You referred to 'knowing what you want and how to get it' in the context of a few people looking 'backwards' to earlier audio equipment ( also @gian60 comment ). I was responding to what might be so interesting about vintage gear, a little abstractly, from my point of view. It is easier for me to imagine that vintage gears may be 'better' for some because the objectives, metrics, and human evaluation were following a different target than modern designers vs the idea that 'we don't know how to do it anymore'. Although I do mention this as possible
You referred to 'knowing what you want and how to get it' in the context of a few people looking 'backwards' to earlier audio equipment ( also @gian60 comment ). I was responding to what might be so interesting about vintage gear, a little abstractly, from my point of view. It is easier for me to imagine that vintage gears may be 'better' for some because the objectives, metrics, and human evaluation were following a different target than modern designers vs the idea that 'we don't know how to do it anymore'. Although I do mention this as possible
Thank you. Are you suggesting that modern designers have a target or goal of low distortion in neutrality based on measurements and that vintage designers were targeting something else and used their ears to guide them? If so, What do you think that “something else” was?
I’m not so sure things can be so neatly simplified. Perhaps it is simply that each of us audiophiles wants to enjoy the sound in our living rooms and some are choosing vintage speakers while others are choosing modern speakers.
I described the reasons for my decisions in my system thread and I look forward to the possibility that Tang will do the same here.
I was not in any way suggesting a simplification of the issue...but my post was lighthearted and not meant to be a thesis. let me reread and repost in a bit...
You referred to 'knowing what you want and how to get it' in the context of a few people looking 'backwards' to earlier audio equipment ( also @gian60 comment ). I was responding to what might be so interesting about vintage gear, a little abstractly, from my point of view. It is easier for me to imagine that vintage gears may be 'better' for some because the objectives, metrics, and human evaluation were following a different target than modern designers vs the idea that 'we don't know how to do it anymore'. Although I do mention this as possible
that is the heart of the matter.
If these amps were redesigned and sold today, people would pay $ 40,000 to get them.
they would be just as hyped as lamm ... etc. they are technically excellent, fully symmetrical structures come from the best time of tube technology.
Today you can simulate circuits more easily, you have many tubes to choose from, perhaps better materials too.
In the end, it was the developer's intelligence that made the difference, and I don't think people are much smarter today than they were then.
Telefunken V69b
IMHO Acoustat X are not in the group of the first three. I have owned (and still keep them) the ESL63 and a pair of the old Soundlab A2 and also do not consider them "vintage" speakers.
Are your Acoustat X the model with an integral tube amplifier that drives the panels directly?
IMHO Acoustat X are not in the group of the first three. I have owned (and still keep them) the ESL63 and a pair of the old Soundlab A2 and also do not consider them "vintage" speakers.
Are your Acoustat X the model with an integral tube amplifier that drives the panels directly?
Are not in the league of first 3 but also his value is around 4.000€
My pair become from only one owner and has his tube amp inside and are very interesting
Was used in Italy with preamp like Agi,Ml1 or SP3
In new production we listen performance of formula one in power,bass extension,high extension,very fast sound,but this dont excite me because cannot find natural sound and musical sound
Are not in the league of first 3 but also his value is around 4.000€
My pair become from only one owner and has his tube amp inside and are very interesting
Was used in Italy with preamp like Agi,Ml1 or SP3
I was not addressing the value, just the vintage characteristic of first 3. At some point we should ask what means exactly vintage audio equipment ? Equipment with objective limited bandwidth?
In new production we listen performance of formula one in power,bass extension,high extension,very fast sound,but this dont excite me because cannot find natural sound and musical sound
Thank you. Are you suggesting that modern designers have a target or goal of low distortion in neutrality based on measurements and that vintage designers were targeting something else and used their ears to guide them? If so, What do you think that “something else” was?
In my earlier post I affectionately quote Basho. This was to illustrate that knowing the target, or expanding on it, is important. I did not mean by this that old is better or new is better, and I doubt Basho was implying that either ( but who knows! ). I am a fan of good vintage, gears culled from the best of the old guard, yet I tend to prefer the idea that the creators of such pursued their acheivement with slightly different goals than most versus secret ingredients. Modern designers may also acheive this. As a case in point it seems @ddk finds a combo of the better vintage speakers with better modern electronics ( maybe only one brand ? ) to be 'the way'. In this case Mr. Lamm is well known for a very personal take on measurements and design. Could it be 'he seeks what they sought'?
I am stoked for you Peter, and excited for what develops at Tang's place. In both instances I read a greater emphasis on the music vs the 'gear journey' which is wonderful.
As to what the goals are..I cannot easily say. I do know that the first scientists tasked with sound reproduction had only live sound as a comparison and they clearly created a set of metrics to reproduce it that, in the case of Klangfilm, RCA, WE etc., were quite succesfull...
You referred to 'knowing what you want and how to get it' in the context of a few people looking 'backwards' to earlier audio equipment ( also @gian60 comment ). I was responding to what might be so interesting about vintage gear, a little abstractly, from my point of view. It is easier for me to imagine that vintage gears may be 'better' for some because the objectives, metrics, and human evaluation were following a different target than modern designers vs the idea that 'we don't know how to do it anymore'. Although I do mention this as possible
I disagree, for me, the difference comes more from exposure, not different metrics. , but I don't want to make this another vintage vs modern thread, as these points have been debated before.
