 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
160.62.7.250
Of hybrid amps that I would recommed to someone looking for a good example of that technology.
After hearing them first on Apogees and now on Thiel CS3.7, I can say that there is something wrong about its sound. On first glance it has a decent tonality and good bass control but it sounds overcontrolled and lacking in dynamic expression. Likewise, the tonality seems superficial with a hardness underneath that becomes somewhat unpleasant with time.
I would no longer recommend this amp for someone looking for a good, reference level hybrid as there are others out there, which are more affordable, that deliver a better overall sound.
Follow Ups:
Doesn't surprise me that the Lamm sucks....I think their build quality is piss poor for the price. A lot of other insanity pervades this thread, including using crap cables in place of great interconnects. Everything matters in audio and you have to be careful when putting a system together!
dave_b
I do get that same impression but based on the measurements of the amp and the generally low order harmonic distortion, flat distortion with frequency etc. I was expecting a better sound than what is delivered.
Morricab-
My dealer said a long time ago that was one of the top combos back in the 90s- but the 3.6s on 70/70s or higher, not the 30/30. I tend to agree with the others that you need more power.
fwiw, I just had a Focal/Dagostino demo. This speaker is 90+dbs/4ohms. Meters were 30 watts and not even that loud. Thiel is a much more demanding curve, so you're probably running out of gas.
also, I have 100db/8ohm Zu speakers (which you should hear)- I feel they are best at 15-20 watts minimum for normal rooms. 845 SET is the most common pairing, although I prefer my DartZeel. Dart excels with HE speakers.
KeithR
Well KeithR, the Thiel CS3.6 is 4db lower in sensitivity (86db vs. 90db) than the CS3.7 with a similar quite low overall impedance like the CS3.7. That 4db is the difference in power between the VAC 30/30 and the 70/70. So, if the 70/70 was adequate for the CS3.6 then the 30/30 should be (and was) adequate for the CS3.7.
FWIW, I was listening at moderate to moderately high levels through a pair of Mezzo Utopia Be at a dealer's home outside London and my 30 watt KR Audio VA350i was sounding heavenly and had zero issues with the impedance or dynamics. We also hooked up a Jadis Defy 7 MKIII that also sounded damn nice but not any more powerful despite being 100 solid watts. No problem for the KR.
It all comes down to the level you want to listen at...we peak out usually well under 100db even in the louder sessions (I personally alone listen much quieter than that). I tend to choose my gear based on how it will sound at lower levels, which I must listen at more often than I can listen loud.
" I have 100db/8ohm Zu speakers (which you should hear)- I feel they are best at 15-20 watts minimum for normal rooms."
THis probably has nothing to do with power...that level of power could drive you from the room screaming OR you listen very loud indeed. How big is your definition of a "normal room"?
I have a pair of Ref 3as with about 92db and they will play very loud with my JJ 322 parallel 300B amp (15 clean watts...i.e. < 1% distortion). At normal levels the magic eyes are barely seen to be moving. With my 98db Odeons they will play almost rock concert loud in my room.
I've tried an 8 watt 300B on my 101db Zu Definitions and it sounds like crap. Your specs analysis should say otherwise. And this is a far easier impedance curve than any Thiel and I have active bass. Parallel 300B works, but 845 is much better.
I just think people don't understand headroom and effortless when it comes to amps. The amps clip softly or don't have enough headroom and this is pleasing. I just heard Devore O96s (96db) on GM70 and 300B Shindo SETs- I found the GM70 worked best. I would want 104db horns for 8 watt amp, personally.
I listen in the high 70s/low 80s normally, not terribly high although dynamic peaks can get loud--- my old room was larger at 24' x 25', but I've heard a more normal 18' x 14' room a zillion times who has the same speakers and 845 SET amps. My current room is 17'x 14' but I use the Dart integrated.
Play a really dynamic Blu Ray disc/soundtrack or something like Trentemoller's album "Last Resort" and it becomes more clear imo. I think some confuse loud with effortless.
"I've tried an 8 watt 300B on my 101db Zu Definitions and it sounds like crap. Your specs analysis should say otherwise."
It is not only power that is to be considered for whether an amp sounds good or not...I though this was obvious but apparently you want a number to poke a stick at. It should go without saying that the design of the amp and particularly the quality of its output transformer matter more than the watts it produces (they also affect how many clean watts you can get).
I can show you parallel 300B amps that will sound better on that speaker than just about anything else. I can show you 845 amps that will rock and ones that will suck...all with about the same power ratings...so what? My JJ has very good bass in fact as it has nicely made double C core output transformers...I have heard much sloppier bass from a number of high powered push pull tube amps and cheap SETs.
"I just think people don't understand headroom and effortless when it comes to amps. The amps clip softly or don't have enough headroom and this is pleasing. I just heard Devore O96s (96db) on GM70 and 300B Shindo SETs- I found the GM70 worked best. I would want 104db horns for 8 watt"
I understand it just fine...its not complicated...it is also not as necessary as you think it is and it is far more important that the amp recovers quickly when it does happen...something high feedback amps cannot do.
We have been around and around this with my friends... they all had high powered behemoths: McIntosh MC501s, Musical Fidelity KW750, Big ass Krells, 1000 watt Class D etc. etc. I the SImAudio Moon W5, which doubles all the way down to 1 ohm. Another guy had a big Karan amp. Now they have ALL switched to tubes and/or hybrids...all. Why? Sound quality and you know what...their 100 or even 30 watt amps still have sufficient headroom all the while sounding much better when they are below clipping. I have two amps, a 100 watt hybrid (but single ended...not many of those about) and a 20 watt (15 watts at 1%) parallel 300b SET. Both drive either of my speakers to much louder levels than I care to stand for long. Both sound powerful and authoritative because both are well designed with big power supplies.
Of course it also depends, not so much on room size as distance from the speakers and how loud you feel the need to listen.
I would not be one to suffer confusion about the difference between loud and effortless.
You want to hear effortless dynamics...put a KR Audio Kronzilla on your Zu speakers...I get the feeling you won't believe your ears.
Dont be so hard on Morricab .... :)
Too Late KeithR , The Lamm is off Morricab's List, what will the rest of us do ... :)
Regards...
Edits: 12/09/14
Brad I want to personally thank you for being so honest! More audiophile/music lovers & especially reviewers should be like this! It's not only ok, but essential for all audiophile/music lovers and especially reviewers to admit; " When I first listened to this component I had a different opinion of the sound than I presently do. Upon longer term listening, I'm now convinced my initial listening impression was the wrong one! This is not a component I can recommend purchasing. " I ( thetubeguy ) for one, see no harm in a reviewer saying this. In fact, it's my opinion doing this would give the reviewer's listening skills & integrity a big boost in my eyes and I believe it would do the same in the eyes of other audiophile/music lovers as well.
I'd give his listening skills more credence ---{ provided his change of opinion mirrors mine if & when I hear the component }--- because he says what he actually hears, even when doing so means by changing what he initially said, some people might make negative comments about his listening & reviewing capabilities. I'm personally convinced doing this would provide both his and the audio mag he reviews for a HUGE boost in integrity! Sadly we all live in a day and age, where many people are much more concerned with how they'll look and/or what people " might " say about them, than they are about speaking the truth and keeping their heads up high. I honestly admire people, like yourself, who have the intestinal fortitude to place the truth over what people might think and/or say about them. In all sincerity, my hat is off to you Brad. Following your example I must publically admit, you're not the person I had mistakenly thought you were. I hope you'll accept my apology for this error in judgment I made about your character...
I'm listening to: Sophie Milman by Sophie Milman
Thetubeguy1954 (Tom Scata)
Central Florida Audio Society -- SETriodes Group -- Space Coast Audio Society
Full-range/Wide-range Drivers --- Front & Back-Loaded Horns --- High Sensitivity Speakers
The only issue with negative commentary is that while it seems truthful you have to be somewhat careful putting more stock into the negative.
This is still a system matching issue. What does LAMM use as their reference speakers? If it is Apogee and Thiel that's one thing but maybe they loathe Apogee and Thiel and for their particular front end equipment they would wish you to use a variety of other speakers.
There are speakers that I absolutely love that have sounded utterly dreadful with inappropriate gear. When judging a specific component I want to hear the specific component at least 3 times with three different systems attached in three different (appropriate) rooms.
Assuming that the gear attached would be something the manufacturer would reasonably use.
Hello RGA!I know all about system synergy! Let me clarify my position ok? I presently use a tubed Goldenote Stibbert CDP ver. 5 CDP as a transport with an Audio-gd Reference 7.1 DAC for my source. The signal they provide is fed to a 40W/ch Mastersound Reference 845, integrated, SET amp. Which in turn amplified the signal and passes it to pair of Sachiko double-back-loaded horns loaded w/Dayton PS220-8 ---{ w/Rispoli treated cones }--- single "fullrange" drivers and Fostex T900a super-tweeters. The T900a's are crossed in at 8Khz, while the PS220-8 run fullrange. The wires I use consist of speaker wires and digital wire custom made by Rispoli and the ICs are Grover Huffman SRC II. While the Mastersound and the Stibbert aren't inexpensive, I'd say most everything else in my system is! But it didn't start that way, oh no.
Remember those $200/pr Grover Huffman ICs I mentioned up above? Well they replaced a pair of $10K Stealth Audio Sakra ICs in my system. And the $600 custom made Rispoli speaker wires replaced $11.5K Stealth Audio Dream speaker wires! Now before I go any further I need to make 100% sure everyone understands I believe the Stealth Audio wires are one of the very few of wires being made to day that can claim to be a true Reference-Level wire! When using one of Stealth Audio's top three ICs, speaker wires, digital etc. in a system in which they have correct system synergy they will literally take your breath away and raise goose-bumps the size of mountains on your arms & legs.
So you're now probably asking yourself; What kind of fool makes such a statement and then replaces one of Serguei Timachev's ---{ Serguei is Stealth Audio's founder & cable designer }--- IC wires with IC wires that cost about 50X less? Well I'd respond to that by stating; " A person like Brad, who's committed towards being truthful about what he's heard. " You'd have to understand at first I didn't even want to try using the $200/pr. Huffman SRC II ICs but, after much cajoling by my friend, I was finally convinced to try the SRC II when he said; " Wouldn't it be a hoot if those inexpensive SRC II ICs actually happened to have better system synergy than your $10K ICs and sounded better? }--- Well a hoot was exactly what it was, because in my particular case, when used in my system between the Goldenote & Mastersound the SRC II actually did have better system synergy! Does that mean the SRC II ICs are better than the Sakras? HELL NO! I'd wager that 99.999999999% of the time the Stealth Sakras would blow those SRC II ICs away. It just happened I was that .000000001% of the time when they Sakras didn't.
I learned a lot when assembling my present system. System synergy is very important when attempting to obtain a component's best performance or sound. I know this because in the end I also replaced the $11.5K Dream speaker wires with $600 Rispoli custom-made speaker wires and my $1.8K Fostex FE208ES-R fullrange drivers with $256/pr. Dayton PS220-8 fullrange drivers! I'd be willing to wager some serious cash that the Stealth Sakras and Stealth Dreams would embarrass the Huffman and Rispoli wires in most systems about 99.999999999% of the time! To be completely honest, to this day I'm still completely amazed at what happened. I can honestly say I've taken the Sakras to other people's homes where we replaced the owners ICs with the Sakras. Most times there was a very noticeable sonic improvement, but one time the improvement the Sakra's made was so great it almost like someone took a sheet off of the person's speakers! And while I won't state the specific make & model, I'll tell you those ICs the Sakras bested sonically were also VERY expensive. So yes RGA I fully understand your feelings about using the LAMM ---{ and all other components for that matter }--- with components that complements the other component's sonic pluses & minuses. My one caveat would be "if" an audio component only works with a very few other audio component's, I'd consider that audio component flawed and not worth a recommendation!
