| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Audio News» Lamm Industries: a special interview with a special company (95 posts, 5 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 5 (95 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 5 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Lamm LP2 phonostage: review of review...  Another stupid Lamm LP2 review....  Analog Playback Forum     2  42087  03-05-2005
  »  New  VTL TL-7.5 Reference: His name was Marc Mickelson he wa..  VTL TL-7.5 Reference: His name was Marc Mickelson he wa...  Audio Discussions  Forum     0  20528  03-16-2005
  »  New  The Silence of the Lamms!..  Well, Lamms are not exactly fun anymore. ...  Audio Discussions  Forum     7  50387  06-12-2005
  »  New  Romy, how does the original ML2 sound in regards to acc..  Modification of Lamm’s SET...  Audio Discussions  Forum     5  43165  06-20-2005
  »  New  Lamm L1 vs. L2 preamp..  L1/L2 & Police Breathalyzer...  Audio Discussions  Forum     5  49027  06-25-2005
  »  New  Jonathan Valin smokes Lamm LP2..  Jonathan Valin smokes Lamm LP2...  Analog Playback Forum     0  17662  03-27-2006
  »  New  Initial thoughts about new/old Lamm ML2s..  Voltage Divider in ML2 Input Stage...  Audio Discussions  Forum     215  1122120  10-12-2006
  »  New  DHT driver & input..  Effects of radiation...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     25  157237  02-01-2007
  »  New  A DSET is better then an expensive SET..  DIY Stradivarius...  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     41  230667  09-21-2007
  »  New  Lamm ML2.1 "No longer available"?..  My favorite song...  Audio Discussions  Forum     16  85857  04-09-2008
  »  New  The loudspeakers for a powerful SET..  Mission Accomplished?...  Audio Discussions  Forum     48  272662  04-11-2008
  »  New  Dual channel SET..  Space exploration...  Audio Discussions  Forum     8  52625  04-17-2008
  »  New  Incorporating active crossovers into DSET..  Thanks...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     2  28374  07-22-2008
  »  New  RMAF 2008 observations, opinions 1) ceramic drivers..  Mystification-masturbation?...  Audio Discussions  Forum     32  180620  10-15-2008
  »  New  Lamm introduced LL1 Signature Preamp…..  An Oscar for the most retarded comment printed in audio...  Audio Discussions  Forum     19  93038  05-16-2009
  »  New  A new CES 2010 loudspeaker?..  Good idea, indeed......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     15  112963  01-13-2010
  »  New  Lamm ML2.1 "No longer available"?..  My favorite song...  Audio Discussions  Forum     16  85857  04-09-2008
  »  New  Lamm ML2.2 and Mark the BS teller...  Keeping beaching about Spectral…...  Audio Discussions  Forum     7  43332  01-30-2012
01-27-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,104
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 21
Post ID: 3571
Reply to: 3554
Deconstructing the "review", and "little remarks".
While it is rare that any component under "review" will be panned outright, it is not uncommon for the "reviewer" to refer obliquely to the component's flaws.  In some cases, the flaws may even be presented or offered up as "features", or it may be suggested that the flaws are rather in some way part of the amp's "character", as though that "character" could be likened somehow to your eccentric Uncle Vanya, and so you might "learn to love it" or "make it work for you", for all its flaws.
 
In the "thumbnail review" Marc actually says the ML3 has "greater drive" than the ML2.1, and that it has more/better "ability to propel the music's pace forward".  I don't know about the ML2.1, but was not aware that the ML2 needed "improving" on this score.  Could this mean the ML3 "pushes" the sound like SS?  Is ML3 feedback not "user-selectable" ?  Marc does not mention feeback here.  My only amp with "adjustable feedback" was the original Music Reference RM-9, and I can say that it simply sounded more natural with the least possible feedback, regardless of any other consequences, including the bass.  Even bass was "more natural" with less feedback, even though bass might be weaker with less feedback with given speakers.  In cases where a given speaker "had to have" more feedback, then that speaker never did sound very good with the original RM-9.  I don't know what, if anything, this says about the ML3's feedback, I am just mentioning my own possibly-related experience in the interest of furthering this discussion.

Marc also says the ML3 provided "greater high-frequency delicacy and air, rather like those amps I've heard that use 845 tubes."  Could this mean that the ML3 sounds in this system rather like a typical 845?  Is it the consensus here that the 845 performs benchmark frequency extremes?

Then, Marc says, "The midrange was as corporeal as that of the ML2.1, but the bass had more power, though nothing Vlademir played displayed its very depths."  I am not experienced enough with ML2.1 sound to comment on this, but I can say that the "vintage" ML2 is both "corpreal" and truly amazing with bass frequencies.  I would not say I needed "more" bass or "stronger" bass than the ML2 provides, at least with my speakers.  Although my very limited time with the "WATT Puppies" was based on the decision to get and stay away from them, I am guessing that the ML3 is aimed directly at this type of speaker (and the richer guys who own this type of speaker), so I would not be at all surprised if the ML3 is "bigger" with these speakers in as many ways as could be accomplished; and this, likely, is how it was/is intended to come across.

By putting all the pieces together we may actually have more useful information than is immediately apparent in this quicky-drawn ML3 "review".

Best regards,
Paul S
01-27-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 22
Post ID: 3572
Reply to: 3571
Come on, this is juts a propaganda noise.

