As I have had Lamm.
My point was the philosophy of the product, we all like what we like.
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
As I have had Lamm.
My point was the philosophy of the product, we all like what we like.
You wrote that they share a similar philosophy, which is “listen first, measure afterwards.” It is my understanding that Vladimir studied human hearing and made a mathematical model based on those studies. He then measured and didn’t really listen during the development process.
I agree we make our choices based on what we like.
<<<<i think darTZeel has similarities with Lamm in a sense, as their perspective is "listen first, measure afterwards".<<<<
when i wrote 'their' i was referring to dartzeel.
>>>>accurate is a concept that should be recognized in the process, but natural and real are the standards. Herve did not do the human listening studies Vladimir did; he had his own approach.<<<<<
here is what i felt they have in common, neither pursued accuracy.
i'm assuming that those studies examined/measured what listeners found to be natural and real and that is what he pursued.
ok.
And yet Michael Fremer made it clear that darTZeel monos and Lamm ML3 monos are not at all the same sound.
Lamm Industries ML3 Signature monoblock power amplifier
Even as the gulf narrows between the sounds of the best solid-state and the best tubed amplifiers, most listeners remain staunch members of one or the other camp. Similarly, when it comes to video displays, the plasma and liquid-crystal technologies each has its partisans, though that conflict's...
www.stereophile.com
i agree. i had these 2 same sets of amps in my system too. and kept the ones that i preferred but liked the other too.And yet Michael Fremer made it clear that darTZeel monos and Lamm ML3 monos are not at all the same sound.
Lamm Industries ML3 Signature monoblock power amplifier
Even as the gulf narrows between the sounds of the best solid-state and the best tubed amplifiers, most listeners remain staunch members of one or the other camp. Similarly, when it comes to video displays, the plasma and liquid-crystal technologies each has its partisans, though that conflict's...
DarTZeel's would not at all fit the model developed by Cheever...the Lamm ML2 (at least, which is closer to the ideal than the ML3 interestingly) would fit very nicely into Cheever's model...
I know which one I consider more natural as well...in that regard, I would agree with Peter. Where I don't agree with DDK is that basically only Lamm is natural sounding...I think other SETs fit this target quite well too.
i agree with that too. whether Ralph's techie stuff is correct for accuracy, it's beside the point of what we think sounds best. years ago i preferred the Tenor's to Atma-Sphere......and Lamm. although i preferred Lamm to Atma-Sphere. but they were all good. no dogs except the Tenor's tended to explode.
and now 11 years and many other amp compares later Fremer still has darTZeel. which proves nothing. it's what he likes. and amps aimed at making music instead of accuracy are winners. just choose the one you like.And yet Michael Fremer made it clear that darTZeel monos and Lamm ML3 monos are not at all the same sound.
Lamm Industries ML3 Signature monoblock power amplifier
Even as the gulf narrows between the sounds of the best solid-state and the best tubed amplifiers, most listeners remain staunch members of one or the other camp. Similarly, when it comes to video displays, the plasma and liquid-crystal technologies each has its partisans, though that conflict's...
Yes, the Tenors were something special...they had both the shocking clarity of other OTLs with the harmonic rightness of SET. Did you ever hear the Joule Electra amps by chance? I would have expected them to be similar in that regard.
i liked the big Joule Electra, although (1) they were a bit more 'thick' and 'heavy' sounding, not quite as agile and transparent as the Tenors, and (2) they got very, very hot. but they had more grip for sure.
I like very much the sound of Lamm components. I have always said that in an alternative universe I might have had an all-Lamm system. I also might have had an all-Jadis system.
I hear Lamm, I hear Jadis, I hear Trafomatic, I hear Viva, I hear Absolare, I hear VTL, I hear Aesthetix, I hear ARC, I hear VAC. They all are to my ears just slightly different variations of natural, convincing, emotionally-engaging. I like the sound of a number of SET amplifiers from different brands. Each of us has subtle, cosmopolitan preferences among the sounds of these brands of components. We typically cannot luxuriate in having multiple chains of electronics from different brands. A selection has to be made.
Do the devotees of Lamm hear from Lamm electronics an experience which is wholly or holistically different than they hear from other high-regarded tube electronics brands?