I needed to post all that RGA so you'd realize I have a decent handle on the knowledge of a component's needing to be used with other components that will coax the best sound from it! Now getting back to my comment about Brad. I had this caveat attached to my response; "I'd give his listening skills more credence ---{ provided his change of opinion mirrors mine if & when I hear the component }---..." Plus my post wasn't so much about what Brad heard as it was about:
1) his being honest about what he heard.
2) his integrity for truthfully admitting:
---a) he may have been mistaken in his initial impression of a component's sound.---b) he must now changed what his recommendation about this component's sound, because of a.
3) his willingness to endure the negative comments some people might now begin making publically in audio forums such as A.A, about his listening & reviewing capabilities, because he changed his initial listening impression.This is a trait of a person with integrity and I admire integrity in everyone I see it. Sadly these days it's a trait that's lacking in too many people. I believe most audiophile/music lovers are smart enough to know that the LAMM would need to be heard in more than one system before they make a final decision about it's sound quality. So as you can see RGA I completely agree with your method of hearing a component in at least three different systems before judging a component's sound. Now although Brad didn't mention it, I have a feeling this wasn't the first or only other system Brad's heard the LAMM sound less than stellar in. I'd like to believe it was only after finally hearing this last combination he decided to publically change his opinion! Maybe Brad will clarify or further expound on why he finally changed his recommendation of the LAMM? After all I might just be mistaken...
I'm listening to: Sticks & Stones by Ray Obiedo
Thetubeguy1954 (Tom Scata)
Central Florida Audio Society -- SETriodes Group -- Space Coast Audio Society
Full-range/Wide-range Drivers --- Front & Back-Loaded Horns --- High Sensitivity Speakers
Edits: 12/02/14 10/28/15 10/28/15
I guess there is always the possibility that his LAMMs were actually not functioning correctly...I guess...
There is always the possibility that you weren't functioning correctly as well....
try it! you know you want to!
Excellent over-view Tom. Sometimes, it is hard to expalin/imagine system synergy. You nailed it down, my Audiophile friend.
Morricab had a lot of experiences with LAMM, - and has piled up some other experiences, with other gear that made him question those....Perhaps if any of us had those experiences, we would come to the same conclusions.
It's a big stretch to extrapolate some sort of dishonesty from 1 person's change of opinion based on new evidence.
Cheers,
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Edits: 12/02/14
Nothing to say about Cab's opinion on Lamm, its his opinion , I'm questioning his rotational science to justify his conclusion , in actuality I' m in agreement with him and a bit further by saying Duh!
Very Obvious why Lamm would not work on those particular speakers and why Cab would and or could verify his negative evaluations ..
When one tries to push their opinion into some sort of universalizable objective fact, - is when one goes wrong.
Personally, - I've never heard a pair of LAMM mono-blocks sound anything but wonderful, - but I've only heard them with speakers that I love.
Isolating out a particular amplifier, out of context, is a recipe for disaster.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Especially if sitting 1M away from them ....:)
"What does LAMM use as their reference speakers?" Who cares? Based on what I have heard from Mr. Lamm it seems he designs the amps without any particular voicing to speakers but to his own supposed listening models. His amp is capable of driving all speakers easily.
"When judging a specific component I want to hear the specific component at least 3 times with three different systems attached in three different (appropriate) rooms.
"
Spare me your dogma, ok? I have A LOT of experience with Apogees (three different models...does that count...all with different load and sensitivity characteristics) and now these Thiels as well and we have heard A LOT of different amps on these speakers (well over a dozen between all the friends). Two of the three Apogee models are relatively easy to drive (Studio Grand is an easy 5 ohm load with 87db sensitivity and the Centaur Major is simliar...only the Scintialla is a hard to drive 1 ohm but the LAMM can do so easily). Thiels should pose no matching problems for an amp that can easily drive Scintillas.
The point is that all of these speakers in question are super revealing and have allowed us to clearly identify what the electronics are doing in the system. The LAMM in this context is a let down and therefore I expect it will be likewise in other systems...the underlying characteristics didn't change depending on the system from what I heard.
The lamm is not suitable for Apogee's and the 3.7, obvious if you take a look at it's lack of current drive, which makes your comments only suitable for similar type speakers. As you i loathe dinky toy amps, so this amp would not be on my list , but i/we have to also acknowledge there are quite a few enjoying their Lamm's....Regards...
Edits: 12/02/14
Apogees that are flat 5 ohms are NOT a difficult load. Thiels while more difficult are not REALLY difficult loads. LAMM is able to almost double its power from 4 ohm to 2 ohm, indicating more than sufficient current to drive the relatively sensitive Thiels.
Please show me where it demonstrates a lack of current drive. The power being the same at 8 ohm and 4 ohm is BY DESIGN in that the power supply is optimized for each load depending on its settings. JA only tested the 8 ohm load in the 6 - 8 ohm setting and only tested 4 and 2 ohms in the 1 - 6 ohm settings. So, looking at the two impedances tested in the 1 -6 ohm settings we can clearly see that there is sufficient current capability to nearly double the power from 4 to 2 ohms. Where is the lack of current drive??!!??
Also, did it occur to you that in 8 and 4 ohm at least this is CLASS A power and not AB?? This means the power supply is probably designed like a 400 watt Class AB amp.
You can take your crappy sounding "muscle" amps because I haven't heard one yet that makes real music. Not one. I had them in the past and my friends with Apogees and Thiels ALL went through their muscle amp phase (the guy with Thiels had McIntosh MC501 monos before...muscle enough for you?), Krell, Musical Fidelity KW750, etc. before realizing that this may play loud without strain but it doesn't SOUND good.
The LAMMS were bought specifically to drive 1 ohm Scintillas because they have a power supply that can take it and delivers even MORE power into 1 ohm than into 2 ohms (no longer in Class A of course down there). Lack of current capability??? You must be mad!
Cab,Horse , course , et al ...
Per Stereophile:
The CS3.7's impedance remains between 2 and 3 ohms over much of the audioband (fig.1), and that there is a demanding combination of 3.8 ohms and –40° capacitive phase angle at 60Hz. Thiel specifies the impedance being nominally 4 ohms, with a minimum of 2.8 ohms. I actually found the minimum impedance to be 2.4 ohms at 125Hz. The difference between 2.8 and 2.4 ohms is academic, either mandating use of an amplifier that has no problem delivering high currents.
So an amplfier would need to be stable and deliver sufficient current with good distortion numbers into 1 ohm.
The Lamm is not a high current amplfier , so wrong amp for apogee's or 3,7's...
Lamm 1.1 test :
The M1.1's 1kHz, THD+N vs output power curves are shown in fig.7. The distortion curve has features reminiscent of both tube and solid-state amplifiers. While the knee of the curve is relatively well-defined, there's a gentle but noticeable rise in the THD+N levels from 1W to 100W output. In this figure, it's clear that, with the impedance switch set to the most appropriate setting, the M1.1 puts out almost identical power into both 4 and 8 ohms. The M1.1's discrete clipping powers (at 1% THD+N) were 140W into 8 ohms (21.5dBW) (115V line); 138W into 4 ohms (18.4dBW) (114V line); and 230W into 2 ohms (17.6dBW) (115V line). Leaving the switch at the 1–6 ohm setting with an 8 ohm load, however, gives the result shown in fig.8—clearly a higher power output.
So with 3.7 switch should be in the 1-6 ohm load position and even then , there is not sufficient current for this speaker, this is the "lack of life" and stress you maybe experiencing ...
Regards ...
Edits: 12/01/14
What you are saying is all nice but not really true. THe LAMM has more than enough current grunt to drive Apogee Scintillas so the Thiel is not really a huge challenge. Your explanation for "lack of life" also doesn't hold water because one of the very best sounding amps we have heard on the Thiels was the VAC 30/30, which I am sure would not meet your definition of sufficient drive for the Thiel. Also, my friend's standard amps, Octave MRE 280 monoblocks, would also not deliver the same amount of current as the LAMMs into the Thiels more diffcult load and yet it sounds significantly better.
Also, up until clipping the KR VA350i also drove the Thiels beautifully.
Given that the LAMMs in this case were purchased SPECIFICALLY to drive 1 ohm Scintillas and do so without complaint and without clipping in a largish room to highish volumes (when set to the 1-6 ohm setting) I am not quite sure how you arrived at the conclusion (they make 230watts into 2 ohms...hardly wimpy). Given that the Thiel is 90db or so per watt it doesn't take a lot of power to get pretty loud. If 230 watts into 2 ohms, which in my book is indication of sufficient current from this amp, is not sufficient to drive a 90+db speaker to loud levels in a moderate sized room then please educate me with some math on how much power I should need??
Nevermind I will do it for you.
Let's say the Thiel is 90db watt but it is 4 ohm so it takes actually 2 watts to reach that volume. Now add a second speaker and give us 3db more for that and then subtract about 3 db for losses to the listening position (it is less than the square of the distance because of reflections) and we get 90db for 2 watts at the listenign position of about 3 to 3.5 meters away (already pretty loud).
90db 2 watts
93db 4 watts
96db 8 watts
99db 16 watts
102db 32 watts
105db 64 watts
108db 128 watts
So, we see that we should be able to get well over 100db at the listening position from this amp...too loud to listen to for a long time. Even with compression setting in we would be well over 100db with the power available. Also, give that the power, while not doubling into 2 ohms, is still 230 watts, indicating plenty of current drive from the amp.
As for the other Apogees we were using, the Studio Grand is a nice and easy 5 ohm load with about 87db/watt sensitivity and the Centaur Major is something similar. You can tell me that an amp of the LAMMs capabilities cannot drive these speakers successfully?? You must be joking I think. We have driven them with a number of tube amps as well as lesser SS amps (and more beastly ones too) and never encountered an amp that "could not drive" these more modest load Apogees.
That would all be true if the speaker in question were a Resistor.
The fact that the Thiel is a fairly reactive load cuts DELIVERED power. At the Cosine of the phase angle between voltage and current.
Too much is never enough
Are you nuts picture guy, who's going to explain that to them ... :)
Yes, I'm nuts. Does that make the truth easier to take?Didn't think so.
The short of it.
Speakers are NOT resistive, as a general rule. They range from slightly capactive or inductive to fairly large extremes of 'reactance'. Large phase angles at the same place as large impedance dips are deadly to any but the more robust amp designs.
Power amps with the SAME RMS power, as measured into a resistor, vary WIDELY in their ability to drive reactive loads. The greater the difference between voltage and current peaks, the WORSE it is.
When voltage and current are 90 degrees apart, NO power is delivered to the load. I've never even heard of this in a loudspeaker. I don't think this is possible in a sound transducer.
What we're talking about here is called 'Power Factor'. Here is the WIKI link which will explain it in general terms. Europe, for example has strict rules on power factor, especially for all those millions of wall warts powering or charging cellphones to lap tops. If you owned a factory, you could be charged a PREMIUM on your electric bill for large power factor usage. You USE VA but get billed for WATTS. Same on your stereo. Speakers use VA, but the amp produces Watts, which are basically from a resistive measure.
PF=1 is pure resistive.
Too much is never enough
Edits: 12/03/14
He said the Vac 30/CH sounded better so power factor doesn't seem to be the issue then right? I get it about measurements in to a purely resistive load too.
E
T
Edits: 12/05/14 12/05/14
You've got a point. And, at THIS point, I'll bow out. I have no idea why the amp in question didn't sound rite. I think the 'voicing with particular speakers' arguement may be a red herring, since all speakers, even within a manufacturers line are subtly or greatly different. Which speaker do you pick as your 'reference' for your new amp? A bewildering choice.
PF was a suggestion, but I'm not 'married' to it. Maybe someone has the right idea?
Too much is never enough
To be honest I am a bit mystified by it as well. IMO, the amps have plenty of grunt, Mr. A.Wayne's objections notwithstanding, and the measurements reveal that they have some highly desirable characteristics such as low feedback, flat distortion vs. frequency, a benign harmonic distortion pattern and IMD pattern is not particularly nasty.
