Dear Friends and Associates,

LAMM INDUSTRIES, INC. announces the arrival of the long-awaited ML3 Signature power amplifier -- to be unveiled at CES 2007, Venetian Hotel, Tower Suite #34-309 (Las Vegas, NV). We welcome all to visit us there!

The text of the official press release follows; PDF version is attached.

============================================================ ==========

December 26, 2006



The ML3 Signature Power Amplifier



LAMM INDUSTRIES, INC. is proud to introduce its crowning achievement, the ML3 Signature power amplifier. The ML3 is a single-ended amplifier with a separate power supply utilizing a very powerful direct-heated triode GM70 (plate dissipation 125W).



The ML3 continues the fine tradition that began with the Lamm ML2 single-ended amplifier, and takes it to unimagined heights of performance attainable only now.



The ML3, along with the renowned Model ML2.1 amplifier, is practically the only single-ended amplifier on the market capable of reproducing the entire range of audio frequencies. The ML3’s midrange is beautifully rendered, along with a natural and extended bass, and unparalleled high frequency reproduction, up to now only available in our ML2, ML2.1, and ML3 models.



The ML3’s innovative circuitry enables a recreation of the original spectral balance and harmonic structure of the recorded material without loosing a strand of low-level detail or nuance. Another unique aspect of the design enables the ML3 to recreate a three-dimensional soundstage without boundaries or limitations, while maintaining an extraordinary transparency of perceived sound. The ML3 truly demonstrates what a properly designed single-ended amplifier can do.



Technical Aspects in Brief



The ML3 is a 32 Watt, no overall feedback pure class-A single-ended amplifier. It’s built on one of the most sophisticated power supplies ever used in audio, and its most prominent features are:



Separate plate and filament transformers
Six filter chokes
Six rectifier tubes
Highest quality film capacitors used in high-voltage power supply feeding the output stage
Refined soft-start and delay circuits
Option for turning the amp on/off controlled via Lamm preamplifiers


While the ML3 has no overall loop feedback, the amplifier features an option allowing the user to introduce small amounts of local feedback in the output stage. You can choose between two levels of feedback: NFB1 and NFB2, which differ in their levels. This allows for three feedback options: No feedback, NFB1 or NFB2.



A multi-turn trimming potentiometer, accessible through a special opening in the amplifier’s chassis, along with a set of test points, allow the user to adjust and measure the plate current of the output tube via an external voltmeter.



Absolutely unique custom-made output transformers, along with our unique output stage and sophisticated power supply, allow the ML3 to drive most real-world speakers yielding tremendous sonic impact and stability under the most dynamic conditions. Although the ML3 can drive most speakers, their full potential is best realized with high-efficiency speakers of 92dB and higher.



The design goal of the ML3 was to use best modern technology and processes in a style reminiscent of equipment from the golden age of vacuum tubes. Each amplifier is carefully constructed and handcrafted of the finest materials and world-class parts, some of which include military-graded DALE metal film resistors, PRC wirewound resistors, CADDOCK power film resistors; BOURNS multi-turn potentiometers; CORNELL DUBILIER and UNITED CHEMI-CON electrolytic capacitors, ELECTROCUBE, ROEDERSTEIN and ELCON film capacitors; HAMMOND chokes; gold-plated NEUTRIC and FISCHER connectors; military-graded low-noise long-life vacuum tubes.



Special attention was given to designing the plate and filament transformers that have no mechanical contact with either the transformer cover or the chassis, and are suspended in a special encapsulant that almost completely absorbs even residual mechanical vibrations. This plays a significant role in assuring absolutely unique clarity and micro-resolution.



Tube Complement:

One 12AX7/ECC83
Four 6N30P-DR / 6H30П-ДP (cyrillic)
One GM70 / ГМ70 (cyrillic)
Six 12AX3/12BE3

The ML3 is designed to function on AC line voltages throughout the world -- 100/120/220/230/240 V -- and can be internally adjusted without elaborate modifications.



Suggested retail price (preliminary): $126,290.00/pair



See you at the Venetian at CES, Suite 34-309!

I can't wait to see the innards that justify such a ludicrous price :) Especially after the ML2.1s were opened up. (and i grant, they sound fantastic at shows where i've heard them)

I'm sorry--i'm with Frantz. To see the escalation in prices over the past 5 years is beyond ridulous. Bat's new preamp is 18-19k-- over 2x the price of the current 51SE. I'm sure the Ref 4 by ARC will be 20k as well. CJ is already there.

I know there are R&D costs, but Vladimir Lamm is 1 guy designing gear. All the brand name parts in that article don't cost more than a few hundered bucks tops!

KeithR

Keith, I believe the new CJ pre is a limited edition - they will make only 25 or 50 (can't recall right now). Presumably, CJ then will come out with the Act 3.

we will all be in line to hear this one.

Vladimir has promised this one for the past 2 years at CES

In principal I must agree with Keith however I do know that Vladimir has been working for years on his own in his lab to bring this amp to market.

It is in all likelihood his defining moment. Heck, why do Dave Wilson's X-2's justify a ludicrous MSRP of $135K or Albert's VR-11's a similar price?

I know that not only hours of R&D have gone into the production of this amp but Vladimir has done it alone with no seed money. I for one will tip my hat to this man and regardless of the nominal price of all of the components i feel that it puts him at the top of his game. I love to see success stories such as these and I wish him well.

The ML 3 has been on his drawing board for years and if you think that he is a rich man, then think again. I can't wait to hear this amp

The price is set where it is for the same reason that people charge 5 figures for cable: because they can.

The price is set where it is for the same reason that people charge 5 figures for cable: because they can.

God bless America, is what I say. I didn't know that we are not allowed to make money in our chosen profession. Hell look at what you gastroenetrologists get for doing a 20 minute colonoscopy---or are you the pot calling the kettle black

God bless America, is what I say. I didn't know that we are not allowed to make money in our chosen profession. Hell look at what you gastroenetrologists get for doing a 20 minute colonoscopy---or are you the pot calling the kettle black

I'm saying the same thing as you, only differently.

God bless America, is what I say. I didn't know that we are not allowed to make money in our chosen profession. Hell look at what you gastroenetrologists get for doing a 20 minute colonoscopy---or are you the pot calling the kettle black


Not exactly a fair comparison.. Thereis no doubt that Healt Care costs are out of hand in the USA but medical procedures are a different issue. You either perform them or you pay heavy consequences, one of them is not been around at all. We tend to realize how precious and precarious health is only when we lose it and sometimes for good...An amp however good that it may be is not the same , not a necessary item, health is... We audiophiles have to display a different attitude toward this unexplainable escalation of prices. There is no reason for any amp to be priced that high PERIOD. They will sell eventually a few to some well-heeled individuals .. but companies that have engaged themselves in the " I-price-it-as-high-as- people-will-be-willing-to-pay" game better be careful. This create in the customer mind , the impression of having been taken for a ride (because it is true that they have been), this lingering feeling of having paid too much and regardless of the amount of money one possesses, you look silly buying something for 100 that can be had for 5.. Consider this... There are a slew of electronics coming from China and Taiwan and some are excellent. If you want to convince yourself how good they can be, have an audition of the 200 Watts/ch Hurricanes You may be in for a jaw-dropping experience... A friend of mine recently got them driving his Dunleavy V in Haiti and let me tell you: they are everything you may have read about them and more...

