The Audio System and High-End Philosophy of Mike Lavigne

[Pb Blimp]

Happy to know you were successful. But unfortunately it is not, the science of small listening rooms, as acousticians refer to our typical room size is scarce. It is mostly an art, relying on the knowledge and experience of the acoustician, as well in his preferences.

That is an opinion. It kinda makes me giggle. By science I refer to mathematical modeling which generate measurable results.

If you have doubts and want science, please read Floyd Toole about the subject in his excellent book.

F. Toole, IMO, perfected the art of designing and then using carefully uncontrolled experiments (that appear to the laymen to be the opposite) for commercial purposes. He is a salesmen. You referring to his book as excellent speaks volumes to me.

Anyway I would be very happy to know about your "numbers" to audio nirvana.

You should really give Nyal a jingle. Its a big world out there; you might be surprised what you find.

 

[microstrip]

That is an opinion. It kinda makes me giggle. By science I refer to mathematical modeling which generate measurable results.

It sounds nice, but it is just an undefined claim unless you supply us with more details. The only accurate modeler I know about is Keith Yates custom solution - too expensive for most of us. I have bought and played with a few cheaper solutions, such as CARA Computer Aided Room Acoustics , but the result disagreed a lot with measurements and its suggestions did not improve the room sound quality. Comsol Multiphysics or other similar quality acoustic modelers are not adequate for small rooms and are too complex. Some software tools can be used to model low bass, but room acoustics is a lot more than bass.

F. Toole, IMO, perfected the art of designing and then using carefully uncontrolled experiments (that appear to the laymen to be the opposite) for commercial purposes. He is a salesmen. You referring to his book as excellent speaks volumes to me.

The book has two parts - the first part - Understanding the principles - is excellent. The second part is valid only in the context he clearly explains and most audiophiles do not agree with it. This does not reduce his notable and excellent work. Surely the commercial exploitation of his work is beyond his book. He is a brilliant scientist, not a salesman as you insinuate. I do not agree with all he says, but the essential of his work is a mark stone in loudspeaker design and room acoustics.

You should really give Nyal a jingle. Its a big world out there; you might be surprised what you find.

Assuming we are taking about the same Nyal, I have participated in several threads in WBF with Nyal Mellor and Jeff Hedback about five years ago. Great threads - we even debated some measurements of my room. BTW, as far as I know both Nyal and Jeff acknowledge the excellence of F. Toole - I remember they were honored that he helped reviewing one their articles.

Please note that I know of excellent work carried by acoustic consultants, I respect them. But I also know that most consultants are not the good solution for audiophile listening rooms.

Anyway, we are still waiting for your numbers and facts to enrich this subject. Mine can be easily found in WBF old posts.

 

[dminches]

It sounds nice, but it is just an undefined claim unless you supply us with more details. The only accurate modeler I know about is Keith Yates custom solution - too expensive for most of us. I have bought and played with a few cheaper solutions, such as CARA Computer Aided Room Acoustics , but the result disagreed a lot with measurements and its suggestions did not improve the room sound quality. Comsol Multiphysics or other similar quality acoustic modelers are not adequate for small rooms and are too complex. Some software tools can be used to model low bass, but room acoustics is a lot more than bass.

There are others in the US including Jeff Hedback.

 

[PeterA]

I have enjoyed six symphony orchestra concerts at Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, California, over the last few months, including “Pictures at an Exhibition.” The 458s allowed Mike’s system to achieve the highest level of realism -- the greatest suspension of disbelief -- I have ever experienced in my entire life on complex classical music. This system exhibited the sound closest to the dynamics and the power and the immediate, unrestrained “rise time” and “jump factor” of live musicians playing real instruments that I have ever heard!

CONCLUSION

Overall, as a general-purpose, do-everything system, Mike’s system is the best stereo system I have ever heard. A limited purpose system designed specifically to maximize the beauty and realism of vocals with simple acoustic instrumental accompaniment -- such as electrostatic speakers or ribbon panels driven by high-power tubes -- probably can create a greater level of suspension of disbelief on that type of music. A limited purpose system designed specifically to maximize the realism of jazz musicians playing in a jazz club or of a string quartet performing in a living room -- using high-efficiency horn loudspeakers driven by Lamm ML3 amplifiers -- probably can create a greater level of suspension of disbelief on those types of music.

