Preference vs. audibility - please keep them separate.

[Orb]

i bring this up from time to time, but if you do this experiment you will learn something about stereo. Listen to your system in mono for a few days or so, maybe a week. This teaches you that you are hearing a reproduction system (not a replications of reality system), then, man, switch off that mono button. Boom, listen to stereo, and you will realize how (its for you to find out) it "sounds" when you first hear it, before you become accustomed to it. Now, I am not saying mono is aa preference of mine, but, It sure helped me better understand psychoacoustics.

It is an interesting concept; what is more accurate mono or stereo recording (assuming both well recorded and both using ideal speakers and system) and closer to the reference of playback for music-voice-instruments?
At least mono is easier to integrate into a home IMO, and would assume mono is more accurate depending upon definition, the factors chosen, and critically the music and number of instruments or type.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Gregadd]

Not that I have a dog in this fight.
But let's just keep the record straight.Ttim it was you who claimed stereo had no height and was unable to sustain it. A one dimensional object is a straight line. Stereo is at least two dimensional. I along with others experience height, width and depth. A discussion of How that is achieved is certainly a valid discussion.

For myself and others recreation of real music in real space is not only our standard it is the only standard that makes this hobby worth while,IMO. A discussion of how close we come to that goal is certainly in order,

Once we set our goal the pursuit of it is not a matter of preference it is however a matter of degree. Claims by manufacturers or reviewers or audiophiles that Product A brings them closer to the real thing than B is also valid. If they are wrong it does invalidate they effort. They just need to do better.

I repeat stereo is an illusion. I work to make that illusion as real as possible. I have no interest in deconstructing it. Stereo is the standard. Replacing it will be difficult. If you have something better bring it forward.
I do not not know why I have to point out the obvious. In any field or endeavor their is a standard that establishes a hierarchy of quality. If you feel your choice was unfairly ranked or another choice is overrate, join the club.
r

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So whenever I say I think and feel like vinyl is more lifelike, am I making an unsubstantiated claim amounting to wish fulfillment? I ask because I've said this before. Lotsa times.

I remember that thread well but I do not recall anybody ever saying that they were getting DISCREET vertical placement. Phantom yes, discreet no. What they were saying was that they were localizing sound events higher than the tweeters. A bunch of guys said that what these guys were saying was impossible and that they were delusional until the .edu links on psychoacoustic studies started to pile up. Then the raunchy pictures that were eventually deleted started piling up too. LOL.

You have to remember that perspectives differ Tim. As a musician your aesthetic is based on being in there with the band as opposed to people whose perspectives are based on being in the audience. As a result you like a ratio of higher direct vs reflected sound. That is cool but what sounds "real" to you doesn't necessarily translate to what sounds "real" to others.

When you say you think and feel, you are clearly expressing an opinion. When one says their choice is better and insists, through years of posts, that anyone who disagrees lacks experience, a sufficient system or adequate hearing to discern that their choice is better, that, my friend, is arrogance.

There were people in that vertical imaging discussion who claimed, who insisted, that their systems were clearly locating instruments and voices vertically, individually. It doesn't matter a bit if they used the word discrete or not. They defined it with their descriptions and insisted it was real, for many pages, before some of them finally gave in to reality and conceded that they were hearing phantom images, but even then a few insisted that they heard specific placement of individual instruments in the vertical plane. That's not a phantom image. It's also not possible. Arrogant, and delusional. An unsupportable claim based on wish fulfillment, and just one of many examples. Did I say that out loud? Arrogance? Or just blunt? Sorry. My lack of restraint is fueled by the fact that the same people who consistently insist on their delusions are the ones who will tell you about you lack if experience, your system's limitations, etc. I find myself in a place where I am unable to suffer them gladly, or maybe even politely. Perhaps it's time for a WBF break....

Tim

 

[Groucho]

Whether you choose to believe Victor Lamm when he says that he has figured out a model for how the human ear perceives sound quality and builds his amps, preamps, and phono stages to mirror the model that he developed...

What's your view on that? What could this "model" consist of? Is there any point, for example of knowing that the ear's response to loudness is logarithmic and that its sensitivity changes automatically in response to loud noises? Should we compress the audio or expand it to "mirror" this element of the model? I would be very surprised if the amp did either (intentionally).

It could have an element of Fletcher Munson in it, say, so you could mirror the Fletcher Munson effect in your amp. As Tim says, a loudness button is a crude way of mirroring the Fletcher Munson effect to allow the listener to perceive a flatter frequency response at low levels. Does the Lamm amp feature a frequency response that varies with loudness perhaps? A filter whose characteristics change with the signal, or linked to the volume control? If so, how does it know where to place 'neutral' for recording of a solo mandolin vs. one of The Who? I think the answer is that it doesn't do anything of the sort. What about euphonic distortion in order to tap into the Fletcher Munson effect? Maybe. Previous discussions here have talked about how increasing distortion with power can give a perception of loudness without the amp needing to go much louder - but what about the physical sensation of low frequencies hitting your ears and body? Wouldn't this 'technique' cause a discrepancy that you might notice subconsciously? Personally I'd like an amp that really did go louder and didn't distort, but that's just me. What else could this model consist of? The shape of the outer ear? What can we do in an amp to mirror that? If we mirror the ear's physical frequency response, to the listener it won't sound neutral, but strongly EQ-ed.

