Is High End Audio Gear Worth the Money?

[Rensselaer]

those are pretty much what David Karmeli was using with Lamm ML2 SET's at CES in 2002. the Kharma Ceramiques 3.2 which was 89db, 8 ohm. similar speaker load to the new Kharma's. 91db, 4 ohm almost equal 89db, 8 ohm. it was a good match. and popular.

at that time i had Kharma Exquisite 1D's with Tenor OTL's......another fine match. and also popular. i liked the Tenor over the Lamm at that time. the Tenor's were more open (until they ignited), in contrast the Lamm very slightly dark (not opaque at all). but liked the Lamm/Kharma combo plenty.

I defer to your greater experience but do measurements really make the difference? Oh I know that a certain sensitivity is necessary to play most SETs to normal listening levels, but isn’t a flat impedance response even more helpful? What about paper and cloth cones and surrounds? Are modern metal, kevlar or glued on diamonds a better match?

 

[Atmasphere]

I'll grant you that using headphones can mitigate the problem. However, I do not think that headphone monitoring completely neutralizes it.

Headphones have colorations too, as evident from comparing different ones -- which is the absolutely "neutral" reference? Yet they do take the room out of the equation. Also, who can say that the built-in headphone amp is entirely neutral?

Headphones probably do have colorations, but they are far less than any speaker! And they've been that way for decades. Headphone amplifiers don't have nearly the problems an amp driving a loudspeaker does. So they can be quite a lot more neutral as well, although I have encountered a few that made it seem like they weren't even trying.

As always, I recommend getting good recording equipment and working with it; you'll find our really quick how good mics and headphones really are. If I had to guess, Dr Toole has less experience in that area, but its only a guess.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I defer to your greater experience but do measurements really make the difference?

not really. but within the same manufacturer's products i do think they are relevant and useful. and in the case of Kharma i had lots of personal experience back in the day across their model line up.

Oh I know that a certain sensitivity is necessary to play most SETs to normal listening levels, but isn’t a flat impedance response even more helpful? What about paper and cloth cones and surrounds? Are modern metal, kevlar or glued on diamonds a better match?

i'm the last guy who can get deep into measurements. but i do know for a speaker efficiency generally an 8 ohm load = -3db compared to a 4 ohm load.

but Kharma's always have seemed to be a relatively easy to drive speaker, behaving well with modest tube power, and if two Kharma's have similar spec's then my strong expectation would be that they will likely both work similarly.

 

[mtemur]

Would you buy these speakers for Lamm SETS's?
https://kharma.com/products/exquisite/exquisite-midi-grand-3-0/


View attachment 148410

No, not with Lamm, but with Kondo—yes, I would buy them. Actually, a couple of my friends are happily using Kharma speakers with Kondo electronics. Here are the ones I can remember:

- Kondo Ongaku with Kharma Exquisite Galileo 3.0
- Kondo Ongaku Special with Kharma Exquisite Galileo Custom
- Kondo Overture with Kharma Exquisite Galileo Custom
- Kondo Kaguras with Kharma Exquisite Classique 3.0
- Kondo Overture with Kharma Exquisite Midi
- A couple of Elegance series with various Kondos like Kaguras and Melius etc.

I have also listened to the following combinations for a couple of hours each:
- Kondo Gakuoh II with Kharma Exquisite Midi 3.0
- Kondo Gakuoh II with Kharma Veyron 2D (which has two additional diamond tweeters over the one you mentioned)
- AirTight 2211 with Kharma Exquisite Midi 3.0

All of the above combinations sound great but I would pick Classique from Exquisite series and 2D from Veyron series. YMMV. I also heard Kondo Kaguras with Rockport Arrakis speakers for a couple of times. Again no problems.

There were other combinations, like the Souga with the Kharma Exquisite Grand (old model) and the AN UK Ongaku with the Kharma Exquisite Midi, but I haven’t heard them.

Tenors sound very lush, liquid, and emotional, but in my opinion, they don’t have enough torque. Don’t be misled by their 75 watts—they sounded great with the 3.2 Ceramiques BTW.

IMHO, Kondo and the new AirTights work well with the newer Kharma models. Maybe Lamms are a good match too, but I haven’t heard that pairing yet. Of course low powered tube amps and Kharma is not an excellent match but not bad either. Ultimately, the most important thing is having a good AC line without any obstacles, ensuring that these amps can perform at their best in my opinion.

 

[Al M.]

Headphones probably do have colorations, but they are far less than any speaker! And they've been that way for decades. Headphone amplifiers don't have nearly the problems an amp driving a loudspeaker does. So they can be quite a lot more neutral as well, although I have encountered a few that made it seem like they weren't even trying.

