the music, or you tend to analyze the reproduction, which in my world is a bad sign

 

[PeterA]

You wrote: "If there is a character across instruments and recordings, I consider the system or component, if it can be isolated, as being colored. I do not have that impression of Lamm SET amps." (October 30, 2023)


You are welcome to disavow it, but you wrote what you wrote. You cannot wriggle off the hook.

1) You love your ML2s.

2) You don't want your "amps to sound colored."

3) Why are you unwilling to say that you believe the ML2s do not sound colored?

4) If they do not sound colored, how can you not feel that they sound neutral?

Ron, I am not disavowing a thing. I know what I wrote and stand by it. I do not think my amplifiers sound colored. But I don’t know how to confirm that they are what you want to describe as neutral. How does one do that? I will say that they do not seem to strip out that which makes instruments sound natural. Some other amplifiers do that in my experience.

I’ve written about why I do not think they sound colored. They do not seem to impose a signature on my recordings and my recordings sound different from each other. They also bring the music to life and remind me of when I listen to live music. If they were colored, they would sound artificial to me.

You seem intent on putting words in my mouth and speaking for me. Others have written that there is no neutral component. Why don’t you argue with them too? I would like to read your defense of a neutral component. Why do people prefer good preamps? Are they neutral or something else?

 

[Ron Resnick]

The problem I see here is that natural sound is not some "reference" playback system that SOUNDS just like the live event. Natural sound attempts to deliver an holistic listening experience that reminds the listener of the experience he has when attending a live performance. The focus on SOUND is misplaced. It is important, but it is more than that. It is a more complete experience resulting in a connection to the music and emotions. The emphasis on sound alone is hifi. I see a distinction with a difference.

I always like your formulation of reminding the listener of the experience he has when attending a live performance. But doesn't experience go further than you need to? To me the "experience" of being at Walt Disney Concert Hall includes being fully dressed and being conscious of strangers sitting next to you and whispering and sneezing.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to prune "experience" back to the sum of the sound of the live event plus emotional engagement?

 

[Ron Resnick]

I know what I wrote and stand by it. I do not think my amplifiers sound colored. But I don’t know how to confirm that they are what you want to describe as neutral. How does one do that?

What is the basis of finding your amplifiers to sound not colored unless the reference is neutral? Against what benchmark is uncolored measured if not neutrality?

If you do not think your amplifiers sound colored doesn't that mean that you think they sound neutral?

 

[mtemur]

Well, I don’t want to throw gas on an already flaming discussion, but I’ve heard Lamm amplifiers multiple times with various speakers.

A couple of years ago, a pair of Lamm 2.1s were on sale for $10K, including a single-box preamplifier (I forgot the model number). My friend and I decided the price was too good to pass up, so we took them to his home for an audition. He already had a Kondo Ongaku (27-watt SET) and Komuro 845 monos (85-watt push-pull) on hand, so we compared the Lamms against those amplifiers.

With only 18 watts of SET power, the Lamms struggled to drive the 4-ohm, 87dB Albedo Atesia speakers. When we switched back to the Kondo Ongaku, it was better in every aspect and drove the speakers without any problems. However, the Komuro’s 85-watt push-pull design brought more control to the speakers, albeit at the expense of the magical sound we heard through the Kondo and Lamm. We also tested the Lamm single-box preamplifier but ultimately continued with the Kondo and Audio Consulting Silver Rock preamplifiers.

Conclusion:

- The Kondo Ongaku was more powerful than the Lamms and also sounded better than both the Lamms and Komuros. However, it wasn’t an ideal match for 87dB speakers. While it had more power and headroom than typical SETs, it still required a relatively easy load.

- The Lamm 2.1 amps were not a fair match for 87dB speakers either (which have seven drivers each) but they sounded lush, organic, and very emotional. I also listened to the Lamm 2.1s with the Diesis Roma, which was a much better match. Neutral or not they are exceptional amplifiers—among the best, in my opinion. IMHO if your speakers cannot be properly driven by the Lamms, the right approach is to replace the speakers, not the amps.

BTW in terms of SETs; old AirTight 211 monos have less control around Lamm 2.1 level and no special sound but new 2211 monos sound great and have a control/drive at Kondo Ongaku level. AN UK Ongaku has a sweet romantic tone but I prefer Lamms lushness. It doesn't have much control/drive, probably at same level or lower than Lamms.

 

[bonzo75]

We also tested the Lamm single-box preamplifier but ultimately continued with the Kondo and Audio Consulting Silver Rock preamplifiers.

How was the Silver rock preamp into the Kondo or Lamm power amp

 

[Al M.]

IMHO if your speakers cannot be properly driven by the Lamms, the right approach is to replace the speakers, not the amps.