 Paul S wrote:
In the "thumbnail review" Marc actually says the ML3 has "greater drive" than the ML2.1, and that it has more/better "ability to propel the music's pace forward".  I don't know about the ML2.1, but was not aware that the ML2 needed "improving" on this score…

The Sound of ML2.0 did need improving in a number of areas. However, what is very important is to undusted that the “journalist” Marc Mickelson never managed to “mention” (or I believe understand it and it is VERY loaded statement) the ML2.0 shortcomings before he heard the ML3 (with 2 ways Wilson monitor :-). Also, Marc Mickelson never managed to “mention” that ML2.1 that he insistently recommended as a replacement of ML2 was a major step back and was faulty, almost fraudulently faulty, amplifier.  So, what happens now? Do you think Marc Mickelson has any thoughts or any real ideas what he is saying now? Not a chance! A manufacture made a product and Marc Mickelson immediately plugged himself into the process of glorification of the product and creation of incentives to make consumers to express interest about the product. It is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT for Mickelsons, Framers, Valins and rest of the reviewing whores what product is and what it does. Vladimir Lamm could put 20 pounds of bowl movement into metal chaises, show it to a review and say “fetch”. Upon seeing it any reviewer will spread adjectives about the “new product” and about the glory of the New Sound. It is what they do for living and IT IS WHAT THEIR IDENTITY IS. Have you seen any reviewer send a unit back to manufacture refusing cheerleading the product because the product was not worthy? I could tell publicly a lot of interesting stories how it works infernally but I think I have made my case.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-27-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,104
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 23
Post ID: 3574
Reply to: 3572
Perhaps despite himself
Of course this is basically propaganda.  Who argues otherwise?  However, I have found that it is possible at times to glean a modicum of useful information from "reviews" like this via a careful reading of what is said and somtimes via a certain type of inference created by what is not said.  I learned a long time ago to read these things a little differently than the ostensible manner and tone in which are presented.

I am curious about what Lamm has done here, so I am trying to get a better idea of what he's done with the ML3 by understanding it in terms I am familiar with, including my growing familiarity with the ML2s and the language of these industry wonk/"reviewers".  After all, I've been reading these cranks for 45 years.  While it may be that I upon finally hearing the ML3 differ with Marc as to the amp's salient characteristics, I would not be surprised if it turns out that it does sound like some sort of giant, powerful 845 driving the WATT Puppies, since that is probably a smart direction to go if making/marketing a Big Expensive Amp for the boys with the Big Expensive Speakers.  Of course I am merely observing it, and my remarks here are aimed only at circling around, trying to sniff out what the ML3 may actually do.

But how can any of these "reviewers" at this point say that any King Hell Amp is "accurate" or "natural", or "tonally neutral" when they have already said that many times about innumerable "value" products?  It couldn't be more obvious that the only way these guys can pump up any given debut product without taking away from other product lines is to glorify the newcomer in terms of its (already-glorified) immediate predecessors.  In cases where the successor is more expensive it is not common that it will be unfavorably compared with its predecessor.  In cases where the successor is MUCH more expensive than its predecessor, unflattering comparisons are almost unheard of.

No, it takes a careful reading to get to the heart of anything these "reviewers" might happen to say, perhaps despite themselves.  As you pointed out, Romy, the mention of the "reference" speaker alone can speak volumes.  Likewise, the source material, etc., etc., ad nauseum.  And while these "reviewers" may lack credibility, that does not mean they aren't saying anything at all worth knowing.

And believe me that I am in no way "attached" to the ML2 or any other piece of gear I own for any reason other than demonstrated performance capability (or simple inertia!).  The second I hear something better I will drop today's prized whatever like a bad habit, circumstances permitting.  All gear needs "improving", so it's really a matter of doing the best you can in terms of your overall system performance.  What too few "audiophiles" seem to realize is that a given piece of gear can "improve" upon another in some ways while giving up ground in others.

Best regards,
Paul S
01-27-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
angeloitacare-idiot
Aracaju (SE) Brazil
Posts 51
Joined on 09-15-2006

Post #: 24
Post ID: 3575
Reply to: 3574
impression of listening ml3
hi Paul

i heard the  ml3' s, the last day of the show.I am wondering, how someone would be able to compare the two amplifiers, if one was playing stereo one day, and the other mono the other day ? There was no way to compare. When i heard the ml3's playing mono, i went out after 2, 3 minutes. It was not a interesting apresentation at all.
01-27-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,104
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 25
Post ID: 3576
Reply to: 3575
Listening for characteristics
Well, it says something that you had a chance to stay listen to "the best amplifier in the world" and yet you walked out.  Although it does not tell us what you heard it does seem to reflect on the set-up, at least, and so, if only indirectly, on the intentions of the "vendor".

There are times when I can somehow listen for and assess a particular component even in a more-or-less foreign system.  And sometimes I just relax and listen and my "impressions" somehow form later.  Other times I just can't recognize much of anything.  Oddly enough, this condition of "not recognizing" does not necessarily mean the performance is "bad", or it may even be "good", even "out of context".  The ML2s were like that because they are just so "different", and they were not "conditioned" when I got them, etc., yet I knew right away I was on to something.  But so far the only positive takes on the ML3 have been from people whose motives are at best suspect, and whose language must be deconstructed to so much as draw hints about what they are actually saying.

I can't remember how many times I have been to a show or a salon to hear some supposedly SOTA component or system, and everything - and I mean EVERYTHING - is just plain bad, from one end to the other.  It's always disappointing.  And, especially in a case where there is/are Angel component or components that have already gotten "good buzz", people will stand there and exclaim how good it is, which only makes the situation all the more bizarre and confusing.