As always, I recommend getting good recording equipment and working with it; you'll find our really quick how good mics and headphones really are. If I had to guess, Dr Toole has less experience in that area, but its only a guess.

Again, I agree with you on substantial mitigation of the problem, yet not on elimination. The Circle of Confusion is tough to break entirely.

 

[Atmasphere]

WRT to the Kharmas for Lamm SETs, that is a really bad move to try to combine them. Sure, it will work but here's the reality:

1) the output transformer of any tube amp is less efficient driving 4 Ohms and can lose as much as an octave of bass (generally speaking).
2) Most SETs really make only about 20-25% usable power; above that distortion causes them to sound 'dynamic' so you're really not hearing what they do best. That is why horns.
3) As pointed out, subtract 3dB from that 91 DB sensitivity level (not efficiency as stated, since a Voltage of 2.83V is involved). So only 89dB efficiency (1 Watt) combined with 4 Ohms and such low power; not good for any SET. Not good for OTLs either BTW although the extra power likely helped a lot.

Again, I agree with you on substantial mitigation of the problem, yet not on elimination. The Circle of Confusion is tough to break entirely.

When the tape is consistent over years on various headphones and tape machines after a while you can only conclude that what you hear is really on the tape and isn't a function of something else. When we recorded Canto General we used two tape machines and made two master tapes. It was very interesting playing those two tapes in different setups. One machine was an Ampex 350 transport with 354 electronics using an outboard regulated supply and the other on an Otari. I think the Ampex tape sounded better than the Otari when compared to the direct mic feed. The Otari always came off a little brighter and you could hear that even when played back on the Ampex. The Ampex tape sounded better on the Otari than the Otari's own tape as well. Both machines were carefully calibrated; the difference in tonality was not due to frequency response error.

 

[PeterA]

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.

I find it fascinating that when asked a direct question about your amps, you describe what you think other audiophiles do and how they operate. If you think the whole audiophile concept of "neutral" is specious, why did you ask me if I thought my amps are neutral? I assumed you were sincere in your questioning Ron, so I a gave you a serious response. Now the whole concept is "specious"? That is rich. What was the point of asking me that same question three times, each time ignoring my response? Such strange, manipulative tactics, and to what end? Did you want to argue or trap me in some kind of contradiction? Well, I did not describe my amps as neutral.

I think that some to many audiophiles understand full well that they have selected different objectives from those chosen by others. For evidence, just listen to ten different systems and how the owners approach the hobby. I knew it completely when I changed my system from one type to a completely different type. The target was the same when I switched, but it had changed two years previously during my Sublime Sound set up experiments. The readers of your audiophile objectives thread I think also understand that people can have different objectives, though curiously, some claim on my thread about natural sound that everyone wants natural sound. I am not so sure. I appreciate that you want to put us each in some kind of category. That is your attempt to better understand why each of us has the system he does. I just don't know if those categories inform us of other's choices.

 

[Al M.]

1) the output transformer of any tube amp is less efficient driving 4 Ohms and can lose as much as an octave of bass (generally speaking).

My PranaFidelity Dhyana speakers of medium sensitivity have a nominal impedance of 8 Ohms and a still quite high impedance minimum of 6.1 Ohms at 172 Hz, all this combined with very shallow phase angles.

My Octave RE320 push-pull amp at 80-85 W/ch (with KT120 tubes) drives them easily. I have compared with a class D amp at 400 W/ch into 8 Ohms (800 W/ch into 4 Ohms) and there is no difference in effortlessness and dynamics.

 

[Atmasphere]

, 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."

There is a nuance you may not have considered. @PeterA's speakers are an older design intended for amps of a fairly high output impedance. If you put an amp with a very low output impedance on there (solid state amp) the crossover in the speaker may not work properly and the amp could sound quite colored on it as a result. No doubt part of the reason some solid state advocates wonder what the appeal of horns is all about.

By direct comparison on such a speaker, Peter's amps could come off quite a bit more neutral.

Let's be clear about one other thing: if the solid state amp is bright, that is no less a coloration. On speakers like Peter's they may exhibit a 'one note bass' phenomena too, since the speaker was designed before the 'Voltage drive' rules became commonplace. More about this.

 

[PeterA]

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.

Ok. It is difficult to understand what you mean without specifics.

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.

The experience of live music for me and others, and what I want to have at home, is more than just sound. I described it to Ron in another post. I wrote this:

"Forget, sneezing and coughing and smelling. There is the sound that you hear through your ears, there is the energy you feel through your body, there is the emotion that the music evokes, and there is the sense of being present with the musicians playing their instruments in the moment. There may be other things also contributing to the holistic experience.