In principal I must agree with Keith however I do know that Vladimir has been working for years on his own in his lab to bring this amp to market.

It is in all likelihood his defining moment. Heck, why do Dave Wilson's X-2's justify a ludicrous MSRP of $135K or Albert's VR-11's a similar price?

I know that not only hours of R&D have gone into the production of this amp but Vladimir has done it alone with no seed money. I for one will tip my hat to this man and regardless of the nominal price of all of the components i feel that it puts him at the top of his game. I love to see success stories such as these and I wish him well.

The ML 3 has been on his drawing board for years and if you think that he is a rich man, then think again. I can't wait to hear this amp

That's fine OB- but at least your X-2s are 7ft tall and over 1000 lbs and use very expensive to machine material--electronic parts are just not that expensive and R&D even for several years doesn't comport to the price of entry here, i'm sorry.

I'll take a 911 Turbo before I get a pair of ML-3s--btw the most recent version has been in development at least 4 years!

I want to know where the $290 came from. I mean $126,000 isn't enough? They need that last $290 to make a profit? :rolleyes:

We audiophiles have to display a different attitude toward this unexplainable escalation of prices. There is no reason for any amp to be priced that high PERIOD. They will sell eventually a few to some well-heeled individuals .. but companies that have engaged themselves in the " I-price-it-as-high-as- people-will-be-willing-to-pay" game better be careful. This create in the customer mind , the impression of having been taken for a ride (because it is true that they have been), this lingering feeling of having paid too much and regardless of the amount of money one possesses, you look silly buying something for 100 that can be had for 5..
Your arguments are irrational and based on nothing more than a COMPLETELY relative standard - YOURS. Materials have no intrinsic value beyond the value we give them - a basic prcinple of economics. The exact same arguments you make could be made against your favorite Burmeister components. "30K for a Burmeister CD player, ridiculous".

I am NOT arguing that I think these amps are worth 100K. I think I would likely laugh at the idea of paying 100K for them if I saw them, just as I question the value of much in high-end audio. But that is a personal judgement based on MY relative standards (which in turn are of course based on what I consider to be questionable performance claims re: much in high-end audio).

What I find unusual is that you almost seem to be complaining as though these high priced components are somehow stopping you from owning the best or driving prices up. But these components are in no way stopping there from being countless more reasonably priced high performance solutions any more than a 1 mil car is elminating the market for 100K cars.

I hope he sells 10 of them and can retire. He deserves it IMO

amps are in no way defined by the sum of the parts.

It is like the joke abut the old engineer being called out of retirement to fix a broken system.

He comes in, taps on the side of the component two or three times. draws a circle with an x then whacks the x with a hammer and everything starts working again.

When the management get a bill for $50,050 they question the old engineer about it.

He responds back with a simple answer... $50 to hit the component, $50,000 to know where to hit it.


Amps are the ultimate case of a symbiotic relationship.

(although i could NEVER chose an amp over a Ferrari)

It's all relative. I can see a dot.com multi-millionaire buying many of these amps for better multi-room sound. If you got the cash, someone will always have something for you to spend it on.

QQQ

Regardless of the rationale we must agree that the pricing game has gotten out of hand... I for one would not equate the value of a software with the support it comes on. The problem for me is the fact that component pricing in High End Audio are beginning to resemble the pricing scheme of luxury items, i-e no direct relationship to their actual performance.
I have known for a long time that there is such a thing as the law of Diminishing Returns in Hi-End but this spiral does not seem to help the industry.. Au contraire my friends... That people buy a few is not an indication of a positive trend in the industry or a sign of real advance in sonic performance...
on a personal basis I would not buy anything at that price whose performance may be matched by gear costing 10 times less...
You may feel comfortable with such pricing but the romantic in me sees a decline in the industry. There has been really few advances in Audio aside from a few advance in speakers (helped by better and relatively inexpensive computational power) Yet prices keeps getting higher while performance barely bulges..

Guys!

In a market system like ours, Mr. Lamm is free to express his creativity, which some regard as genius level, and take his amplifier to market. If he sells some then, how nice for Mr. Lamm. I am fine with a used VT130SE for $3800.......

this is really about economies of scale and a bit of 'art'.

you can't compare a car......many of which cost 2 billion dollars + to design......to an item that may be built 10 to 20 times over it's lifetime. over a 5 year period they will build 2 million plus Honda Accords......maybe 30,000 Porsche 911's......maybe 350 sets of X-2's.

...and 10-15 sets of ML-3's....or maybe only 4 or 5 sets. if he is going to go to the trouble to build it......he needs to recover the investment in time and energy. personally, i think it's great that products like that exist. to see someone who clearly is very good at what he does to try to make the very best possible product without concern for cost......we should be thankful that some will do this.

you can easily make the case that almost every product discussed on this forum is ridiculous or 'not-justified' from some perspective......it's just a matter of degree......and personal perspective.

Precisely my point Mike

I hope he sells 10 of them and can retire. He deserves it IMO

People that are driven don't usually retire. He'll probably build something better. Or at least, more expensive.

People that are driven don't usually retire. He'll probably build something better. Or at least, more expensive.

Then we hope he can sell ten of them, find an attractive piece of arm candy, buy an expensive new car, and enjoy working the rest of his life?

Then we hope he can sell ten of them, find an attractive piece of arm candy, buy an expensive new car, and enjoy working the rest of his life?
He might want to buy the expensive new car first...sometimes that helps find the attractive piece of arm candy....and then keep working the rest of his life to keep the attractive piece of arm candy.

Why don't we all listen to the amp first and then decide if it is worth it?

Suggested retail price (preliminary): $126,290.00/pair

I'll take 5! :eek:

As for the "why $290?" that's *pure* marketing. As any marketing guy and he'll tell you that having an odd price like that makes people believe that the price has been arrived at logically, that there's a *reason* that this is the price, rather than being just made up. IOW, faked legitimacy.

I say this amp kicks that amps ass for 1/50th the price:

http://www.audioclub.it/h/audio/prodotti/NADM/picsnadm/m3_top_large.jpg

Could this amp be mass produced? How much do you think the parts plus construction costs? Maybe we could offer Mr. Lamm, say, half a mil for the design. We could sell 100 for $5K and almost break even. If we sold more, it would be gravy! Who's up for a group buy?

That's funny, I just noticed the "$126, 290" due to Alimental's (quite correct) post. I feel much better now and am more likely to buy a pair. On the other hand, if it was 126K or 127K even, or God forbid 126,995, I would be have been worried my pocketbook might be being taken advantage of ;).

I say this amp kicks that amps ass for 1/50th the price:



pretty strong comment.....do you have a fair amount of experience with the ML-2 to be able to project this result?

in what way do you think the NAD amp 'kicks that amps (the ML-3) ass'?

and on what speaker?

Price tags never bother me...I'm an Economist :) I think WC Fields said it best. "A fool and his money are soon parted" ;)

What kills me about these thing is the hyperbole and the "audiophile speak". Just to liven things up I'll take what they said and substitute it with a product that people know what they are getting. Not imagine it. enjoy

The Sony VPL-VW50s innovative circuitry enables a recreation of the original spectral balance and harmonic structure of the recorded material without loosing a strand of low-level detail or nuance. Another unique aspect of the design enables the "Pearl" to recreate a three-dimensional image without boundaries or limitations, while maintaining an extraordinary transparency of perceived image. The Pearl truly demonstrates what a properly designed single-ended projector can do.