However, I had a similar experience with the Einstein "The Absolute Tune" that I once owned. It had measurements not so dissimilar to the LAMM but with significantly less power. It did not sound bad, but it was disappointing overall in terms of dynamics and tone. Clearly I have more work to do on my metrics for good sound :), although to be fair, once I really ran the numbers it did not fair all that well against amps like the Wyetech Topaz...on paper and now I am quite sure in real life it would get stomped by the Wyetech.
Lamm ,Notice curve and power outputs 8,4,2... Distortion lowers with a sweet spot between 1-10watts. If Mr Cab measured while listening he will find the amp sweet spot is about here, the transition after the knee is the same up to a 100 watts,( @ .1% thd the power is the same in all impedance's) before the last big swing towards 1% thd.
Cab listen again , keep the Lamm below 30 watts on a high sensitivity speaker and report ...
regards
Edits: 12/05/14 12/05/14 12/05/14 12/05/14
Cab listen again , keep the Lamm below 30 watts on a high sensitivity speaker and report ..."
You still don't get it, do you?? MOST of the listening was well below 30 watts. Only peaks would be higher than this...even with the Apogees.
You know this because you measured right , get a clue Cab , if all you have is , continuos conjecture and dogma then no one will take you serious, well i wont .
Merry xmas
I know this because I know how loud we listen and how much power that takes...we do measure SPL levels and this is then easy to calculate power to a reasonable accuracy.
You are one of those guys who justifies needing 1000 watts becuase for 5ms there is a peak in a recording when the other 99.999% of the recording uses a watt of power or less for a normal listening level.
Cab,
Did you level match when comparing , what did you compare the Lamm to on the scinnies ? Best to measure listening voltage , this would really give us something to use along with your opinion , seeing we are not there to hear for ourselves..
Regards ...
In these cases I did not level match. However, if you read my old reviews on preamps I was level matching to within 0.5db.
Do YOU do everything you are recommending? I seriously doubt it. I think hypocrisy would be the key word here. We were listening for pleasure not trying to dissect the amp.
I really don't care if you use my opinion or not...you don't seem to get that. I KNOW how to make measurements (see my review on the Piega C2 ltd. as an example in Positive Feedback). I know how to measure the SPL level I listen at and I know how that translates to power.
So, when I tell you we were rarely above 30watts I know what I am talking about.
In the end, all you can do is listen for yourself. I merely stated I will take it off MY list of desirable amps...YMMV.
Cab ,Im not saying you are Full , i don't have to , you're doing a good job of it, unfortunately for you i have experience working with scinnies , ribbons in general and loudspeakers on a whole ( past design work ) , here's Audio Mag take on the scinnies, mirrors mine..
"However, this gorgeous sound comes at a price. Presented with the Scintilla's 1-ohm load, distinctly outside manufacturers' ratings, a number of fine amps took on unpredictable sonic characteristics. Greenhill's reference Levinson ML-9 stereo amplifier which usually plays with a neutral midrange and a big, dynamic bass-became sweeter, tube-like, and mellow (not unwelcome, by the way!) until its current limiting cut in (at clipping) with a spray of static. The dual-mono Tandberg 3009As, which Greenhill had found to be fast, detailed amps with etched highs, took on a bass emphasis and acquired a stronger midrange presence. Both amps can deliver more than 400 watts into 4 ohms, and Tandberg claims more than 800 watts output at 1 ohm. But neither could drive the Scintillas on peaks to more than 88 dB (at 1 meter) in Kachalsky's normally upholstered living room.
The speakers were then reconfigured to a 4-ohm load. Seven color-coded wires were repositioned on the rear of the speaker terminals and on a separate terminal strip within the enclosure. This 30-minute procedure must be done carefully for each speaker, since the hardware can easily slip down into the nylon sock that covers the rear of the enclosure. It also helps to have good color vision (both authors are colorblind, so we acknowledge the help of Mrs. Kachalsky) to place the purple, green, and gray wires on the correct terminals. At 4 ohms, the authors heard no sonic aberrations in the amplifiers, but the Scintillas lacked the ultimate naturalness, air, openness, and midrange clarity heard with the 1ohm configuration. You won't realize this unless you have heard them driven at the lower impedance setting.
We preferred the very expensive Krell mono KMA-100 ($4,900/pair) and 200watt KMA-200 ($7,500/pair) amplifiers for driving the Scintillas. We used them in a bi-amplified fashion (a pair of KMA-100s for midrange and tweeter, a pair of KMA-200s for the woofers), which produced the widest dynamic range. At 1 ohm, the KMA-100 is claimed to deliver 800 watts per channel and the KMA-200 puts out 1,600 watts per channel. A single pair of Krells were "bi-wired" (two speaker cables connected to each amplifier output terminal) to each Scintilla's double set of speaker posts: SPL measurements showed Scintilla output peaks of 94 dB (KMA-100s) and 98 dB (KMA-200s) at audible clipping. No change in tonal character or sudden presence effects were heard at 1 ohm-just sweet, open, detailed sound. Dan D'Agostino, the Krells' designer, uses the Apogees as a test load. The Class� Audio DR-3 amp also performs beautifully at the low-impedance setting."
-Audio 1985
So i will iterate , the Lamm is not the amp for that job there is no way to listen to scinnies or any low sensitivity low -z ribbon with less than 400-800 watts /ch, to do so will net a lame soft sound , devoid of dynamics and realism of size. To do with 30 watts would mean a listening level din of 72- 74db with dynamic peaks not exceeding 10db, far below the levels necessary for realism of sound ..Since you did not measure nor able to say more than this amp is off "my list" i would have to assume you have an agenda , sadly audio today is cluttered with nothing more than opinionated rags and "reviewers "
Regards
Edits: 12/08/14 12/08/14
"M1.2's output varies with output power with the Hi-Z bias setting into loads varying from 2 to 16 ohms. The amplifier comfortably exceeds its rated output power, giving out 180W into 8 ohms (22.6dBW), 305W into 4 ohms (21.8dBW), and 490W into 2 ohms (20.9dBW), all at 1% THD."
Now, on what planet is that an incapable amplifier? The M1.1 gives similiar numbers but was not tested in the same way as the M1.2 (TJN only tested the low impedance on the low impedance settings). Therefore, I give you the M1.2 numbers.
"For comparison, fig.5 shows what happens with Lo-Z output-stage biasing: the maximum output power is almost halved, but the signal benefits from significantly lower distortion into low impedances. "
Yes, power is halved but the amount of Class A into the lower loads is increased. STill it delivers over 200 watts into 2 ohms. What isn't tested is power at 1 ohm but LAMM itself states that in the LowZ mode it will produce 400watts into 1 ohm...more than enough to give Scintillas a kick. Given that a Krell KMA 100 can generate 94db and also makes around 400 watts into 1 ohm I would says that the LAMM can do similar.
Regardless, the sound from the Thiels, a MUCH easier drive than Scintillas and much higher sensitivity also did not sound as good as expected...when I said not more than 30 watts I was referring to Thiels, not Scintillas...I know you like to forget but I will remind you one last time I am talking about FOUR different loudspeakers...not just Scintillas.
"My B-weighted estimate on its tweeter axis, assessed with DRA Labs' MLSSA system, was slightly above that figure, at 90.7dB(B)/2.83V/m."
So they are 90db/3 ohm speakers:
Let's say it takes 2.5 watts to make 90db from ONE speaker...two = 93db. Drop in room of about the same gives 90db at the listening position for 2.5 watts:
90db = 2.5 watts
93db = 5 watts
96db = 10 watts
99db = 20 watts
102db = 40 watts
Now, I can tell you for certain that we were not listening with peaks above 99db...this is too loud for my comfort. Average levels were in the low to mid 80s with peaks in the mid-90s, therefore, I can state that we were almost certainly using less than 30 watts.
So, to reiterate, there is plenty of Juice from the LAMMS and stereophile's measurements bear that out for all kinds of speakers...IMO it just doesn't sound as good as one would hope for that kind of money. If you think it does then more power to you.
"i would have to assume you have an agenda "
Based on what deduction have your reached this odd conclusion?? That I didn't like the sound of the amp? Is that now grounds for "agendas"?? Seriously??
In case you haven't noticed, rags are not big on negative comments like I have given...so your point is simply wrong.
Mr Morricab wrote:"B-weighted estimate on its tweeter axis, assessed with DRA Labs' MLSSA system, was slightly above that figure, at 90.7dB(B)/2.83V/m."
So they are 90db/3 ohm speakers:
Let's say it takes 2.5 watts to make 90db from ONE speaker...two = 93db. Drop in room of about the same gives 90db at the listening position for 2.5 watts:
90db = 2.5 watts
93db = 5 watts
96db = 10 watts
99db = 20 watts
102db = 40 watts"
Mr Cab are you sure you are a scientist or an Attorney ..? you only lose 3 DB at 3-4 M listening distance? you should check out the 3.7's impedance phase angles too and to answer your other point, you were the one who brought up scinnies, by stating this was a high current amp bought for scinnies.
Regards
Edits: 12/09/14 12/09/14 12/09/14
Cab,
You are entitled to your own opinion , not your own science...
"The dual-mono Tandberg 3009As, which Greenhill had found to be fast, detailed amps with etched highs, took on a bass emphasis and acquired a stronger midrange presence. Both amps can deliver more than 400 watts into 4 ohms, and Tandberg claims more than 800 watts output at 1 ohm. But neither could drive the Scintillas on peaks to more than 88 dB (at 1 meter) in Kachalsky's normally upholstered living room."
MEASURED:
So 800 watts peak at 1 ohm netted 88db (measured @1M) and you estimate what ? As to your other conjecture of the where lamm 1.1 would put out 400 + watts at 1 ohm is also absurd, I had gone to the trouble to post up it's thd vs power output and at anything above 100 watts it's distortion takes off , same for 8,4,2. I'm sorry Cab, you may not be as scientific as you project, Give us your opinion, I'm usually in agreement, but until you improve on your methodology, stay away from such absurd statements as fact.
My take ? if you have ribbons or hard to drive heavy current demanding speakers, stay away from Lamm 1.1 . Acceptable to me after viewing the 1.1 test results ...
Regards..
And I have seen much higher outputs mentioned in other reviews for more modest 1 ohm outputs. Seriously, something is off with the numbers you have presented. 88db with 800watts??? Surely you're joking Mr. A.Wayne.
Either their Scintillas were broken or the Tandberg amps make nowhere near the claimed 800 watts into 1 ohm...wouldn't be the first time someone lied about their output.
800 watts and 88db implies sensitivity below 70db and that is simply not the facts.
79 = 1 watt (1 ohm)
82 = 2 watts
85 = 4 watts
88 = 8 watts
so 8 watts not 800 watts!
Mr Morricab,
Read again , slowly, that was an actually test done by a mag reviewer , not some opinionated peristalsis from a golden Ear wanton... :)
Sensitivity below 74 db is believable , you should measure Cab and stop trying to bluff your way thru everything. I'm solidly of the opinion, you were never really exposed to SOTA level hi-fi based on your Comments or do you think everyone powering these things with mega watts were just insane , including Jason Bloom.
8 watts .. LOL , 2,83v on a scinnie is 8 watts, go measure ....
Regards
In 1ohm mode, the conventionally rated voltage sensitivity (referred to 2.83V input, an 8ohm 'watt') will increase by 6dB, bringing the apparent in-room sensitivity to 85dB/W. Given sufficient current, this would explain why the Krells could attain such high sound levels with the Scintillas. In a medium-sized (80m3) room, peak levels of 103-105dBA will be possible from a stereo pair, this a decently high level if not quite of disco intensity. Driven to this level, they could be clearly heard all over the house, even with the intervening doors closed.
This is from Martin Colloms in Hifi News in 1985.
Krell KSA-100 is the obvious choice, capable of driving the Scintilla to majestic levels in 1 ohm mode. In truth, one would need to go no further.
Also from the same review. Now the KSA100 makes 800 watts into 1 ohm or about double what the Lamms can do. That is only 3db less so it means that the Lamms can do around 100db before clipping.
Clearly the Tandbergs were not up to what they claimed.
