| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Audio News» Lamm Industries: a special interview with a special company (95 posts, 5 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 3 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  43131  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  20975  03-16-2005
  »  New  The Silence of the Lamms!..  Well, Lamms are not exactly fun anymore. ...  Audio Discussions  Forum     7  52017  06-12-2005
  »  New  Romy, how does the original ML2 sound in regards to acc..  Modification of Lamm’s SET...  Audio Discussions  Forum     5  44598  06-20-2005
  »  New  Lamm L1 vs. L2 preamp..  L1/L2 & Police Breathalyzer...  Audio Discussions  Forum     5  50447  06-25-2005
  »  New  Jonathan Valin smokes Lamm LP2..  Jonathan Valin smokes Lamm LP2...  Analog Playback Forum     0  18071  03-27-2006
  »  New  Initial thoughts about new/old Lamm ML2s..  Voltage Divider in ML2 Input Stage...  Audio Discussions  Forum     215  1151922  10-12-2006
  »  New  DHT driver & input..  Effects of radiation...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     25  162276  02-01-2007
  »  New  A DSET is better then an expensive SET..  DIY Stradivarius...  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     41  242825  09-21-2007
  »  New  Lamm ML2.1 "No longer available"?..  My favorite song...  Audio Discussions  Forum     16  89060  04-09-2008
  »  New  The loudspeakers for a powerful SET..  Mission Accomplished?...  Audio Discussions  Forum     48  281399  04-11-2008
  »  New  Dual channel SET..  Space exploration...  Audio Discussions  Forum     8  54577  04-17-2008
  »  New  Incorporating active crossovers into DSET..  Thanks...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     2  29412  07-22-2008
  »  New  RMAF 2008 observations, opinions 1) ceramic drivers..  Mystification-masturbation?...  Audio Discussions  Forum     32  186355  10-15-2008
  »  New  Lamm introduced LL1 Signature Preamp…..  An Oscar for the most retarded comment printed in audio...  Audio Discussions  Forum     19  96363  05-16-2009
  »  New  A new CES 2010 loudspeaker?..  Good idea, indeed......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     15  116096  01-13-2010
  »  New  Lamm ML2.1 "No longer available"?..  My favorite song...  Audio Discussions  Forum     16  89060  04-09-2008
  »  New  Lamm ML2.2 and Mark the BS teller...  Keeping beaching about Spectral…...  Audio Discussions  Forum     7  45336  01-30-2012
02-11-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 41
Post ID: 3715
Reply to: 3493
DSET or do not DSET?
 Gregm wrote:
Actually, that could be a viable commercial product: a "stereo am"p allowing for four channels. One hi side, one low side, per channel.
Any moron purchasing this could be stratosphrically happy flabbergasting his pals by "passively biamping" his speakers with what looks like one amplifier!

Pay attention to what those Cnbadian guys do.

http://www.aurumacoustics.com/bandwidth_specialization.html

it is very simple 3-chanels DSET around 300B. Sure they cheap everything out by putting a crappy A/B Bryston under the bottom but the idea of dedicated 300B operation wasthere. I do not know if it is possible to make DSET for LF section around 300B, surely it would be way more complicated with 300B then with 6C33C, if ever possible. Still, even that frugally and very simplistically designed and build 300B DSET, I’m sure, “should” be a King-Kong among any other full-range operating 300B SETs…

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
03-14-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 42
Post ID: 4012
Reply to: 3492
Lamm ML3 price: how it works.

It might be not directly related to the subject of this thread but I do feel that it has quite a good relatively. Are you laughing that your Lamm made his new amplifier with a price tag of $126K? Well, think again.  Do you remember as  the inflames deaf whore with a sentimental name Jonathan Valin puffed up Karma products up to the point were price for those speakers shot form $6.5K to $45K? Do you remember when another whore Michele Framer just “touched” that AU turntable and made $50K price to become $100K? I told before thatany manufacture in this foolish industry makes products not to deliver a Result but to satisfy the demands of industry reviews? Well, today I got April/May TAS and scanned its pages… Why I mention it in context of the Lamm thread?

Well, the TAS published overview of the CES2007. It looks like Lamm was there. It looks like a “journalist” Jonathan Valin was responsible for covering of the “expensive” products presented at CES2007. So, what Jonathan Valin did? Mr. Valin spends 4 pages to performing a public fellatio to manufactures that sponsored him: Kharmas and Magico and then Valin “failed” to mention the damn Lamm's room. Is the presents at the show of a room featuring: LAMM ML3, LAMM ML2.1, LAMM M1.2, LAMM L2, LAMM LP2,  Wilson Audio Watt/Puppy is a sufficient reason to mention the room for an objective journalist? Well, not relay. For the “journalist” Jonathan Valin to be at the show is an opportunity to extort some cash for future writings and spread his moronic influence. It is shame for the TAS that he was not fired after the story with the Nordost cables....