But then , no one has really said the ML3 was "bad" yet, either, so I guess we'll just have to keep waiting to let the impressions pile up into some kind of melted down, deconstructed "average".  And maybe then we can just set it aside and listen for ourselves.

Best regards,
Paul S
01-27-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 26
Post ID: 3577
Reply to: 3575
Get juts a little bit more serious if you can.

 angeloitacare wrote:
i heard the  ml3' s, the last day of the show.I am wondering, how someone would be able to compare the two amplifiers, if one was playing stereo one day, and the other mono the other day ? There was no way to compare. When i heard the ml3's playing mono, i went out after 2, 3 minutes. It was not a interesting apresentation at all.
You really made me laugh. First of all any person who has any residue of listening awareness do not need to “compare two amplifiers”.  Second, if a person knows what to listen while he is listening then would it be mono or stereo is completely irrelevant. Certainly I extend to you or to anyone else rights to like of do not like whatever you wish but it said absolutely nothing about the subject of your observation. I might say a LOT more but I see no reasons…

The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-27-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
angeloitacare-idiot
Aracaju (SE) Brazil
Posts 51
Joined on 09-15-2006

Post #: 27
Post ID: 3578
Reply to: 3576
there was no thrill at all hearing ml3
Paul

 hear the  Lamm amp's was one of my interests at CES. The only way to come to a verdict abought the ml3
would have been If there were the  possibility to switch from one amp to the other, and then compare. At least to hear the Ml3 stereo would have been the minimum requirement, and than the same music as played with the ml2.1 . Already at this circumstances the difference would need to be so big, that a listener would remember the sound he heard the day before of one amp, and its characteristics, and then able to describe the differences one from the other.  As it was not possible even to do that, no judgement could  be taken. Lamm's stuff did  not differe in quality much of all the other equipment playing at the show. nothing special, nothing extraordinary.  
01-28-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
jessie.dazzle


Paris, France
Posts 456
Joined on 04-23-2006

Post #: 28
Post ID: 3580
Reply to: 3578
ML3 : Should it have been a pair of speakers ?
I know Lamm is not in the business of making speakers, but from my point of view, they are missing more than just one opportunity here.

Rather than addressing the lack of excellent, high sensitivity speakers by offering a more powerful amp, would it not have been more interesting to see Lamm attack it from the other end? By that I mean designing (perhaps in collaboration with a speaker maker) speakers that are optimized for Lamms low powered SET amps.

He could then have then revised his low-power design, to be sold as a modular "DSET" solution for this new speaker (the S1?). The future L3 preamp could be equipped with 5 or 6 pairs of outputs.

jd*


How to short-circuit evolution: Enshrine mediocrity.
01-28-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,104
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 29
Post ID: 3581
Reply to: 3578
The blind leading the deaf

There are at least two threads going here.  I am onto the idea that Lamm has finally released his latest-and-greatest uber-amp, and I am trying to glean some idea of how it performs, other than the political mirror test.  Obviously the speaker was a factor here, but I am not clear how or why either mono or the lack of A/B comparisons were perceived as  problems.  I have not followed the Wilson speakers because I never heard anything from them but some potential from the giant model (the Cleopatra, or the Sphinx, or something like that), and no one ever seemed to be able to figure out how to drive them correctly or get them properly integrated for any demonstration I ever attended, and the drivers seemed compromised.  Still, it may be that pairing the ML3 with the Puppy was neither coincidental nor gratuitous.

Can we put to rest the idea that Lamm should have done a multi-channel amp?  Clearly, Lamm has aimed his Big Gun squarely at the Big Target.  And while this ALMOST guarantees mediocrity, Lamm's history does make me curious, and I am watching for something worthwhile even if it's only some aspect of his current Statement.  Remember the "X-Factor".  With respect to multi-channel, I'll bet you that if Lamm does this it will be for HT, with surround sound, etc., because that is the obvious course for SALES.  The engine for marketing and developing audio products has been well-analysed at this forum, and Lamm has claimed a niche he seems to well understand.  Maybe if Romy still had some influence on him, we might get multi-channel DSET or a stab at an uber-system.  I seriously doubt he will get any encouragement for such an idea from any of his Market Watch/Fox News cronies.

So now I am left wondering:  If a showgoer heard the ML3 demonstration and found the ML3 undistinguished, what would it have taken to distinguish it?

Best regards,
Paul S

01-28-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 30
Post ID: 3582
Reply to: 3580
I do not think in terms of “should” but rather as “could”.

Well, Jessie, I think you're  exercising a wishful thinking but you have, I think, a wrong subject for your thinking. Neither Lamm nor any other high-end manufacture care about result as a concept but rather a result as product. A product but its nature of being a product is a compilation of rendered efforts projected to the reimbursable values. So, the Hi-Fi companies produce Products they do not produce Sound. Sound for them is juts a tradable commodity.

I personally, as a  person who observes Lamm Industries as a company that exists explicitly to generate revenue (it is what any business does, without exception) and that produce “Products” have no problem with ML3, in fact I think it was a brilliant move – Vladimir juts lost money because he did not do it few years ago. However, as a person who is interested in boundary capacity of pure abstract audio I recognize the introduction of ML3 as no event. From the place where I stay even the well-performing ML2.0 was not satisfactory solution anymore – becose it is juts one single amp – what to do with it?