On complex symphony orchestra music Mike’s system is better than every other stereo system I have ever heard. This should not be a surprise, as maximizing the realism of big classical orchestral pieces is Mike’s goal.

Ron, thank you very much for spending the time to share your impressions of Mike's system. As we all know, there has been much written about Mike's system: its development and its sound. I recall reading very little, if anything, about whether or not the system sounds like real music. Mike has said that he does not use live music as a reference and that his goal is for the system to get out of the way of the music. Ron writes about the importance of the neutrality of the room and the system, and of the individual components.

All of this led me to believe that Mike's goal is to faithfully reproduce what is on the recording. References are his own system development, other systems, and his recordings, but Mike rarely mentions live music, so I am most appreciative of these few quotes above. They give me a very different impression of Mike's system and what it achieves, at least as heard and described by Ron. As I listen to a lot of live, large scale symphonic music played by the BSO, I very much appreciate learning what I have about Mike's system through Ron's writing.

Mike, Thank you again for opening your listening room to others and for allowing them to share their impressions. These photographs are also great to see and give a real idea of the scale of the space and what it and the system look like.

 

[Folsom]

Peter,

I would describe Mike's (458) system more like a 3D mapping system that lets you look at everything in the soundstage, and with an unlimited dynamic range so you don't get any false flags about what is where, or what is being played. It is more like you get this experience that makes you sure you could get up and walk around going from musician to musician, and see what they are all playing. It kind of reminds me of a very high dynamic gray-scale image (blind people that sonic locate see in gray-scale, connection?). Nothing stands out or forces you to focus on it, so you're able to examine all of it in an extended scale - like the physical embodiment is about the room. And it can sound like you're in a big venue!

So it does not sound like live music, and it does not sound like all the characters of the studio. It is really about getting a special view into everything going on within the music. It gives a depth of ability to differentiate all the things happening without limitation, that is on such a level that it makes it world class. And it can do it while rocking out to Led Zeppelin or Bach.

 

[microstrip]

There are others in the US including Jeff Hedback.

Yes, I referred to him a few lines bellow. Jeff seems to be one of the nice guys - I quote him "The proper use of either absorption or diffusion is going to be based on A) the type of and location of speaker, B) the boundary surfaces both type and location again and C) the preferences of the client. These preferences are identified in the discovery portion of the design process.

 

[Pb Blimp]

It sounds nice, but it is just an undefined claim unless you supply us with more details.

I have already told you to contact Nyal to review my files. I am happy to release them if you are interested. He did all my work and my entire point is that, IMO, he used an analytical approach supported by empirical findings that yielded exceptional results (no matter how many times you want to claim otherwise).

The book has two parts - the first part - Understanding the principles - is excellent. The second part is valid only in the context he clearly explains and most audiophiles do not agree with it. This does not reduce his notable and excellent work. Surely the commercial exploitation of his work is beyond his book. He is a brilliant scientist, not a salesman as you insinuate. I do not agree with all he says, but the essential of his work is a mark stone in loudspeaker design and room acoustics.

While I do not question his competence as a scientist, his role as a salesman for Harmon is of little doubt IMO. I suppose my view of the way he may have manipulated scientific results for commercial purposes would be disputed by the some of his cronies but I don't consider him a "scientist" whose research I would reference if credibility was the goal.

Please note that I know of excellent work carried by acoustic consultants, I respect them. But I also know that most consultants are not the good solution for audiophile listening rooms.

Ok, I am not quite sure the purpose of this statement. My entire point in post #96 was regarding the positive results of a "capable Acoustician" using science. You, in turn, rebut my point by arguing they use "art" and there (personal) "preferences". Now I think you appear to be acknowledging that some apparently do "excellent work" and "you respect them" which was my whole point from the start. Did you think I was claiming that the incompetent Acousticians you refer to where the ones doing good scientific work? If you did, rest assured I was not.

Anyway, we are still waiting for your numbers and facts to enrich this subject. Mine can be easily found in WBF old posts.

Again give Nyal a call anytime. He has the math. You are welcome to review his work. In fact I recommend doing so.