The price tag isn't based on performance or components its the cost their poetic Oxford educated wordsmithers. :eek:

Tryg,

You are overlooking one of its "most prominent features":

"Option for turning the amp on/off controlled via Lamm preamplifiers"

Now how can you diss a $126,290 product that offers that? I mean, it's not like they have that feature on $200 receivers...oops, I guess they do, never mind. Well, the triggers they have on $200 receivers undoubtedly color the sound. I'm sure this one is special :D.

sounds cool

Is this a mono amp....or is it 2 channel...????? If its a 2 channel then the price is OK....but if its mono.....LOL.....Geez!!!!!!!

pretty strong comment.....do you have a fair amount of experience with the ML-2 to be able to project this result?

Ummm, no, but tube amps just can't perform at the level of solid state unless you like euphony. Same for records. Euphony is one thing, actual performance is another.

in what way do you think the NAD amp 'kicks that amps (the ML-3) ass'?

I'm going to say "Accuracy, FR extension, low internal resistance, S/N ratio, reliability, dynamic output, freedom from compression" etc, etc, etc

and on what speaker?

Any speaker you want to be driven accurately rather than euphonically. Probably not a Wilson, they seem to need something to fill in the midrange. :D

I guess it will lose the placebo wars, however ;)

you are truly delirious.

I used to own NAD. It was in my 3rd system. Maybe it has gotten better but John, you truly make me laugh.

I guess it will lose the placebo wars, however

Perhaps if they made the chasis out of X(or Y) material and they priced it for 5 X as much, it might get taken seriously in the placebo wars. And that it was made personally with love by the designer.

Perhaps if they made the chasis out of X(or Y) material and they priced it for 5 X as much, it might get taken seriously in the placebo wars. And that it was made personally with love by the designer.
...after which said designer will spread the love further by incorporating breakthrough technology he developed for reference product into the rest of the line (but only after keeping said technology on the reference product alone for the first 6 months to year so as to maximize the sale of reference product).

I only wish that it were possible to put it head to head with John's NAD

Regardless of the rationale we must agree that the pricing game has gotten out of hand... I for one would not equate the value of a software with the support it comes on. The problem for me is the fact that component pricing in High End Audio are beginning to resemble the pricing scheme of luxury items...Yet prices keeps getting higher while performance barely bulges..
The problem is, you can make the argument that this happens the second prices surpass the low 4 figures in electronics and the low 5 figures when you are talking about speakers; i.e. as Q*3 notes, this is all relative, and when can take a sanctimonious/self-righteous attitude at a number of different price points. However, something that you alluded to seems to be more relevant, are these pricing models in fact endangering the business of high-end audio? You may have a valid point, but that may have as much to do with pricing as with "marketing".

Could this amp be mass produced?
Of course it could. And if you provide the schematics to a decent Chinese manufacturer not only could they make it more reliably and to spec, but could sell it for less than $2K and make a profit. But then you are missing the point.

you are truly delirious...I used to own NAD. It was in my 3rd system. Maybe it has gotten better but John, you truly make me laugh
You are missing his point. From the point of accuracy, he is correct, in fact many pro amps costing less than $1k would meet that criteria. The question from your perspective is would they match euphonics you have exhibited an apparent preference for, and the answer would appear to be an obvious no.

You are missing his point. From the point of accuracy, he is correct, in fact many pro amps costing less than $1k would meet that criteria. The question from your perspective is would they match euphonics you have exhibited an apparent preference for, and the answer would appear to be an obvious no.
Raul_GS,

As per usual, John is completely WRONG from a technical standpoint!!!

There's more to accuracy than just a frequency response plot. Accuracy can not
be meausured by integrating a multivariate response over everything except
frequency. That $1K amp can have a ruler-flat FR curve; yet be TERRIBLE in terms
of temporal response, especially when presented with varying or complex; i.e.
reactive; load impedances.

I would have thought most technically sophisticated audiophiles would have
learned this from the "THD Wars" of the '70s. Amp manufacturers created amps
that measured great with vanishingly small THD metrics by using high amounts
of negative feedback. Those great THD specs came with the price that the amp
was sluggish. They "locked-onto" the static frequency of the test; but music isn't
static, and they were slow to slew in response to the demands of the music.

It's also naive to say that a particular technology is better than another.

When Jack Hidley demoed the Xd to the BAAS in OB's listening room; we had a
discussion prompted by OB's amps about tubes and solid state. Jack Hidley
stated that transistors were such inherently non-linear devices that you had to
linearize them with the rest of the circuit topology. You aren't going to find a SS
amp with a topology as simple as that found in the tubed LAMMs for this reason.

As I've stated many times before it is foolish to compare "technologies". What
really counts is a particular design and implementation of a technology. The ONLY
truly meaningful comparisons are of the type comparing "Tube Amp A" and
"SS Amp B" and then ONLY when driving a particular load "Speaker C".

There are cases of a particular SS amp bettering a particular tube amp, just as
there are cases of a particular tube amp trouncing a particular SS amp; again
for a given load impedance.

Any other generalizations are foolish and say less about the technologies
involved, than they do the lack of technical acumen of those making such
pronouncements.

you are truly delirious.

I used to own NAD. It was in my 3rd system. Maybe it has gotten better but John, you truly make me laugh.

And you are truly biased. The M3 is to regular NAD what an Audi RS6 is to a VW. Maybe you should try basing things on actual performance, not the performance you assume based on who designed it or how expensive it is. :rolleyes:

As per usual, John is completely WRONG from a technical standpoint!!!

I always enjoy how you think capitalizing "wrong" makes it so.

How about this John...you are "wrong"

How about this John...you are "wrong"

And how would you know, based on a press release?

I only wish that it were possible to put it head to head with John's NAD

You set up a supervised double blind comparison with this unit and I'll send the M3. And a crow.

I always enjoy how you think capitalizing "wrong" makes it so.
John,

The capitalization isn't for verification.

The capitalization is to indicate a matter of degree.

Some people are wrong; others like you, are WRONG!!!

It all depends on how egregious the misinformation is.

You set up a supervised double blind comparison with this unit and I'll send the M3. And a crow.


Actually John, you could fly it your self if your broomstick could support the weight

BTW John, as an aside, IMO it is a breath of fresh seeing Jack Hidley (and not you) posting in another thread about questions asked by someone about NHD. Maybe (hopefully) NHD gave you the boot as a dealer in their gear. It would certainly restore them to respectability once again. Now if only NAD would get the message as well :rolleyes:

Any other generalizations are foolish...
One might say the same about that generalization :).

That $1K amp can have a ruler-flat FR curve; yet be TERRIBLE in terms of temporal response, especially when presented with varying or complex; i.e. reactive; load impedances.
In what specific area/s do you think the 100K amp would measure better than the 1K amp with load xx? I don't seem to recall a spec named temporal response ;).

BTW John, as an aside, IMO it is a breath of fresh seeing Jack Hidley (and not you) posting in another thread about questions asked by someone about NHD. Maybe (hopefully) NHD...
I think you are getting your THD's and NHT's mixed up!

Unless NHT (Now Hear That) has decided to go after the younger crowd - "Now Hear Dat".