If I started a garage company called The Groucho Foundation Universal Enterprises Incorporated and said in an interview that I had developed a model of human consciousness and that my amplifiers were therefore perfect, would you simply take me at my word?

 

[jkeny]

Tim,
What part of the stereo illusion is not possible?
What part is/is not a phantom image?

 

[microstrip]

(...) There were people in that vertical imaging discussion who claimed, who insisted, that their systems were clearly locating instruments and voices vertically, individually. It doesn't matter a bit if they used the word discrete or not. They defined it with their descriptions and insisted it was real, for many pages, before some of them finally gave in to reality and conceded that they were hearing phantom images, but even then a few insisted that they heard specific placement of individual instruments in the vertical plane. That's not a phantom image. It's also not possible. Arrogant, and delusional. An unsupportable claim based on wish fulfillment, and just one of many examples. Did I say that out loud? Arrogance? Or just blunt? Sorry. My lack of restraint is fueled by the fact that the same people who consistently insist on their delusions are the ones who will tell you about you lack if experience, your system's limitations, etc. I find myself in a place where I am unable to suffer them gladly, or maybe even politely. Perhaps it's time for a WBF break....

Tim

Tim,

You are trying to move the debate to a new area. But even here, you fail to understand the problems and the capabilities of the stereo illusion.
When some one writes that his system was clearly locating instruments and voices vertically, this just means that the system provides information enough to recreate the illusion of height of this source in the listener, differentiating it form other source heights. Knowing how the humans perceive height, how fragile is this information and recognizing it is a learned capacity, we are able to understand that some people will perceive it more easily than others - and why some type of speakers and systems are better tailored to show this differentiation. A poor designed speaker where you perceive clearly from which driver the sounds comes at the listening place will ruin this illusionary capacity. And yes, it is what I think and it is mostly studied in psycho-acoustics - after all it is just an illusion.

BTW, you should read Gary Koh excellent manuals on speaker setup - they are all available on line. He explains a lot about height in the soundstage, as his speakers excel in this aspect.

 

[microstrip]

(...) If I started a garage company called The Groucho Foundation Universal Enterprises Incorporated and said in an interview that I had developed a model of human consciousness and that my amplifiers were therefore perfect, would you simply take me at my word?

If the Groucho Foundation Universal Enterprises Incorporated had designed and manufactured several amplifiers using very different technologies - SET, push-pull, hybrid, and all of them showed a common sound signature and really sounded excellent I would be prepared to accept your word, but would ask you to drop the word perfect. I would also check if you managed to master one of the most delicate aspects of designing an whole family of products that achieve maximum synergy between them in matched sets. I find this sentence of the great Harry Pearson to have particularly significance in this aspect (this is just the first sentence) :

 

[mep]

What's your view on that? What could this "model" consist of? Is there any point, for example of knowing that the ear's response to loudness is logarithmic and that its sensitivity changes automatically in response to loud noises? Should we compress the audio or expand it to "mirror" this element of the model? I would be very surprised if the amp did either (intentionally).

I don't really have a view on "it." If Victor really did develop some mathematical model which helps him design and build great sounding gear, more power to him. At the end of the day, does it really matter? Lamm gear is going to be sold based on how it sounds to the customers who hear it. I for one don't think people are going to be swayed over to buying Lamm gear because Victor has developed his model of hearing and designs his gear accordingly.

In summary, you can choose to believe it, to ponder the meaning of it, to disbelieving it all the way to ridiculing it if that makes you happy. All I know is that people who own Lamm gear tend to be very happy owners.

 

[Gregadd]

The question of Supeririyt.


If things like height contribute to the image are perceived in my system and not yours I could reasonably claim mine is superior. I recall the movie line" no brag just fact."
Detail is important . The things that audiophiles describe can be demonstrated with proper source material and a system of sufficient resolution. It does not require "golden ears."

I have been able to locate instruments suspended in space. Furthermore coming from someone who is old enough to remember mono I can categorically state stereo is better.

It would be a shame if some were deprived of this detail because they assumed it was unobtainable or the result of a "delusion."

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
What part of the stereo illusion is not possible?
What part is/is not a phantom image?

I don't believe you were here for the conversation in question, John. It was not about the stereo illusion, it was about vertical imaging.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

You are trying to move the debate to a new area. But even here, you fail to understand the problems and the capabilities of the stereo illusion.
When some one writes that his system was clearly locating instruments and voices vertically, this just means that the system provides information enough to recreate the illusion of height in the listener of this source, differentiating it form others. Knowing how the humans perceive height, how fragile is this information and recognizing it is a learned capacity, we are able to understand that some people will perceive it more easily than others - and why some type of speakers and systems are better tailored to show this differentiation. A poor designed speaker where you perceive clearly from which driver the sounds comes at the listening place will ruin this illusionary capacity. And yes, it is what I think and it is mostly studied in psycho-acoustics - after all it is just an illusion.

BTW, you should read Gary Koh excellent manuals on speaker setup - they are all available on line. He explains a lot about height in the soundstage, as his speakers excel in this aspect.

One would think that's all it means. You need to re-visit the thread. We do not need to re-live it.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

One would think that's all it means. You need to re-visit the thread. We do not need to re-live it.

Tim

Surely - anyway you should read the Genesis 2.2 manual - we can learn a lot from it.
BTW, I edited my previous post to make it more clear.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Surely - anyway you should read the Genesis 2.2 manual - we can learn a lot from it.
BTW, I edited my previous post to make it more clear.

Thanks for that. I understand the sense of height - even height that extends above the top of the speaker. I understand how frequencies can seem to be located in the vertical plane by the placement of particular drivers, though this is not precise, and much will seem to come from the location of the tweeters because of the way the ear/brain locates sounds.

And that is what some people were talking about in the old thread. Others, not so much...

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

I think most telling is is that Genesis is a line source. ANd what Genesis says about the singer withe mcrophne above her head seeming to come from a pit.

 

[microstrip]

I think most telling is is that Genesis is a line source. ANd what Genesis says about the singer withe mcrophne above her head seeming to come from a pit.

Greg,

There is much more than that, see the section on the effect of midrange on the perceived height of the performance.

 

[Gregadd]

Will do.

 

[Groucho]

I don't really have a view on "it." If Victor really did develop some mathematical model which helps him design and build great sounding gear, more power to him.

Hello mep.

There's an explanation here:
http://www.lammindustries.com/faq/expens.html

...and some test results here
http://www.lammindustries.com/faq/bhk.html#fig1

It seems to be the euphonic distortion 'model' i.e. aim to make THD the same across all frequencies and, above a certain level (probably unachievable below that level), ensure it increases with power, up to several percent at the higher outputs. I think the hi fi designers of old would be fascinated to know that THD of several percent (and correspondingly high IMD) is counted as a virtue in the 21st century!

 

[Orb]

Hello mep.

There's an explanation here:
http://www.lammindustries.com/faq/expens.html

...and some test results here
http://www.lammindustries.com/faq/bhk.html#fig1

It seems to be the euphonic distortion 'model' i.e. aim to make THD the same across all frequencies and, above a certain level (probably unachievable below that level), ensure it increases with power, up to several percent at the higher outputs. I think the hi fi designers of old would be fascinated to know that THD of several percent (and correspondingly high IMD) is counted as a virtue in the 21st century!

Interesting measurements from Lamm site but not sure how much can be correlated to how good it sounds and thd.

So what about McIntosh and their tube amps such as the classic and still incredibly popular MC275
I have mentioned it in the past because its distortion figures are closer to SS (in fact better than some average SS gear) especially with the anniversary models.
Posted its measurements in the past, caveat being using the right taps but if follow forums for awhile most do use the right taps that gives the correct measurements (least distortion that raises the point audiophiles are not choosing the tap option with the worst THD but I appreciate this is more anecdotal until a true group study is done with these McIntosh users).

Here is some interesting measurements by Stereophile on the Lamm ML2.1 monoblocks, but a very important point is this is a single ended design and I feel other variables are involved beyond just the basic thd.
Again tap selection important: http://www.stereophile.com/content/lamm-ml21-monoblock-power-amplifier-measurements

Shame HifiNews do not have the visual charts online as some of these do show interesting structure, even for solid state such as Pass Labs that is technically below threshold of audibility and yet as Paul Miller says the distortion structure had to be exceptionally engineered for that performance trait; key point though is it is a fair amount below audible.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Gregadd]

Euphonic distortion 'model The myth continues to grow. Now it's a "model."Maybe I should promote a "disconsonant distortion model." Maybe i can get a trademark on that term(smile)

 

[mep]

Hello mep.

There's an explanation here:
http://www.lammindustries.com/faq/expens.html

...and some test results here
http://www.lammindustries.com/faq/bhk.html#fig1

It seems to be the euphonic distortion 'model' i.e. aim to make THD the same across all frequencies and, above a certain level (probably unachievable below that level), ensure it increases with power, up to several percent at the higher outputs. I think the hi fi designers of old would be fascinated to know that THD of several percent (and correspondingly high IMD) is counted as a virtue in the 21st century!

If you carefully read the article you posted the link to, you picked out the two criteria that Lamm used to make his point and he said those two parameters you mentioned were greatly oversimplifying his model which is really called the "Absolute Linearity of a System" (ALS) and is much more complicated than making THD the same across the frequencies being amplified and having THD increase as power increases. I think the real point that maybe was missed was that Lamm has developed a system (ALS) which allows him to design and build equipment and be able to tell from the measurements alone if he has been successful with his designs. Of course that philosophy flies in the face of conventional audiophile design practices where we expect to have each part in the circuit be agonizingly scrutinized and at least 100 variations of each part installed and listened to with the listening panel straining to hear the slightest difference between each part to the point of popping a hemorrhoid.

The bottom line is that Lamm has developed a model (ALS) which works for him and allows him to design, build, and sell gear to audiophiles who from what I can tell are very happy owners. At the end of the day, I think that is what really matters.