People who read my site know that I am the one of the most objective and decisive public critic of Lamm products but my demanding attitude also implies allowing the equal opportunities.  Yes, I understand that bad-boy Lamm does not advertised in TAS in 2007. I understand that Jonathan Valin did not have chance to profit on Lamms since he moved to the Kharmas universe as even the Valin’s primitive ears understand that to use his Lamm ML2 with Kharmas is like to eat shit with a golden spoon. Yes, I understand that the stage is set for Marc Mickelson to “warm his hands” on Lamm’s ML3 and Valin has not leverage with his agenda in the Lamm’s camp? Still, this was juts TAS observation about the show… could he have a dignity to mention that Lamm was there? Lamm paid his $15K for this trip just to be mentioned, why to refuse him in his right?

Well, I don’t know how Lamm handles it but if I were in the Lamm’s shoes Ithen  would do EXECTLY what Lamm did: make another product with irrelevant sound, put on the product a price tag of $126.000.00 and to bless the product with the proverbial: "Fuck you, assholes, eat it!". Thanks you Mr. Valin - you did your duty….

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
10-19-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 43
Post ID: 5675
Reply to: 3492
Lamm ML3 and CES 2008
Lamm juts announced the “Wold Premier of Lamm ML3 Signature single-ended triode moonoblocks” at CES 2008. It will be paired with large Wilsons in 2500sq feet room. To drive 95dB sensitive speaker with 32W in 2500sq feet is a sizable task but it will be … I’m am sorry Wilson. Let hope that the Wilsons 4th-order band-pass LF section would be able to fill the room with it’s signature U-noise. Lamm looks like uses global feedback in his ML3 and GM-70 in his amp will dive into heavy grid current – it all shell help this SET in 2500sq room. I do not have any special expectations from the whole ML3 amp as my DSET-attitude make ML3 absolutely unnecessary (not to say bogus) but it might be an interesting to learn if the GM70 is capable to do the “elegant” sound. So, far any attempts I have seen with GM-70 made it to have the “Elephant Sound”, sponsored by very “peculiar” dehydrated HF. We will see how Lamm will cook this tube. I wish good luck to this $130K amp (another year of Lamm’s beloved Bush in WH and it will be $150K) and I hope it will be able to push the envelope of anti-DSET camp.

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
10-26-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 44
Post ID: 5742
Reply to: 5675
The Lamm ML4 and the 7-points

Yesterday I got two emails asking me about Lamm ML3. I replied as I usually do, saying that I that I do not practice in satisfaction in audio-consumer curiosity.  Still, it made me to think again about a hypothetic amp around GM-70.

I am not a fan of GM-70 as in my view high volume should derive from a sensitivity of acoustic system not from power of amplification. Still, GM-70 is a very linear triode as some people might consider it. So, if to have an abstract task to get “better” GM-70-based amp then would I make/buy something similar to Lamm ML3?

Nope I would not.  My rational would be not just me suspicions that after the Lamm ML2.1 the ML3 will be loaded within a bunch of the “Easter Eggs”. My rational would be purely architectural as I personally would like to see in an “ultimate” GM-70 implementation (if I personally have inters in that tube) something different. So, what my version of a “stepped-up” ML3 would be?

1) Two stages only. It looks like ML3 has one superfluous capacitor-coupled stage – unnecessary.  For better architecture search better tubes.

2) Grounded cathodes. There is nothing further should be said.

3) The Input chokes filtration with SS rectification. The contemporary Silicon Carbide Schottky diodes can run up to 1200V, have no reverse or forward recovery and they can switching incredibly fast. Behind choke filtration is way more preferable powers source for any constant current drowning amplifier.

4) Class A1 operation only. What Lamm was doing in his ML3 making GM70 to run with grid currents? Why is it necessary? Because we want to drive GM70 deep into A2 and get more power from the amp on order to punch the dull speakers? It would not be my objective and I would like my GM70 to stay only in class A1 operation.

5) Voltage. It is obvious why ML3 has that powerful current buffer built up in second stage – because Vladimir wanted to make it to stay at low voltage with his ML3. I would estimate ML3’s GM70 has 850V on plate and here is where Lamm’s needs to dive into A2 in order to get 32W. At 1000V GM70 does 40W in A2 and at 1300V it can do 32W in A1. Many, very very many people who used GM70 report that at 1200-1400V the GM70 begin to sound much better. I do not know why they report it – it is possible that they have low-sensitively acoustics and they need more power in pure A1. I would not look for a lot of power but if to go for a powerful triode and demand a lot of power then I would prefer A1 power instead of A2 power.