Peter, I know you will reply "yes," that the ML2 is uniquely natural-sounding, and that that is why you adopted the philosophy of selecting that particular amplifier first, and then selecting matching speakers and building a system around it. I totally respect that approach.
What do you hear from the ML2 in contrast to other similar-power SET amplifiers which causes you to find the ML2 uniquely natural-sounding and convincing?
I hear Lamm, I hear Jadis, I hear Trafomatic, I hear Viva, I hear Absolare, I hear VTL, I hear Aesthetix, I hear ARC, I hear VAC. They all are to my ears just slightly different variations of natural, convincing, emotionally-engaging. I like the sound of a number of SET amplifiers from different brands. Each of us has subtle, cosmopolitan preferences among the sounds of these brands of components. We typically cannot luxuriate in having multiple chains of electronics from different brands. A selection has to be made.
Do the devotees of Lamm hear from Lamm electronics an experience which is wholly or holistically different than they hear from other high-regarded tube electronics brands?
Peter, I know you will reply "yes," that the ML2 is uniquely natural-sounding, and that that is why you adopted the philosophy of selecting that particular amplifier first, and then selecting matching speakers and building a system around it. I totally respect that approach.
What do you hear from the ML2 in contrast to other similar-power SET amplifiers which causes you to find the ML2 uniquely natural-sounding and convincing?
Last edited:
David is not here, but my understanding is that he settled on Lamm and prefers it. I never heard him say that Lamm is the only natural sounding SET. Perhaps he thinks it is the most natural sounding.
Edit: I did forget that ddk told me that hat some other tube brands do sound natural to him.
Last edited:
Measurements? Measurements … ok, you are given a choice of two doors, you will have to open one and face what is behind it. You are told it will be a wild animal from Africa. You are given measurements, to help you make up your mind, length, weight, average weight of food eaten every 24 hours, hairs per square inch on body … Perhaps you are measuring the wrong things?
Depending on the thread, the same poster may say I want equipment that is true to the source material. Equipment that will show you exactly what is in the groove.
Then on another thread they will say they want distortions that will create a sense of sound that while inaccurate to the source and containing distortions, sound more like a real this or that.
The same argument is beat around on preamp threads. My DAC direct is more accurate. My preamp make more engaging music.
Then on another thread they will say they want distortions that will create a sense of sound that while inaccurate to the source and containing distortions, sound more like a real this or that.
The same argument is beat around on preamp threads. My DAC direct is more accurate. My preamp make more engaging music.
Objective 2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played.
Objective 1) recreate the sound of an original musical event.
and/or
Objective 4) create a sound that seems live.
There is no mystery here to me. Different audiophiles have different objectives for the hobby. Much of the discussion and fencing we observe on WBF arises from failing to understand that people start with different sonic objectives.
If the thread title is 'natural sound' and the thread is public as this one is, then I'm OK to be here.
I'm not using this thread to promote anyone's products. I am stating the facts of how the ear perceives sound and how that interacts with the engineering that makes audio products possible.
It might appear to you otherwise, but I'm simply pointing out why SETs don't work. Its not my fault- they were the only game in town 100 years ago. We've learned some math and engineering since then and we can do better and do.
FWIW I ran an LP mastering studio for 20 years after acquiring an LP mastering system and rebuilding the mechanical bits and the electronics from the ground up. This taught me a lot about LPs- their strengths and weaknesses. Designing a turntable did the same thing. We don't make the turntable anymore because I'm of the opinion there's something better out there. We can discuss what makes turntables good and bad; getting the engineering right in the turntable is a key to natural sound since you can't make up for weaknesses imparted to the signal downstream no matter how good your components are.
If you wish to refute my comments, rather than attacking me perhaps you could attack my posts. For example you could find some documentation that shows how Gain Bandwidth Product doesn't affect feedback in amplifier circuits, something like that.
To the first, I will tell you. Morricab made comments that I found in my email which were false. So I felt it important to say why I was not responding to his comments. Now you can't say you don't know.
I get the listening thing. As audiophiles, we have essentially been lied to for the last 70 years since the spec sheets have never been able to tell us how the equipment sounds. Its the Emperor's New Clothes.
