GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Audio Site

Audio Discussions
Topic: ML3 and Wilson

Page 1 of 1 (8 items)

Posted by Romy the Cat on 01-30-2012

Again, a manufactures make a product, gave it to reviewer and the reviewer expressed nothing but indication of own idiocy.

Here is comes:

http://www.theaudiobeat.com/equipment/lamm_ml22.htm

First of all the description of the amp is not accurate but it is not the point. The recommendation what kind loudspeakers the amp might or might not drive is also at the level of kindergarten. The comment “… improved parts, including a new power transformer, also made for an amp [ML2.1] sounded slightly more powerful than the ML2” deserve the “Audio Dildo Award”. Really, the improved parts and new power transformer would make class A SET to sound “more powerful”. And how do you recognize that it has become “more powerful”, mister reviewer?

I do not hold against Mark Mickelson that he allowed the truly bad amp to pass through. After all there is no evidence that Lamm did not give to Mickelson old good sounding version of ML2 in ML2.1 enclosure. It would not explain why Mr. Mickelson was drooling over himself, describing how ML2.1 was better than ML2. If it was not the case and he used the ML2.1 then it was unadulterated fraud from Mark as ML2.1 was a horrible amp that had no resemblance to ML2.0.

Anyhow, the time of ML2.1 has done and now a new SET in market ML2.2. The approach the Mark took is funny. Why he does not observe the sound of ML2.2 on context of ML3? This would be very reasonable and very reasonable analyses considering the Mark has ML3 and considering the he insist the he knows its sound. We all know that he has no old ML2 or ML2.1 in house. Mark, very much like any other audio pimple dumps the equipment in used marker as soon he learns about a new upcoming model is coming out. I know the people who sell the after-review equipment for him and for some other people. So, why the ML2 vs. ML3 fight never took off? Well, because Mark is an idiot, and he clearly wrote about it.

Take a look, the fool accumulated half-million dollar equipment and feel that he has able audio aliments to reproduced sound. So, he get the high-flying SET amp and writes a review using the Patricia Barber's Modern Cool as the only informed sound for sound evaluation. Mark, I am sorry but you need to be ashamed of yourself and your friend Vladimir Lamm has to stick his amp, along with burning tubes in your ass, in order you get some feeling what you do. To play your Patricia Barber CD impressive your do not need any impressive audio but you need mass-market audio from end of 70s with good tone controls. The crap you wrote permanently disquietly you from anything. If you do not get it then you need to start making living honestly and do not sell audio by selling articles but move boxes in audio warehouses.

Anyhow, there was a review and there was no review. In his inimitable way, Vladimir Lamm once told me years ago that the ideal reviewer is dead reviewer, I think you, Mark Mickelson, is truly “Right" and "Real".

Romy the Cat

Posted by Romy the Cat on 01-31-2012

This subject of comparing the quality of ML2 and ML3 sound is very interesting and I do not think that it will be ever observed in public. I hoverer do have interest to learns about comparative capacity between properly sounding ML2.0 and ML3. The ML2 and ML3 are essentially very same amps with only difference in output stage. The buildup of current buffer in ML2 driver stage is kind irrelevant. It need to punch DHT GM70 to A2 but we do not consider ML2 in A2 as IDHT 6C33C will not go there even it will be driven by Hoover Damn turbine.

Mark Mickelson in his article used very right phrase “comfort zone” for given amp. For sure ML3 with twice more powerful tube and with ability of the amp to go run with grid currents has much wider “comfort zone”. My question if the people who “compare” ML2 and ML3 will be able to understand it. So, I would like somebody to observe the first few watts of both ML2 and ML3 and to see how 6C33C stands up against GM70. GM70 is MUCH more linear tube but the debates which tube is better for sound are keeping progressing among Russians amp makers.
I heard some people (mostly idiots and Lamm cronies) claim advance of GM70 amps and I heard from one ML3 user that ML3 has very similar sound to ML2. I do not find the comments of both camps credible and it is very possible that the question will be never answered, at least in context of Lamm amps.

Still, I think Lamm electronics is very good playground to observe the GM70 vs. 6C33C. Lamm is VERY conservative in his design and his components are very much made to hit price point. He does not go for superior but rather for manageable and it is very possible that ML3 is made with the very same sonic objective as the ML2 was. Of cause I wish that ML3 was made at the same year as ML2. There is 15 years difference between this production versions and it is 15 years of Vladimir attitude change which in my view needs to be very much factored in.