Or you don't buy low-powered Lamms in the first place.

 

[bonzo75]

With only 18 watts of SET power, the Lamms struggled to drive the 4-ohm, 87dB Albedo Atesia speakers.

I break into a smile when speaker sensitivity falls below 100db 8ohm, then start chuckling at 95 db and 4ohm, and break into uncontrollable fits of giggling at 90 db 4 ohm

 

[mtemur]

How was the Silver rock preamp into the Kondo or Lamm power amp

It is great into any amp we tried. It sounded best with Mark Levinson 33H as far as I remember but it was more than 15 years ago. The problem with silver rock is cryogenic process. After a certain period of listening like 1 hour you tend to notice cryo's sound signature. I'm not a fan of cryo and prefer a more lush sound but it's just me.

 

[mtemur]

Or you don't buy low-powered Lamms in the first place.

That's a very good point. You are right but controlling our desires is the most difficult thing in this hobby.

 

[mtemur]

I break into a smile when speaker sensitivity falls below 100db 8ohm, then start chuckling at 95 db and 4ohm, and break into uncontrollable fits of giggling at 90 db 4 ohm

I think you can go as low as 90dB if the speakers are big and have big bass drivers with cloth surrounds covered with resin. Small speakers are no go for low powered amps in my opinion.

 

[Al M.]

That's a very good point. You are right but controlling our desires is the most difficult thing in this hobby.

Well yeah, but striving to keep it rational is worthwhile.

Another example: I have a not so large listening room (see my signature), and I always refused to put too large speakers in it. Some (many?) put too large speakers into too small rooms.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Do you consider any of your amplifiers to be neutral? If so, what do you mean by that and how do you know it?

I have written many times that I think audiophiles use "colored" as a "general purpose slur" against whatever components of which they don't like the sound. We do know what each other means subjectively when we use the word, but I don't think there's any objective integrity underpinning the adjective. A solid-state amplifier fan will typically disparage a low power SET amplifier as "colored."

I think the whole audiophile concept of "neutral" is specious, because there is no objective, mutually agreed starting point.

Someone who adopts Objective 2) "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played," is likely to find Boulder electronics to be "neutral" and Kondo electronics to be "colored." Someone who adopts Objective 4) "create a sound that seems live," may find Boulder electronics to be "colored" and Kondo electronics to be "neutral." Both assessments derive from nothing more than the personal subjective preferences of the audiophiles.

As is often the case in this hobby we are back to the incomparability of interpersonal utility and the immutable reality that most of this hobby is subjective. Many audiophiles attempt to clothe their personal subjective preferences with a veneer of objectivity to justify intellectually their purchasing decisions, but I think it is invalid.

My analytical framework is audiophiles:

1) consciously or subconsciously select a high-end audio objective

2) evaluate components according to the selected objective

3) assemble systems which they believe satisfy the objective

4) criticize components which they believe do not satisfy their selected objective*

*And almost all of the on-line fencing derives from not understanding that they selected different objectives at the outset.

 

[hopkins]

The problem I see here is that natural sound is not some "reference" playback system that SOUNDS just like the live event. Natural sound attempts to deliver an holistic listening experience that reminds the listener of the experience he has when attending a live performance.

I understand your point of view. The are multiple aspects to take into consideration, and you may find some aspects particularly seductive, overlooking other aspects that are important to another listener - this is said "matter of fact" with no value judgement. My example of your exchange with Morricab was simply meant to illustrate that.

The focus on SOUND is misplaced. It is important, but it is more than that. It is a more complete experience resulting in a connection to the music and emotions. The emphasis on sound alone is hifi. I see a distinction with a difference.

This is where I lose you. I would like to think that we can explain what it is that we appreciate without resorting to these types of general statements that I don't find very meaningful (i cannot sugar coat this).

What we hear is SOUND. I think we can explain our preferences more clearly and precisely. There is also some science behind it, just like there is science in designing a concert hall.

You also implicitly introduce a value system. It is convenient to think that what we value in sound reproduction is some "essential" quality that is lost to the uneducated ear. Maybe we should listen to what the uneducated ears have to say and trust that there are elements of truth.

 

[PeterA]

Dea

Dear Peter,

I think it is better if audiophiles forget about the sound and just care about music listening experience.

If you do not enjoy the music then nothing is important about the sound.

I think “Natural sound” is not more close to “live sound”, Actually no audio system is close to live sound but Natural sound is more close to live music listening experience, these are two different things :
1- live music sound
2- live music listening experience

This is the way I think about it too. When I started in the hobby, I focused on sound because the magazines focus on sound and the dealers focused on sound. This led me to a hi-fi sounding system. I abandoned that approach and describe the transition that followed in my two system threads.