For the amplification solution that I would consider worth interest it should be DSETs. Look what the guy does: can you see him using one single amp for his playback?

Also, I do not see needs to use feedback in SETs. I’m not saying that it is wrong I juts saying that I see not needs. It is very difficult to make a commercial SET with no feedback and the no-feedback SETs are way too sanative for load and require a lot of precise tuning. SETs with feedback address many problems by patching those problems…. however what it the problems do not exist to begin with? The ML2 ran global feedback, and I’m presuming the ML3 does as well (the 12AX7 at line-input). In addition Vladimir it looks like run a local feedback from the GM70 plate to his driver stage. Well, I’m sure Lamm has his rational but this rational I find arguable. Whatever the rational would be if would end up with Lamm’s desire to extend the amp’s response, drop impedance and “simplify” the demands to output transformer. Ironically all those ventures become not the subject of inters in case the amp was made as a DSET.

Still, as in many other articles of my site I do not criticize manufactures in what they do but rather I criticize the industry reviewer for not performing their duty. In any civilized industry (or in the art world) criticism, the professional criticism, is a valuable tool for consumers and producers navigation. A smart criticism and analyses is something that moves progress in a field.  Look for instance on the history at the greatest musical, literature critics – they advanced their field as much as the greatest composers or writers. They did it but fertilizing “better” and de-fertilizing worst. In case of Hi-Fi we - the consumers and manufactures - as the producers have not such a filter. Would it be then most of the Hi-Fi product, the Lamm ML2.1 for instance, would not be possible. So, who could say if the ML2 was a prerequisite of ML3? In my auricle “About destiny of “High-End Sound”:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=3520

I will lead the readers to the idea that for today typical Audio-Moron a definition of “Hi-Fi quality” is in fact a simulated surrogate of sonic artificiality and many of the recent “suddenly successful” hi-fi products intentionally were made to satisfy those “simulated surrogate demands: Lamm ML2.1, any products of Harmonic Technology, Kharma and Magico loudspeakers, SACD and many others… Will the ML3 as the next step of the “Lamm’s progress?” So far no one said that ML2.1 was a failure. The “critics” Marc Mickelson and Art Dudley (actually Art was more sensible) provided “deep analyses” and concluded that the ML2.1 was : “one of the very best amps on the planet. Don't miss them.” Sure they did not miss it. What was missed was an ability of people like Marc Mickelson   to send the amps back suggesting to Lamm “keep working and let me know when you make to right”. Unfortunate it is not how it works in this stupid industry.

BTW, I got an email from a visitor of my site who proposed that I should not be as hard on Mickelson as he could receive for his review the Lamm ML2.1 amplifier with…  the ML2.0 internals.  Well, would not even know how to comment on it. I personally doubt that Lamm would go for this but if it was the case then … I do not know even how to name it….

Rgs,
The caT

PS:

 jessie.dazzle wrote:
The future L3 preamp could be equipped with 5 or 6 pairs of outputs.

Yep, keep dreaming. The L2 had 2 outputs; one was with reversible polarity, one without. I am sure Lamm had default time to keep the preamp under $15K if he put an extra relay in there to fix the polarity of second output. There is also some poorly technical problem why I hardly see it happens. Paraphrasing what Paul said: any general product guarantees mediocrity….




"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-28-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
jessie.dazzle


Paris, France
Posts 456
Joined on 04-23-2006

Post #: 31
Post ID: 3583
Reply to: 3582
Calculation and Aspriation
Yes yes yes  .... Lamm Industries is a BUSINESS... This is abundantly clear whenever I order tubes from them!

But the most desirable of Lamm's past creations are not the kind of things born solely of a desire to make money.

I understand Lamm's need to evolve by addressing market demands squarely, and to do it within the context of their credibility (believe it or not, I actually earn a living proposing new products based on anticipating future markets).

Yes, the idea that Lamm turn his ear to the manufacturing of speakers is a highly unlikely scenario. But a pair of speakers that worked (I mean really worked) with a single pair of ML2s, even at $126,000, would have a market (such a speaker would likely only get better with multi-channel, dedicated narrow band amplification). This is not at all outside the realm of credibility (or the niche) that Lamm Industries have established for themselves. For a successful example of this kind of diversity, one need look no further than the product planning savvy demonstrated by companies like Apple Computer... Who would have anticipated the success of their pricey little mp3 players, then the online music store... Who would have anticipated this from a computer manufacturer?... And now a portable telephone?

For now we have the ML3 (almost). So, with regard to how it might sound:
If it turns out to be capable of driving dead speakers as well as an ML2, but finally does it at volume levels commensurate with the cubic feet found in the listening rooms of the average Lamm client, well, readers of the Robb Report will certainly welcome such a product. Leaving the price aside, this to me, is a sort of bare minimum.

jd*


How to short-circuit evolution: Enshrine mediocrity.
01-28-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 32
Post ID: 3584
Reply to: 3583
How to mix Sergei Eisenstein and David Wilson into the same sausage.

 jessie.dazzle wrote:
Yes yes yes  .... Lamm Industries is a BUSINESS... This is abundantly clear whenever I order tubes from them!

Hm, I did not know that you use any Lamm electronics. In fact I just realized that I have absolutely no idea what any of the visitors of my site use for their playback.

 jessie.dazzle wrote:
But the most desirable of Lamm's past creations are not the kind of things born solely of a desire to make money.