I think you are getting your THD's and NHT's mixed up!

when you get old your fingers find their ways to all of the wrong keyboard keys

Just on my way home from sunny Palm Desert where it is now a balmy 82 and leaving for the SF Bay area where my son tells me it is slightly cooler. Hoping to buy a house down here but haven't found any with a room big enough for audio/video enjoyment

Happy New Year to all.

Well, I would tend to side with John and Raul over Greg on this one, for the most part.

First of all: there's nothing inherently bad about negative feedback, and I disagree with Dr. Greenman's claims about its deleterious effects, if used properly. I suspect that some of the problems experienced in the past were due to its improper use, which can result in ringing, IM distortion, instability under capacitative loading, and so forth. The most common error is to use more feedback than the open-loop design allows. The science on how to avoid this problem is relatively straightforward to a competent electrical engineer or physicist (no snark here, I promise), so I'm not entirely sure why some designs still suffer from that problem.

Properly used, negative feedback makes an amplifier faster, not slower, in the sense that it increases its usable (flat) bandwidth. Furthermore, negative feedback lowers the output impedance of an amplifier, the benefits of which should be rather obvious. That is not to say that there is no cost to NFB; there is: reduced gain. (EDIT: also increased susceptibility to RFI but that can be mitigated in other ways.) Closed-loop bandwidth times gain is roughly constant in a feedback loop, which means that every doubling of bandwidth requires a halving of the gain. This is no big deal in a buffer or preamp which requires little or no gain; so typically you'll see plenty of negative feedback employed in such circuits. But in an amplifier, gain matters, so there is a desire to use as little feedback as possible to acheive desired performance levels. This is going to be especially true in a tube amp where gain is hard to come by to begin with.

This may explain why tube entusiasts tend to pooh-pooh feedback more than SS enthusiasts---they don't have the gain to spare as it is!

Now, onto the distortion question. Thanks to a high gain-bandwidth product and the ability to employ plenty of negative feedback, it's unarguable that SS amps can acheive far lower distortion figures than tube amps. Let's face it, the Lamm 2.1 has a full 3% THD at 18 watts!

So how can anyone credibly argue that the Lamm is a better-sounding amp with that much distortion? There really are only three possible arguments.
--- You could claim that 3% THD, at least of the variety that tube amps generate, isn't audible. I frankly doubt that any serious high-end enthusiast wants to make that claim. After all, if 3% isn't audible, then that pretty much blows away any justification for exotic high-end cables and other tweaks that make claims to improve linearity or remove distortion.
--- You can claim that 3% is audible, and even undesirable, but that it is a reasonable trade compared to the other distortion that would occur if it were eliminated. I'm frankly at a loss to understand what that other distortion might be, and I'm not sure a high-end amp manufacturer would want to couch their design language in such compromising terms anyway.
--- Or, you can claim that 3% is indeed audible, but its effect is pleasant so it enhances, not detracts, from the overall experience. That's entirely fine, but it would be improper to claim that the Lamm is accurate as a result. Enjoyable, pleasurable, worth the money subjectively, perhaps, but accurate, no.

So again, if you want to use only listening tests to evaluate amplifiers, that's fine, and it would neither surprise nor disappoint me that an amp with 3% THD might fare better than one with only 0.01% THD in such subjective testing. But it would probably be good to to dispense with the notion that somehow this test validates any claims of accuracy.

In what specific area/s do you think the 100K amp would measure better than the 1K amp with load xx?

The "PRIDE OF OWNERSHIP" meter will be off the scale with the new Lamm's!

Anyone can own a $1k amp but how many if us will ever own $100k + amps?

Well, I would tend to side with John and Raul over Greg on this one, for the most part.

First of all: there's nothing inherently bad about negative feedback, and I disagree with Dr. Greenman's claims about its deleterious effects, if used properly.
Michael,

That's why I said, quoting my post above; "...large amounts of negative
feedback.." I'm referring to when feedback is used improperly.

I agree that feedback, if judiciously used, is a positive effect. After all, I couldn't
begin to count all the computer controlled systems that use feedback to give
stability to a system.

However, back in the '70s, during what I and others call the "THD Wars"; amp
manufacturers were designing large amounts of negative feedback into their
amps in order to realize exteremly small THD specs.

From Paul Bolin's review of the Halcro dm58 monoblock amp in the October 2002
issue of Stereophile:

http://stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/683/

As impressive as the dm58's specifications seemed, audiophiles are not easily
swayed by claims of superiority based solely on measurements. The 1970s THD
wars among the major Japanese receiver manufacturers of the day conclusively
proved that great specs alone were no guarantee of even good, much less great,
sound.

In essence, those amps "locked on" the frequency of the test signal. The problem
is that the large amount of negative feedback limited the slew rate for the amp;
which gave rise to TIM - Transient Intermodulation Distortion.

From the Physics department at Georgia State University:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/audio/amp.html

"Transient distortion occurs when amplifier components cannot handle the rate of
change of the signal, for example in rapid percussive attacks. There is also
transient intermodulation distortion (TIM) to which modern integrated circuits are susceptible. Such circuits depend upon feedback for their linearity, but time delays
in the feedback can cause intermodulation distortion on fast transients in the
signal".

It was after there was a spec to quantify the negative aspects of overly large
amounts of negative feedback; and the ad campaign by Marantz which pointed
out the deleterious effects of too much feedback; that the "THD Wars" subsided.

I'm just advising not to "drink by the label". It is possible to design a component
to "measure well" - that is to exploit the fact that the test is an imperfect metric.
It's analogous to a teacher "..teaching to the test..." in a school setting. If all
the student knows is how to do well on the particular test that is being used to
measure performance, then the student isn't really getting a well-rounded
education.

In the '70s, many amp manufacturers allowed their marketing departments to
drive their product development. I would believe the engineers would be satisfied
with a 0.03% THD metric rather than the 0.0001% that they were being driven to
by marketing concerns.

The operation of an amplifier is quite complex, and really can't be characterized
completely in a single number or a single curve. If one sees a product that is
being touted on the basis of a single metric; it's often good to be wary. That
product may be designed to do one thing well; to score well on the test; rather
than the purpose for which the consumer is buying the product.

Greg, fair enough that you made it clear that "large amounts" of NFB were used. It was the claim that the resulting designs were "sluggish" and "slow to slew" for which I am most skeptical. After all, NFB makes an amp faster in the temporal sense, not slower. Once the stability issue is reigned in, a ruler-flat FR of sufficient bandwidth does insure fast temporal resopnse.

So distortion and instability issues I would expect, but not speed; and I have to wonder if the negative results of those tests were misinterpreted.I would believe the engineers would be satisfied
with a 0.03% THD metric rather than the 0.0001% that they were being driven to
by marketing concerns.I agree with this. The effort required to go from 0.03% down to 0.0001% would be much better spent (assuming the opportunity existed) improving other aspects of the design.

But more apropos to the larger discussion here, that DM58 review you linked to showed an amp with stellar objective performance, and a sparkling subjective review as well. And yet, its performance has been described negatively by a member of this forum as "sterile". Taken by itself it just shows how opinions can vary. But it is interesting to note that said characterization was made by a tube fan. I submit it as a speck of evidence for my assertion (and John's, Raul's, etc.) that some audiophiles prefer some euphonic distortion to utter accuracy.