6) No feedback. I really do not find it is necessary to use DHT and run feedback, particularly in the way how ML3 implemented (circuit board assembly). It looks like ML3 runs 2 feedbacks and none of them are truly necessary. The global adaptable feedback with which Lamm let people to play with damping to make the amp to work with various LF sections of loudspeakers. I do not feel that it should be there. It would be OK solution for $3K amps what a person would like to put one ass on all stools but it is not a solution not for an “objectionable” amp. If you want to exact-load your bass section with your SET then go DSET. There is no needs to change the operation of the enter amp, applying a global feedback, juts because the port of your loudspeaker does something funny. The second feedback ML3 runs most likely from second stage to input. Why was that necessary? Because Vladimir was too lazy to find an input tube with higher bias voltage and decided to jack up the 12AX7 cathode with rise of signal I see no needs for it and call it patching. Search better input tubes an do not cure them with feedback.

7) No DC filaments. There are so many solutions nowadays how do not drive DHT with DC on heaters that using DC in an “objectionable” amp became kind of cheap.

So, will better ML3 - the ML4 coming sometimes? It is hard to tell. I do not think the industry idiots will be able to offers any sensible criticism (desing or sound) of ML3 and it might not motivate Lamm to do anything more “pushy”.

Still if I go for GM70 amp (I have no intentions or needs BTW, I just talking about hypothetic) then I would go for the 7 points that I made above. Sure, there is always need for go for more powerful SET juts for a sake of lower frequencies but within my loyalty of DSET concept I do not see a need attempting GM-70 to be a bass-rededicated SET.

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
12-26-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 45
Post ID: 6198
Reply to: 5675
Expectations: Lamm ML3 will be demonstrated at CES-2008

I got surprising amount of emails form visitors of my site asking is I will be going to CES-2008. Nope, I am not. My days and interests with CES are over, I closed down that show and I hope the rest of the industry would follow me on it. In fact I have heard that many companies have chosen to sabotage CES-2008 – good for them and my hat off to those companies. I hope in 5 years all that will be left from High-End audio section of CES will be just a dozen of industry writing pimps sitting in a room, licking popsicles and taking each other pictures…

The last TAS I bought published an ad where Lamm advertised the demonstration of ML3 at CES 2008 promising that it will be a result that no one experienced yet. OK, I wish him and to everyone else good luck and I keep laughing as I know very well what exactly it will be. Unquestionably the demonstration of Lamm ML3 should be an interesting experience. Still, let set the expectations of this experience at a level of ordinary sanity.

Lamm ML3 is no different from Lamm ML2 (beside the fact that when Lamm made ML2 he had way better demands to himself and the demands to results). ML2 and ML3 are the same amps (conceptually) with one major difference – the type of output tube (GM70). That difference that might be described in 3 sections:

1)      It is a  very linear DHT

2)      Because it is DHT it works well in A2 (in ML2, as well as in Milq the 6C33C in dead in A2)

3)      Because GM70 can work in A2 class the ML3 has a very powerful high current-capable second stage (I do not know it they are 4 parallel 6H30 of some kind of composite follower) to be able to handle the GM70’s grid current.

So, the ML3 is the A2-capable ML2, hopefully the ML3 will be the ML2.0 not the ML2.1, if you know what I mean… Certainly, it would be absolutely magnificent if the highly inelegant sound of Lamm ML2.0 would have more of the A2 power. Still, was the ML2 power-limited?  Not really, although the 99% of all audio Moans use it with 90dB sensitive speakers and claimed that it “sounded good” for them. Well, can we propose that ML3 will be for 90dB sensitive speakers what ML2 was for 110dB sensitive speakers? I do not know answer but I have very many reasons and rationales to doubt.

OK, what kind expectation a “sane person of my caliber” :-) might expect from the CES’ Lamm demos?

I expect that at CES 2008 Lamm room will demonstrate the very same extremely mediocre sound as it has been demonstrating for years. In any CES that I attended Lamm room never sound interesting. I know it, Lamm know it, and anyone who does not make leaving kissing other asses knows it. The problems with Sound in Lamm rooms was not related to Lamm amplifiers – there was always many other reason – I will go into them at this point. Still if in past Lamm used his nightly capable ML2 and M1.1 amps and had bad sound then why should I feel that a change of power amp will make any difference. I do not think it will and it will not.

However, I do anticipate an extremely positive reaction from a number writing cretins about this demo, partially if Lamm will kiss the necessary asses. The sad part is that any positive of negative outcome form his CES demo will not shade any lights about the Lamm ML3’s Reality.  I know it because the very same as the army of the audio writers that paid their idiotic writing glory to Lamm ML2 never got any truly understanding what they deal with while they used ML2.0.

Sure, sure a new Lamm amp will require for industry a new array of selling adjectives and stolen metaphors – the ceremony where the true performance of ML3, whatever it is, will be diluted and basically vanished. Lamm might not even connect the out tube to the anode voltage and to use a cheap op-amp intently – the result of the “demonstration” will be the same...