Perhaps, as I understand whatever Lamm made so far was designed in one way or other by him back in Russia where relationship between money and creatively were way less screwed then in Western world (at least how is use to be). Some people attribute the outstanding artistic potential of Russian cinematographers during 1920s to the … very inadequate supply of Russian-made movie-shooting equipment. When in the begin of the 20-century Europe and America produced film equipment and shut films the Russians had no cameras, no film and instead of shooting they were THINKING how they will shot if they have the cameras and film. When the 1920s Russians got the Western film equipment they begin for a few years to do the things (artistically) that no one ever dreamed of.

 jessie.dazzle wrote:
Yes, the idea that Lamm turn his ear to the manufacturing of speakers is a highly unlikely scenario. But a pair of speakers that worked (I mean really worked) with a single pair of ML2s, even at $126,000, would have a market

Contrary to this a dedicated LF and HF ML3 would be able to drive virtually ANY loudspeaker. BTW, with 3 stages driving the GM70 into A2 it is possible to get out of LF channel almost 50W…

 jessie.dazzle wrote:
For now we have the ML3 (almost). So, with regard to how it might sound…

I have no reasons to question its sound at this time. I question it’s usability for the people who might like its sound. Regardless to price, getting one ML3 people will confine themselves for one single loudspeaker. Getting even a two pairs of ML3 people will be able to bi-amp but they will use for each of those channels fundamentally compromised amps because the very same ML3 with dedicated for a given bandwidth output stages will be way out there….

The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-28-2007 Post mapped to one branch of Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 33
Post ID: 3585
Reply to: 3581
The trade show listening rules.

 Paul S wrote:
So now I am left wondering:  If a showgoer heard the ML3 demonstration and found the ML3 undistinguished, what would it have taken to distinguish it?

Paul, the “showgoer” it seems that was juts clueless what he is doing there. Even disregarding the personal comments of the “showgoer” who apparently does not know how to perform the “target listening” there are general rule: do not comment on negative results at the shows but comment only on positive results. There is zillions reasons why Sound could be very bad at the trade shows. At any single show that I have attended the Lamm’s rooms always had very poor sound (with 1.5 exception but it was not public demonstration). However, trust me: a constant poor result at the trade shows is absolutely normal and absolutely not indicative. So, the rule are that if the room turns out to sound good (mostly accidentally) then it worth judgment. Otherwise, if the room turns out to sound poor, then it is absolutely irrelevant how the room performed. Sure for an evolved listener who is well familiar with the subject even a bad sounding room might give a lot of information. However an “intelligent showgoer” is a very rare commodity in Vegas….

The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-29-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Wojtek
Pinckney (MI), United States
Posts 158
Joined on 09-01-2005

Post #: 34
Post ID: 3586
Reply to: 3585
Sorry but You guys did not hear the amp...
and since you're quite critical about last Lamm's creations the chance is that the amp is indeed poor...Sorry but if company ask $126K for an amp with parts count worth of 500$ plus maybe , maybe another $500 in transformers I'd think they could spend a few grands to make the room to sound good .I love this thread .Paul paid $12k for an amp he never heard ,300$ for a pair of 15$ tubes and now we talk about the amp nobody heard .I guess thats what you call "target listening" personally I don't give a fuck what owners of big Wilsons will use to drive their speakers but I'm interested how the amp performs . .Besides guys who spend half a million on hi-fi are not going to bother with bi tri-amp . How would you market this concept? .All the competition is able to do with one channel and Lamm needs two ??
01-29-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Gregm
Greece
Posts 91
Joined on 02-16-2005

Post #: 35
Post ID: 3587
Reply to: 3586
Wojtek, the actual point of this thread is quite different
No-one is criticising the ML3 (amplification) product. We are discussing the concept and the applicability of such products, i.e. the ultimate limitation of an amplifier called upon to work from DC to daylight and, accordingly, drive a loudspeaker that's also supposed to produce music in a homogenous manner from DC to daylight. The ML3 served as an illustration and, as it's a new product fm Lamm, we also speculated as to its design parametres.

 Wojtek wrote:
...since you're quite critical about last Lamm's creations the chance is that the amp is indeed poor...
No, no. If anything, I for one can readily concede that the amp probably "sounds" good in a specific application (this would seem mids-upward), until proven otherwise.

Sorry but if company ask $126K for an amp with parts count worth of 500$ plus maybe , maybe another $500 in transformers I'd think they could spend a few grands to make the room to sound good.
Sure, OK -- only, that's not as easy as you make it sound!
I love this thread .Paul paid $12k for an amp he never heard ,300$ for a pair of 15$ tubes and now we talk about the amp nobody heard. I guess thats what you call "target listening" personally I don't give a fuck what owners of big Wilsons will use to drive their speakers but I'm interested how the amp performs.
Again, the point under discussion has been the application not "how the amp sounds". If you say "how the amp sounds" what do you mean?? Reproducing mid-highs with the appropriate OT? Designed for mid-bass with a different OT?....
Besides guys who spend half a million on hi-fi are not going to bother with bi tri-amp . How would you market this concept?
Agreed. A few have actually mentioned this already. HOWEVER, I don't know if it's impossible to market -- in fact, I believe that someone like Lamm could market such a product and people would listen (at least a few anyway-- at the price of the ML3 as is there are only few customers anyway... so what's the loss? 
All the competition is able to do with one channel and Lamm needs two ??
That's not quite correct. You'll notice there are products -- see loudspeakers -- where the bass section is already amplified independantly. So the idea of needing different/discreet applification for low frequencies vs the rest of the spectrum is hardly novel.
If, OTOH you're referring to the marketing risk (i.e. so many amps are "wide bandwidth" dc-to-daylight" and Lamm can't do this, I again think that with Lamm's market reputation, the "two channel per channel"Lamm  (as you describe it) might have created a stir in the Market...
01-29-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 36
Post ID: 3588
Reply to: 3587
Amplifier is not a 'product' but a 'solution'.