EDIT: Interestingly, a Google search turned up another use of the perjorative "sterile (http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/archive/index.php/t-52136.html)" to describe the DM58's. Another tube fan! And he explicitly suggests what I am asserting, that "humans like just a touch... of distortion" when listening to music. That's fine with me, so why not just buy clean equipment and add some in using an in-line processor? :)

Greg, fair enough that you made it clear that "large amounts" of NFB were used. It was the claim that the resulting designs were "sluggish" and "slow to slew" for which I am most skeptical. After all, NFB makes an amp faster in the temporal sense, not slower. Once the stability issue is reigned in, a ruler-flat FR of sufficient bandwidth does insure fast temporal resopnse.
Michael,

When used judiciously, NFB does make the amp faster.

However, when one goes beyond judicious use, and applies feeback that is
excessive, that one gets these "slew rate" induced effects.

From the Audio Engineering Society :

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=3103

"Slewing Induced Distortion and Its Effect On Audio Amplifier Performance--With
Correlated Measurement/Listening Results

There has been a great deal of material in the literature in recent years on
transient intermodulation distortion (TIM) as a major distortion mechanism in
audio amplifiers, particularly IC op amps. A detailed study of high level high
frequency performance of op amps involving over 100 different device samples
reveals the true distortion mechanism to be slew induced distortion (SID), with
TIM actually being only one particular manifestation of SID."

From:

http://sound.westhost.com/amp-sound.htm

"Transient Intermodulation Distortion (TIM) * : Also sometimes called slew
induced distortion, this is a form of distortion said to occur when the input signal
changes so fast that the output cannot keep up with it. When this happens,
feedback ceases to be effective, since the output signal is delayed too long. This
remains somewhat contentious, and most modern amplifiers are quite capable of
handling the normal programme amplitude and frequency range without
difficulty. "

I draw an analogy or parallel to the design of jet fighter aircraft. Modern jet
fighters like the F-16 are actually aerodynamically unstable. If not for the
"fly-by-wire" computer; they would be unflyable.

Why make a craft whose inherent aerodynamics are unstable and must be
reigned in by a computer? Because an aerodynamically unstable aircraft will
turn fast - which is what you want a fighter to do.

In a fighter which is aerodynamically stable, the flight control surfaces have to
"fight" to turn the craft, to counter its natural aerodynamic stability. The F-16,
in essence, "wants" to continuously alter direction - so when the pilot needs to
turn in a dogfight - the computer in essence "lets" the aircraft turn in the direction
that the pilot wants to go.

The desired response of an amp to music is somewhat like that. We want the
amp to "turn" to the music - to alter its output with the fast changing character
of the musical input signal.

An amp that has an over-abundance of negative feedback tries to "lock-on" the
current signal - like an aerodynamically stable fighter; and is thus harder to "turn".

It's like many cases; the old credo that "..if a little is good, a lot is better.." is
frequently not true. In the case of NFB, that maxim doesn't hold.

Greg, thanks for that link; a light-bulb went on for me there and now I can see more precisely how the slew limits of the open-loop design could translate to distortion for the closed loop.

I have to pick a nit with your F-16 analogy though---nobody designs an amplifier to operate in regions of instability in that way! Rather, the best performance comes from operating well within the region of stability and the limits of bandwidth and slew. The use of NFB folds those limits together in interesting ways, though, I agree.

Greg, thanks for that link; a light-bulb went on for me there and now I can see how the slew limits of the open-loop design could translate to distortion for the closed loop.

I have to pick a nit with your F-16 analogy though---nobody designs an amplifier to operate in regions of instability in that way! Rather, the best performance comes from operating well within the region of stability and the limits of bandwidth and slew. The use of NFB folds those limits together in interesting ways, though, I agree.
Michael,

I agree the analogy breaks down there.

I'm just pointing out that something like "stability", which is like "..Mom and
apple pie.."; at first blush how could stability be a deleterious characteristic?

In the case of the jet fighter, inherent aerodynamic stability of the airframe
works to the detriment of the dogfighting characteristics of the aircraft.

Likewise, an amp for which the applied amount of negative feedback is excessive
has problems keeping up with the musical signal it was intended to follow.

OK, so back to the issue at hand then. It's one thing to design an amp with ruler-flat FR and horrible nonlinearities. But the DM58 has the former and none of the latter, and yet it has by at least two tube fans been panned as "sterile." To which I say, "yeah, that's great!" but they didn't mean it that way :) So what's the scoop? Do the Halcros corrupt the sound in some heretofore-undiscovered way, or is tube amp distortion just the spoonful of sugar our ears want? And if so, why do I have to spend $126290 to get it? (Not that the Halcros are cheap.)

How 'bout we mod John's NAD amp with some tube-based input buffers? :)

OK, so back to the issue at hand then. It's one thing to design an amp with ruler-flat FR and horrible nonlinearities. But the DM58 has the former and none of the latter, and yet it has by at least two tube fans been panned as "sterile." To which I say, "yeah, that's great!" but they didn't mean it that way :) So what's the scoop? Do the Halcros corrupt the sound in some heretofore-undiscovered way, or is tube amp distortion just the spoonful of sugar our ears want? And if so, why do I have to spend $126290 to get it? (Not that the Halcros are cheap.)

How 'bout we mod John's NAD amp with some tube-based input buffers? :)
Michael,

I heard the Halcro monoblocks driving the Wilson X-2 Alexandrias at
"Music Lovers" in Berkeley, and they were wonderful. Perhaps a bit
different from the same speakers driven by tubed LAMM monoblocks
at OB's; but excellent. I wouldn't call them "sterile".

When it comes to tubes vs. transistors, I'm part of the "..neither fish nor fowl.."
camp. I've oft heard it said that the best solid-state designs and the best
tube designs seem to converge to a common sound.

That makes sense to me. One can have two different numerical analysis schemes
for solving a problem. In the limit of infinitely fine mesh; they both approach the
differential equation they are intended to solve. However, away from the limit
of infinitesimal mesh spacing, the two schemes are different.

Perhaps tube amp distortion is pleasing to the ears, which helps the tube amps
in the non-infinitesimal limit. However, the very best tube amps end up sounding
and measuring similar to their very best solid-state amp counterparts.

As to the price, the LAMM is definitely a low-volume "niche" product.

For example, if you want the very best in a nice acoustic guitar, you have it
made by a master guitar luthier like Kevin Ryan, or Jim Olsen. Do these fine
musical instruments cost more than those from the factories of C.F. Martin and
Taylor? You bet. [ Not that much more; but you are looking at a long wait time.]

Is the quality and performance linearly dependent on cost? No, there's always
a definite non-linear relationship between performance and cost at the high end.

Are people willing to pay the cost? You bet - because that's how they get the
very best; cost be damned. If that's what you want, and you can afford it - who
cares - it's a free market after all.

Like OB says; your audio choices are up to your ears, and your pocketbook.

Sure I wish I could afford "the best of everything"; but with the exception of
Bill Gates and a few others, nobody can. So we all have to make choices.

If Vladimir Lamm has customers willing to pay $126,290 for the volume of amps
he produces; then that's what they are "worth" in an economic sense.

Are they worth it in an "audio" sense? That's the individual's call.

However, the very best tube amps end up sounding
and measuring similar to their very best solid-state amp counterparts.But as I've pointed out... the LAMM 2.1 measures at 3% THD at 18 watts! That's what, 5000 or 50000 times higher than the Halcro dm58? That hardly constitutes "measuring similar". And surely you meant to include this amp among "the very best tube amps"...