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
12-28-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 46
Post ID: 6213
Reply to: 6198
“You did a heck of a job, Brownie”

I regularly visit 6moons News Section that lately became quite good sources for audio news. It is same that Srajan not willing to share the news in RSS or compatible format, anyhow…

The today new is Elina Lamm announces that "we are extremely pleased to announce the commercial availability of our flagship model, the ML3 Signature power amplifier [$139,290/pair]. The ML3 Signature is a single-ended tube amplifier with a separate power supply using a powerful directly-heated triode called the GM-70 (125 watts plate dissipation). The ML3 Signature features 32 watts of zero overall feedback, pure class A power... Advanced technical solutions are used in the design of the ML3 Signature. Custom-made output transformer of the highest quality, unique front-end and output stages plus the sophisticated power supply let the ML3 Signature drive most real-world-load speakers yielding effortlessly dynamic sound."

My predication about the price of these amps was right spot on. Since Lamm announced last year the amp for $126K his spiritual and ideological brothers from W. Bush administration so fuck up US economy and so tear down our American dolor that Lamm need to ascend the price of the thing to $140K in order to be able to keep up with “today booming economy”.

What is unpleasant however is a very minor but completely unnecessary play of the BS words in this amusement. I would like habitually to blame Srajan The Reviewer but it was a quote from Elina Lamm, so Srajan is out of picture.

1)     “…Pure class A power…”. Hmmmmmmm, what that crap mean? Is any “un-pure” class A power in SET? For whatever it is worth a “pure” class A is operation in class A1 and ML3 does NOT do it. The GM70 deep in A2 with +30V on grid has very low grid currant, around 20mA -40mA and ML3’s second stage is designed to deal with it. The entire amp is designed to run itself into class A2 in order to “drive most real-world-load speakers yielding effortlessly dynamic sound" (means 9XdB- sensitive speakers). It is VERY far from being “pure” class A. I think Lamm had studied too much his White House press releases and he learned too much from them.

BTW, setting the ML3-like amp into a “Pure class A1” with the same or even more power would require to go for 1200V on GM70 plate. That would bring an involvement of higher voltage capacitors, probably 300-400 investment, and consequential incase the price of the overall amp for $273.430.28K . Sure that step Lamm did not take and he was really care about the customers do not pay more than necessary.

2)     “… zero overall feedback..”  Were this crap came from? The ML3 input stage use 12AX7 and that tube can’t work in input without feedback. The ML3 use most likely the very same input stage as ML2 used, with feedback. There is no problem with it, so why there is a need to spread fabrications about it. Is Lamm willing to stress the fact that in his in ML3 he applies feedback from second stage? So what and who cares? Why it is necessary to present the “zero overall feedback” as a virtue if the amp runs feedback two local close loops. No one say that feedbacks are bad. The ML2.0 had “overall feedback” and it was very fine amp. The virtue and the proud should be expresses if you managed to make a SET with no feedback if any kind and the amp still sound “serious” (that has own set of problems for low sensitive load). However, if you do use feedback in SET then juts shut up your mouth about the feedbacks.

I do not know how about you but I do monitor what Lamm does. I owned a lot of his equipment, I know the performance of his electronics as no one else and I do see some very interesting attempts in what Lamm is or at least was trying to undertake. Lamm did a number of less interesting models and made a number of “eastern eggs”-stapes but the stressing marketing idiocy is never was what Lamm did – it was what his idiots-reviewers did for him. Now the tide is looks like shifted and the marketing idiocy is coming directly from Lamm himself. Perhaps he butters up the ground for his boy Marc Mickelson to “brash the fields” with ML3 review but… does it all sounds too stinky?

I found it being a very troublesome symptom…

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
12-28-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
jessie.dazzle


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

Post #: 47
Post ID: 6216
Reply to: 6198
Lamm's Options
I don't have a problem with what Lamm has done in offering the ML3 (ignoring the price)... If I have a problem it is more related to how the product is being represented. Representations aside, depending on how it sounds, the ML3 could well be a product that has its place.

With the lack of high-sensitivity speakers available, it seems that Lamm had only three options :

1) Continue selling low power SET amps to be misused by owners of dead speakers

2) Develop his own SET-compatible high-sensitivity speaker system (perhaps with the help/collaboration of a speaker maker... A huge undertaking, but why not?)

3) Develop a more powerful and possibly compromised SET amp that is more able to drive dead speakers... Obviously this is what he has tried to do.

If I were making formula one race cars which invariably ended up in the hands of people who used them mostly only on public streets (driving to WallMart), then I might consider offering a product that corresponded more accurately to what my clients really did with the cars. And yes, relative to the purity of an F1 car, it would be quite a compromise. I would not however continue referring to it as an F1 car.