I would also like to address your theoretical 3 db ,less say for discussion sakes you are running around 20 watts for your avg din of 84 db from listening position, a dynamic peak of 15 db will require 640 watts, clearly exceeding the 400 @3%thd clipping out of your Lamm 1.1 . Less say your super scinnies only need 10 watts to achieve 84db from your listening position, then you will still require 320 watts to reproduce the same dynamic peak , at which time the Lamm is producing above 2% thd and clipping, hence my point.
So less say you like to listen at even lower levels and size and drop your avg din to 81 db max then you will require 160 watts of power to reproduced sustained peak of 15 db , at which time your lamm would be putting out 170 watts at approx 1% thd @ 1 ohm( clipping ). Hence my point , you dislike the sound of the lamm over driven ..
Note: that anything above 100 watts is after the knee and thd is a straight line up ..SO ,
You are dynamic limited with this amplfier , IMO, it's best suited for 4 ohm and above speakers in the 88db/w/m and above range..
Regards,
Edits: 12/17/14
" The M1.1's discrete clipping powers (at 1% THD+N) were 140W into 8 ohms (21.5dBW) (115V line); 138W into 4 ohms (18.4dBW) (114V line); and 230W into 2 ohms (17.6dBW) (115V line). "
The Lamm puts out 230 watts into 2 ohms at 1% and around 400 into 1 ohm.
That is in the low impedance mode.
The M1.2 was more thoroughly tested in the high impedance mode and records the following:
" Fig.4 shows how the THD+noise percentage present in the M1.2's output varies with output power with the Hi-Z bias setting into loads varying from 2 to 16 ohms. The amplifier comfortably exceeds its rated output power, giving out 180W into 8 ohms (22.6dBW), 305W into 4 ohms (21.8dBW), and 490W into 2 ohms (20.9dBW), all at 1% THD. "
So, in the high Z setting it makes nearly 500 watts into 2 ohms and half that at the low Z mode (so about the same as the M1.1) and doubles again into 1 ohm.
That is a LOT more power than you are claiming. Not 5%, not 3% but 1% THD.
"The M1.2 Reference is conservatively rated to deliver 110 Watts into 8 and 4 Ohms in pure class A operation (high and low impedance settings, respectively); 220 Watts into 2 Ohms, and 400 Watts into 1 Ohm (low impedance setting), continuous."
Since LAMMs specs were accurate at 4 and 2 ohms, I don't doubt that they are correct about their 1 ohm output (in lowZ mode). One may also safely assume that LAMM rates these at 1% THD...just like Stereophile confirms.
So, your numbers are simply out to lunch.
Speaking of lunch , I will place the test results in your lunch box , who knows .........
WHatever floats your boat A.Wayne.
BTW you never did address the fact that I reached my conclusions about the Lamms not on the Scintillas but on the Thiel CS3.7...a 90+db speaker with a minimum of 2 ohms impedance. Surely you won't tell me that the Lamms are inadequate to drive this speaker too? You look pretty silly already with your inability to read stereophile's test report on the Lamms. The fact that the same issues popped up not on one, not on two but on three different speaker systems is a fact that you have conveniently ignored in your zeal to prove me wrong about the Lamms being able to drive Scintillas just fine (a failed attempt at that).
You look silly without my input Morri, you're pretty good :) and i only addressed your high current low - z rating for the Lamm 1.1 on scinnies , thats what mostly got me started in the discussion , i guess the Thiel's are now your new strawman argument ....
Take a look at the thiels impedance phase, see anything .... ?
Regards..
Read the original post...I make it clear that I am taking them off my list because of how they sounded AFTER hearing them on Thiel CS3.7s...so much for your reading comprehension.
You do know how to entertain Morri, here's hoping you finally get to hear a good system in 2015, not good having the same bad experience every year.
So get well soon and all the best ....
Regards,
Edits: 12/20/14 12/20/14
Fortunately I get to hear a good one nearly every evening...mine.
Morri, best to focus on you Class-D shoot out , maybe toobs will be off your list next ......
Edits: 12/21/14
Mr Cab,Again more conjecture, look at the distortion vs power for the Lamms, the Lamms do 100 watts into 2 ohm before distortion (look at the Knee @ 100watts , where distortion takes off) takes off into clipping, it will be at best the same into 1 ohm. 100 watt Cabbie , your theoretical 400 watts would be approx 3% THD @ 1 ohm. Anyway you should measure, very easy , use any test cd and a meter or a scope and measure 2.83 volt out of the lamm's, then measure with a Db meter at listening position , see , easy !
Look at that ...
Cabbie, you are running the lamm into clipping and you hate how it sounds , not like your toooby stuff where the distortion is Noooice when that happens.... :)100 watts on a scinnie is ok for very moderate none dynamic listening, no one is running scinnies with 100 watts/ch , well no one serious about hi-fi reproduction, so thanks for the info , Lamm 1.1 is bad at below 4 ohms, the measurements tell me that and i concur with you .
Regards..
Edits: 12/17/14 12/17/14 12/17/14 12/17/14 12/17/14 12/17/14
Mr Morricab,
Read again , slowly, that was an actually test done by a mag reviewer , not some opinionated peristalsis from a golden Ear wanton... :)
Sensitivity below 74 db is believable , you should measure Cab and stop trying to bluff your way thru everything. I'm solidly of the opinion, you were never really exposed to SOTA level hi-fi based on your Comments or do you think everyone powering these things with mega watts were just insane , including Jason Bloom.
8 watts .. LOL , 2,82v on a scinnie is 8 watts, go measure ....
Regards
of pontificating which amps are "good" and which aren't. Always ready to dispense your dogma concerning negative feedback, class d, ad nauseam. The consistency with which you jump in with your opinions, which are usually put forth with an air of absolute truth, belies your "I really don't care if you use my opinion or not". Seems you care quite a bit; why else keep a "list"? I wonder how large the readership is?
"In the end, all you can do is listen for yourself" is the most accurate thing I have seen you post to date. Perhaps you might take your own words to heart in the future...
try it! you know you want to!
Your views are always appreciated and are among the first I look for here.
Keep it up!
Its so funny when people like you throw around words like "dogma" and don't even really understand what that means. Dogma is defined as the following:
"1.An authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true regardless of evidence, or without evidence to support it. "
or
"2.A doctrine (or set of doctrines) relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth authoritatively by a religious organization or leader. "
Now assuming you meant number 1, I would say that while I think I have done my research and based on my listening obsreavations have found correlation with different types of amp designs. These designs have been found to generate distortion in such a way that a number of studies would say that most listeners would prefer over the standard design orthodoxy. So, there is evidence to support my point of view and it is both observational and scietifically generated evidence.
Take papers by Cheever, Geddes and others as a basis for figuring out what kind of distortion sound better than others (there is no "good" distortion just more or less audible) and some attempts to numerically catagorize it (Shorter, Geddes, Cheever and others) and I have indeed come up with a list based on available measurements and amps that I have heard first hand. Keith Howard also found interesting things when he added distortion mathematically to music. He found undistorted sounded best; however, he found that the patterns that people like Jean Hiraga found the most pleasing were the least damaging to the recording. So, while no distortion is benign there is less damaging and more damaging.
Declaring which amps I have found to sound good and those I have not is not pontification, nor is it dogma...it is observational science (the foundation of all science is observation and then research into that observation). I am a scientist, more specifically, I am an analytical scientist...I make measurements and devise testing schemes for a living. Starting many years ago, I started listening to as many amps and preamps as possible and started to realise that I was leaning in a particular direction because of the sound I heard and how it compared to my experiences with live, unamplified music. I started to form a hypothesis about what constitutes good sound and started then to find research that has been done to support that hypothesis. I have found a number of papers that support what I am hearing but it is far from perfect science. That much is clear.
For amps I haven't heard I think at this point I can tell from the data if they COULD be interesting or not. Until I hear them for real it is not a fact only a possibility. The LAMMS on paper should be a possibilty but in practice I found that something bothered me about the sound.
In the end, I am sharing my findings, which you are free to accept or refuse but unlike most people I have a clear methodology for finding really good gear. If you think that is dogma then you are mistaken in your use of the word.
If you think my statement that I find Class D to not be good sounding as being dogmatic, well you are wrong again because I have owned three different types of Class D amps and tried many many others. I don't give up after the first listen. It is based on the OBSERVATION that all of the Class D amps I have heard don't deliver really good sound. Not at home, not in shops, not at shows, not at friend's...not!
We had the Devialet (original) in-house (widely considered to be the best Class D) and it was soundly beaten by other amps of more conventional design.
I have heard more Class AB SS amps than I can possibly remember, including flavors of the year, Halcro, Soulution, darTZeel, Vitus (not bad actually), Pass etc. etc. on many many different speaker systems... they have problems like one would expect if you read Cheever and others. Sonically they are missing realism.
I am always open to the POSSIBILITY that one of these Class D or Class AB with a lot of negative feedback will be the ONE, otherwise I wouldn't bother to even try them out anymore...that would be dogmatic...like DISBELIEVER and his views about tubes on this forum. I try them, they fail based on my observations. Based on this repretitiveness of experience my hypothesis mostly holds true. I have yet to hear a pure SS amp that I could live with for the long term. The closest was the Edge NL reference monoblocks but I didn't try to live with them so I don't know how they would fare.
When I say, "I don't care", I really mean it because I don't need your validation for me to decide if I am heading in the right direction or not...my ears and my scientific knowledge tell me that I am. I like to share what I find and I like to debate those who don't agree with me but usually they are like you who haven't a clue and can't offer anything meaningful in way of counter argument. I also don't care about my "readership", maybe I have some maybe not. People do drop me emails from time to time...
Obviously everyone has to listen for themselves...I won't spend your money for you but I am happy to guide those who I am quite sure want a better sound than they have. It is a never ending learning process for me as well but I am largely self-directed (although I have had my mentors along the way as well.) I ONLY decide to buy something based on what I have heard and not on other's opinions...so I take my own words to heart everytime. Only a very few items I have bought without hearing first stayed in my system for long.
what exactly "better sound" is and why do you think you are qualified to determine for others exactly what that is? What's next? Are you going to tell me what food I should like? Which beer is "best"?This is the issue I have with your ilk- you "know" what is "best" because you have "heard" it. The simple fact that there are many kinds of amp topologies, each with their proponents and detractors, should tell you something- that there is no "best". There is only personal preference. Yours is but one opinion in a sea of opinions. What is true for you is not true for everyone...So you have heard a boatload of amps. Your experience tells me nothing about them but rather everything about your subjective preferences.
In truth, your "observations" mean -0- when it comes to what others may like or dislike. You have made blanket statements here repeatedly about the "evils" of negative feedback, class d, etc. You have no evidence to support this, i.e., "dogma"- the simple fact is, there are intelligent, knowledgeable people who think you are full of it and their preference and ownership of amps that use large amounts of it are both evidence and proof to the contrary. Again, what is true for you is not true for everyone- all you offer up are subjective opinions which you like to tout as some universal truth based on "science". I don't need to read a paper on TIM or NF to know whether or not I like the sound of an audio system.
If you want to debate the objective performance, great. That is were science, fact, and logic apply. There is nothing scientifically significant in your observations; science, fact, logic, have nothing to do with personal preference; anyone that is married can verify that... You like to draw these grand conclusions and generalizations based on amp topologies and oversimplifications; you have heard THREE (3) class d amps and have made your pronouncement. Never mind there must be at least 20 or more discreet class d amp platforms on the market and an infinite number of system combinations possible- yes, some amps perform differently depending on the system they are used in...there is no universal correlation-see above.You state: "I like to debate those who don't agree with me but usually they are like you who haven't a clue and can't offer anything meaningful in way of counter argument"...You seem to have "opinion" and "argument" confused: an opinion does not necessarily have to be supportable or based on anything but one's own personal feelings. And this is ALL opinion...I think I am the best judge of my own tastes- you are the one without a clue in that regard. I wouldn't presume to debate the validity of your preferences with you. Your appeal to authority ("I have heard so many SS amps I lost count", etc. therefore I am an expert) is spurious.
And yes, def. 2 fits as well: you do seem to come across like a religious zealot or "authority", who has exclusive access to the one and only holy path to "better sound"...
I could care less what path you are on, much less if you are heading in the right direction, or not. It is nice to know that you only buy based on what you hear, not on other's opinions, yet one can't help but wonder why you would then presume to think that your opinions would mean more to others than what they hear...
Perhaps others are taken in by your "science" and impressed by the long list of amps you have heard. Maybe they also make purchasing decisions based on internet "expert"'s "truths". Too bad for them. I would like to hope that most have more common sense than to take someone else's word on what will sound "good" to them in their system.
try it! you know you want to!
Edits: 12/08/14 12/08/14 12/08/14 12/08/14
"what exactly "better sound" is and why do you think you are qualified to determine for others exactly what that is? What's next? Are you going to tell me what food I should like? Which beer is "best"? "
It's called psychoacoustics and in case you didn't know there are ways to find out what sounds most people like the best.
I haven't just heard it, I have been able to correlate it to a greater or lesser degree, with particular amplifier designs. It just so happens that these designs produce particular distortion patterns that are low in perceptible distortion not in absolute distortion. What I am telling you from my experience is that I find that there are scientific explaantions as to why some amps would be preferrable to others for the majority of listeners.
Objective performance based on an oscilloscope or FFT generator is meaningless in isolation. As an analytical scientist one is always trying to relate a measurement feature BACK to a real world phenomenon. This correlation is where the meaning lies not in the raw numbers. The problem is that engineers have for decades pursued numbers as the ends and not as the means to achieving good sound. They have misunderstood the purpose of measurements in their drive to achieve better numbers.
This was realized a long time ago by D.E.L. Shorter at the BBC and Norman Crowhurst who wrote about the problems that negative feedback causes in signal generation back in the 1950s. Otala later saw a problem with negative feedback loops and speaker interaction. I am not coming at this out of the fantasy blue sky. Other rather smart men laid the groundwork for this kind of thinking. Cheever put it together pretty nicely in his Master's Thesis.
The disconnect between what is heard and what is measured has also caused JA at Stereophile much consternation. When AD likes something a lot that measures rather poorly and MF gets caught that way too sometimes it makes JA wonder what is it that is going on. Geddes explored this in 2 AES papers and found that his new metric fit much better than THD + noise measurements, which if anything had a slight NEGATIVE correlation with sound quality!
"In truth, your "observations" mean -0- when it comes to what others may like or dislike. You have made blanket statements here repeatedly about the "evils" of negative feedback, class d, etc. You have no evidence to support this, i.e., "dogma"- the simple fact is, there are intelligent, knowledgeable people who think you are full of it and their preference and ownership of amps that use large amounts of it are both evidence and proof to the contrary"
I have given reference to evidence about these other technologies it is up to you to read and comprehend. Ownership of those other products is often based on other factors than sound quality...that is often the nature of human psychology.
I call it objective/subjective because while, yes it comes down to individual perception there are clear rules that govern what most of us perceive as "good sound" and they are related to how our ear/brain has evolved to understand soundwaves and harmonic patterns in nature. Screw with what nature produces and you run a high risk of an unpleasant sounding result. If you read Cheever, you will notice that it is also sound pressure level dependent and therefore the sensitivity and impedance of the speaker and how the amp reacts to that also matters.
This is objective, observational science and theory synthesized from studies to link the two. I may not have conducted these studies but I am trained and qualified to take their findings and extrapolate what it means with various types of amplifiers.
" you have heard THREE (3) class d amps and have made your pronouncement"
You have a SERIOUS reading comprehension problem. I said I OWNED 3 different Class D amps and have heard at length about a dozen others.
"Never mind there must be at least 20 or more discreet class d amp platforms"
Heard most of them, including the new N-core from Putseys. I have also heard at length exotica like the Sharp SX-200 and Tact Millenium (and their cheaper models too) as well as Lyngdorf, numerous B&O modules (Jeff Rowland, Bel Canto etc.), T-amps, Nuforce, Devialet, Hypex UcD (several DIY), N-core (mola mola), Zap pulse (my own), PS Audio (my own), other Sharp (my own) etc..
"I don't need to read a paper on TIM or NF to know whether or not I like the sound of an audio system."
And that is the problem. You, unlike me don't care WHY you prefer something. I go looking for the reason I like what I like and continually lean towards certain gear and away from other gear. As a scientist I am trained to investigate the root cause of an observation...you clearly are not trained to do this.
"Your appeal to authority ("I have heard so many SS amps I lost count", etc. therefore I am an expert) is spurious.
"
THis is NOT an appeal to authority. If I had said, "AD thinks all SS amps are crap so I they are crap" then THAT would be an appeal to authority (assuming we both agree AD is an authority on audio). I am giving my firsthand observation, something quite different.
"You seem to have "opinion" and "argument" confused: an opinion does not necessarily have to be supportable or based on anything but one's own personal feelings."
As I have said many times in the past (you obviously read only what you want to read and not the whole post), I have an observation and have found evidence to support what I am hearing (see comments above about research in psychoacoustics and distortion perception) and based on this information have synthesized a hypothesis about what I think should sound good and what I think would not sound good. I make arguments using research that some kinds of amps will be inherently less good sounding based on their designs and the subsequent distortions that those designs invariably produce.
"And yes, def. 2 fits as well: you do seem to come across like a religious zealot or "authority", who has exclusive access to the one and only holy path to "better sound"..."
No, as I have pointed out that I have used scientific observation along with documented research in the field of psychoacoustics...is it possible it is wrong? Probably not completely but I am sure it can be further tuned and improved. I have never appealed to any authority other than the research results from various sources but I let the data there speak.
"to think that your opinions would mean more to others than what they hear..."
People seem to like my advice once they try it...I have had numerous adopter of my system concepts, particularly electronics. Since that is a fact (I would be blind not to notice friends who copy my systems) then I have to assume I am offering some value from my advice. They take my word only as far as giving something a try...if it fits then they try to buy it if not...well then I guess what they hear differs from me.
"Perhaps others are taken in by your "science" "
I am sure you have no idea what is involved in practicing science so I will leave your comment as such. I have over 20 years as a practicing analytical scientist so I think I know a thing or two about scientific method and falsifiability of hypotheses.
Again, your science is flawed. Your "science" as to which topology is "best" may be accurate for you, and undoubtedly some others will agree, but not for all, probably not even for most. Each amp topology has its rabid supporters who will tell you their amp is the "best". Where a subjective factor is involved, there is no singular solution. If there was, there wouldn't be the plethora of products in the market. People can't even agree on whether or not cables, fuses, etc. have an effect, never mind which are "best". How many amps are on the market? 500? How many topologies and variations? Digital (NOS? Tube output? Which chip?)or vinyl? Surely if there was a "best", there wouldn't be as many options available nor would this question continue to be discussed. The simple reality is there is no consensus "best", only different. It is these differences in perception and taste that drive not only the audio market, but nearly every other consumer market.You consistently generalize and oversimplify: there is no one class a or class d topology but many. Lumping them all together is like saying a Honda is faster than a Chevy.
Amps make no sound. They transfer a signal with gain. Systems make sound. In light of the fact that an amp and its subsequent performance is dependent and subject to the system in which it is inserted, again, your theory fails.Personal preference is an individual choice with no right answer. Your pseudoscience falls short because unlike people's preferences, it is attempting to use logic and reason to analyze something that does not subscribe to the rules of logic and reason.
Even if MOST people agreed with your preferences, it does nothing to prove they are "right". Personal preferences are not subject to a democratic rule of the majority. Again, there is no right and wrong. Only different.
Best of luck with your delusion.
try it! you know you want to!
Edits: 12/09/14 12/09/14 12/09/14
For all intents and purposes, this is a 100 watt /ch amplfier and should be used accordingly, Mr Morricab dislikes the Lamm distortion/clipping characteristic.
Regards..
I explained why, your lack of understanding aside, your Dogma wont allow. Firstly i see we have /are talking past each other, for some reason i see your responses , then some only after answering , then noticed you already answered. Then i cant edit, then i cant find the post, then a day later it shows up.Pretty hard to have a conversation that way...
So i go again , the Lamm is really a 100 watt per channel amp , period, this is where it's best sonic merit will take place, it is also the point of lowest distortion, if you pay attn to it' distortion curve vs power.
Unfortunately Mr Cab, is not able to grasp this, the distortion rises pretty fast after the knee and in practical use, the sonic's of the amplfier, any and all amplfiers will change accordingly. From past measurements and observation , we have found that SS amps sound at their best when hovering around 33% of their rated 8 ohm output. If you look at the curves posted by Stereophile you will see the lowest point , then the curve starts to knee upward. This transition is where he will hear this sonic change. Now If Mr Cab , would actually measure his actual voltage in use with a meter or a scope he will see this for himself as he goes up and down with the volume.
250 watts@clipping is not enuff for a pr of scinnies to sound "alive" it will not happen , never heard that and i have measured and tested one, something Cab hasn't done and never will , well, only with conjecture.
The Bias /voltage Scheme used by Lamm is the issue IMO, you have to look at it's 8 ohm rating, you will see the tale and remember distortion goes up as you go thru Z-min, the Lamm is not what i would use on High current, Low-Z drive speakers, like 1 ohm apogee's.
So no I'm not surprised, Morricab is, put the Lamm on a 90db 8/4 ohm speaker and it will sound very different.
Regards..
Edits: 12/05/14
That's why I leaned toward inability to drive reactive loads? But the Apogee? Like its 2nd cousin, the Magnepan, a very benign load. Goodly current needs, but nothing a good amp should not be capable of.
But if the amp can't cut it with fair and reasonable loading, what's to be thought? I have ONE last bullet which just NOW occurs to me. Some manufacturers who make what I guess are called RICHLY biased A A/B amps might have trouble at the A-A/B transition? I wouldn't know a better way to put it or if you gave me a room full of cool test gear, exactly WHAT I'd be looking for as a measurable, but I'm just tossing that out? I'd LOVE to see how the Pass amp handles this transition.
Fini:
Too much is never enough
I think you misunderstand the point. I never said the LAMM had issues driving any of these speakers or that it sounded strained...it just didn't sound nearly as good as expected with some very different systems. Therefore, I take it off my list of recommendable amps.
I don't know how to ADD links to an existing post.
Here is a link to a test of a Beheringer amp by the Power Cube method. Not bad results, actually, when you consider the budget.
Scan down to the measurements section and check out the 'graphic'. That'll explain fairly well about amp power vs phase vs impedance……against output at 1% distortion.
Too much is never enough
Cab,Easy a scinnie is 79db @m with a drive of 2.85v so at 4 M listening distance its 73db with 8 watts , @91dB it will require approx 500 watts , per channel to achieve peaks of 95db stereo pr or more specifically 22.5 amp/ch unclipped .The lamm is not capable , so either you're listening very moderately in a small room or love distortion when listening . Also the Lamm produces its measley 250 watts at 1%thd ,other words, after the kneeing effect. Looking at the graphs published by sterophile this amp sonic sweet spot IMO is at 100 watts /ch and 8 ohm load ...
Edits: 12/02/14 12/02/14
THey produce 250 watts into 2 ohms, if we assume that they can approximately double into 1 ohm again then you are close to 500 watts into 1 ohm.
Second, your estimate is off for a real room the drop is less than you calculate...I know I have done the measurements with other dipole speakers of similar size to the Scintillas. Also, that is for only 1 speaker so you can add another at least 3db for a stereo pair. The real in-room sensitivity is probably more like 79db at 4 meters for a pair.
THis means that you can get close to 100db with a 500 watt amp.
With all due respect, I don't think you have any experience with Scintillas, whereas I have 3 different friends that own this speaker. One friend drives his in a pretty large room with a pair of Classè DR3 switched to monos (90 watts Class A). This plays plenty loud. The other friend uses a Sphinx Project 16, which is 100 watts Class A hybrid with switchable power suppply much like the LAMMs and it works great and plays plenty loud.
You can see this in reviews of the past as well.
Third: The other two Apogee models, Studio Grand and Centaur Major, are NOT the same as the Scintillas. They are moderate impedance 5 ohms and moderate senstivity 87db or so. The sound quality was basically the same with those speakers.
Fourth: The Thiel does not drop below 2 ohms and it is clear that the LAMM produces a fair amount of power into 2 ohms (yes, 250watts is PLENTY for domestic applications) and will drive the Thiels to well over 100db given their relatively high sensitivity. It is silly of you to state that the LAMMs have inadequate power and current for the Thiels.
Cab,
This is getting hilarious , the lamm current limits going from 8-4 , yet you have it doubling going from 2-1 ohm .....:) please Sir, spare me, please actually measure and at the typical listen distance necessary for a scinnie and Im sure i have a little more experience with apogees ( measured them) and speakers in general than yourself.
Typical listen distance is 2.5-3 M for proper integration , please measure with 2.85v drive at 1 ohm (8watt) then do your 100db calculations. Next slap a scope on the amp being used then report back how much clipping distortion sounds good to you .. I'm of the opinion , based on your comments , what you favor might just be the Clipping characteristics of these amplifiers...
Follow me now :
The LAMM , does not have strong current drive ,you dislike the sound of this amplifier because you are running past it's distortion sweet spot, go back and look at the test results ,compare its distortion at 8 and 2 ohm , see something , yes imagine that , measurements do say something ..
Regards
"the lamm current limits going from 8-4 ,"
No it doesn't, the measurements were made with two different amp settings...the impedance switch man, the impedance switch it affects the Class A output of the amp.
I did the calculations correctly prove me wrong.
Now, did you notice the doubling of power from 4 to 2 ohms??? How do you explaing that in the measurements if the amp is current limiting from 8 to 4 as you claim?? Not logical is it? It is simple to explain when you understand that the 8 and 4 ohms are optimized by the impedance switch to maintain Class A power delivery. Into 2 ohms it is nearly doubling and has probably slipped into Class AB.
"I'm of the opinion , based on your comments , what you favor might just be the Clipping characteristics of these amplifiers..."
And I'm of the opinion, based on your comments, that you haven't got a clue about good sound or what can drive what in reality...OR you listen VERY VERY LOUDLY (average 100db+). Honestly, no one likes the sound of clipping and it is stupid to suggest so.
"Follow me now :
The LAMM , does not have strong current drive ,you dislike the sound of this amplifier because you are running past it's distortion sweet spot, go back and look at the test results ,compare its distortion at 8 and 2 ohm , see something , yes imagine that , measurements do say something .. "
Nope, not buying one cent of your argument. Your assumption is based only on what I would consider very loud listening...I don't listen nearly as loud as it would take to stress this amp on ANY of the speakers mentioned...especially the relatively sensitive Thiels and the easy to drive Studio Grands.
No my good friend you are the one clueless when it comes to Hi-Fi and full of nothing but conjecture to boot. I do suggest finding someone to help you with your setup and testing before making these ridiculous statements and get some good amplification for those Apps. :)
Regards
Edits: 12/03/14
Personal attack is always the last resort of the loser in a debate.
You didn't and cannot address a single point I brought up but if you look at the M1.1s successor, the M1.2 it becomes more clear. That amp was tested more thoroughly with all the settings in Stereophile and showed prodigious power into 2 ohms in the high setting (something that wasn't tested by TJN previously). JA ran it more through its paces. Now you could say that the M1.2 is a different amp but only incrementally and the basics are the same.
From the LAMM website (the M1.1 is no longer listed there):
"The M1.2 Reference is conservatively rated to deliver 110 Watts into 8 and 4 Ohms in pure class A operation (high and low impedance settings, respectively); 220 Watts into 2 Ohms, and 400 Watts into 1 Ohm (low impedance setting), continuous. The M1.2 Reference can drive any known speaker. The harmonic structure remains intact regardless of the speaker load, while the extreme clarity is maintained at all power levels."
400 watts into 1 ohm!! Given that what they claim for 2 ohms in the low impedance setting is born out in STereophile's tests there is no reason to doubt the higher power into 1 ohm!!
Measurements in STerophile bear this out at least down to 2 ohms.
If 400 watts into 1 ohm is not sufficient current for you and according to STereophile the M1.2 delivered 790 watts into 2 ohms in the high impedance setting (this was NOT tested by TJN for the M1.1) then I am not sure what you consider to be enough current drive for a speaker.
SERIOUSLY, address the numbers or shut up!
I have also hit you with data on Apogees, about which you are wrong wrong wrong and the best you can do is call me clueless??? You are a joke and it is clear you have no definition for what you consider to be "enough" current.
Do you understand the difference between Class A and Class AB operation? Do you understand that amps are normally optimized for a given impedance for that Class A operation?? Do you not realize that LAMM has a switch on the amp to optimize its Class A operation for different impedances??? Do you not understand that much more current is available once the amp leaves Class A operation (as evidenced by the M1.1 near doubling from 4 to 2 ohms and the increases obeserved in the M1.2 as measured by JA).
Address this or stay silent admitting you are just plain wrong about the amp, regardless of how it sounds.
Cab,Please stick to the opinionated reviews , i enjoy those, very much so, worse i agree with most of your selections( not all ) but this, yet your rotational science is getting to me, not meaning to be spiky and with all due respect , you are technically clueless , do you have any measuring equipment , do you even or have ever tested any type of gear..?
Hard correcting you when you make up your own opinionated science, sadly too are the plethora of opinionated mags like TAS populating audio ..
Please read carefully stereophiles test on the Lamm, it current limits tremendously into 2 ohm, now anyone can like audio equipment for what ever reason , this is not an amp someone should use with low sensitivity high current drive speakers ...
Regards ..
Edits: 12/03/14 12/03/14
Technically clueless?? Hardly. Not sure what you mean by rotational science because I am looking at the numbers rather directly.
I have tested gear and have digital oscilloscope and access to a THD meter and computer based measurement tools.
Now to the meat of this disagreement. Stereophile's measurements.
I quote:
"In this figure, it's clear that, with the impedance switch set to the most appropriate setting, the M1.1 puts out almost identical power into both 4 and 8 ohms."
The main point to point of this quote is impedance swich set to the most appropriate setting. What do you think that switch is doing?? Obviously the amp does not have output transformers so it is adjusting the voltage/current delivery of the power supply. It is keeping the amp in Class A for these two impedances and as a result the power output is the same.
" Lamm M1.1, distortion (%) vs output power into (from bottom to top at 1W): 8 ohms (impedance switch set to 6–8 ohms), 4 ohms, and 2 ohms (both with impedance switch set to 1–6 ohms)."
With these settings the power into 4 ohms is 138W into 4 ohms (18.4dBW) (114V line); and in 2 ohms it is 230W into 2 ohms (17.6dBW) (115V line).
Now, please explain to me how you consider " it current limits tremendously into 2 ohm," when it is producing nearly double the power into 2 ohms...please explain how nearly DOUBLE the power constitutes current limiting. Seriously enough of the claiming I am clueless and start proving your BS. The data doen't support your claims!!
This is so far off technically Cab , too much to correct here , how can the Lamm have enough current to drive anything but an 8 ohm speaker, it current limits from 8-4, it barely increases it's 8 ohm rating into 2, so your math is way in every direction.
The amp will have an issue on those type of load, period, Wrong Horse, wrong course ..
Regards
Edits: 12/02/14
It is clear that you don't understand that the amp has two power supply ranges. A higher voltage/lower current mode and a lower voltage/higher current mode. In the low impedance mode it nearly doubles power from 4 to 2 ohms.
What JA didn't test is what happens going from 8 ohms to 4 ohms when the amp is in the 6 - 8 ohm mode. My guess is that it double but is no longer in Class A.
To reiterate; the design is Class A into 8 ohms in the 6-8 ohm mode and Class A into 4 ohms in the 1-6 ohm more. This is why it has the same power rating at both loads with the switch in power supply (Reread Stereophile you will see how it was tested).
What is also clear is that in the 1-6 ohm more the amp almost doubles in power from 4 to 2 ohms and also probably goes from Class A to Class AB into the lower impedances.
Let me ask you, how do you think its possible for an amp to have no increase in power from 8 to 4 ohms and then magically doubles going to 2 ohms??? Pretty bizzare unless you know that the amp has actually 2 ranges where the amp is kept in Class A for best sound.
As you point out at the start of your post, the CS3.7 had a capacitive phase angle which was -40degrees at 3.8ohms and 65hz. Bad news for any amp not capable of driving such a load.
Power doesn't matter, since that is simply measured into a straight resistor.
Other amps measuring say +-1db of the same power into a resistor AND without problems into a reactive load may do better into the speakers in question:
Too much is never enough
All excellent points.
And now that I think about it, the Lamm may STILL be a good amp with less demanding speakers.
Even lower sensitivity or maybe even low impedance types may still apply, just not those with the demands of large reactance.
Too much is never enough
What could be less demanding than an Apogee Studio Grand?? It is a nearly flat 5 ohm load that is the closest any amp will ever see to a plain old resistor when hooked up to a speaker. It is a moderate 87db/watt as well.
The Thiel is not THAT demanding of a speaker and the LAMM still puts out over 200 watts into 2 ohms (yes we used the 1-6 ohm setting although that might not be the best sounding setting) and you think this is insufficient?? For driving a rock concert in a stadium perhaps but at home it is more than enough. We weren't even stressing the amps at the levels we listen.
Show me some evidence that these moderately powerful monoblocks are insufficient to drive tough loads. The measurements don't say this.
You're right.
I can't say the Lamm is bad into a reactive load. It is simply one possibility.
Manufacturers generally do NOT provide that data and neither do the test people who are content to test against a resistive load.
However, I'm not reinventing the wheel here and what I propose has already been thought thru very well.
Try this link for a different way to measure amp power into reactive loads.Could the Lamm do well here and still sound bad? You Bet! Could it do bad on this test and still sound good? Sure, with the right speaker.
Anyway, for your viewing pleasure.:
Too much is never enough
Edits: 12/02/14
Well, Apogees are about the least reactive speakers ever put on the market. The Thiels are for sure somewhat reactive but less so than a lot of high order Xover type speakers.
The LAMMs didn't sound so great on both types. To be clear, it is not an awful sounding amp, just not what it should be for a reference level amp.
Look at its distortion curve vs power , see anything ... ? The Lamm sweet spot is at 100wattsApogees or ribbon speakers are difficult because of the current drive necessary, your sensitivity numbers given are thin air numbers , most apps are 80db and below , the stage is different yes , but all still require strong current drive to work. Your comments lead me to believe you have never really heard an apogee perform with such amplifiers..
Regards ..
Edits: 12/03/14
The sweet spot is not at 100 watts...that is the knee where the distortion starts to rise sharply...big difference. You are ignoring the fact that at 100 watts most speakers, even most Apogees are LOUD.
You are wrong about the sensitivity of Apogees as well. Only the original Full Range and Scintilla are so insensitive.
Scintilla data:
Height
147cm
Width
83cm at base tapers to 74cm at top
Depth
9cm
Bass driver
Aluminium/Kapton panel (hand cut)
Midrange
Aluminium
Tweeter
Aluminium (4 x 0.5in wide)
Max Sound Level
110db in a 40sqr meter room, approx. 350sqr ft
Sensitivity @ 3m
79dB
Frequency response
20Hz (-6dB) to 25kHz
Crossover frequencies
500Hz bass to mid, 3kHz mid to tweeter
Suggested amp power
100W (Has to drive 1ohm loads on later models)
Impedance nominal
1 or 4ohms - start of production until 1996/7
1ohm only afterwards
Note that the spec of 79db is at 3 METERS! Now, if that is true then with 2 speakers it is more like 82db at 3 meters.
82 = 1 watt (1 ohm delivery)
85 = 2 watts
88 = 4 watts
91 = 8 watts
94 = 16 watts
97 = 32 watts
100 = 64 watts
103 = 128 watts
106 = 256 watts
Now, assumming the Lamms can put out the same power at 1 ohm as at 2 ohms (I have no doubt that they can) then they will play as loud as you could probably desire without seriously clipping.
The Scintilla is the worst case Apogee by far.
DUetta Signature:
"However, the sensitivity is actually rather higher than with previous Apogees, and a solid 100W per channel will deliver satisfactory sound levels."
"Equated to 3m, the Duetta operates at an approximate sensitivity of 86dBW - a usefully average level. This explains why it is able to deliver a decent 105dBA peak programme for a stereo pair at the listening position - assuming that sufficient amplifier power is available. For comparison, an ARC D125 would provide 100dBA and a Mimesis Three 103dBA."
"Set to 'normal', the impedance plot (Graph 5) gives a most uniform 4 ohms, with a minimum of 3.6 ohms around 2kHz and a maximum of some 5 ohms at 450Hz. No rise of any kind was visible at the bass resonance, and the reactive content is very low."
Diva:
"Height
188 cm
Width
82 cm
Depth
7 cm
Bass driver
Aluminium/Kapton panel (hand cut)
Midrange
Aluminium/Kapton (3 segment)
Tweeter
Aluminium single segment
Max Sound Level
115db SPL @ 4m with 100W amplifier in a 18'x25'x8' room
Sensitivity @ 3m
87dB
Frequency response
25Hz (-3dB) to 25kHz
"
115db at 4m with 100 watt amp (3 ohm capable)
I have a friend who had a diva and 100 watt 4 ohm rated amp drove them very well and to loud levels.
"Which brings us to the impedance: I have now heard the Divas with four different Krell models, the Beard 200W monoblock tube amplifiers, the Primare 928s, the Nestorovic tubes amps, Mondial's Aragon 4004 and the smallest Sumo. Every single one of the non-Krell amplifiers drove these to satisfactory levels in a 7.1 X 7.4 meter room. Now I'm not saying that they're all ideal choices, because the wee Sumo (under �600, too) could easily turn grainy and nasty and run hot with sustained usage or high level demands; I only tried it out of a sense of duty and it increased my admiration for that amplifier."
"When it comes to impedance, the Divas really come through. Apogee has obviously worked hard to make amplifier selection a simple task, and the stigma of the Scintilla requirements is history. The impedance is specified not to exceed 4.5 ohms, and never to dip below 2.6 ohms for the whole 20Hz-20kHz range (fig.2). Welcome news, indeed."
Centaur Major:
"ght
163cm
Width
46cm
Depth
30cm
Bass driver
10" Dynamic cone
Midrange/Tweeter
40" Aluminium/Kapton ribbon (etched 6 segment)
Max Sound Level
110dB
Sensitivity @ 3m
83dB
Frequency response
(-3dB @ 30Hz) to 20kHz
Crossover frequency (electronic)
450Hz
Suggested amp power
100W (into 8 ohms) 200W (into 4 ohms)
Impedance nominal/minimum
6ohms / 4ohms"
Sensitivity and impedance are from Stereophile. Will play more than loud enough with the LAMMs.
Cab ,Please ,
Have you ever measured , I have measured and they are not that sensitive, have you measured, No, yet you post this stuff as fact. Anyway, you apparently don't understand the kneeing effect on the sonic structure of an amplifier and worse you think that the lamm is operating in class-a @ 2 ohm at 250 watts. :)
I will suggest you start measuring and stop with the conjecture, less say for argument sakes we use your pie in the sky apogee numbers at 88dB at listening distance, using only 8 watts , add 12-18 db(classical will do 20dB) for peaks will require another 128-512 watts without clipping.
Less say your rotational science is off and it is and the apps only need 16 watts for 88 db( reasonable) it would require 1K in peak power to not clip, now calculate the current necessary to produce 500W or 1KW @ 1 ohm.
Stereophile:
"Unfortunately, 1-ohm capable amplifiers don't grow on test benches. You tend to be restricted to the Adcom GFA-555, Krells, Belles, and Classes. Sending too little power into the Scintilla at 1-ohm makes them sound recessed in the midrange, muted, and lacking in deep bass. The result is all depth and mid-bass, and no presence. Other than the amps I found, I don't know what to tell you. Every amp will be an experiment. Don't go by the amps ability to drive a 1-ohm resistor"
Sounds familiar cab and guess what? all those amps listed are dogs for sonics and no i have heard krells sound fantastic when run this hard, after mods is best and not all.Kessler:Two conductor chains are formed in the aluminium foil, each of 2ohm impedance, which can be connected in parallel to give the 1ohm setting at reference sensitivity. If they are connected in series, this gives the 4ohm setting but with a 6dB loss in voltage-rated sensitivity. Yes, the Scintillas have a very low efficiency. For a 4ohm watt- usual reference is 8ohms - I estimate the sensitivity to be poor at 73dB/W.
Notice estimate and not at 3M, we measured 79db/2.83v@1M years ago in 1 ohm config..
The lamm is not the amp for this job, your Hi-Fi may not be as great as it can and more specifically and pretty obvious to me is what you are really preferring and favoring over the Lamm is the harmonic structure from running all these under powered amplifiers into clipping, obvious you are disliking the sound of the lamm when over driven..
My conclusion ...
Regards..
Edits: 12/03/14
Of course I measure things...I gave you reviews where they were measured as well.
I have a calibrated microphone and SPL meter built into my Behringer DEQ2496 and I have a digital scope and Fluke multi-meter...plus computer based measurement systems.
Please see my review a few years ago on the Piega C2 ltd.
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue16/piega.htm
You will see speaker measurements I made for this speaker.
"Anyway, you apparently don't understand the kneeing effect on the sonic structure of an amplifier "
Of course I do, but I also understand that one's sensitvity to distortion decreases with high SPL levels... if you had read Cheever you would know this as well.
"and worse you think that the lamm is operating in class-a @ 2 ohm at 250 watts. :)
"
No, I made it clear that it is NOT operating in Class A at 2 ohms. I said it was operating in Class A at 8 or 4 ohms depending on the settings...Now you are resorting to trying to falsify what I said before?? Sad.
"I will suggest you start measuring and stop with the conjecture"
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. In my room my Acoustats only dropped by 2 db from just in front of the speaker to the listening position 3.5 meters away...that's right just 2 db drop.
Note that Apogee is giving sensitivty ratings at 3 and 4M distance...line sources and room reflections mean much less drop than with conventional speakers...so this is an effective sensitivity...now add a second speaker and my numbers are realistic enough.
Have you ever owned Apogees or a big electrostat? Seems like you haven't. I and my friends have had Dozens of these kinds of speakers with dozens of different amps...I know what I am talking about and you are the one conjecturing.
My big Acoustats measured, in-room, only +-2db from 200Hz to 15Khz. Below they were affected by room modes and above there was a natural in-room rolloff...I measure ALL My speakers and I know how they behave.
"Less say your rotational science is off and it is and the apps only need 16 watts for 88 db( reasonable) "
A duetta Signature was MEASURED by Martin Colloms to have 86db. A pair at 1 meter gives 89db. Now give they are a nearly flat 4 ohm load this means 2 watts to reach 89db at 1 meter.
Now at 4 meters in a ROOM you will have a drop of maybe 4db with a line source speaker.
So
85 db = 2 watts
88 db = 4 watts
91 db = 8 watts
94 db = 16 watts
97 db = 32 watts
100 db = 64 watts
103 db = 128 watts
106 db = 256 watts
88 dB with 12 - 18 db headroom would be 64 - 256 watts. However, this doesn't account for the fact that with Classical music 88db is not a reasonable average level...it is far lower usually. Rock music at an average 88db will be loud and have not nearly as much dynamic range due to the application of compression. Any way you slice it the Duetta Signatures in a normal room at a normal distance will play at least 100db with a 100 watt 4 ohm capable amp.
Divas will play even louder with the same power because they are actually MORE sensitive than Duetta Signatures...with about the same impedance.
"Stereophile:
"Unfortunately, 1-ohm capable amplifiers don't grow on test benches. You tend to be restricted to the Adcom GFA-555, Krells, Belles, and Classes. Sending too little power into the Scintilla at 1-ohm makes them sound recessed in the midrange, muted, and lacking in deep bass. The result is all depth and mid-bass, and no presence. Other than the amps I found, I don't know what to tell you. Every amp will be an experiment. Don't go by the amps ability to drive a 1-ohm resistor"
"
THis is old and well before the LAMM came on the market. I will quote again:
"The M1.2 Reference is conservatively rated to deliver 110 Watts into 8 and 4 Ohms in pure class A operation (high and low impedance settings, respectively); 220 Watts into 2 Ohms, and 400 Watts into 1 Ohm (low impedance setting), continuous. The M1.2 Reference can drive any known speaker. The harmonic structure remains intact regardless of the speaker load, while the extreme clarity is maintained at all power levels.
"
The same was true for the M1.1.
400 watts into 1 ohm is not sufficient? Whatever...
" Lamm is the harmonic structure from running all these under powered amplifiers into clipping, obvious you "
What a load of nonsense! A) I don't listen at high levels normally and B) Clipping NEVER ever sounds good. All of these amps handle peaks far better than you think and since the average is very low I am quite sure I am not running into trouble...
My Friend had before his Octave monos, had McIntosh MC501s (same system with the THiels we were testing). Those have big relatively accurate power meters. He listens MUCH louder on average than I do (maybe as much as 10db on average louder but that is only a guess). We found that his needles with compressed recordings were not going above a couple of watts. With uncompressed music at loud levels we were PEAKING at around 50 watts (they have a peak hold function) and peak levels well above 100db.
You talking about these,
"
The McIntosh MC501 is unusual for a solid-state amplifier in that it uses an output transformer. This has three separate taps, one each optimized for 8, 4, and 2 ohm speakers. I hooked up my 8 ohm dummy load to the MC501's 8 ohm tap, and, following my usual practice, set the amplifier running at one-third power for one hour, to see how well it would deal with thermal stress. To my surprise, the McIntosh shut itself off after just five minutes—the orange Power Guard LED on the front panel illuminated, and the rear-panel heatsinks were too hot to touch. After the amp had cooled down, it turned itself on again. I tried running it at a lower level, just 30W into 8 ohms. This time it turned itself off after 20 minutes; again, the heatsinks were too hot to touch."
Wouldn't count too much on the meters, did you use the 2 ohm tap..,,
4 ohm tap and they are mostly a Class B amp so clearly they are not heatsinked to have sustained power at 500 watts. JA states clearly that this test maximizes the stress on amps with Class AB (or B) output stages. Since continuous power is not a big deal with music I don't know why you would put this comment here. What's the point?
At idle we found it only uses about 45 watts per monoblock, so clearly mostly Class B.
The meters are ballistic design so they claim something like 80% accurate on peaks. Not perfect but gives a good relative idea.
"The McIntosh's maximum output power depended on the output tap chosen and the load, but when the tap was matched to the load, the amplifier easily exceeded its specified 500W at our 1% THD definition of clipping. The 8 ohm tap delivered no less than 720W into 8 ohms (28.6dBW), for example (fig.4), with similar deliveries into 4 and 2 ohms from their respective taps (figs.5 and 6). Despite the slight increase in source impedance, the MC501's ability to deliver current into the speaker load did increase with the decreasing output transformer tap. The 8 ohm tap was limited to 225W into 2 ohms (17.5dBW), for example, while the 4 ohm tap delivered 1000W (24dBW), the 2 ohm tap 630W (22dBW). "
Plenty of power on tap for almost any conceivable listening in a domestic situation.
Cab,Have one of your friends help you and explain quiescent bias , this may help you understand why the Lamm is not full class-a operation at rated 1% thd into 2 ohm.
Eg:Class a power into 8 - 100watts
Class a power into 4- 50 wattsLamm ups bias and changes voltage with his switchy in an attempt to keep full class a into 4 ohms ,
Class a power into 4 ohm - 100 watt
Class a power into 2 ohm - 50 wattYou see Cabby, you half class a power evertime you half the load.
Painfully obvious you have had the same bad audio experiences all these years and why you hate SS equipment , you favor the softness of how tubes distort when clipped vs SS HARD ending when doing so.
Choosen with wisdom ,sized correctly SS can deliver where toooby amps tend to bloat and spare me another list , you are not the only one with a "list" playing here.
Stick a scope on the scinnies next time out with your big 250watts and 100db listening sessions and advise us little guys as to your discovery ..
So take the Lamm of your list, it has insufficient current to drive the speakers you are listening to and get back to tooby clipping ...
Regards .
Edits: 12/04/14 12/04/14
I don't need it explained...I already told you that I know that it is not Class A into 2 ohms! Not sure how many times I have to tell you that I never claimed the amp was Class A into 2 ohms. I stated CLEARLY that it is Class A into 8 and 4 ohms depending on the switch settings.
"You see Cabby, you half class a power evertime you half the load."
AND we are not talking about Class A power, it is clear that the amps you like are not Class A anyway. It is clear from Stereophile that the TOTAL power avaiable from the LAMM is, as Rolls Royce would say, "adequate" and yes it is in Class AB...that was never in debate so I don't know why you keep trying to twist things around.
No one was ever claiming it has full power into low impedances in Class A, so stop making a strawman out of this...you still have uttely failed to show that the LAMM monos are not capable of driving the speakers in question to suitable levels for judging sound quality.
thanks for that! :-)
Vbr,
Sam
Thanks! for sharing. The Thiel CS 3.7 is an outstanding reference loudspeaker. Which hybrid amp would you suggest?
doesn't mean that they don't.....
I have heard plenty of great iterations of LAMM monoblocks sound wonderful. Doesn't mean that they work with all speakers, - or don't sound worse than some other amps with Thiels: which I've always heard as clinical, and un-dynamic.
No way would I ever attach the word "reference" to anything resembling a Thiel product.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
I thought so too until two things: 1) I heard the old CS3.6 with all BAT gear (BAT tube monos) and that was very good and 2) Heard my friends CS3.7s with KR Audio VA350i and VAC 30/30...both of which banished the clinical from this speaker without sacrificing details. In fact, the enhancement of soundstage depth and sound decay was superior to other amps that on the surface seemed more "detailed" but I would say that the information needed to make a nice realistic soundstage, with suitable recordings of course, was better conveyed with the KR and the VAC.
Maybe it's taste?
R.
Sordidman-
as Tom as stated above, system synergy is everything. Most audiophiles waste time w/ systems that cost too much and do not yield synergy.
We all have our likes and dislikes. The key, is to get out there and listen, listen and listen to the gear!
.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
This is somewhat of a long shot considering you were looking at Lamm, but the Van Alstine hybrids seem to be popular over at AC. I believe he offers an audition period as well. The Moscode amps were always somewhat well received for what it's worth. Haven't heard much of them lately though.
Truth be told, the Thiels can easily sound a bit hard and unforgiving if the electronics are not really smooth. They tend to exaggerate flaws in gear...or maybe they are just super truthful...hard to say exactly.
One of the best hybrids I have heard is the AcousticPlan Santor. It is not a big or powerful amp (50 watts) but it sounds very good. The Pathos TT sounds very good but needs sensitive and easy to drive speakers.
The Sphinx Project 14 is very good but not the last word in resolution. Its bigger brother adds the resolution but is rare as hen's teeth.
The Conrad Johnson Evolution 2000 I heard with Apogee Duettas was very impressive as well.
This new Ypsilon integrated amp is killer sounding but pricey (still nowhere near the price of their monoblocks)
The best hybrids I have heard though are from KR Audio. Yes, they are not traditional hybrid because they are all SS EXCEPT for the output, which is tube but they sound amazing.
My NAT is also superb but also super rarer. It is one of only 3 SET hybrids (of the conventional layout) that I have seen marketed. The other two are from Blue Circle Audio (BC-2, BC-2.1 and BC2000) and Ypsilon (Their huge SET 100 monos). One big difference though is that both the Ypsilon and Blue Circle use multiple transistors on the output...my NAT uses ONE transistor only on the output and is fully direct coupled. Ysilon uses input, interstage AND output transformers...a lot like a tube SET.
My NAT sounds closer to an OTL than anything else I can compare it with. I guess the Ypsilon will lean closer to a traditional SET given all the iron in the circuit.
I was not very happy with the sound of the Einstein "The Absolute Tune" that I had. It sounded a lot like the LAMMS but less hard. It bored me, especially coming from the superb sound of KR Audio. The NAT sounds like the Einstein a bit until it warms up fully and THEN it gets really really good.
On a budget I would think about the Pathos Classic One or with efficient speakers the TT.
My Einstein Turntables Choice phono preamp has garnered very high praise from every reviewer so I am disappointed in your experience with the preamp.
Edits: 12/02/14
Thank You! for the intel.
Until I can demo the Verity Speaker line- Thiel remains my reference.
Yes, most think it is harsh and bright, it requires very careful electronics matching for a rewarding listening experience.
It IS tilted up a bit at least in my friend's listening room so it will exaccerbate issues already in the electronics.
I am not a fan of Verity speakers. A friend of mine had the Rinezis and they got crushed by a 20 year old pair of Reference 3a Master Control MMCs. This friend found a pair after hearing mine and fell in love with the sound. I heard his Verity speakers and it was no contest.
Also, I have heard the big Sarastro a couple of times and IMO, it is not a well designed speaker...coherence between the drivers is sorely lacking...you can even see this in the Stereophile measurements,which are quite poor for a speaker so expensive.
The Parsifal did sound nice one time when I heard it with the big Nagra 845 tube amps. That was with a big R2R tape deck as well. Since then though I have become much more attuned to coherence in speakers and it is likely I would not be impressed with the Parsifal any longer.
The Thiel is far more coherent and integrated soundwise. In this respect, it beats out most multi-driver speakers.
Really the best sound we got was the VAC30/30, which also sounded surprisingly bright until it warmed up and then it was simply astounding. It is right at the top of my list for push/pull amps (I am still a SET guy though). The amp belongs to the friend with the other pair of Master control MMC...nice combo!
I concur -the 3a is a nice speaker. Many Thanks for your impressions on the Verity speakers.
Yes, the VAC/VTL are on my short-list to demo as well.
Recently, I have been reading about the synergy between B.A.T. and Thiel.
Add this one to my list!
Heard the Thiel CS3.6 with BAT VK120 monos and VK5i preamp many years ago...very impressive!
Embarresly stealing some of Cabs Vocabulary, a Ref 3a is a toy speaker, cant understand someone bringing this speaker up when describing and tearing down SOTA level stuff ...
Regards..
I wouldn't regard 3A loudspeakers as "toys" by any stretch. On more than one occasion I've heard them come across far more pleasing than some of the big (allegedly SOTA) flagship offerings. Not to mention the countless reviews where a reviewer is stunned by how well inexpensive ( let's say less than 5K ) speakers can really sing when coupled with much pricier amplification. In the end it's all about synergy.
So, getting the story straight seems to be an issue with you.
I have heard the LAMMS on the following speakers:
Apogee Scintilla
Apogee Studio Grand
Apogee Centaur Major
Thiel CS3.7
Supportive gear was varied but all very high end stuff (Einstein, Silvaweld, Meitner, Resolution audio etc.)
I own currently Reference 3A Master Control MMC...still one of the best small monitor speakers I have heard, Reference 3A L'integrale...a very nice small floorstanding speaker and Odeon "La Boheme" horn speakers (not small). These are full horn with a 10inch backloaded horn and a wooden horn loaded tweeter. They are big and 98db/watt and also very coherent.
If you want my past speakers; here is a partial list:
Genesis VI
Acoustat Spectra 4400 (big 8 foot tall truly full range estats)
Acoustat Spectra 2200
Acoustat 1+1 with medallion interface and upgraded caps
Apogee Caliper Signature
Audiostatic ES100
Infinity IRS Beta (yes the big 4 tower model one step down from the IRSV)
Infiinty Modulus sub/sat system
Dynaudio Contour 1.8MkII
Dynaudio Contour 1.3
Not too many "toys" in that list and a couple of outright big ass speakers.
A side from the reference 3a's none on that list would suite the Lamm and none on the list you used to test the Lamm would i have expected the lamm to sound good on , i have also heard , tested and or listened to every speaker you listed except the dynaudio's..
No neophyte here, funny you think 250watts can work on an app, to over a 100db, so i will note your opinion on the Lamm with such speakers , not the rotational science .
Regards
"No neophyte here, funny you think 250watts can work on an app, to over a 100db, so i will note your opinion on the Lamm with such speakers , not the rotational science ."
It can, Apogee said so and it was demonstrated in reviews by Martin Colloms and others. Not that I would usually listen that loud anyway...it is much too loud for sustained comfortable listening. I do think its funny that you are stuck in a Juvenile attitude regarding power and quality.
The best sound I got from Acoustats was with 30 watt KR Audio amps...right up to the point of clipping and yes it was quite audible when that limit was reached.
I think you seriously have no clue about psychoacoustics and distortion.
I will let you wallow in your ignorance of good sound and psychoacoustics and continue to let you have your high power bad sounding amps.
"I think you seriously have no clue about psychoacoustics and distortion."
He has no clue about a lot of things.......
Oz
Don't worry about avoiding temptation. As you grow older, it will avoid you.
- Winston Churchill
Ahhh Birds of prey, Ozzy and Cab, i leave you two Jay's in ignorance, Lamms are no good and Reference 3a is SOTA ..
Carry on ...
No, my Odeons are SOTA the Ref 3as are just darned good bookshelf speakers.
The Grand Veena a toy speaker? Seriously?
Admittedly it's not in Wilson or Vivid Audio territory, but it is a serious design that does give the owner high performance.
Oz
Don't worry about avoiding temptation. As you grow older, it will avoid you.
- Winston Churchill
I said reference 3a , you said Grand Vienna....
Reference 3A Grand Veena.
Do your homework before you proclaim......
Oz
Don't worry about avoiding temptation. As you grow older, it will avoid you.
- Winston Churchill
You need to work on your reading comprehension ozzy , so let me go slowly, I said a recerence 3a is a toy , you said grand veena , i did not say grand veena was a toy speaker , yet you focus on the monikor error, semantics...
Resorting to Semantics is usually a sign of no game and limited intellect , if you plan to attack sharpen up and yes the system would not allow me to edit , for some reason not from mobile ..
So to clarify A reference 3a(monitor) is a toy and not something i would use to evaluate an amplifier to make an absolute statement like Cab ...
Regards ...
No YOU need to know what you are talking about before you open your big mouth.
The Grand Veena IS a Reference 3a speaker. The COMPANY name is Reference 3a. There is some disconnect between you and reality.
Oz
Don't worry about avoiding temptation. As you grow older, it will avoid you.
- Winston Churchill
As the very happy owner of a (Used) pair of early Reference 3A Grand Veena speakers and a 40+ year experience in this hobby(obsession), I have rarely heard a better speaker and they always cost at least 3 times what these cost new. They have a nearly flat 5 ohm load and the Lamm wold coast driving them.
Edits: 12/02/14
I'm respectful of your position , so I'm very happy , you are very happy Jack :) , I did say Sota systems , i dont think anyone would call a ref3a a SOTA speaker ..
Regards ...
A speaker need not be "STATE OF THE ART" to make music and the 3A products definitely make music that escapes many pretenders, YMMV. The beauty of this "toy" speaker is that less really is more.
SOTA is another one of those non-musical terms that means what exactly?
Tooby,
I specified when i made that statement i was referring to Reference 3a stand mount monitors not the bigger floorstander as corrected in discussion, i have never heard those to comment on personally and also i have never heard of anyone referring to Reference 3a's as SOTA speakers ...
So forgive me ... :)
"i dont think anyone would call a ref3a a SOTA speaker .."
Maybe he didn't say SOTA, but Harry Pearson was impressed with the Grand Veena.
"Yes this is now and will be in the future considered a classic of it's kind. It is, purely and simply, a great loudspeaker".
So the "toy" comment was a little dramatic......
Oz
Don't worry about avoiding temptation. As you grow older, it will avoid you.
- Winston Churchill
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