So I think we're back to my three possibilities: 1) 3% is inaudible; 2) 3% is a necessary evil; 3) 3% is pleasant.

Michael, please stop trying to use logic in this forum ;).
But as I've pointed out... the LAMM 2.1 measures at 3% THD at 18 watts! That's what, 5000 or 50000 times higher than the Halcro dm58? That hardly constitutes "measuring similar". And surely you meant to include this amp among "the very best tube amps"...

So I think we're back to my three possibilities: 1) 3% is inaudible; 2) 3% is a necessary evil; 3) 3% is pleasant.
I believe you are overlooking the # 1 possibility in the minds of audiophiles which you need to add as 4):
"The ear is capable of perceiving differences which are not yet measurable by science". i..e there may be many factors beyond distortion that we cannot measure and/or properly interpret etc.

That is pretty much a catch-all argument that can be used to explain audible differences between power cables, green markers on CD's as well as why a tube component with 3% or for that matter 30% distortion might sound better than a SS one one with .001%.

I don't think I was so much overlooking it as ignoring it :) I honestly would be interested to hear what Mr. Lamm would say---my guess is that it might be #2 with some #3 thrown in. I actually doubt that he'd say #4.

Are they worth it in an "audio" sense? That's the individual's call.


I agree completely and have always maintained this as my mantra in audio to which Greg alluded...to wit, "let the decision always be based on your ears and your wallet"

As for the person who termed the DM58's as sterile it was indeed me. That doesn't make them a bad amplifier, they just don't rock my sonic boat.

BTW, great debate and dissertation by Michael and Greg who I feel fortunate to know from our BAAS. I always learn something from them. Thank you gentlemen.

Now for those going to CES (unfortunately I won't be there this year) I would love to hear some reports back on this amp. For those who know Vladimir, it is safe to say that he is a one man show and I know that he has been working day in and day out on this amp for the past 3-4 years. Am I going to buy one? No! I love my Lamm ML 2.1 even with its 3% THD and I don't see switching at any time soon.

So I think we're back to my three possibilities: 1) 3% is inaudible; 2) 3% is a necessary evil; 3) 3% is pleasant.
Michael,

I'd have to go with #1 and #3 then.

I'm "uncomfortable" with #2 due to the word "necessary".

The implication is that if a 100% accurate amplifier were available, it would be
judged as lacking because it lacked the necessary "evil". It would mean that
100% accuracy [ whatever that means ] should not be the ultimate goal of the
amplifier designer, but some other goal.

At present, I don't think we understand the effect. Otherwise, we could do as
you suggest build clean equipment and add the distortion via a "distortion
processor". I don't think we know how to program a distortion processor,
at present.

Ultimately one would want to reproduce the recorded music as faithfully as
possible. Is there an inherent limit to 2-ch sound recording that requires a
degree of distortion from the amp to sound realistic?

If "evil" is in fact necessary; why? It is something to ruminate about.

The implication is that if a 100% accurate amplifier were available, it would be
judged as lacking because it lacked the necessary "evil".You misunderstand me, which is not surprising given that I'm trying to summarize a longer, previous statement in just two words :) What #2 is saying is this: "Any way I try to eliminate or reduce the 3% distortion results in a circuit that sounds worse in other important ways. So even though the distortion is undesirable, it is the least deleterious compromise possible."

You misunderstand me, which is not surprising given that I'm trying to summarize a longer, previous statement in just two words :) What #2 is saying is this: "Any way I try to eliminate or reduce the 3% distortion results in a circuit that sounds worse in other important ways. So even though the distortion is undesirable, it is the least deleterious compromise possible."
Michael,

Yes - I misunderstood your statement.

I entirely agree. The typical metrics used to quantify amplifier performance like
THD may not be the "proper" metrics - that is, they don't correlate with our
own sense of audio quality.

Since amplifier design, like practically ANY type of design; is a series of
compromises, then the optimization of the THD spec, or any other spec;
may result in compromising something truly important.

Again, this dovetails with my admonishment to not "drink by the label".

We have to admit that we don't know of a metric that exactly correlates with
the way our hearing judges the quality of an audio system. As with my previous
example of the "THD Wars" - the pursuit of a high mark on a given spec, namely
THD; led to the production of inferior amps because the pursuit of the THD spec
led to design decisions which compromised the amp's temporal performance.
In the end, the compromised temporal performance was a greater detraction
than the improved THD.

Evidently Vladimir Lamm is optimizing other characteristics of the amp, ones that
aren't characterized by the typical metrics, but correlate better with human sound
quality perception. If after optimizing these other characteristics, he's left with a
3% THD which is, as you say; a necessary "evil" because he can't do it all.

Because the metrics are imperfect; one can't say that an amp that measures
better; by necessity, sounds better. If one wants to be scientific about it, one has
to be cognizant of what the metrics mean. They are NOT absolute measurements
of quality nor accuracy.

Here's the thing. If the "better sounding" amplifier measures *worse*, then all we have is subjectivity. If all we have is subjectivity, then it's very hard to say that any amp is better than another unless you get a large sample of people to agree on it. Even then, is it euphony or accuracy? We've gotten into the bad habit over the last 15 years or so of automatically assigning superiority based on who did it or how expensive it is.

I just always enjoy the hero worship that goes on with these "star" designers. "He made it, it costs a bundle, it must *sound* better". With no evidence at all, just a cut sheet. That's what we call great marketing. An "audiophile" and his money will soon be parted ;)

Here's the thing. If the "better sounding" amplifier measures *worse*, then all we have is subjectivity.
John,

Not at all! It's about understanding what the metrics MEAN!!

Again, let's consider the THD metric and the '70s THD Wars.

Back then, Madison Avenue was essentially selling consumers that THD was
THE metric for quality. The better the THD spec; the better the sound.

But a THD spec doesn't measure sound quality. The THD spec is a metric of THD!

With the advent of the spec for TIM - Transient InterModulation distortion being
published - we can now scientifically QUANTIFY that these excessive feedback
amps were indeed INFERIOR!!

These '70s amps were inferior, but the popularly published metric wasn't
sensitive to the amp's faults - whereas the human ear was.

Again, one has to realize what the measurements MEAN. The THD spec isn't the
same as being accurate. THD means THD.

A metric is also usually some type of norm of a more complex measurement. The
meaningfulness of the norm may require some type of weighting. Consider for
example, your sound meter. You may be able to select between A-weighting
and C-weighting; depending on your purpose.

Consider a test that is administered to students or recent grads. The test has
questions about English, History, Math, Science....a whole plethora of fields.

Now boil that down to a single number predictive of how well someone may
perform at a job. That's tricky - because of the question "What job?"

If we considered all fields equally, and gave equal points for correctness on
History and Math; then two persons could have the same total score, but one
scored high in History, and low in Math; whereas the other scored low in History
and high in Math. Who is likely to make the better engineer?

For that, you would want a metric that weights toward the skills that an engineer
uses - namely Math. You want a metric that more properly reflects what you want
to measure.

This is similar to our previous discussion about frequency response. Frequency
response is not the "be all and end all". Consider if someone designed a device
that had ruler flat frequency response; but did so using high order filters and did
not constrain the ringing.