The point is, it is much more than just sound. It is also the creation of the event in your mind that then becomes a memory which can serve as a reference to that event, and that can be used to judge the quality of the listening experience you have at home. It’s a much more complex thing than just the sound reaching your ears.

And then at home, I want to experience all the things I mention above. I want to hear a sound that is similar to that of an actual violin. I want to feel the energy coming off of the cello or brass, or timpani. I want the emotion evoked by the music on the recording. I want the sense of presence of the musicians being in front of me in the space of the recording. I want all of that at home. It is a tall order, but that is the target. It is much more than just sound."

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.

I explicitly discuss values, not a system of values. Ralph touched on this when defining "high end". He wrote that he thinks it is about intent. I see his point. I discussed this with David Karmeli and Tim. The English designers of my speakers had particular values, same with the Japanese designer of the American Sound AS2000. The Decca recording engineers had different values than some recording engineers of today. I have different values than some other audiophiles. The proof is in the results of what they did and are doing. Priorities, sensitivities, values. It is one reason the hobby is so interesting.

Of course what we value is essential to what we do and how we do it. It is our innate guide. I am not implying or discussing hearing abilities or education in any way. Start a thread if that is what you want to discuss, or begin a more dedicated discussion of that here by asking a direct question. Some readers may want to discuss it with you.

 

[PeterA]

Thinking is not the way to look at it IMO. if its an SET, its colored, due to its prodigious distortion signature. Many solid state amps are too (those that sound bright).

Of the two I'd prefer an SET, but I also think there's better out there (similar distortion signature but much lower distortion overall, making for more neutral and more transparent).

Its probably more accurate to say the coloration of your amplifiers is innocuous. That is where thinking and reality converge.

Alright I'll go for the bait. This statement isn't accurate. The reason is headphones, which can be plugged directly into any 2 channel recorder, so not a lot of 'filtering through the equipment needed' is going on.

While amps and speakers continue to evolve, mics and headphones have been so good for decades on now that anyone, and I mean anyone can be fooled by them into thinking what they heard was real. I've had it happen many times, and have seen how jaundiced audiophiles react when it happens to them. So you can know quite well what's on the tape.

I get your point about mics and headphones, but how do you get around the spatial presentation from headphones, that in your head impression. Surely the information imbedded in the recording is not that. How do you know what that is and how well it was captured without hearing through a system. Same with impact and mass. I never heard those listening to headphones.

 

[PeterA]

Would you buy these speakers for Lamm SETS's?
https://kharma.com/products/exquisite/exquisite-midi-grand-3-0/


View attachment 148410

I heard the same or similar Karma speaker on the ML3 with the Absolute Nothing Turntable. The system sounded excellent. It was good enought to clearly hear the difference between the new turntable and the AS2000 directly compared. Of course the ML3s sound even better with David's Bionor. I would not buy the Karmas for that amp only because I know there are other combinations that I would prefer, if I could get the speakers. The presentation was not quite as open and effortless as I have heard, but boy, it was extremely good.

 

[hopkins]

Ok. It is difficult to understand what you mean without specifics.

Were I to give you specifics you would reply that you don't listen to sound

The experience of live music for me and others, and what I want to have at home, is more than just sound. I described it to Ron in another post. I wrote this:

"Forget, sneezing and coughing and smelling. There is the sound that you hear through your ears, there is the energy you feel through your body, there is the emotion that the music evokes, and there is the sense of being present with the musicians playing their instruments in the moment. There may be other things also contributing to the holistic experience.

The point is, it is much more than just sound. It is also the creation of the event in your mind that then becomes a memory which can serve as a reference to that event, and that can be used to judge the quality of the listening experience you have at home. It’s a much more complex thing than just the sound reaching your ears.

And then at home, I want to experience all the things I mention above. I want to hear a sound that is similar to that of an actual violin. I want to feel the energy coming off of the cello or brass, or timpani. I want the emotion evoked by the music on the recording. I want the sense of presence of the musicians being in front of me in the space of the recording. I want all of that at home. It is a tall order, but that is the target. It is much more than just sound."

This is getting silly. Everyone who is in this hobby wants to get lost in music, blah blah blah. What everyone experiences listening to music is the topic for a shrink rather than an audio forum, and it does not tell anything about the specificities of your system. I think I have mentioned this before. Our exchanges are pointless.

 

[microstrip]

those are pretty much what David Karmeli was using with Lamm ML2 SET's at CES in 2002. the Kharma Ceramiques 3.2 which was 89db, 8 ohm. similar speaker load to the new Kharma's. 91db, 4 ohm almost equal 89db, 8 ohm. it was a good match. and popular.