I would of course really like to see Lamm offer (in parallel) amps that inspire speaker makers to concentrate on high-sensitivity offerings... A no-compromise 5-watt SET for example. Offering a DSET solution would be really interesting, but I don't see how it could be done without knowing exactly to which load (speakers) the amp might be paired. This would seem to require working closely with a speaker maker... But once again, why not? Lamm certainly has the credentials and the contacts...

jd*


How to short-circuit evolution: Enshrine mediocrity.
12-28-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 48
Post ID: 6218
Reply to: 6216
Lamm ML3 as a sad idea, at least for my needs.

 jessie.dazzle wrote:
I don't have a problem with what Lamm has done in offering the ML3 (ignoring the price)... If I have a problem it is more related to how the product is being represented. Representations aside, depending on how it sounds, the ML3 could well be a product that has its place.

I don't have a problem with what Lamm has done in offering the ML3 including the price. ML3 might be a fine product for anyone who understands the value of amplifier at the level of “presold products” instead of at the level of the most optimum solution for a given application. Marketing-wise what Lamm does is perfectly fine, still I the ML3 might be an OK sounding amps but it is by default is a compromised IDEA of better single ended amplifiers. That is what I against in ML3. I would not be bitching if Atma-Sphere, Audio research, Wavelength or Cary came up with some “pretentious” SET – they accustom to do mediocre things but my expectorations with Lamm are much higher.  If Lamm, at least that Lamm that I use to know and who made ML2.0 and L1, will run production with half-ass or quart-ass objectives then from whom else to ask?

 jessie.dazzle wrote:
I would of course really like to see Lamm offer (in parallel) amps that inspire speaker makers to concentrate on high-sensitivity offerings... A no-compromise 5-watt SET for example. Offering a DSET solution would be really interesting, but I don't see how it could be done without knowing exactly to which load (speakers) the amp might be paired. This would seem to require working closely with a speaker maker... But once again, why not? Lamm certainly has the credentials and the contacts...

Well, a reference version of ML3 should be DSET with two GM70 (if to choose to use this tube). One GM70 should be for MF without any running into A2, with not buffer build up in second stage, with low inductance OPT perhaps with no feedback from output stage (no one case about the output impedance in there). It might be even perhaps some kind of other lower power DHT with AC on filaments – and, as you said, I would LOVE to see LAMM make 5-10-watt SET – it will be more HF capable because the negligible capacitance of OPT.  The second GM70 is the bass drive with all heavy entering into A2 and with exact matching of output impedance and large capacitance in PS + a very large core mass of OPT. That amp, I call it ML4 might have the same price as size as ML3 but it perform at absolutely different level then ML3. So, I do not call ML3 as “bad amp” but I do vote ML3 as fundamentally compromised IDEA of better amp.

What is also is very funny is that Lamm himself injected those seeds in my dead. When I was a few years back was asking Vladimir if ML3 (ML3 was read as a prototype a very long time ago) will be able to over-perform two sets of ML2. Vladimir told that two ML2 will be more advanced than ML3. Interning was that he was lying, as in many other occasions and two ML2 are not the same as one ML3. ML2 in order to be contestable for DSET configuration should go a major overview and Lamm obviously did not what to be engaged in THAT conversation…

I still, in my infinite stupid maximalism, would like to see a noble and objectionable ideas rendered into production amplifiers not just another tool to pay mortgage. I do not see ML3 as “objectionable idea” that might push anything further. The Marc Mickelsons-like cheerleaders will sell for Lamm that amp to public and it will push well nicely the noise out of the crappie Wilsons’ ports. It will be it and the idea of a better amp from Lamm will be fulfilled only at the level of the “Sound by Singer” showroom.

Rgs, 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
12-28-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
el`Ol
Posts 225
Joined on 10-13-2007

Post #: 49
Post ID: 6228
Reply to: 6218
Demand for low-powered Lamm
Some facts:
The Japanese horn scene uses colored amps like 300B and prefers to buy Japanese amps.
American horns are mostly slightly modified pro gear, quite a bit away from the price range Lamm has in mind, so the market there is not larger than that in Europe (where he would have to work hard to get as legendary as in the US).

A bit OT:
I wonder whether the 6C33 amp from Rank would be a cheaper substitute for the ML2. Rank is also Ukrainian if I remember right, and used to build monster triode amps with good reviews.
12-29-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 50
Post ID: 6230
Reply to: 6228
Oh, don’t even mention the “demands” of audio peasants

 el`Ol wrote:
Some facts:
The Japanese horn scene uses colored amps like 300B and prefers to buy Japanese amps.
American horns are mostly slightly modified pro gear, quite a bit away from the price range Lamm has in mind, so the market there is not larger than that in Europe (where he would have to work hard to get as legendary as in the US).

el`Ol, I would argue the view about the nationally of horns. There is no (at least as I feel) such a thing as Japanese horns of American horns as better home-targeted horns commercial manufacturing is not institutionalized and driven unfortunately by very seldom enthusiasts who care less about own cultural tendencies. I would agree that an idea of low-powered, a few watts Lamm, is very interesting, in fact it would be something that would not mind to try in my system. At this point Vladimir is trying to cash out on the people who buy audio based upon the Robb Report advertising. Who knows, perhaps before Lamm retire we will see a Lamm SET around 2A3 or the similar…

 el`Ol wrote:
A bit OT:
I wonder whether the 6C33 amp from Rank would be a cheaper substitute for the ML2. Rank is also Ukrainian if I remember right, and used to build monster triode amps with good reviews.