 Gregm wrote:
No-one is criticising the ML3 (amplification) product. We are discussing the concept and the applicability of such products, i.e. the ultimate limitation of an amplifier called upon to work from DC to daylight and, accordingly, drive a loudspeaker that's also supposed to produce music in a homogenous manner from DC to daylight. The ML3 served as an illustration and, as it's a new product fm Lamm, we also speculated as to its design parametres.

I juts wish that everyone were able to “get” what is going on as lucid and as cogent as you do.
 Wojtek wrote:
Sorry but if company ask $126K for an amp with parts count worth of 500$ plus maybe , maybe another $500 in transformers I'd think they could spend a few grands to make the room to sound good.

Well, first of all you are wrong at the scale. The output transformer for ML2 cost to Lamm to make $900 in 1990s. I’m not wiling to divulge any proprietary information and I’m bringing it up only because I know that Lamm made comments on record about the price of his OPT for his SET. I would not be surprised if I learned that the cost of ML3 transformer would be even $5000 to make. Also, Wojtek, if you have a really serious demand for a output transformer for instance and am familiar with subject (I do not think you do) then you would know that you need to spend literally years unit you fine someone who were able to satisfy your design demands. What wherever it worth: why you think the ML2.0 sound so different then most other SETs out there?

Do not get me wrong, I do have my disagreement with some price application within Lamm Company but the sarea of my disagreement has nothing to do with what you implied. Also, if you afraid that Vladimir takes too much money in then do not be too sure. All that I can tell you that if Vladimir was a lead engineer at some DuPont or Boeing then he would do much successfully fanatically then he is doing with Lamm Industries. I feel it really unfortunate as for the years of spending with Audio he deserves to make much better living then he does making his amplifiers.
 Wojtek wrote:
I love this thread .Paul paid $12k for an amp he never heard ,300$ for a pair of 15$ tubes and now we talk about the amp nobody heard. I guess thats what you call "target listening" personally ….

Well, ironically the ML2.0 nowadays costs around 10K used and if a person can use it then I sincerely feel that the ML2.0 is the best buys in today audio among all off the shelf single-channels amplifiers. The “fool-Paul” did pay for it but you do not see him disappointed, do you? Also, "target listening" is not what you think it is. The "target listening" is a situation when a person knows EXACTLY what he/she needs to hear whale he is listening… if you do not know it then you do not know it and all bets off.
 Gregm wrote:
HOWEVER, I don't know if it's impossible to market (bi-amping) -- in fact, I believe that someone like Lamm could market such a product and people would listen …

It is EXACTLY how I feel.

 Gregm wrote:
That's not quite correct. You'll notice there are products -- see loudspeakers -- where the bass section is already amplified independantly. So the idea of needing different/discreet applification for low frequencies vs the rest of the spectrum is hardly novel.

Sure. Bass section and MF sections have completely different demands to rooms and…. to amplifiers. If from MF amplifier removes the demands of bass amplifier then it is very different ball-game… Still, in many loudspeakers the bass section is already amplified independently not because it is necessary but because they would like to do it half-ass, very cheap and very poorly. The speaker manufactures could not afford to demand for this product bi-amplification most of the time. If they do then they offer own amplification and crossovering solutions that mostly are very poor. The companies that specialize on high-end amplification (like Lamm for instance) could do WAY better…Anyhow, when a properly implemented independent bass section is driven by SENSIBLE dedicated properly done amplification then it is very far from what is usually know in Hi-Fi. Sure, the LF amp should not be a baby amplifier and it in most of the case should be equally “complicated” amp (expansive) as rest of the frequency, ideally it should be the same amp only with LF optimization… BTW, the validity of this concept will be re-test very soon at very and I hop I will be able to come up with some interesting observations when a new Zaratustra II will be competing with bass section of super Melquiades. The Zaratustra II will have some futures that is astonishingly expansive to implement in SET environment.

 Gregm wrote:
If, OTOH you're referring to the marketing risk (i.e. so many amps are "wide bandwidth" dc-to-daylight" and Lamm can't do this, I again think that with Lamm's market reputation, the "two channel per channel "Lamm  (as you describe it) might have created a stir in the Market...

I very much hope so. Here is where I see the price of Lamm ML3 as its fundamental limitation. If the ML3 was an amplifier with the price tag I would say $50K then for a single-95dB-speaker-person it would be a “reasonable” step-up from ML2.0 as the ML3 has more power and use debatable better output DHT tube (indisputably better electrically). If this amp is done properly then I would not be surprised that ML3 will sound more interesting then ML2.0. So, why the people who are currently satisfied with SINGLE PAIR of ML2 should not consider ML3?  Or why the ML3 if it performs better then ML2.0 should not cost more?

