Lamm LP2 and WE417A tubes

There was nothing to support his position that it was not accurate other than his perceptions. I think it is very accurate. Who is correct?

He did not like the sound of it and went into great detail to make his point, but at the end of the day it was just an opinion. Why should I give any more weight to the guy you referenced than Olsher? I don't. Olsher loved it and so do I. The guy you referenced didn't. So what?

I think I'll stick with my opinion and continue to enjoy what I consider to be a very nice phono stage.

Hmmmm...I notice an uncanny similarity to the writing style of RBES and that of the so called author of the article he points to...similar misspellings, similar grammatical errors, same use of ALL CAPS here and there.

sounds like you should have said..."hey...this product sucks...let me point you to another website where I say it sucks also...just in more detail and in a more abusive manner."

welcome to Audiogon.

*** There was nothing to support his position that it was not accurate other than his perceptions. I think it is very accurate. Who is correct? He did not like the sound of it and went into great detail to make his point, but at the end of the day it was just an opinion. Why should I give any more weight to the guy you referenced than Olsher? I don't. Olsher loved it and so do I. The guy you referenced didn't. So what? I think I'll stick with my opinion and continue to enjoy what I consider to be a very nice phono stage.

Herman,

very interesting observation! The most exciting is the part where you contemplate to whom you should “give more weight”: to Romy or to Olsher? That was a titanic intellectual battle on your part: you picked the side but… you importantly lost the phonostage. I might open a secret to you: the LP2 was design specifically for the people who are accustomed to “pick the sides” in audio… I’m not kidding, Herman.

I do not think that it would be relevant or necessary to teach you about the specific and unambiguous shortcomings that Lamm LP2 has. You said that “you love it” and this pretty much sets all bids off. It is similar to you are dating an ugly woman – she is ugly…. but if you love then her ugliness do not bother you, quite in contrary – you, under the influence of your love, find here beautiful. I’m do feel comfortable with this arrangement but answering your question “So what?” I would say: Love her but do not drag her to the world competition of female beauty (let presume that they have any merit). The people who played at THAT level have seen more objectively attractive women and have more developed reference points of prettiness.

The said parts in this entire thing people in audio are not trained or tuned to deal with the subject of the equipment’s performance and they are unable to objectively assess the sonic results. The Audio is bult around the “ audio items made to be love” and the people who looking for justification and conformations why they are in love with the “audio items”. Romy The Cat calls those people “Audio Zombies”…

In any rate, this thread is not about the misery of LP2 but about the Lamm’s Linguistic trickery around the WE 417A. Since you so love your LP2 then I’m sure you have found many alternative tuby solutions to your Lamm’s phonocorrector. I’m glad you love your “item” and enjoy what your discernment makes enjoyable.

I apologize for my my poor use of the English language. What I meant to convey was that I did not choose either of the reviewers sides, but that I would stick with my own assessment, it is a fine stage.

To call me an audio zombie is an insult that I choose not to ignore. I have been active in this hobby for many years and have listened at length to many of the world's best phono stages. I do not blindly follow the advice of reviewers. My assessment is based on many years of direct observation, your's appears to be based on the observation of a single reviewer. You offer nothing other than a link to a review by an unknown who you choose for some reason to invest total trust.

I will say this once more and move on, your reviewer offered nothing more than his subjective opinion. I find it curious that you choose to follow one reviewer's opinion as gospel and dismiss another with absolutley no objective data.

I did not call you audio zombie I said that you behaved like on in your posts above. Regarding the rest… well, the reason why I referred you to the Romy’s observation is because it was my article, so I kind of very much “agree” with it. In the end, I am glad that you are in peace with your “known reviewer”, with your “listened at length to many of the world's best phono stages”, with yours “many years of direct observation”, and with your “objective data”. I wonder if you were able to hand the “real data” if I present it…. But I do not wonder anymore. Anyhow, Herman, I think it might be the end of the conversation between me and you regarding the Lamm LP2. I think we said much more then this phonocorrector deserves.