The caT

Posted by Paul S on 02-01-2012

The strangest (and most disappointing) thing I noticed is that this "review" is so threadbare that it pretty much boils down to a "testimonial". Could he have taken an easier path? Surely, along with calling the 2.2 "a worthy successor to the 2.0 and 2.1", MM would at least want to compare and contrast these amps in specific terms?

As for the GM70/ML3, why wouldn't Lamm put his personal "stamp" on this amp, too? Sure, the GM70 has a wider power band than the 6C33C, and of course Lamm will exploit this, and likely he will keep everything reliable and tidy. Really, at this point in time, what else does he have to do?

The fact is, certain buyers were only waiting to get a NEW Lamm amp "like the ML2, only up-to-date", and here's their chance. And certain buyers were only waiting for an ML that can drive their Sashas...

How often do we hear it said, "To succeed, find a need and fill it."

The real question is, will it be Newt, or Mitt?

Paul S

Posted by Stitch on 02-01-2012

Romy the Cat wrote:
... mostly idiots and Lamm cronies...
The caT

I am guilty. I own ML2.1 :-)
But modified. And I use it with a 99dB Speaker....I listened to these ML3 amps for a longer time, owner System, no demo. The problem in general is (and will be) a speaker which is not a "black hole" for those amps. It was here same again, Wilson Alexandria. In Bass these speakers simply aren't a match. In general, from my kind of Standard, the ML3 are very good from Sound or let's say, I heard much more worse out there. In a way I would say, yes, there are similarities...no mechanical artifacts in reproduction, excellent musical flow and a glorious midrange.

I think , with a more sensitive speaker it is remarkable.

The owner also uses M1.2R with these Alexandrias and of course, they control the chassis much better.
I can't comment the pricing but I also listened some time ago to the big Magicos with Spectral 30 Pre and Spectral 360 monos, also quite expensive and I got ear cancer. I asked after 3 minutes for a break, unbelievable dead and boring. Compared to THAT, ML3 and Alexandria is a different Universe.Wilson has excellent finish and marketing, they also write that some of their speakers run well with Tube amps. I never heard that...this "well"....
Review

I think, we should stay away from that. There are no "reviews" anymore. It is simply Product Placement.

I bet all I have, these "writers" laugh all day long about those idiots who believe the nonsense they write. At the beginning some were very careful or tried to write something useful, but after a while they discovered, it is wasted time. For whom? I bet, most reviews are written without even listening to the unit, cable, cartridge or whatever. To survive all that nonsense - because you get paid for - you HAVE to be deaf.And then there are some special kind of reviewers, those who really believe the nonsense they write....there is no hope.
Only GoodSoundClub :-)

Posted by Romy the Cat on 02-01-2012

Your comment about reviews today is a simple Product Placement is spot on, I kind of even envy that I was not the one who said it.

Regarding the rest. It will be VERY interesting if you heard the ML2.0. When I heard both multiple times between the ML2.0 and ML2.1 are very different amps, VERY different and the 4-5 ML2.1 that I heard had absolutely no resemblance with ML2.0 that I knew. I do not think that any modification would do anything as in ML2.1 Lamm reportedly use a different OPT that allegedly killed the things. If you have a chance to hear Lamm ML2.0 then try them, you might get what I mean. To me the ML2.1 sound like a bad SS amp, I am not kidding.

You can’t compare Wilsons with Lamms against Magico with Spectral. For all intended purpose Wilsons are more or less advanced loudspeakers vs. Magico is juts the high-end industry vomit. Then there is the Spectral electronics… Spectral itself a crap but with Magico you get the worst possible result, I can’t believe that anybody even consider to use it. Ironically I know Spectral 30 and Spectral 360 monoblocks VERY well, I had it a few times, even one in my own room once and I use to own the Spectral 2000 DAC. I do feel that to sell Spectral with Magico has to be a criminal offence…

The Cat

Posted by Stitch on 02-02-2012

Romy the Cat wrote:
If you have a chance to hear Lamm ML2.0 then try them...

I wanted to do that, but they are so rare and I found nobody to visit. But honestly, I am not so fanatic, I was looking for something which doesn't make me cry after a minute and that's ok. I listened to so many horrible Systems the last years, I am pretty happy when I have something which is ok for me. My main goal is to listen to an era which was great - and gone - when I was born...more or less a time jump...the Hardware is only a tool...