However, for $126K it looks like it would be the “last solution”. However, the “last solution” in SET world might not be a single “dc-to-daylight” type of amp or a single “dc-to-daylight” type of loudspeaker. So, the messages that I read with new “Lamm ML3 Reference” (I think that is the amp’s full name) is that after this $126K “ML3 Reference” should follow a $255K “ML4 Statement” or the dual channel ML3 in DSET configuration. However, as I explained if the second part of the following post:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=3492

.. tThere are very well-defined cost threshold for any SETs and the ML4 Statement DSET should be … less expansive then ML3 Reference, also the ML4 Statement DSET will deliver better results for.... consumers.

In the end, writing this post I was not able refuse smiling about the ease with which we pontificate about the $255K, $126K or $50K amplifiers.  The industry almost made us to agree upon the notion that AN AMPLIFIER COULD COST MORE THEN IT SHOULD. However, the very same industry so far is failing to teach us that regardless the price tags an amplifier is not a PRODUCT but a SOLUTION, a solution in context of our playback installation.

Rgs,
Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-29-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,104
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 37
Post ID: 3589
Reply to: 3586
Fool's gold?
Wojtek, since you have invoked me by name, I will respond directly to associated remarks, while Greg and Romy have answered to other points as well as I might have done.

I believe I have mentioned that I have been at hi-fi fairly seriously for 45 years.  I have learned a few things in that time, one of which is the "Target Listening" that Romy has talked about, and another thing is not to simply throw money at the situation.

As I have shared previously, I did buy the ML2s without having heard them in my system.  However, I did know exactly what I was looking for, and I had some very good reasons to believe that the ML2s were the amps I wanted.  Of course I was reluctant to spend 30k on a new pair, so I did what I've done for decades, and I waited for them to start turning up on the used market.  As it happens, I was able to get them for under 10K, although that is not at all the point of this response.  Now, having put them through their paces in my system, I would give 12k for them.  And it's funny, really, because I have not heard any other single amp, at ANY price, ever, that comes closer to doing what I want.  I am especially sensitive to and critical of reproduced tonal and harmonic presentation.  The ML2s are so much better than other amps I have heard in this respect that I actually wound up getting a "bonus", because in my wildest dreams I never expected this degree of fidelity.  I could go on, but why should you care?  I just want to say that you needn't concern yourself that I have taken a reckless course, because quite the opposite is true.  Perhaps I dissembled, just a little, and you got the wrong idea from that.  As a matter of fact, if nothing else, the ML2s have held enough value that I would loose little or nothing reselling them.  But that's not going to happen any time soon, because they have worked out just as I'd hoped, and more so, in my present system.

Meanwhile, if you know of any commercial amp that will better the ML2 for my purposes, please say what it is.  I have to say at this time that I think that if the "vintage" ML2 is not an outright "bargain", then it remains the cheapest and easiest way to get to this level of music reproduction, at least given my present speakers.  I find it ironic that what facilitated  availablility of this amp for me was just the "next" amp Lamm released, namely the ML2.1.  But then, this is not the first time I have taken advantage of just this situation.

My interest in the ML3 is intellectual at this point, and it is based on the amazing performance of the ML2, with which I am now becoming familiar.  And if it appears that Lamm has created a true "successor" to the ML2, then I might take steps to have a listen, or even to keep my eyes peeled for re-sales.  While I will not be paying 125k for a pair, still I might learn something, or I might learn a way to "train" my ML2s.  All the criticism notwithstanding, Lamm is clearly one of the most interesting amp builders out there, and IMO he is someone worth watching, despite his political affiliations and the obvious "limitations" of his putative approach.

Lastly, for all my complaining, I have entirely re-tubed both ML2s and bought lots of extra tubes for considerably less than $300, not that that is the point, either.  The point was/is trying to identify a way or a source for obtaining certain specific tubes that sound good when used for certain specific applications.  If I can save money while I accomplish my objectives, then, good.  If it costs more, then it costs more.  "Value" is not always cheap, and sometimes what you want just costs what it costs.

Best regards,
Paul S
01-29-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 38
Post ID: 3593
Reply to: 3589
'Thy fate is the common fate of all' - Longfellow

 Paul S wrote:
All the criticism notwithstanding, Lamm is clearly one of the most interesting amp builders out there, and IMO he is someone worth watching…

Unquestionably, and it is what I do - watching. However, here is where I have my extra “puss” on the subject.  If you read careful the following thread:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=930

then you might sense that I personally feel that the industry affiliation is like cancer’s maltase – it destroys a person’s awareness regardless how serious a person take the industry rules in. The same feelings regarding Lamm I expressed in the Dedications Section the Milq’s release notes. So, for me, watching Lamm (and few other companies) is like observing a clinical study….

Pay attention; any manufacture in the history of audio (with no exception) after they introduces anything interesting always (always!!!) when down in their publicly available potency. It is how the industry maltase works. Would be the L1/M1.1/ML2.0 that Vladimir did in a specific period of his “industry disease” the best things that he did commercially? Without doubt whatever he did after do far did lead to very depressing but not unexpected conclusions. Will the new ML3 and his prospective L3 preamps something that set for Lamm a new horizon? No one knows it yet, I do not think ever Vladimir knows it yet.

Although the ML3 is an amp that comes to the consumers from the times when Kharma-type-sound and Magico-type-sound rules the market but I do sincerely hope that Lamm will be stubborn (and frankly speaking stupid enough) and will make something worthwhile. Unfortunate not one know it yet and at looks like the there is no framework within which the truth about ML3 will become known… Will see…

The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-29-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,104
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 39
Post ID: 3594
Reply to: 3593
After laughing my ass off...
(reading the linked thread) I was reminded immediately of the artists I know, VERY few of whom have anything at all interesting to say about art (or anything else, either, really...).  So it may be pandemic.

