|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
01-05-2014
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Lamm announced that he introduced a new phonostage: LP2.1.
http://www.lammindustries.com/PRODUCTS/LP2.1%20introduction%20booklet.pdf
This is kind of strange move. The LP2 was very bad phonostage; despite all industry medals and huge amount of glowing reviews it got it was truly a piece sonic garbage. I saying it very confident because I was the last Lamm that I owned and I hated it as no other piece of equipment I had. The LP2.1 has to be update of LP2 and it is in a way is. The external power supplies, I wonder why not 4 boxes but two. The new tubes: 6C3P replaced 5842/WE417. The 5842 was a problematic chose (I do not like sound of this tube) but 6C3P is Russian remake of it. Is it better? I did not use but Russians who used it passed very negative comments. They might be wrong but 6C3P was not Russian development but rip off of western tubes – those type of the tube never were good. So, I wonder if Lamm decided instead of buying of $5 tube to buy now $.5 tubes. Those increased donation to GOP are so costly…
The output impedance 2.8K…. hm… this is kind of too high, isn’t it?
The 40 and 60dB gain is very low number at my estimation. 60dB gain obliges to use preamps with high gain while use low output cartridges. The noise numbers are good but it is just with 60dB gain. It looks like there is no provision for cartridges loading… The same 20dB transformer as the LP2 had… sucks…
For sure I can not speculate how the new LP2.1 would sound. The changes Lamm made might be truly marketing BS to collect from his users a new round of financial contributions or if might have “some” sonic merit. I suspect, and it is true conjecture on my side, that LP2.1 will be able to demonstrate to the people who sing odes to LP2 that it is “better” phonostage but they would be essentially the same unfortunate people. If you feed a person all of his life by rotten eggs and then add some nice French souse to the rotten eggs then the people would note the “improvement”.
The caT
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
01-05-2014
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Is he saying other (lesser) phono stages are class A/B? Better, perhaps, to claim "all SET gain path"?
Yes, output impedance is (oddly...) very high; but one supposes it will mate with the newer Lamm line stages. VL also mentions that this unit has high current, and no loop feedback. Hmmm...
At least people don't have to try to find useable WE 417 tubes anymore. And Lamm does seem to know how to get the best from the Russian tubes he uses, whatever that means in this case.
As for overall gain, as long as input is suitable and output is sufficient when a SUT is used, who needs more?
Best regards,
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
01-05-2014
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d  Paul S wrote: | | Is he saying other (lesser) phono stages are class A/B? Better, perhaps, to claim "all SET gain path"? |
|
What does it mean? Why any state of a phonstage would ever be entering anything then class A?
| Paul S wrote: | | Lamm does seem to know how to get the best from the Russian tubes he uses, whatever that means in this case. |
|
I feel it is unwarranted statement. I do not know what reasons to have to make this judgment. If anybody knows anything about Russian tubes them Lamm would be the person. Could this knowledge be overridden by dominating mercantile objectives that Lamm obviously has? You bet.
The Cat
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
01-05-2014
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d I have no idea who Panagiotis Karavitis is. He isist that he is doctor and I hope he is better doctor then an audio reviewers, if not then I hope he cure only republicans….
Honestly I did not read the Karavitis’ review in while. I did first paragraph and it was enough to collude that he is idiot.
http://parttimeaudiophile.com/2013/12/28/lamm-lp2-deluxe-phono-stage/
Karavitis wrote: “There are legends in the hi-fi industry as in everything else. There is one, concerning a well-known US-based designer and his obsession for air transport as being the only safe way for shipping his enormous crates filled with tube amps. Then there is another legend, about a company who produces the same phono stage for more than 10 years and never changed a bit in the design. People say that this company rarely changes something in the original design.”
Nope, dear doctor-proctologist Karavitis. There is no need to stick yourself in anybody ass. It is not to mention that there is no legends hi-fi industry but there is a desire for some fools to invent legends.
Your stupid story about obsession for air transport is story of your imagination and uniformity. Lamm pack his equipment in wooden crates that is mixed blessing. The problem is that all shipping companies as soon they see wooden crates then automatically presume that the content of the crates could not be damaged and handle the wooden crates very rough. This is exactly why many makers who see very fragile and very expensive equipment never use wooden crates.
Your comment about changes in the design is also damn. Probably you need to educate yourself at least do not publish your stupid review at the same day when the products that you have reviewer got terminate and was replaced by… an updated design.
I do not know what that “reviewer” else wrote. I have no interest to read his BS. A few days ago Amy made me to watch the HBO newsroom and I was watching how they fight with public figures go to microphones and stupidly lying… I wonder what Dr. Karavitis would pull of if his ass next: would it be that Lamm is Marssian or that his cartridge is cooled by heavy water.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Ciampa on
07-18-2017
|
|
Cant really get why Lamm always underestimate the output impedance. A simple cathode follower would be of help and wont compromise the results. Boulder 1008 has 5ohm.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
07-18-2017
|
Ironically, Lamm's amps seem to have "low" input impedance, around 40k. In fairness, I never had any problems with the ML2s I could certainly attribute to input impedance mismatch, and there are "related" discussions about [Lamm] amp Z out in other threads here.
Best regards
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by xandcg on
07-18-2017
|
| Romy the Cat wrote: | | Karavitis wrote: “...There is one, concerning a well-known US-based designer and his obsession for air transport as being the only safe way for shipping his enormous crates filled with tube amps...” |
|
This is a completely ignorant affirmation. Air freight is not is by any means safer than any other commercially available transport... it is just faster and the more expensive one... Not to say in the event of an accident it is a lot more prone to the goods being transported by plane be completed lost than by ship.
Still, air cargo companies do not have pre-determinated routes, like passenger ones, they land wherever is better for them at that specific moment. So you can send something (i.e) from USA to France, and the plane could land in Scotland, move your cargo by truck to England, from there by train to France, and still use a cabotage service to the final destination. They just want to delivery at time, and by the cheaper way for them.
Everyone barely involved with logistics know how the goods are handled and know it is they (exporter/sender) responsibility to proper package the goods accordingly. Just take a look on how fine art is packed - usually huge crates to transport tiny objects.
If someone wants a "safer" transport/handling, we are talking about special solutions what none of those "high-end" audio companies could afford consistently. Not to say it would still cost a lot more to them since all of them are small business (specially logistic-wise) and most international transport business simple do not care for small business, and do not want to deal with them - it is a little better for them at the air freight.
Just to exemplify, if you just delay a ship it will cost to you not less than U$150K per day, and they almost always will charge you for the entire day. And ever if you offer to pay, they still could prefer to simply leave the port (with your goods inside the ship, if that is the case), and later they call you:
Hey, your cargo is in the port X (what can be anyone). Have a good day.
99% of those companies certainly use "cargo accommodation" and so they probably do not even talk with the real transport business directly, what in maritime affairs just handle complete containers.
Just to enlight, still in maritime affairs, any business handling fewer than 1000 containers per year is not a "big business", unless we are talking about real special cargo.
Cheers!
|
|