You could test the device with single tones of differing frequency, and show that
the equilibrium response to each of the tones were the same. Thus the device is
flat with regard to frequency response.

But when you feed it music; the device "rings". The device is still putting out
energy from a signal it got 2 seconds ago. Would there be any argument that
such a device would sound bad?

So why does it measure good? Because the fault is in the transient response,
and you're not measuring the transient response in the former measurement.

Is that "subjectivity"? No - it's just the realization that you have to measure
what is important. If your measurement isn't sensitive to a fault; then the
measurement won't reflect the fault.

So an equilibrium frequency response measurement is just that - an equilibrium
frequency response measurement - NOT some magical indicator of total quality.

A scientist knows not to ascribe to a measurement more meaning than what
the measurement measured. The scientist knows that the transient character
wasn't measured - and doesn't rely on the equilibrium measurement as an
indicator of the quality of the transient response.

It's not about subjectivity. It's not about making "A" measurement. It's about
making the "RIGHT" measuement or measurements.

John,

Not at all! It's about understanding what the metrics MEAN!!

Again, let's consider the THD metric and the '70s THD Wars.

Back then, Madison Avenue was essentially selling consumers that THD was
THE metric for quality. The better the THD spec; the better the sound.

But a THD spec doesn't measure sound quality. The THD spec is a metric of THD!

With the advent of the spec for TIM - Transient InterModulation distortion being
published - we can now scientifically QUANTIFY that these excessive feedback
amps were indeed INFERIOR!!

These '70s amps were inferior, but the popularly published metric wasn't
sensitive to the amp's faults - whereas the human ear was.

Again, one has to realize what the measurements MEAN. The THD spec isn't the
same as being accurate. THD means THD.

A metric is also usually some type of norm of a more complex measurement. The
meaningfulness of the norm may require some type of weighting. Consider for
example, your sound meter. You may be able to select between A-weighting
and C-weighting; depending on your purpose.

Consider a test that is administered to students or recent grads. The test has
questions about English, History, Math, Science....a whole plethora of fields.

Now boil that down to a single number predictive of how well someone may
perform at a job. That's tricky - because of the question "What job?"

If we considered all fields equally, and gave equal points for correctness on
History and Math; then two persons could have the same total score, but one
scored high in History, and low in Math; whereas the other scored low in History
and high in Math. Who is likely to make the better engineer?

For that, you would want a metric that weights toward the skills that an engineer
uses - namely Math. You want a metric that more properly reflects what you want
to measure.

This is similar to our previous discussion about frequency response. Frequency
response is not the "be all and end all". Consider if someone designed a device
that had ruler flat frequency response; but did so using high order filters and did
not constrain the ringing.

You could test the device with single tones of differing frequency, and show that
the equilibrium response to each of the tones were the same. Thus the device is
flat with regard to frequency response.

But when you feed it music; the device "rings". The device is still putting out
energy from a signal it got 2 seconds ago. Would there be any argument that
such a device would sound bad?

So why does it measure good? Because the fault is in the transient response,
and you're not measuring the transient response in the former measurement.

Is that "subjectivity"? No - it's just the realization that you have to measure
what is important. If your measurement isn't sensitive to a fault; then the
measurement won't reflect the fault.

So an equilibrium frequency response measurement is just that - an equilibrium
frequency response measurement - NOT some magical indicator of total quality.

A scientist knows not to ascribe to a measurement more meaning than what
the measurement measured. The scientist knows that the transient character
wasn't measured - and doesn't rely on the equilibrium measurement as an
indicator of the quality of the transient response.

It's not about subjectivity. It's not about making "A" measurement. It's about
making the "RIGHT" measuement or measurements.

And the "right measurements" showing AMP A to be superior to AMP B will be clearly audible to a listener with average hearing? Could you define what measurement parameters will be clearly audible to an average listener? We need to define where the fault is? Wouldn't you say?

Here's the thing. If the "better sounding" amplifier measures *worse*, then all we have is subjectivity.John, though I'm generally on your side of this debate I don't think it's that black and white. The problem is that there are many measurements one can make to determine the quality of an amplifier: frequency response (both magnitude and phase), noise floor, THD, IMD, SID, gain & phase margin, slew rate, etc. etc. If Amp A measures worse than Amp B in all of these factors, then an objective case of superiority can be made. But if Amp A wins some of the tests and Amp B wins others, then measurements alone break down.

And of course, only listening tests can determine what kinds of distortions or noise are most detrimental to our enjoyment.

Not at all! It's about understanding what the metrics MEAN!!It's not about subjectivity. [snip -blah, blah, blah] It's not about making "A" measurement. It's about
making the "RIGHT" measuement or measurements.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

Thank you Captain Obvious.
John,

Evidently it's NOT obvious.

Perhaps you'd like to address the issues that Michael Grant brought up - namely
that there are MANY measurements.

Which one or ones are the important ones that tell you the quality of the amp's
sound?

And the "right measurements" showing AMP A to be superior to AMP B will be clearly audible to a listener with average hearing? Could you define what measurement parameters will be clearly audible to an average listener? We need to define where the fault is? Wouldn't you say?
Randy,

I don't think there IS a parameter or small set of parameters that ALWAYS
correlates with better perceived sound quality for the average listener.

If there was; then Stereophile and other audio mags would just report that.

I believe the information that they do present; frequency response, "waterfall plot"
impulse response... are all important parameters.

However, nobody can look at just a set of these metrics and tell you how
an amp is going to sound.

I'd say our understanding of how we perceive and enjoy sound is not yet
quantifiable in a simple metric. Perhaps some day it will be, I hope.
We're not there yet.

Randy,

I don't think there IS a parameter or small set of parameters that ALWAYS
correlates with better perceived sound quality for the average listener.

If there was; then Stereophile and other audio mags would just report that.

I believe the information that they do present; frequency response, "waterfall plot"
impulse response... are all important parameters.

However, nobody can look at just a set of these metrics and tell you how
an amp is going to sound.

I'd say our understanding of how we perceive and enjoy sound is not yet
quantifiable in a simple metric. Perhaps some day it will be, I hope.
We're not there yet.I hope so too.

I'm hoping to find a $200k amp next week at CES to start this all over again...

;)

Hi

Extremely interesting discussion. I used to own a Jadis Defy 7 and the measurements on this amp were simply horrendous but the music coming out of it was glorious... As an aside the Magnepan MG 20.1 do not measure that well either....
I think that he processing power is available to devise new sets of measurements to correlate with listening impressions. I , however think that the public at large does not seem to care once they hear lows and highs, accurate reproduction takes a back seat. It does not help that many music lovers have taken the flat earth theories, that all amps sound the same and that we have all the measurements that tell us how good they sound... witness the numerous posts on how SS are inherently superior to tubes, cause they measure right... So why would the large manufacturers strive for accuracy? They would rather sell features.

I still can not digest the hefty price and yes guys I admit that is all subjective, my personal electronics are not in the easily affordable category, I was reminded of this during the holidays when a friend of mine kindly asked me about the price of the Burmester 911..

I'm hoping to find a $200k amp next week at CES to start this all over again...

;)
:D
Was not the WAVACS priced at close to $300K ? A tube amp with a microprocessor controlled biasing circuitry... David Berning was sooo ahead of his time where is he by the way?