But now we have the measurement tools that didn't exist 40 years ago so we can actually tell how something will sound where we could not before. I've been stating what this is all about, since having those measurements offers a tool, an access, to allowing the engineering to support the rules of human hearing rather than ignoring them.
Now you may not want to know about those rules or the engineering. But there might be a chance that you might want to improve upon your system. I've been doing this 45 years and I've found that to be a very common quality amongst audiophiles. You may be the exception but there are probably others here that would like to know why electronics sound the way they do and why they sound different from each other.
Regarding the MA-1s, early on I found out that if God designed and sold an amplifier, audiophiles would say it was boomy, lacking bass, bright, rolled off and so on. Our OTLs are very sensitive to speaker load and the Lamm is not. So the MA-1s won't work on every speaker. What's kept me in business has been I've tried hard to vet the customer's speaker first (although my success rate at that isn't 100% by any means but it makes no sense to sell something that you know isn't going to work for someone). The other thing we found over time is people often don't pay attention to tubes and are more likely to sell when the tubes get weak. This is true of any tube product BTW.
Oh please, Ralph's arguments technically or otherwise always end with a description of how his own designs are just the right way to do things and other amps/preamps/phono sections just don't get it right. I am sure he has gotten a lot of interest for his product this way, i certainly had never heard of Athmas-Spere before seeing his many posts here and on Audiogon. I would certainly call it marketing, he is not here to educate Peter about amp topology, but to do a little marketing. A lot cheaper than buying full page adds.
I'm not the only one who follows proper engineering practice. I hope its OK to walk the talk.Would it somehow be better if we didn't do the right thing engineering-wise? Perhaps hammer a nail into a bit of wood rather than building a proper power supply?? Sheesh.
Most of this is false- you have a misunderstanding.
First, I'm not here to denigrate Lamm. If you look back, you'll find I mentioned the Lamm SET was one of the better sounding amps we had in the shop.
Apparently we disagree about the term 'accuracy'. To me, accuracy allows the system to sound natural. If its not accurate, its unnatural. The two are synonymous. Try as I might, I can't see a way around that. My hypothesis is that those that think 'accurate' isn't 'natural' are associating something amusical with 'accurate'. That makes no sense to me, but that's the world we live in??
From this its obvious you did not read through my posts carefully! I'll give you an example: I stated earlier that distortion vs frequency might be more important than THD. Go back and see. To this end, what you want is a ruler flat distortion vs frequency response across the audio band. I mentioned that if you don't have feedback, you will get exactly that. I'm very convinced that this is one of the reasons people like SETs which are anything but low distortion. Capishe??
I think Vladimir and I are on the same page; when we spoke it seemed the case at the time. What I've been saying here is now that we know how to measure what we hear, its possible to make equipment that sounds both natural and accurate. I'm not the first to say something like this; I'm in the same camp as Daniel von Recklinghausen. I suggest you look him up at the link; those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.
This set of statements is mostly false. I don't dismiss Vladimir at all- in fact stated that the distortion his amps make has to be very similar to ours. That does not sound like dismissive to me. Its stating fact. You chose to interpret that in a negative light. In addition you are saying things here that I didn't say anywhere in this thread (emphasis added above) and based a conclusion on that false statement.
If you want to sort things out, making false accusations isn't the way to do it IMO.
I differ with Vladimir probably because I've spent so much time in the studio and have recordings I made on LP and CD (IOW I have references I can trust). I know how they are supposed to sound, so I know SETs simply cannot play accurate natural bass. Talk to any SET designer and ask them to make a 15 Watt SET play down to 20 Hertz with full power and see what they say (they will tell you the output transformer will be the size of a small refrigerator...)!
We both know that bass notes contain the most energy in music. The ear has a built-in tone system: if the bass is missing the system will sound tilted to the highs even though its perfectly flat. Too much bass and the system will sound muffled. So you have to get the bass right and that means with the full power of the amp! It one of the keys to natural sound.
Those I know who have the most successful SET-based systems only use the SET for mids and highs. That way the amp isn't challenged by the bass it can't play and that allows a much larger amount of usable power.
Similar threads