 

[microstrip]

I have already told you to contact Nyal to review my files. I am happy to release them if you are interested. He did all my work and my entire point is that, IMO, he used an empiracal approach that yielded exceptional results (no matter how many times you want to claim otherwise).



While I do not question his competence as a scientist, his role as a salesman for Harmon is of little doubt IMO. I suppose my view of the way he may have manipulated scientific results for commercial purposes would be disputed by the some of his cronies but I don't consider him a "scientist" whose research I would reference if credibility was the goal.



Ok, I am not quite sure the purpose of this statement. My entire point in post #96 was regarding the positive results of a "capable Acoustician" using science. You, in turn, rebut my point by arguing they use "art" and there (personal) "preferences". Now I think you appear to be acknowledging that some apparently do "excellent work" and "you respect them" which was my whole point from the start. Did you think I was claiming that the incompetent Acousticians you refer to where the ones doing good scientific work? If you did, rest assured I was not.

Again give Nyal a call anytime. He has the math. You are welcome to review his work. In fact I recommend doing so.

My comments were generic, reflecting my experience and what I read all around, including WBF or forums such as gear. You just refer you single non documented case - now seeming to admit it was mainly empirical.

And sorry, why should I spend my time documenting your points, something you do not want to do? Anyway the debate is becoming too centered on your own room, I will move out. Thanks for your time.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I get that you don’t, which is ok. But it seems to me that if you listened to a SOTA digital rig, you might change you mind? I am a digital guy but still give vinyl a spin .

Joe, it just would have introduced another huge variable and doubled the number of comparisons. Analyzing analog versus digital on an unfamiliar system is a whole separate and different project, process and mission.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Mike, great room and a great looking system. What put me off the review itself is the total bias against and dismissive attitude to digital....

Rodney, I do not care for lime-green Aventadors or for golf. In this hobby I do not care for mini-monitors on stands, or for digital audio.

What is more open and direct than declaring the areas of prospective research and audition in which I am not interested and in which I have no particular experience or expertise, so I can focus on the areas in which I am interested and in which I have a base of auditioning experience and evaluation?

I am not biased against digital; I simply have no interest in it. I assume that Mike's digital sounds better than most audiophiles' analog set-ups.

With the option of LP and tape I choose LP and tape. While digital is not what I choose to spend my time on it would never occur to me to criticize someone who is whose system is digital only and who has no interest in the playback of LP or tape.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I think people want a review of every component they themselves are interested in from the system. Each reviewer has different interests and can throw light on different aspects

takeaway from this is the difference in the amplifiers, and the overall impression of the system, again consistent with various other reports that it was the best sound the visitor heard, and that preconceived notions were proven wrong. At no point was an attempt made to analyze every aspect of the system.

So a digital reviewer can go review the digital part, a tape reviewer various tapes, and so on

+1

Thank you, Kedar.

 

[Ron Resnick]

It is what puzzles me - the more driver surface you have the better the coupling to the room. Unless the drivers are are wired in parallel creating a low impedance - something we have been told it is not true - it should not be a problem.

Perhaps you listened louder in Mike's room than in Steve's.

I do not think so. I listen pretty loudly in Steve's room!

 

[Ron Resnick]

Thank you Gian, Keith, microstrip, Kedar, Marc, Andromeda, DaveyF, Paul, Barry, Gardener, Astrotoy, Still-one, LL21, cjfrbw, Vern, Sharp 1080, BruceD, analyzer and Rockitman!!

 

[microstrip]

(...) I am not biased against digital; I simply have no interest in it. (...)

Sorry to disagree Ron, but IMHO you are biased against digital. Perhaps you fight it, but with little success ...

(...) Mike has an extremely elaborate and truly state-of-the-art digital playback system which I had no interest in hearing, because I have zero interest in digital audio. We used the digital system only to warm up the darTZeel amplifiers during an extended lunch break. (You cannot do that with LP or tape!) (...)

Yep! I know Famous Blue Raincoat was digitally recorded (back when digital recording was not that great). It is a shame! I think the sound quality on the resulting album would have been vastly higher if it were recorded the way Anne Bisson is recorded (and mastered) today!

I like Famous Blue Raincoat in spite of it being digitally recorded.

I think we all have biases in this hobby, it part of it.