I do not know Rank amps, care to post a link? A “substitute for the ML2” is very complicated question, which also is very interesting question. (I mean the ML2.0 not the ML2.1 as there is a good substitute for ML2.1 – it called Krell). There was so much of extremely “loaded” things in ML2 that I truly feel bad that ML2.0 if gone now and that general audio consciousness did not spend necessary attention to that amp. About the Sound of that amp should be writhen books not a few idiotic reviews that had said nothing valuable about the sound of ML2.0 (do not be under impression that ML2.0 also has no problems).

I do not know if you spent time with ML2 if you do then you understand why I feel that ML2 never was understood by audio public. Let me to tell you a story about ML2 and you will be able to put the thing in perspective. There was a guy who became Avantgarde dealer in NY who was trying a few year back different amps to drive his Trios. I might say it now because his business is gone now. I visited the guy twice, he was not partially experienced but he was “trying”. Eventually the industry “got him” and he became one of many institutionalized fools. In the beginning of his business however was capable for some raw sensitively and natural reactions and it was very interesting his reaction after he tried ML2.0. He said to me  “Romy, among all my customers I have nobody who would  truly understand what ML2 does with sound”. It is exactly the plase where ML2 took in audio world.

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
12-29-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
el`Ol
Posts 225
Joined on 10-13-2007

Post #: 51
Post ID: 6232
Reply to: 6230
Rank
Here is the link:
http://www.rank-concept.de
I have no experience with the Lamm ML-series, I just listened to an M-series hybrid amp combined with the Watt/Puppy 8. This performance was a single fake (though a pleasant one). I can´t say where was the fault, because this was also my only experience with Wilson.
12-29-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 52
Post ID: 6235
Reply to: 6232
Rank, M1.1, Wilson and firewood

 el`Ol wrote:
Here is the link:
http://www.rank-concept.de
I have no experience with the Lamm ML-series, I just listened to an M-series hybrid amp combined with the Watt/Puppy 8. This performance was a single fake (though a pleasant one). I can´t say where was the fault, because this was also my only experience with Wilson.
I never head or heard about Rank amplifiers. The idea to use 6N6P-6N6P- 6C33C for no-feedback design sounds about right but it is imposable to say anything about amp juts looking at it from Moon.  Also, with all mine preference for no-feedback amps I have to admit that if I was a manufacture I would never produce no-feedback SETs as then way much more sensitive to exactness of load and require a fairly sensible person to use them.

The Lamm M1.1 was extremely interesting amp in fact I consider it the absolutely best buy with its $6K price range (used). It has many problems at First and Second Levels of listening perception (look for the thered “How to evaluate playback...”) but it has very interesting ability to “move target within the shooting range” (if you know what I mean). This quietly is superbly important and BTW disability to “move target” is one of the biggest Lamm ML2 shortcoming. I do not know what exactly you did not like in M1.1. The Watt/Puppy 8 are extremely horrible speakers. If you intend to run M1.1 with small Wilsons then try Watt/Puppy 5.3 with a few layers of toilet paper across the tweeters and properly positioned (superbly important). Any other small Wilson should be cut for firing wood.

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
04-09-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 53
Post ID: 7154
Reply to: 6198
Lamm LM3: a correction is warranted.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
Because GM70 can work in A2 class the ML3 has a very powerful high current-capable second stage (I do not know it they are 4 parallel 6H30 of some kind of composite follower) to be able to handle the GM70’s grid current.

I was pointed out that John Atkinson have written in his blog:

http://blog.stereophile.com/fsi2008/040708lamm/

“The ML3 Signature runs a single Russian GM70 directly heated output tube (introduced in 1948, the year I was born) with 1200V on the plate to give 28 watts into 8 ohms. The GM70 is driven by four paralleled 6N30P "Super Tubes," with a single 12AX7 as the input stage. The choke-smoothed power supply in a separate chassis uses four 12AX3 diode tubes as a bridge rectifier to derive the high-voltage rail for the output tube, with another two 12AX3 tubes supplying DC to the front-end tubes.”

Ok, now we know the true voltage on the GM70’s plate.  My initial presumption was that Lamm drives GM70 at low voltage and needs 4 tubes in the driver stage to gel with grid current in class A2. If John Atkinson is correct and Lamm LM3’s GM70 sits at 1200V then it will hardly ever go into A2 and the amp should have around 35, though Lamm was always very conservative with his power rating. The only question remains open is way he needed to pile up 4 parallel capacitance coupled tubes if he uses 1200V in the output’s anode. The first stage in ML3 is lifted on feedback, like in ML2.  The second stage would not swing close AC voltage to approach the GM70’ grid (at 1200V in plate is will be let say minus 200V). So why Lamm need the current build up in the driver stage? Go figure…

Rgs, 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
04-17-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 54
Post ID: 7228
Reply to: 7154
OK, now it does make sense.
Well, whatever people say tuned out to be wrong. I went to Lamm’s site and looked the specifications for ML3. Sure, there were no Atkinson’s fantasies in there. The rated out power clearly said 32W with max power 37W – it is exactly where it should be at 1200V in class A1. The Atkinson’s 28W juts did not make sense.

http://www.lammindustries.com/PRODUCTS/ML3spec.html


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
06-20-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 55
Post ID: 7612
Reply to: 7228
The Lamm ML3 hits the reviewing market.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
Marc Mickelson had an “honor” to make my site in past:

 http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=760

 http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=2773

 Marc is the “gear of the machinery” and he is instrumental entity to sell amps. Probably the stage is being set for Mr. Mickelson to begin the cheerleading the new Lamm’s amplifiers….

This thread that stared as mockery of Vladimir Lamm and Lamm Industry got turned into talks about ML3 amp. I was thinking to split the thread but then decided to keep it as it as they might be much related subjects.

Lamm announced that his new ML3 amps will be reviewed by Marc Mickelson with Wilson Audio X-2 Alexandria  - Oh who could guess it? Marc Mickelson has a history of publicizing Lamm’s products, so it sound like a logical chose. There is not a lot of know about the ML3. There is a guy on Audiogon “Oneobgyn” who uses ML3 and who drools over himself about his love to this amp. Interesting that after using the amp for a while he has absolutely nothing to say about the amp’s sound besides encouraging others and himself to buy the amp – the typical Audiogon idiot as I can see it.

Now, Marc Mickelson will enter the game a month or two. If you are familiar Mickelson’s produce and know the rules of the reviewing engagements then with you have already read 95% of the Mickelson’s upcoming review. I have no doubts that the review will be stupid and What Marc doe now is collecting adjectives to ornament his writing and make it to feel different. Conceptually however it will be a zerox-copy of any other “critical acclaims” that Mark and the Morons in his business did in a past.

Mark Mickelson reviewed Lamm L1 prams and then L2 Lamm preamp - Mark Mickelson filed to recognize some dangers and alarming tendencies in L2. Anyhow, we should not be very hard on Mark Mickelson – he got paid not for the brain he used in his writing but for the amount of exuberant saliva he spits while he is worshiping a new product.  Still, I found that it is very good that Mark Mickelson dealt with Lamm L2. Sometime ago the boys that infested around the Soundstage and who are in the business to trade on used market the Soundstage-extorted audio components were running around selling the Mark Mickelson’s  personals Lamm L2 preamp that he got after his review. I took it as a very good sight of the fact the Lamm L3 preamp is coming – it might a very interesting machine and I am very enthusiastic about it.

Then Mark Mickelson, afar a years of having ML2.0 power amp reviewed the ML2.1 amps. The ML2.1 were fucking Krell or Parasound in Lamm enclosure but Mark Mickelson keep trumpeting and drumming the “glory of Lamm sound” without having any sense what the hell going on. Now he was given the ML3 and said “Fetch” - I wonder what he will come up with. There is an interesting moment in it. It looks like before the Mickelson’s review of ML3 it will be coming the Mickelson’s review of Lamm LP2 phonostage, the devilishly-broken one:

It will be interesting for the sake of Mark Mickelson’s credibility to see what he will be able to say about LP2 phonostage and then to reflect his “thoughts” about ML3 in context of the sensibility he might use about LP2. Well, we all will be watching…

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
09-04-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 56
Post ID: 8146
Reply to: 3492
Lamm ML3 review.

 Romy the Cat wrote:

Ok, let dive a little bit further into my examination of the subject of Lamm ML3

What is important is to undusted that my view  less targets the Lamm ML3 but rather it targets the ML3 as a representative of entire class of amplifiers. When I told that Lamm ML3 is “fundamentally improper design” I did not mean to critique the ML3 specifically but rather the entire family of expensive Single-Ended amplifiers where the “cost became to be a major design impediment”. I will try to explain it further. People who have brain understand that everything in audio is learning experience and I would like to describe why I feel that “expensive SET” dose not comply with my vision of a “correct direction”. It is juts my opinion and it based on my own experience. Your mileage might wary but where did you see me to care about your mileage? Anyhow, I have my opineon and I agree with it, so it comes…

For beginning I would like to observe a SET amplifier as a progression of quality and price, in this case prices will be very much an applied tool. We all know that SET is very simple amplifier: usually 2-3 stages, few parts, short paths etc… Let pretend that price DOES have direct relationship to the quality of amplifier (or sound), in fact why shouldn’t it?  In today world a simple OK-performing SET made around “simple” 2A3, 45, 6C33C or 300B cost under $1000. There a number of Chinese companies that do chips SETs (under $500), AN does their 300B set for under $600 I believe, there are a number of American companies who do very inexpensive sets (Bottlehead, AudioMirror and many others). The all sound better or worth but they in fact closer to “better sound” (with an adequate load) then many $20.000-$60.000  solid-state monsters build by Morons with diplomas of electricians (a long list of the companies goes here).