I do know that the first scientists tasked with sound reproduction had only live sound as a comparison and they clearly created a set of metrics to reproduce it that, in the case of Klangfilm, RCA, WE etc., were quite succesfull...
I think so. At minimum he started where they started.
It would be a very interesting question to ask Mr. Lamm.
I see the intersection between Lamm designed electronics and earlier speaker designs and designers in their starting point and subsequent object of comparison, or what I call the reference. Lamm started with research into how people hear live sound, especially the complex sound that is music. From reading his writing and discussion I believe one of his key achievements was recognizing that people react to sound in certain ways (versus the modern 'we all hear differently perspective') and then (here is the genius) he isolated a limited number of circuit topologies that manifest an ouput congruent with what he learned about how people hear. From empirical observation to mathematics to design to reality. His research into how people hear was not how they hear reproduced music through stereo systems, but how they hear live sound and live music.
How many modern speaker and electronic designers use their own previous models versus real sound and live music as their object of comparison?
A different sort of "proof" is found in the fact that Lamm's first efforts are very close if not nearly identical to his contemporary offerings. Building what he did the way that he did and then not having to change that across 25 years speaks volumes. I'm not sure we see that with the majority of contemporary speaker manufacturers.
I think so. At minimum he started where they started.
It would be a very interesting question to ask Mr. Lamm.
I see the intersection between Lamm designed electronics and earlier speaker designs and designers in their starting point and subsequent object of comparison, or what I call the reference. Lamm started with research into how people hear live sound, especially the complex sound that is music. From reading his writing and discussion I believe one of his key achievements was recognizing that people react to sound in certain ways (versus the modern 'we all hear differently perspective') and then (here is the genius) he isolated a limited number of circuit topologies that manifest an ouput congruent with what he learned about how people hear. From empirical observation to mathematics to design to reality. His research into how people hear was not how they hear reproduced music through stereo systems, but how they hear live sound and live music.
How many modern speaker and electronic designers use their own previous models versus real sound and live music as their object of comparison?
A different sort of "proof" is found in the fact that Lamm's first efforts are very close if not nearly identical to his contemporary offerings. Building what he did the way that he did and then not having to change that across 25 years speaks volumes. I'm not sure we see that with the majority of contemporary speaker manufacturers.
I came to a similar realization when I started hearing how good SET topology COULD sound and then wondered if there was any research behind what I was hearing. I started looking at psychoacoustic research and what was being learned about distortion and it's perception. First was the realization that there is essentially NO correlation between THD and IMD and sound quality. This was explored by Geddes and Lee in a couple of sound perception papers. They also came up with a rather complex metric for making predictions about what was most acceptable to listeners. They didn't conclude that SET was the best extant technology but the forms of distortion that were least offensive are best served by that technology. Cheever came up with a similar conclusion and also proposed a metric that was based on our understanding of human hearing, self-harmonics and masking, that is dependent on SPL as well as distortion content (the SPL determines which harmonics are masked and which patterns are "tolerated"). Again, SET makes the patterns and follows the psychoacoustic "rules" better than other topologies if the right power/distortion/SPL behavior is followed (I.e. use a sensitive speaker for the given SPL so the amp is not too stressed and therefore making the wrong distortion components).
Lamm must have come up with something similar and thus the ML2 was born. I think the hybrids and the PP tube amp were considered reasonable compromises and still sounded better than most other amps into the kind of speakers for which they were designed. Then the ML3. So, the two marquee amps are SET and for good reason.
Some time I wonder how I got to where I am in audio and musical taste. I have to admit if it weren't for Bonzo I would not be enjoying classical music and my system as a whole as I am now. Classical music is what I listen to most on vinyls. I even listen to Lieder now...unbelievable because I don't understand a word he sings . I have to read the translation insert that comes with the album to get a clue. Do you guys know what he is singing in Strandchen? I read the translation. If I and Opa Lagonda were to interpret the meaning, we would say the guy is singing I am horny.
Here is a really good lieder album with excellent sound. Schubert Lieder Recital No.4, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau. HMV ALP1827 in mono. I bought from Discog and was at approachable price. I think this album can sound good in any system but to get an emotional involvement to really 'watch' how he sings you will need something special in your system. (Separate men from boys as MikeL liketo say) For me the Master Sig 5R does it. The Opus and the Gran Cru don't do it. ( No supremacy. Many lps I like Gran Cru and Opus more than 5R. This is why need a few carts in the system) I didn't play with my MS Mono Replay cart because it wasn't on any arm. Videos cannot show. It has to be in room listening. Actually, I think I could do better if I use the Neumann DST. I don't think I have heard a better more realistic vocal tone with such compelling emotion from other carts. I could say this because when I auditioned the DST that system also had a vdh master sig to compared. If I go audition systems I would take this album with me because I know what I would look for with that last bit when listening. PeterA should like this album very much I think.
That dynamic range and the EE is crazy. There is so much nuance in the voice that only VDH can do. For people who don't understand beryllium and TAD, should just go back and listen to some videos from where it sounds like you have a completely different system. This is exactly what transparency to recordings is. It also means some videos will sound bad some will sound great. And oh, that VDH sound is so causing irritation and sibilance on the high frequencies You are also a fool to move this out when it has started sounding so good with the last few videos from Arpegionne, this, the tape, etc.