But, as you have pointed out, Romy, audio is a little different than other "markets" in that there actually are certain objective criteria that should preoccupy the efforts of the "Audio Industry"; yet, oddly, it doesn't work this way at all.  Even televisions have gotten bigger, brighter, more pixelated, etc., while audio has somehow become more like fashion, where a panel literally meets quarterly to decide which colors and styles the Fashion Industry as a whole will offer to "consumers".

But I am not so sure that Lamm plays this game, exactly, or maybe it's that Lamm's overt behavior seems a trifle peculiar to me, unlike what I've come to expect of the industry "players".  Perhaps this is just due to cultural differences.  One almost gets the impression that he marches to his own drummer, like some crackpot genius, staying different despite his overt attempts to "satisfy market demand".

And do I remember reading that Lamm has (or had) a totally "different" understanding of how amps should "behave" and sound, and that his methods of testing and evaluating are (were) novel, as well?  One wonders if and if so then how these odd, objective characteristics may yet spare him the ultimate humiliation you describe.

I know that expectations of Lamm are high, and they are based on his considerable best efforts, and any drop off in his products gets noticed and lamented.  But how much would Lamm have to change to fit squarely into the industry mold?

It does seem like, but I hope not, that consciously or not, even our best and our brightest are sooner or later blighted by the "AIDS" (Audio Industry Dimming Syndrome), and that they all, even if slowly at first, get sucked into the current and begin circling the same drain.

Perhaps we should organize some kind of raffle, raise some money, try to save the poor blighters.

You know...  for kids.

Best regards,
Paul S
01-30-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 40
Post ID: 3595
Reply to: 3594
Actually am getting bored with this thread.

I kind of less care about Lamm or about his new amps but rather I am interested using the example of ML3 to see what the DHT tubes are capable off.  There are some people who worship direct-heated tubes and attribute to them some ventures (like absent of higher harmonics and a special micro-fineness). There are other people who see in that micro-fineness an excessive granularity – I tend to agree. I do not know exealsy, as I hardly heard any SETs that I like generally and particularly the  properly used SET. I personally had no seriously-made DHT in my room and frankly speaking I see no motivation to peruse anything else. Still I thought that the ML3 might be educational what DHT tube might do. Dima is considering 6E5P-2A3 for himself… but I would like to see in a DHT amp a direct heated driver as well. If someone know any seriously-made, two-stages, mid-frequency-centric amp with direct heated driver AND direct heated  output stage then I would go to listen or might borrow it. In exchange I might lend my full-range Milq…. Anyhow, it would be a different thread…..

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Page 2 of 5 (95 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 5 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Lamm LP2 phonostage: review of review...  Another stupid Lamm LP2 review....  Analog Playback Forum     2  42087  03-05-2005
  »  New  VTL TL-7.5 Reference: His name was Marc Mickelson he wa..  VTL TL-7.5 Reference: His name was Marc Mickelson he wa...  Audio Discussions  Forum     0  20528  03-16-2005
  »  New  The Silence of the Lamms!..  Well, Lamms are not exactly fun anymore. ...  Audio Discussions  Forum     7  50387  06-12-2005
  »  New  Romy, how does the original ML2 sound in regards to acc..  Modification of Lamm’s SET...  Audio Discussions  Forum     5  43165  06-20-2005
  »  New  Lamm L1 vs. L2 preamp..  L1/L2 & Police Breathalyzer...  Audio Discussions  Forum     5  49027  06-25-2005
  »  New  Jonathan Valin smokes Lamm LP2..  Jonathan Valin smokes Lamm LP2...  Analog Playback Forum     0  17662  03-27-2006
  »  New  Initial thoughts about new/old Lamm ML2s..  Voltage Divider in ML2 Input Stage...  Audio Discussions  Forum     215  1122120  10-12-2006
  »  New  DHT driver & input..  Effects of radiation...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     25  157237  02-01-2007
  »  New  A DSET is better then an expensive SET..  DIY Stradivarius...  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     41  230667  09-21-2007
  »  New  Lamm ML2.1 "No longer available"?..  My favorite song...  Audio Discussions  Forum     16  85857  04-09-2008
  »  New  The loudspeakers for a powerful SET..  Mission Accomplished?...  Audio Discussions  Forum     48  272662  04-11-2008
  »  New  Dual channel SET..  Space exploration...  Audio Discussions  Forum     8  52625  04-17-2008
  »  New  Incorporating active crossovers into DSET..  Thanks...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     2  28374  07-22-2008
  »  New  RMAF 2008 observations, opinions 1) ceramic drivers..  Mystification-masturbation?...  Audio Discussions  Forum     32  180620  10-15-2008
  »  New  Lamm introduced LL1 Signature Preamp…..  An Oscar for the most retarded comment printed in audio...  Audio Discussions  Forum     19  93038  05-16-2009
  »  New  A new CES 2010 loudspeaker?..  Good idea, indeed......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     15  112963  01-13-2010
  »  New  Lamm ML2.1 "No longer available"?..  My favorite song...  Audio Discussions  Forum     16  85857  04-09-2008
  »  New  Lamm ML2.2 and Mark the BS teller...  Keeping beaching about Spectral…...  Audio Discussions  Forum     7  43332  01-30-2012
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts