1.
Back in Russia you had a significant academic
career that included, as far as we know, some
very interesting research in mechanisms of the
human hearing. This "science-hifi" mix
is a very rare combination. So, it's very
intriguing to ask: How close, after all,
is/or must be a Hi-End design to real human
hearing needs, and how difficult is to design
real state of the art equipment without
sacrificing the academic design approach to the
marketing hype?
If we are
talking about the audio equipment that should
truly belong to hi-end category, it must be
designed as close as possible to the real human
hearing needs. Designing the
equipment of such level is, indeed, a lofty and
complicated task. Some aspects of it are
disclosed in my answer to question #2. I
just must add that it is quite difficult to
maintain the balance between laying claims to
designing the real state-of-the-art equipment and
not sacrificing the academic design approach to
the marketing hype. It is difficult from
the viewpoint of ensuring commercial success of
such equipment.
On the one
hand, the designer operates with the sword of
Damocles over his head, which is the cost of
building. On the other hand, there is a
desire to create the most perfect product, which
unavoidably leads to increases (sometimes, quite
significant one) in the cost of building.
The next step is to resolve purely technical
tasks related to reliability and longevity of the
product, its "maintenability", etc. which, in turn,
demand the utilization of very reliable
components expected to perform flawlessly over
long periods of time. I’m not even
discussing the issues of testing and selecting
components suitable – based on the lack of
their own sonic signature -- for using in the
hi-end equipment; this also adds to the cost of
building. (Naturally, the handling of these
issues largely depends of the designer’s
experience, but the most important traits from my
point of view are the readiness of the
decision-maker not to compromise and also such
“trivialility” as his understanding of
how to design the audio equipment properly.
2.
It is a fact that you know a lot about how the
human brain senses the sound. In what
degree this knowledge affects your design process
and the final design itself? Listening
tests and measurements were always slightly
competing methods to evaluate a design. Do
you feel that listening tests must have a bigger
role in the final evaluation?
My total
accumulated knowledge had led me to an
understanding that there exist a very limited
number of topologies suitable for creating truly
high quality audio equipment. In my
opinion, utilization of these methods sets very
high standards in equipment design and, in turn
(as was mentioned earlier), leads to the increase
in production costs that determines a
correspondingly high retail price. At the
same time, we are able to immediately hear the
difference between the system based on my design
principles and other systems.
What follows is
an oversimplified description of the work I have
done. Based on the results of mathematical
modeling of the human hearing mechanism and its
underlying processes, I had developed a
corresponding electro-mechanical model in
accordance to which it is possible to build
--with a very close approximation -- an
electronic amplifier utilizing a specific
topology. All subsequent efforts were
focused on detailed research of the qualities of
such topology and establishing the correlation
between the discovered qualities of the topology
and sound reproduction characteristics of the
amplifier utilizing such topology.
Having
gathered this information, I had proceeded to
conduct a stringent analysis of the main types of
circuits utilized in designing the sound
reproduction devices and then to determine the
basic aspects of compliance (or non-compliance)
of the specific parameters in these devices with
the requirements dictated by the theoretical
model.
Based on the
above, it generally follows that when the design
of a sound amplification device is conducted
PROPERLY* and CONSCIOUSLY*, its measurement
results, if interpreted properly, will provide a
complete picture of the sound quality.
Time and
practice have proven the almost complete
correlation between the research results and
sound quality of the equipment designed in
accordance with my methods.
Therefore, in
summary, I could answer your question by stating
that I do not conduct listening tests. In
my case, the listening tests play no role in
either the designing process or the final
evaluation of the product.
[* the
capitalized words presuppose that the
choice of topology and design processes
are made in accordance with research
results of the theoretical model]
3.
America has always been the hardcore of the
Hi-End consumer electronics world. But, to
our opinion, Russia and former USSR must not be
underestimated on terms of scientific and
cultural offering. So, the interaction
between you as a Russian scientist/designer and
Americans as colleagues and market people must be
an interesting experience. Please talk to
us about that experience.
America
has always been and, I hope, still is the
hardcore of the hi-end consumer electronics
world. I had a chance to confirm that upon
my immigration to this country and in the
beginning of my work in this area in the United
States.
My personal
experience of contacts with the American
colleagues is fairly standard. Shortly
after the immigration, I began working with
Madison Fielding, Inc. and soon became one of the
partners. I was there for about three
years. I had not really encountered any
personal or professional problems. There
was a number of funny incidents related to my
poor English, though; however, all of those were
taken by both sides with a good dose of
humor. Later on, when I finished the design
of the M1 and M2 power amplifiers it turned out
that the company either could not
or did not (which did not
make any difference to me) want to start the
production of my designs. We parted our
ways after this (around August 1993) and I
established my own company. Afterwards, my
contacts with the American audio engineers have
been happening on a regular basis. Among
them, I have a number of good friends and
acquaintances.
Contacts with
marketing people and dealers was a different
story in the beginning. I am an
engineer with a very pronounced research
inclination; and so, I had no experience
whatsoever dealing in these new, for me, areas of
business – marketing and sales.
Therefore, there were various misunderstandings
(and often total lack of understanding) between
the dealers and myself. However, I had been
learning and still am, and at present I have no
specific problems in these areas.
4.
Do you feel that (a) there are some differences
between Europeans and Americans in terms of
designing and listening? (b) Did you have
difficulties to function as a designer in
America? (c) Do you believe that you had a
"strong point" as a Russian there and
what was that?
The answer
to this question will, of course, be based on my
own experience – personal as well as that of
a designer.
(a) No
doubt, the differences are quite significant;
however, they exist not
between the American and European designers as
such, but rather between the individual designers
with different levels of culture, attitudes,
taste in music, and financial capabilities.
If we are
talking about electronic equipment in general,
the designing processes are fairly standardized
(or ‘internationalized” so to
speak). The end result will largely depend
on the amount of money invested into the R&D,
technical expertise of the designer(s), proper
performance of the management team –
basically, quite down-to-earth factors.
However, if we are talking about designing hi-end
audio equipment, the differences have to do with
different schools of teaching and approaches to
designing the audio equipment, rather than with
the fact that the designers live on different
continents.
(b) Yes, I did
– but only for a certain time after I
immigrated to the U.S. The difficulties had
to do with my very poor English and lack of
knowledge of the specifics of this country.
After I had established my company, this
“issue” became a “non-issue”
(supposing that I were to ever consider this as
an issue). In the end, I have reached my
goal – to work independently without looking
over my shoulder at anyone and anything, and to
implement all my accumulated knowledge into the
finished product.
(c) You know,
my work schedule is very tight, therefore, I
simply have no free time for pondering about
things such as these.
5.
L1 Linestage was a "hybrid"
design. Until now, we knew that hybrids
were circuits with mixed stages (solid state and
vacuum tubes) in the signal path. But L1 uses
vacuum tubes in the power supply. Please
make for us a comparison between the classic
hybrid circuit and your approach. What are
the differences? Also please explain, if
you wish, the differences between your approach
to the power supply design and the traditional
solid state regulated supplies.
Usually, the
classic hybrid topologies use both vacuum tubes
and solid-state components in the circuitries
located in the signal pass; such approach, if
implemented properly from an engineering
standpoint, cannot raise any significant
objections. I was able to create quite an
interesting (in my view) topology without
involving the vacuum tubes and utilizing very
linear high-voltage MOS-FETs only.
Power
supply is a different story. It is common
knowledge that power supply is not an entity
separate from the amplifier but is an integral
part of the signal path, with all accompanying
consequences. One such consequence is the
necessity to ensure the constancy of its output
impedance versus frequency at least within the
audio band. If one also considers that the
L1 sports a very high supply voltage of +350V,
the conclusion is obvious: it is preferable to
use the vacuum tubes in the voltage regulator
circuitry. And here is the last point
(which refers more to equipment reliability
issues): traditional solid-state voltage
regulators meant to stabilize high voltages for
ensuring the high level of reliability of the
product, demand the incorporation of sufficiently
serious circuitries that offer protection from
overloads and short circuits. This, in
turn, significantly increases the overall number
of parts used in the product, and its cost.
In case of vacuum tube voltage regulators, it is
enough to introduce the fuse at the
regulator’ s output.
6.
During the review of L1 we discovered two
interesting details: First, you don't have a RIAA
stage (nor a RIAA pre- option as a plug in board,
as far as we know). Second, you have
adopted one elaborated volume control system (2
gains, one master). The first question is:
(a) What about a customer who needs a RIAA?
Do you have any plans about design one and what
are your design thoughts about these circuits
(which are, probably the most difficult blocks in
the preamp design)? The second question is: (b)
What are you thoughts about volume control? Do
you feel that requires much attention so to spend
the cost of 3 "Black Beauties" to this
point?
(a) The
L1 itself is a relatively complex design and the
space inside is quite filled up, which formally
did not allow me to allocate the space for
plugging in the phono-board. In reality, I
wasn’t very keen on doing it anyway since
the methods I use in designing the high quality
sound reproduction equipment are not aimed at
significant micro-minimization of circuitry
blocks or units. Therefore, I will most
likely use an additional enclosure similar to the
L1’s in designing the phono-preamplifier. Sometime in March-April
of 2001 we plan to start the production of a full
functioning preamplifier (pure tube) with the MC
phono stage.
(b) Even the
most impeccable sounding preamplifier may be
degraded to a very ordinary level simply by
utilizing the potentiometers of low or medium
quality. Therefore, in this issue I
don’t consider any compromises – and
you had ample opportunity to be witness it
examining the ALPS potentiometers used in the L1.
Moreover, in
the next couple of months we are beginning the
production of a new model of preamplifier: L2
(see our website and brief description in answer
#7). The L2 will utilize even better (and
of course more expensive) potentiometers than
those used in the L1.
7.
You have three power amplifier designs, but one
preamplifier. Does this mean that L1 is an
"all around" preamp or we must assume
that something is "around the corner"?
At present, we
manufacture two models of line-stage
preamplifiers:
LL2, pure tube
line-stage and L1, hybrid design.
Approximately
by mid-September of this year, we will begin the
production of another preamplifier:
L2-Reference. It is a line-level dual-mono
hybrid preamp with a separate power supply; tube
rectifier, choke contained filter, vacuum tube
regulator; TKD stepped potentiometers for volume
control -- the best available on today's market;
built-in remote on/off for LAMM AUDIO
LABORATORY® amplifiers.
Sometime in
March-April of 2001 we plan to start the
production of a full functioning preamplifier
(pure tube) with the MC phono stage.
8.
Designing Hi-End products usually means that the
cost is not an issue, or at least not the
issue. Please comment on the consequences
the "cost" factor can play in a good
design. What, to your opinion, is the best
allocation of the cost between design/components
quality/aesthetics/quality control and marketing
costs?
This is not a
simple question. The allocation of expenses
(within the product cost) among the various
constituents you mention in a specific design is
very often a result of personal tastes,
preferences, mental and intellectual background
(outlook, point of view, attitude) of the
designer, manufacturing capabilities of the
company, and so forth.
Let me describe
my vision of this issue.
Design
– in order to develop a product that
conforms to my sound quality standards, I spend
as much money and resources as necessary.
Besides, it is necessary to take into
consideration the fact that this product will
have to be manufactured in quantity, be
technological, not require any future upgrades or
modifications, and ensure the level of
reliability specified at the development stage.
Component
quality – I choose the highest
quality components that not only ensure the
reliability of our products but also have optimal
characteristics from the standpoint of
transmitting the sound (in other words,
components that have minimal sonic signature).
Aesthetics
– It is my firm conviction that the end
product in Hi-End audio is the sound itself,
whereas all those boxes into which the
electronics are packed are a “necessary
evil.” Based on this principle, I try
to create the equipment that is visually as
little noticeable as possible, and that attracts
minimal attention of the listener. Speaking
more plainly, I prefer the “form follows
function” approach that works with the
established tradition of designing the
“pro-audio” equipment. I also
partially utilize the concepts suggested by W.
Morris at one point, along with certain
principles of W. Gropius (“Bauhaus”).
Quality
Control – This issue receives our
most serious attention. At the
conception of each design, we carefully consider
its break-down into functional blocks or units in
such a way that would allow us to check each
block independently. Simultaneously with
the development of a new product we design the
test-stand specifically for testing of this
product. Therefore, the quality
control process of each product includes the
following steps:
after the assembly, each block or
unit (in the simplest case, the pc-board) is
tested for functionality;
having worked for at least two
hours, the block or unit is measured, and
measurements are recorded in the production
report maintained for each piece of equipment
that leaves our facility;
we also test ALL vacuum tubes
before their installation, as well as some
semiconductor devices. Where necessary, we match
the vacuum tubes (especially, the output tubes)
and semiconductor devices. Out matching is
done with the precision of 1% tolerance or
better.
upon final assembly of the
product, it is turned on, adjusted and measured
again. The parameters are again recorded in
the production report;
then, the product undergoes a
72-hour burn-in test; the measurements of all
parameters are again taken and, if necessary, the
adjustments are made (again, the measurement
results are recorded in the
production report);
after the 72-hour burn-in test,
each product is tested in the reference sound
system for at least two hours.
All of this
gives a fairly good impression of the costs
involved in quality control.
Marketing
Cost – the product cost includes
a fixed amount allocated to marketing
expenses. Of course, the actual amounts
that we can invest into marketing venue directly
depends on the cash flow in the company.
9.
During the last years two new digital audio
formats were introduced. What is your
opinion about the future of DVD Audio and DSD/SACD formats? Do you feel that a
"super" format will introduce some new
requirements from amplifier designers and
manufacturers, (since there are already rumours
about power stages with severe problems in very
high frequencies)?
I would
rather not get involved in discussions regarding
different digital audio formats – more than
enough paper has been used up on this
issue. Regarding “some new
requirements…” to power amplifiers that
work with “super” audio players, I can
say that, first of all, the problems you indicate
may arise with certain types of very powerful
solid-state amplifiers utilizing a large amount
of global negative feedback. From the
technical standpoint, such problems are very
likely associated with methods of implementation
of certain circutries, as well as with the
designer’s ability to properly ensure the
stability of the amplifier in high frequencies
region (phase margin, poles, zeros,
etc.). In general the proper
engineering solution of these issues can be
learned from any university’s
“Automatic Control Systems”
course. If such problems are exhibited in
the finished product, they can be partially
remedied by installing the filters with
appropriate bandwidth at the amplifier input.
10.
Multichannel sound is a hot issue, especially in
the USA, but in Europe too. What is your
position as a Hi-End brand in respect with Dolby
Digital "cinema" sound? Taking
into account the high density formats which can
carry up to 6 channels of high definition sound,
do you feel that Hi-End could be in the future
multichannel?
The systems you
mention were designed for wide-screen cinema and
include multi-channel amplification -- including
separate channel(s) for special sound effect --
for high quality sound reproduction in movie
theaters of large size. These
principles in a slightly modified and simplified
manner are used in so-called ‘home
theater’ system, and quite successfully,
too.
However, when
we talk about such systems it is necessary to
remember that they were generally designed as an
integral part of a more sophisticated
audio-visual system, and all possible aspects of
its interaction with the man differs
significantly from the interaction within the
system “two-channel-stereo – man in the
listening room.”
But if we
are talking about the serious modern two-channel
hi-end audio systems with properly chosen
components (synergism) then it is possible to
encounter a fairly faithful sound
reproduction. I think that the priority
should be given to improving the system
components and characteristics of listening
rooms, rather than increasing the number of
channels.
11.
In the end of this interview we want you talk to
us about the near future plans of LAMM
Industries. Does your strategies include products
in different categories, like speakers or digital
sources? Are you planning products in lower
prices? How do you see the future of LAMM?
First of all, I
don’t have plans to significantly expand the
company because it inevitably leads to a certain
loss of control over quality in design and
production, which in turn leads to a decrease in
sound quality. Moreover, the expansion
brings with it the shift of emphasis toward the
mass production – and that I’d prefer
not to do. That is why, among other
reasons, we don’t plan to design and
manufacture the relatively inexpensive products,
as well as products in different categories such
as speakers and digital sources.
Regarding the
products in a lower price range – at the end
of last year we already began the production of a
pure vacuum tube line-stage preamplifier LL2 (http://www.lammindustries.com/products/ll2descr.html). In the next 6-8
months we plan to start a stereo version of the
ML2 amplifiers. It will be a single-ended
amplifier with the output power of about 14
Watts/channels. There is also work on
implementing into production a hybrid dual-mono
amplifier designed on the basis on power
amplifiers M2.1.
The future of
LAMM – we will continue in the direction of
making two lines of equipment: hybrid (mostly
solid-state) and vacuum tube. Here is the
breakdown of price ranges:
Power
amplifiers – from US$ 9-10,000 to 70-100,000
Preamplifiers
– from US $3-3,500 to 30-40,000
ML3 Signature