 

[Tango]

Peter,

I would describe Mike's (458) system more like a 3D mapping system that lets you look at everything in the soundstage, and with an unlimited dynamic range so you don't get any false flags about what is where, or what is being played. It is more like you get this experience that makes you sure you could get up and walk around going from musician to musician, and see what they are all playing. It kind of reminds me of a very high dynamic gray-scale image (blind people that sonic locate see in gray-scale, connection?). Nothing stands out or forces you to focus on it, so you're able to examine all of it in an extended scale - like the physical embodiment is about the room. And it can sound like you're in a big venue!

So it does not sound like live music, and it does not sound like all the characters of the studio. It is really about getting a special view into everything going on within the music. It gives a depth of ability to differentiate all the things happening without limitation, that is on such a level that it makes it world class. And it can do it while rocking out to Led Zeppelin or Bach.

This is the first description of sound of Mike's system that, to me, explain so well and give excellent sense of a few aspects of his sound without being there myself.

Kind regards,
Tang

 

[Ron Resnick]

First, I would like to thank Ron for his detailed impressions of his visit to hear Mike Lavingne's system in Mono and Stereo online magazine. I was interested in a few comments you made as well as some observations, so without further preamble here I go:


Ron stated that the 32 watt Lamms was like 200 watts on his Pendragons; however, I am not sure that you have taken into account the fact that Mike's speakers are point source essentially (big points to be sure), whereas your speakers are line sources. This has a significant effect on the power requirements as you move away from the speakers. The sound level drops off more slowly with a line source and therefore, at a given distance the power requirement will be less to have the same SPL. When I had large linesource speakers I was measuring only about 1db drop from the front of the speaker to my listening position at 3.5 meters away. I would therefore say that about half the power you think you need would be required for the levels you think you will be listening at.

I found it interesting also that you heard the limits of the Lamms coming up earlier than you expected (I guess based largely on reading this forum). This suggests one of a few things: 1) Those MM7s are really not as sensitive as the company publishes and/or there are some seriously complicated crossovers that are robbing power and putting the hurt on the Lamm. I say this because my horns are also around 97-98 db sentitivity and sound limitless with a 30 watt SET (no congestion at all even with big works at high peak levels). So, it seems the Lamms are being pushed near the limit of their power envelope. Or 2) The Lamms sag under high peak demands. If the power supply is not really up to the challenge of big peak demands then things could start to muddy up. Or 3) The output transformers are starting to saturate. When this happens you can also get this congestion where things are no longer really separated in space as before due to the additional artifacts being introduced. Or 4) One of the earlier stages is starting to clip even though the output stage can handle the surge. Note, these are only suggestions of what coud be happening.

The comment about the darTZeels sounding somewhat "dry". Could you elaborate on what this dryness means in terms of sonics and how this fits with the statements you made about the 458s being truly neutral? For me at least, dryness is symptomatic of a lot of transistor amps and is indicative of distortion impacting the naturalness of the sound. Live unamplified never sounds "dry". IMO, if there is dryness then it cannot be truly neutral...but more "neutral" in the negative sense. I think it would be useful to clarify this for us.

I found it interesting that the big VACs sounded like a good compromise to you on Mike's speakers. They had much of the liquidity of the Lamms and much of the slam and scale of the Darts. What did Mike think was missing in terms of transparency as compared to the other amps that you did not really hear? Perhaps longer association would have revealed it? I have not heard a big PP tube amp that really delivered the clarity of smaller PP tube amps or good SETs. The same is true for PP SS amps with lots of output transistors. The averaged output is inherently not as precise as only 1 output (or one pair) device from what I have heard.

Thanks again, Ron and I look forward to hearing your additional thoughts.

Thank you, Brad!

Even if we translate 32w on the 97dB MM7s into a power requirement for the Pendragons of 100 watts (instead of 200w) the AM Audio 833 will be in the same position for me as the ML3 is for Mike. I am no longer comfortable that 100w will work for me as a general purpose, all music types, amplifier.

I have no opinion on your theories about electrical inadequacies in the ML3. I am sure that Vladimir uses in his flagship SET amplifier the very, very highest quality parts available to him. I think the ML3 produces 32 perfect watts.

I think the darTZeel sounded perfect except for a slight sonic sense of dryness. I do not know how to describe the sonic attribute I was hearing -- and only in direct comparison to the ML3s and the 450s -- except a shade of "dryness."

And if I may anticipate your next question I personally would prefer (I know Mike would disagree, and reasonably so) 450 ML3 watts over 450 NHB-458 watts -- because I would prefer the slightly more "liquid" sound of the Lamm watts over the slightly drier but more powerful and speedy sound of the darTZeel watts.

This is largely semantics but I do not think of "dryness" as being a point on the neutrality spectrum. So I do not agree that my dryness comment suggests the 458s were anything but perfectly neutral. I think I think of dryness and liquidity on the naturalness spectrum.

Mike, being so used to the perfect transparency of the 458s, and so used to his reference tracks, was able to hear some attribute (thank you, Folsom; I agree my use of "artifact" is incorrect!) of the 450s I could not hear during our listening session.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Sorry to disagree Ron, but IMHO you are biased against digital. Perhaps you fight it, but with little success ...





I think we all have biases in this hobby, it part of it.

ARREST that digiphobe!

Okay, Francisco; I see the smoking guns. I am biased against digital.

Analogics Anonymous

Hello everyone,

My name is Ron Resnick
I have been biased against digital for 19 years.
I tried to beat it in 1998, but I have relapsed every since.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . .

If the room design is the major factor in the superb quality of sound, are then the vast majority of us chasing a chimera?

Larry

This experience has taught me that most of us, and certainly including me, should be more circumspect about what we think a certain component sounds like; that we should be much more circumspect about the theory we proffer to explain the sound we think we hear; and that we should be much less certain of everything we think we know about the sound of a particular component.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, first of all I really appreciate your descriptions of the various audio visits you and Tinka make all over the world. And I fully understand that it is a quite challenging task to fully grasp the benefits of the various audio components in elaborate audio set ups. That said I agree with Robert’s comments as regards the profound benefits that the Tripoint grounding brings to the audio table. Even top notch audio components / systems need in my experience (and quite a number of (other) experienced audiophiles all over the world with great audio systems ) - notwithstanding great accoustics, good power regulations and proper isolation - top of the bill grounding in order to create a realistic home reproduction of music. Concentrating (mainly) on the various amps / loudspeakers / turntable / tapedecks while ignoring the importance of grounding does imho no justice to the fact that top notch grounding is (also) a conditio sine qua non for experiencing musical realism at home.

Dear Audiocrack,

Thank you for your kind words.

Tripoint components may bring all the benefits you and Robert claim. But where in the article did I suggest that they do not? Where did I write a single word critical of the Tripoint components? All I wrote was that we did not discuss them and I do not understand them. How is that being critical of them or denigrating their sonic utility? I truly am puzzled.

You know I am a big fan of your, but if you (and Robert) expected me to write that Mike's system sounds as good as it does primarily because of grounding equipment I think you are drinking too much of Miguel's Kool-Aid.

Figuring out the incremental benefit of all of Mike's Tripoint equipment in the system versus unplugging it all and listening to the system without any of it would have been a completely different visit and a completely different mission.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Uh, we call them measurements, that mythical thing you're wondering about. If we start by knowing what things measure like we can narrow all these questions down to the things we don't know instead of having the biggest open book ever like you're claiming. There are so many things we can't figure out measurements for, why apply philosophy to the things we do know so we can claim we don't know them?





Not artifacts. You make a lot of posts about using language well so we can all understand each other, so I'm going to hold you to it, Ron! I think the word you're thinking but not using is attribute.



I'm not sure I understand. Did the VAC's not smooth some detail that the 458s did, but then you believe the 458s don't smooth anything? That's how it is written but I suspect that is not what you mean.

Personally I wouldn't make the claim that the 458s smooth nothing, but that depends on definition. They don't cause aberrations that make details go away, but they do nominalize very small volume changes.



Mike is one awesome dude for being so open to have guests hear a truly world class stereo, which means a world class room. It'd be hard not to learn something! It really is amazing how vast the soundstage can sound, it makes the room feel way bigger.

Thank you for the detailed write-up.

I agree, Folsom. "Artifact" is the wrong word. "Attribute" or "characteristic" is better. Thank you!