The American Sound Turntable- Beyond's Minimalist!

[Salectric]

Did Vladimir pass on his engineering model to anybody or is it lost in the mist of time?

 

[bonzo75]

large pools of test subjects for conducting hundreds of blind and double-blind listening experiments. From these he accumulated massive amounts of data about what happens when people hear certain sounds, including a complex sound

The only issue I have with this is people into, umm, natural sound will be dragged down by the digital average who does not go to live shows and has not much time to do auditions. Such listeners will be more in numbers and influence this research

 

[microstrip]

Dick Olsher wrote: "…How does Vladimir Lamm do it? Beats the living heck out of me. Ask him and he will tell you it is all engineering and painstakingly precise artisanal manufacturing. Press him and he will explain that every Lamm component is designed in compliance with his mathematical model of human hearing, and there his explanation ceases." TAS Dec 2008

So yes, you got it right at a high level. As far being an objectivist or subjectivist, I think it more accurate to say he was an engineer and a scientist. If I understood him correctly he could tell largely, generally, how a piece of electronics sounds by looking at certain measurements. The subjective element comes in through in his belief that people perceive sound and music in certain ways. Vladimir Lamm was very guarded about the details of his work.

Here's the Lamm vetted account of his development methodology in my M1.2 Ref review:

"The design of the M1.2 (and the M1.1 before it) derives from Vladimir Lamm’s research into psychoacoustics, undertaken during his work in the Soviet military-industrial complex. As a percussionist, music lover and avid listener with a university background in solid-state physics and semiconductor design, Lamm sought answers to a simple question: Why does some audio gear sound better than other audio gear? As Chief Design Engineer of Research and Development at the Lvov Radio & Electronics factory, Lamm had both the resources and large pools of test subjects for conducting hundreds of blind and double-blind listening experiments. From these he accumulated massive amounts of data about what happens when people hear certain sounds, including a complex sound like music. With data in hand he used differential equations to develop scientific models that described mathematically what he calls "the human hearing mechanism." He converted those equations into electro-mechanical models and implemented them in specific circuit topologies.

Lamm tested his circuit designs with hundreds of human listening subjects to demonstrate that, given human physiology, only a few combinations of audio circuitry will work for us as listeners. We cannot change how we perceive sound or music, even in the face of what passes for good specs. "As humans," Lamm observes, "we are created in a certain way. We perceive sound on various levels: conscious as well as subconscious or intuitive. We perceive sound not just with our ears, but with the whole body." From his research he developed a set of theoretical ideals against which he evaluates any amplifier. He called these constructs the Absolute Linearity of a System -- a sort of unified field theory of amplifier design that explains how an amplifier should measure if it is to reproduce sound congruent with the way people naturally perceive it. Without going into detail about the specific measurements Lamm uses, the basic high-level idea is this: as gain is applied the amplifier should preserve the harmonic structure and spectral balance of the musical source signal. Lamm’s evaluation criteria also places specific emphasis on the types and values of feedback utilized in an amplifier.

With a design based on the way we actually hear with the ears we have, the M1.2 is like a deductive conclusion that follows mathematically from Lamm’s codification of countless hours of real-world testing with real human listeners. If you ask Vladimir about how his ten-year-old amplifier design remains viable today, his response is emphatic: "Its foundation in how humans perceive sound remains unchanged."

An interesting narrative, IMO used mainly for informative and marketing purposes, but never debated or exposed to scrutiny. When I researched about Lamm, before buying their equipment, I looked for direct sources on this afffair, not just what people repeat from others. Unfortunately all the relevant information I could find at the Lamm old site - including interviews, articles and links to articles in russian, was removed and is not available any more to readers.

One thing seems sure - Vladimir designed his amplifiers on his knowledge of psychoacoustics and electronics and clearly stated that it was not tuned in anyway by listening during the development - what come from the drawings was the final product, although successive versions of the original designs claim subjective sound improvements in the new versions.

The printed manuals of their equipment include exhaustive measurements of the equipment - I could not find any relevant similitude between their tube and hybrid models comparing their distortion spectra. All I could say it that all of them measured different, but excellent.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

The only issue I have with this is people into, umm, natural sound will be dragged down by the digital average who does not go to live shows and has not much time to do auditions. Such listeners will be more in numbers and influence this research

if done in the 'Soviet' era i think it's hard for us to generalize as to the subjects. was it a cross section of the population? or those who had been somewhat exposed to live music? or those only exposed reproduced music? based on my Russian friend and his efforts to collect vinyl prior to Perestroika, maybe live music was more accessible to many and more the reference for many.

i suppose the more scientific the study, the more this was considered.

 

[bonzo75]

if done in the 'Soviet' era i think it's hard for us to generalize as to the subjects. was it a cross section of the population? or those who had been somewhat exposed to live music? or those only exposed reproduced music? based on my Russian friend and his efforts to collect vinyl prior to Perestroika, maybe live music was more accessible to many and more the reference for many.

i suppose the more scientific the study, the more this was considered.

I do think Soviet audiophiles are knowledgeable but when research on hundreds is done it is hard to think the volumes won’t capture those who are not discerning. And exposure needs to be for both music and for understanding what to listen for in compares

 

[microstrip]

Any tube gear does require tube replacement at some point. The LL1.1 linestage makes it pretty simple with only two types of tubes that are readily available. 4 x 6H30P (quite reliable) in each control unit and 2 x 6x4 regulators in each power supply.

Well, unfortunately this is only one side of the story. The 6H30 tube replacement of the LL1 (or ML3) is complex and needs a lot of factory sourced matched tubes. The rectifiers are however common and inexpensive.

Lamm does not clearly state average number of hours before replacement.
Although most tubes of the amplifiers can be easily sourced, some must be bought from Lamm, as they are selected to close specifications.

 

[PeterA]

The only issue I have with this is people into, umm, natural sound will be dragged down by the digital average who does not go to live shows and has not much time to do auditions. Such listeners will be more in numbers and influence this research

I think the listening experiments and collection of data was done in Russia, before the advent of digital and listeners exposed to digital reproduction. The Lamm products were developed later while he was here in America. It is not clear if the experiments were done on subjects listening to live or reproduced music or whether or not it was just sounds.

I agree with microstrip, not much is known about this.

 

[bonzo75]

I think the listening experiments and collection of data was done in Russia, before the advent of digital and listeners exposed to digital reproduction. The Lamm products were developed later while he was here in America. It is not clear if the experiments were done on subjects listening to live or reproduced music or whether or not it was just sounds.

I agree with microstrip, not much is known about this.

Either way, my point is in such cases large numbers brings quality down to the average, and this helps the manufacturer and the dealer (more numbers), not the more clued consumer

I did not read that as anything more than marketing, every product has one, it all finally comes down to comparing to other similar products

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I do think Soviet audiophiles are knowledgeable but when research on hundreds is done it is hard to think the volumes won’t capture those who are not discerning. And exposure needs to be for both music and for understanding what to listen for in compares

my viewpoint is that any even semi-scientific study of human hearing would minimize any 'training' or 'practice' to find an objective result.

specifically avoiding 'Kedar-approved' discerning listeners.

 

[bonzo75]

my viewpoint is that any even semi-scientific study of human hearing would minimize any 'training' or 'practice' to find an objective result.

specifically avoiding 'Kedar-approved' discerning listeners.

It’s the difference between giving each poster the same weightage on data points vs those you perceive to be on your wavelength

I have not approved anyone for listening, I need bespoke stuff based on study of 1

 

[bazelio]

my recollection is that Mr. Lamm had done serious studies of human listening and found relationships between human preferences and some measurements. then he built his products that measured complimentary to those measurements. so he built objectively to specific references from those studies and really not based on how they sounded to him. his liking it one way or the other was beside the point.

assuming i got the essential story right; does this mean he was an objectivist or subjectivist? seems like a case can be made both ways.

apologies if i've butchered this too bad or missed the point. or maybe i'm dead wrong? i recall reading a very old Lamm review (Dick Olsher?) and this was discussed.

It's hard to say. Designing to a mathematical model isn't an exact science. We know the human brain filters certain suckouts and other types non-linearities,.for example. Specific design tradeoffs can theoretically be "hidden" behind these realities. That's the objective part. And this, in general, is how I've always interpreted his approach. But, you're not going to get it right without measuring and iterating but also a lot listening and iterating and I think the latter to a much greater degree. TBH, MSRPs of top price tier audio probably comes from this personal touch factor. It's a long R&D process; a time sink. MSRPs and BOM costs are certainly not correlated. Case in point, very pedestrian sub $200 Jensen (IIRC) SUTs in the Lamm phonos. Heck, the sound of these phonos could probably be transformed by simply swapping in some nice permalloy replacements.

 

[bazelio]

PS - I've often felt that Vlad Lamm's models would have been better applied to speaker design than to electronics.

 

[PeterA]

Either way, my point is in such cases large numbers brings quality down to the average, and this helps the manufacturer and the dealer (more numbers), not the more clued consumer

I did not read that as anything more than marketing, every product has one, it all finally comes down to comparing to other similar products

We don’t know much about the group of listeners he tested. And when it comes to hearing, perhaps averages are better. It’s not clear to me that Audio files, trained or otherwise, are any better at identifying natural sound. I just don’t think we know enough about the listening experiments he conducted.

 

[Salectric]

It's hard to say. Designing to a mathematical model isn't an exact science. We know the human brain filters certain suckouts and other types non-linearities,.for example. Specific design tradeoffs can theoretically be "hidden" behind these realities. That's the objective part. And this, in general, is how I've always interpreted his approach. But, you're not going to get it right without measuring and iterating but also a lot listening and iterating and I think the latter to a much greater degree. TBH, MSRPs of top price tier audio probably comes from this personal touch factor. It's a long R&D process; a time sink. MSRPs and BOM costs are certainly not correlated. Case in point, very pedestrian sub $200 Jensen (IIRC) SUTs in the Lamm phonos. Heck, the sound of these phonos could probably be transformed by simply swapping in some nice permalloy replacements.

I would go further than just replacing the Jensen SUTs. Whenever I see photos of Lamm preamps, I am surprised by the generic quality of the parts. Hammond chokes, Dale/Vishay CMF resistors almost throughout, generic film coupling caps. Those would be fine in a $5000 preamp but I would expect more carefully chosen components in a preamp aiming higher than that. I have nothing against bargain parts and in fact the Dale CMF resistors actually sound pretty good but I would never use them throughout a component. An easy example is the input load resistor in the phono preamp. Replacing just that one Dale metal film resistor with an Audio Note 2 watt silver tantalum will almost certainly improve the sound quality.

While Vladimir may have come up with a test methodology that results in a good sounding preamp or amp, that is circuit design. It is not a substitute for selecting the best sounding component parts for a given circuit.

 

[bonzo75]

We don’t know much about the group of listeners he tested. And when it comes to hearing, perhaps averages are better. It’s not clear to me that Audio files, trained or otherwise, are any better at identifying natural sound. I just don’t think we know enough about the listening experiments he conducted.

Averages are never better in this hobby. The hobby is such that people just don’t have time for that much listening as required to come to a stage to give quality input to such a study, in large numbers. It will work from a commercial viewpoint to cater to the broader market or is just a marketing statement to be ignored

 

[Lagonda]

We don’t know much about the group of listeners he tested. And when it comes to hearing, perhaps averages are better. It’s not clear to me that Audio files, trained or otherwise, are any better at identifying natural sound. I just don’t think we know enough about the listening experiments he conducted.

I have read somewhere that the test subjects were a collection of mental patients. Their treatment was continues playing of classical music between electroshock and cold water baths. And yes the music was played by a live acoustic orchestra ! So basically the same regiment a DIY tube amp loving audiophile, that occasionally cleans his records is subjected too. I recently touched the 400 V rail in my Aesthetix Io, and i swear my hearing has been much improved since.

 

[andromedaaudio]

People should just listen to the elites.

As in the good old days before the internet

 

[bazelio]

I would go further than just replacing the Jensen SUTs. Whenever I see photos of Lamm preamps, I am surprised by the generic quality of the parts. Hammond chokes, Dale/Vishay CMF resistors almost throughout, generic film coupling caps. Those would be fine in a $5000 preamp but I would expect more carefully chosen components in a preamp aiming higher than that. I have nothing against bargain parts and in fact the Dale CMF resistors actually sound pretty good but I would never use them throughout a component. An easy example is the input load resistor in the phono preamp. Replacing just that one Dale metal film resistor with an Audio Note 2 watt silver tantalum will almost certainly improve the sound quality.

While Vladimir may have come up with a test methodology that results in a good sounding preamp or amp, that is circuit design. It is not a substitute for selecting the best sounding component parts for a given circuit.

I don't disagree. The BOM overall leaves a lot to be improved upon.

 

[morricab]

Assuming Lamm developed a psychoacoustic model that he subsequently used to direct his amp design, I would call this an objective use of subjective data. With sufficient numbers, this can get to an average preference with reasonable accuracy. Humans being humans though, it will still leave long “tails” on the distribution curve for people who prefer something else than what the model produces.

I personally am somewhat skeptical that he had a definitive model because he made amps that probably didn’t really fit a good psychoacoustic model (The PP hybrids, which also don’t sound as good IMO). Was he simply trying to expand his market, knowing that other aspects of human psychology are in play for buying audio gear (like having big boxes of high power because the speakers “need” it?).

 

[PeterA]

Averages are never better in this hobby. The hobby is such that people just don’t have time for that much listening as required to come to a stage to give quality input to such a study, in large numbers. It will work from a commercial viewpoint to cater to the broader market or is just a marketing statement to be ignored

Well, if it’s simply marketing BS and he apparently didn’t listen to his designs as he developed them, I guess he just somehow stumbled on good sound by dumb luck.