Romy the Cat wrote:

You can’t compare Wilsons with Lamms against Magico with Spectral. For all intended purpose Wilsons are more or less advanced loudspeakers vs. Magico is juts the high-end industry vomit. Then there is the Spectral electronics… Spectral itself a crap but with Magico you get the worst possible result, I can’t believe that anybody even consider to use it. Ironically I know Spectral 30 and Spectral 360 monoblocks VERY well, I had it a few times, even one in my own room once and I use to own the Spectral 2000 DAC. I do feel that to sell Spectral with Magico has to be a criminal offence…

The Cat

Agree. I wanted to show that even other very expensive "matches" can be inferior, no matter how much money you invest. And I agree, Magico + Spectral is on the "2-die-from" Listening List really on the very top. But that owner loved it. I think, it is more or less the same situation, cash on one side, no idea on the other. They look in the mags, go for best of show comments, then they see for example Magico + Spectral and then they simply buy it, because they don't trust their own ears, they wanted to have something 'proved'. You find that everywhere in Audio, in Cartridges, in Turntables, Tonearms, Digital ...

Posted by Romy the Cat on 02-02-2012

Stitch wrote:
I wanted to do that, but they are so rare and I found nobody to visit.

Well, let me give you my version. I know ML2 quite well and I made a number of people to buy it, not soliciting them but rather demonstrating to them the results I got with ML2. Then I visited the people who got ML2.1 head what sound they dot and I was very puzzled. It was not the sound that I was getting in my home, even if I abstract the rest not-equal conditions. I need to say that at that time I did not differentiated between ML2 and ML2.1 and to me it was all the same Lamm’s SET. Then I begin to observe the pattern – the ML2.1 always sounded wrong. It was not “bad” but it was very different sound from ML2. One day in 2004 or 2005 I visited a local guy, well not exactly local but within a reasonable driving distance, who had both ML2 and ML2.1 in his room and I had a chance to hear his MAX with both of the amps. It was very clear that the amps are very different. The ML2 is very authoritative but very kind and gentile. This amp is amassing – it always right but it dictate it’s rightness with very kind mannerism. The ML2.1 in contrary was not right or wrong amp but rather “stupid” amp. It was literally “frequency pusher” and instead of sophisticated sonic phasing ML2.1 pushed an array of disconnected sounds. There was something else that was VERY annoying, in fact that made me to want vomit what I heard ML2.1. If you hears a very high compression digital file, not dynamic compression but digital compression, than you might heard the very disgusting whistling that takes place after the actual sound stops. This is not even the whistling but the felling of some kind of dry sand is keep dropping in sound after the decay passed over minus 20-30dB. To my surprised and disgust the ML2.1 had the very simile effect and I was able to recognize some “residual sand dropping” effect. Of because there is not DSP in Lamm ML2.1 but something in that amp did create the effect that I described. My presumption is that it was the output transformer. The reason why I think so because I have another guy who bought ML2.1 during the very first month Lamm stated to make them and his amp did sound like ML2.0, which did not have any of the above mentioned effects. From other unconfirmed channels I learned that Lamm in his first run of ML2.1 used some leftover components from ML2.0. Since the ML2.1 officially had a new output transformer I think that this new transformer was not good. Now, I do not make any claims about the ML2.2 and I do not know if it has the sound similar to ML2.0 or similar to ML2.1. I do not think that it even will be know as I was the only know person who took vocal anti - ML2.1 position. Since I do not have any longer any speakers that might be driven by a full-range amp I do not think that any Lamms will make in my home. BTW,I know a few other Lamm users who very much did not like ML2.1 and absolutely agree with me but they are in a stage to kissing Lamm in ass during his diarrhea and they never admitted the fact publicly.

The Cat

Posted by Romy the Cat on 02-02-2012

Keeping beaching about Spectral I have to admit that I did hear a very serious presentation of Spectral results. It was quite a few years back. The setup was entire spectral line with CD, transports, DAC, preamps and monoblocks. The key was to shunt the Spectral with heavy load cables. Spectral electronics, at in particularly power amps are basically oscillators and if they are not loaded properly than they produce an effect to a listener similar to cancer treatment chemotherapy. So, the owner of the Spectral has perhaps $150K worth MIT cables sitting between all his Spectral and I have to say that it was not bad sound. Probobly I would have to say more if I hear it today but as it was near 13 years back I remember that I was impressed at that time.

Page 1 of 1 (8 items)