Here's the thing. If the "better sounding" amplifier measures *worse*, then all we have is subjectivity. If all we have is subjectivity, then it's very hard to say that any amp is better than another unless you get a large sample of people to agree on it. Even then, is it euphony or accuracy? We've gotten into the bad habit over the last 15 years or so of automatically assigning superiority based on who did it or how expensive it is.

I just always enjoy the hero worship that goes on with these "star" designers. "He made it, it costs a bundle, it must *sound* better". With no evidence at all, just a cut sheet. That's what we call great marketing. An "audiophile" and his money will soon be parted ;)

John, generally I'd agree with what you're saying... but the Lamms are a somewhat different beast altogether IMHO... measurably better than almost all its peers (other tube Amps), and sonically (albeit subjectively) more accurate sounding than most amps, SS or Tube, out there. Spend some time with it, you'll agree (I don't own a pair, but spent enough time with to know I prefered the SS accuracy of a Boulder over the euphonic accuracy of the Lamms ;) )

No argument about the insane price of the ML3 though, seems like hes pricing them (new or used :eek: ) to in-no-way cannibalize the ML2.1s business or something... :D

I hope so too.
Randy,

Same here. However, even then there's going to be a caveat.

As I stated earlier, one really needs to make comparisons in a "system" - an
amp and associated speaker.

For "digital amps"; i.e. the Class-D and Class-T amps; the specification of the
loudspeaker is especially important. That's because the load impedance of the
speaker becomes part of the amp's output filter. These amps CHANGE their
performance based on what load is connected to them to a greater degree
than a linear amp.

There was a very nice discussion of this in the Nov 2006 issue of
"The Absolute Sound" which featured a roundtable discussion with amplifier
designers like Dan D'Agostino of Krell, Jeff Rowland of Rowland...

Because these amps change so much depending upon their load impedance,
trying to quantify their performance without taking into account the effect of
the load, is a "fool's errand".

John, though I'm generally on your side of this debate I don't think it's that black and white.
Michael,

I agree. If we're talking subjectivity vs. objectivity; then I'm an objectivist.

However, one is not being a true objectivist if the problem is over-simplified,
as you point out above.

I agree with Albert Einstein on this:

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler."

-- Albert Einstein

John, though I'm generally on your side of this debate I don't think it's that black and white. The problem is that there are many measurements one can make to determine the quality of an amplifier: frequency response (both magnitude and phase), noise floor, THD, IMD, SID, gain & phase margin, slew rate, etc. etc. If Amp A measures worse than Amp B in all of these factors, then an objective case of superiority can be made. But if Amp A wins some of the tests and Amp B wins others, then measurements alone break down.

Hi Michael,

I do understand all of this. I'm not actually talking about performance superiority in actuality, I'm talking about the *psychology* of what makes someone *think* an amplifier is better. That's why I'm having fun with this thread. I could take two identical amps, put one in a Krell box and one in an NAD box. People would go on and on about how the "Krell" blows away the "NAD" in subjective listening test. Or, I could take a Krell and put in an NAD box and vice versa and people would think the NAD in a Krell box sounded better. OR, I could take a solid state amp and put it in a tube chassis and people would talk about how "superior" it is to a solid state amp.

IOW, we can talk about subjectivity vs objectivity all day and what measurements mean what, but the *biggest* determiner of "quality" is "who designed it" and "how much did it cost". Perception = reality. That's how you sell inaccurate 100K speakers too. Works with cables, "magic pebbles", etc, etc, etc. 99% of high-end is now just marketing perception. Sad, really.

I agree. If we're talking subjectivity vs. objectivity; then I'm an objectivist.


Fortunately for you, you can hear better than a supercomputer and advanced measuring techniques and know that they're all crap if you don't agree with the findings ;)

I could take two identical amps, put one in a Krell box and one in an NAD box. People would go on and on about how the "Krell" blows away the "NAD" in subjective listening test. Or, I could take a Krell and put in an NAD box and vice versa and people would think the NAD in a Krell box sounded better. OR, I could take a solid state amp and put it in a tube chassis and people would talk about how "superior" it is to a solid state amp.
John,

Why don't you go ACTUALLY DO the test you outline above?

Then report back here with your results; instead of just your assertions!!

Fortunately for you, you can hear better than a supercomputer
John,

I work with and write programs for the world's most powerful supercomputer,
Blue-Gene/L at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory among others:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/April05/Seager.html

http://www.llnl.gov/asci/platforms/bluegenel/photogallery.html

Yes - I hear better than Blue-Gene/L because for all intents and purposes;
it is stone cold deaf.


and advanced measuring techniques and know that they're all crap if you don't agree with the findings
No - I just understand what they measure; and what they don't.

No - I just understand what they measure; and what they don't.

What don't they measure? Subjectivity. Your own mental gymnastics. No way of measuring that. Double blind it and see what happens to your blessed hearing capability.

Why don't you go ACTUALLY DO the test you outline above?

Then report back here with your results; instead of just your assertions!!

If I were working on a master's in psychoacoustics, that's exactly what I'd do. But I'm not, don't really care, it's been done before in more limited experiments and the verdict is.......the mind is easily misled because it's an active device, not a static one.

If you think you're so correct, why don't *you* do the tests and show I'm wrong, Mr Smarty Pants?

:D
Was not the WAVACS priced at close to $300K ? A tube amp with a microprocessor controlled biasing circuitry... David Berning was sooo ahead of his time where is he by the way?

Screw that, I'll build one for $1,000,000 and it will be WAY better! And faster than a Bugatti Veyron too :)

Systems are a sum of their parts.

We do not hear like a piece of test equipment.

You will not find someone more against black magic voodoo than me, but i also can accept that the test equipment tells one part of the story.

For me, test gear gets me in the ballpark, then listening tells the rest.

I do not subscribe to psuedo science as to why a power cable expands a soundstage, but i also do not believe that we have two or three tests that give us the same picture that our ears do.

:D
Was not the WAVACS priced at close to $300K ? A tube amp with a microprocessor controlled biasing circuitry... David Berning was sooo ahead of his time where is he by the way?

Krell has had microprocessor-controlled bias for many years already, probably introduced with their plateau bias scheme in the 90s.

--Andre

We do not hear like a piece of test equipment.

True, we are able to ignore some things that test gear will not. However, we're not nearly as accurate or capable in most ways nor can we deliver repeatable conclusions, especially if there is *any* external stimuli affecting our perceptions. Placebos don't work on machines. Machines don't know the price or the designer. Garbage in, garbage measured.

I do not subscribe to psuedo science as to why a power cable expands a soundstage, but i also do not believe that we have two or three tests that give us the same picture that our ears do.

God, I hope not. Our ears are way too imperfect and unreliable to make the next leap of performance. Artistry and subjectivity can only take us so far.

What don't they measure?
John,

Depends on the test.

For example, a test of equilibrium frequency response doesn't measure the
transient characteristics.

One can build a device that uses high-order filters to get a frequency response
that is extremely flat. However, if precautions are not taken to prevent the
high-order filter from "ringing"; then the device will have a serious flaw that the
equilibrium frequency response test doesn't sample.

If you think you're so correct, why don't *you* do the tests and show I'm wrong, Mr Smarty Pants?
John,

Because I'm not the one that postulated a fantasy test and then promulgated
the asserted results of the non-existant test as if it had been conducted.

It's not up to me to prove that someone is wrong.

It's up to the person making the claim to prove they are correct.