Are you sure? It is what I find about CES2002 written by a Lamm dealer:

"GTT Audio & Video(Kharma Ceramiques 3.2, Lamm ML2 amps, Lamm L2 pre, CEC TL1X transport, dCS Elgar Plus DAC). [1st listen] PRaT, emotive, but compressed bass (especially on lower-register piano keys). [2nd listen] Ignore the very compressed bass and it was pure music. Neli wished that they brought some of the bigger Kharmas even though the system fit the small room rather well."

As far as I could read the "bigger" Kharmas were demoed with the Lamm ML1.1 (push pull) . Anyway as far as I found the Kharma Ceramiques 3.2 was a completely different speaker from what I was referring in size and number of units - a much smaller speaker.

But you made my day - I was very happy to learn the dCS Elgar Plus DAC, the equipment that made me forget all my prejudices about digital twenty years ago, was emotive and pure music for a Lamm fan in 2002!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Are you sure?

yes.

 

[Atmasphere]

I get your point about mics and headphones, but how do you get around the spatial presentation from headphones, that in your head impression. Surely the information imbedded in the recording is not that. How do you know what that is and how well it was captured without hearing through a system. Same with impact and mass. I never heard those listening to headphones.

Yeah, it can also sound like performers are behind you. That particular aspect has had me jump a few times when I didn't expect it! Its something you have to get used to. That right there is the biggest disconnect in this 'Circle of Confusion' thing.

 

[PeterA]

Yeah, it can also sound like performers are behind you. That particular aspect has had me jump a few times when I didn't expect it! Its something you have to get used to. That right there is the biggest disconnect in this 'Circle of Confusion' thing.

My problem with headphones, despite their transparency, is that in your head sensation, and the lack of feeling the energy in the room. This is where a good system can really shine.

 

[tima]

If there is no neutral, then against what standard is "colored" evaluated?

what do you mean by 'colored'?

 

[the sound of Tao]

I do believe this is a great example of the opportunity cost of playing battleship semantics ceaselessly in our hobby. Years and years of endless tit for tat point making that never progresses past an intransigent opening foray on to any meaningful understanding of what could actually be important fundamentals about what might actually create these essential divides in perception rather than caught up just arguing small semantic proofs to establish we are indeed right and ergo any contrasting or differing perceptions are just wrong.

To just use bare singular words as defining listening concepts as analytical criteria (terms like natural, neutral, analytical, coloured) are perhaps too broad, simple and naked and just not bulletproof enough alone to survive a barrage of logical challenges if intransigent and intractable readers are simply unwilling to apply some additional definition and context and allow for normal levels of latitude within the challenge of using abstracts to describe both sound and listening experience. Simply better fleshing out the idea and bolstering it with accompanying descriptors to further define or target or grade it in ways such as in applying a further level of the attribute is helpful.

No component of audio is perfect (subjectively or objectively) so it’s easy to make a logical argument that nothing can then be utterly neutral or absolutely natural or completely realistic or perfectly balanced or purely uncoloured. It is in the synthetic nature of all this process that some levels of artificial is inherent in all gear. It perhaps often just comes back to tipping points

This implicit vulnerability in using just a raw single word descriptor to qualify listening perception leads to simple to pick arguments and the volleys from side to side and all the anal retentive point making and clamped sphincter debate… and as a consequence we never move past the I’m absolutely right and you’re completely wrong stage onto something more illuminating.

Seriously for me i don’t see what is so hard to understand about saying a component seems largely neutral in sonic character, or relatively natural sounding, or slightly coloured or actually very coloured or in fact quite artificial sounding. I don’t believe these ideas are that impossible to comprehend for people who are reasonably experienced audiophile listeners… even better if you have plenty of live music experience in your retention to help reference against what you are perceiving as well. I get people don’t then necessarily agree with the ultimate quality or universality of an idea or concept on perception or in an experience but I’d have thought getting what the poster is essentially trying to get across isn’t that challenging really unless you want it to be.

I just figure if we spend years and years lost arguing only on a basic definition of these listening concepts the opportunity to develop on that and actually gain insights on perceptual differences and objectives is the ultimate opportunity cost and loss. Unless of course the aim is just to establish who’s the absolute biggest authority on audio in which case that’s just brilliant .

 

[treitz3]

There is no authority. No matter who you are, no matter your experience? There is always something better out there that the "authority" hasn't heard yet.

But this will continue, as it has, for *fill in the blank*. It is what it is.

Tom