Do these $1000 SETs sound as good as SET could? Of course not – there is a quite a room for Sound from here. Now we begin to add price/expense and we will have a more or less proportional growth of quality (if the designer knows what he does). The specials case when people employ phony “expensive solution”, like use of 0.001 precision resistirs, gold transforms, or the chassis made form Agarwood with platinum bumper around the amplifier I will leave out of scope, as those actions have no relation to Audio.  So, regardless of the topology if your SET has more properly used chokes, better transformers, better power supplies, better amps design, better assembling techniques, better drivers (very critical), better protection and control, better tubes and many other factors then the amps could add quality and price. Still, any SET is basically is 2-3 dozens of parts and soon or later, regardless what you do you reach a “price threshold” where better parts, better supplies, better assembling techniques, better tubes do not add anything anymore within any MEANINGFUL scale. My estimate, based upon my experiences, that a self-cost of a pair of SET monoblocks at hits the “price threshold” level would be around $4000-$5000 for the amps that use low voltage output tubes and $7000-$8000 for amps that use high voltage transmission tubes. From here there is only one way to add quality and consequentially price to your SET – to improve further the only thing that maters in SETs: the output transformer (OPT).

The OPT is the main bitch of any SET and in the same time it is a subject of glory of any SET.  Something very positive happens to Sound when goes through transformer, the key is that the transformer should be good and it arguably should be the only transformer in a unit. So, the OPT: the frequency response, articulation, dynamic, tone, inner-tonal connectively, balance between “resolution” and “space” and  whatever else you might value in Sound came in it’s majority from the quality of OPT of SET. A person whose amps is at the “thresholds prices level” from here might jump into all imaginable OPT exotica, chasing in Sound whatever he fells needs to be chaise. A good OPT might cost a few thousand dollars it is all depends of the budget and the intentions/expertise/experiences of the person who design and who makes and who build the transformer. However, regardless how fantastic SET transformer would be it still hit its own topological limitations. To get bass you need inductance. I’m not necessary taking about better number of bass but rather about bass as quality. The OPT do not just need inductance to do bass but the inductance as “something else”. You can increase the core size as much as you wish to pay, building up inductance but inductance kills HF. It would be simple if the inductance kills juts HF numbers (there are ways to fight it) but the inductance kills HF “quietly”. Higher frequencies are opposite: they heed fewer turns and lower inductance…. So, people got into many different more or less sophisticating techniques (complicated core materials, tricky sectioning, intricate winding techniques and many others) to get out of SET’s OPT proper reproduction of boundaries. When people go into the high voltage tubes the situation become even more complicated as high voltage requires more isolation between the turns, which increases space within winding that builds up parasitic capacitance. Those capacitances dehydrate HF’s transients. When people listen all of those high voltage amplifiers with the “big tubes” they report “Big Sound”. (I call it the “Elephant Sound” – search my site I have written about it before). However, a nature or this “Big Sound” is dehydration of HF. Take any speaker, increase its tweeter output for a 3db and then place in front of the tweeter a soft hairy fabrics that would eat this 3db up. Now you will have a mimic of that  “Elephant Sound” – that in fact is not the “Big Sound” but rather a sound with unevenness of subjective transients across the range (MF are “faster” then HF). So, retuning back to the transformer – it is very complicated to do the OPT transformer for any more or less mindful full range, that would presumably also sound properly. Very few people out there know how it might be done. Very view can actually implement it if they even told how it might be done and very few, if any, go for a recursive subjective assessment using PROPER LISTENING TECHNIQUES of achieved results when they build transformers. Still, making even a theoretically perfect transformer for a given SET any person hits the dead wall of the fundamental bandwidth limitations for OPT and it is imposable to fight them while keeping the aim to the exoteric properties of sound in the same time. Russians have a good old fairytale about a village person who caught a fox and decided to make a soup with it. He put the fox onto a pot but the tail was sticking out. He pushed the tail into the pot but the fox’s head moved out of the pot. He pushed the head in the pot but the tail went out…. The very same with OPT and people cook their foxes disregarding the fact that heads and tails in OPT are improperly cooked….

I have heard many SETs and all of them had issues with wide bandwidth, it is not that they did not have bass or did not have HF but when they try to get it something else turned to go wrong. The only one wide-bandwidth-interesting amp that I’m familiar with was Lamm ML2 (old production not the ML2.1). It is not perfect SET from the perspective of “as good as it could be” but it is “better then anything else that I heard”. The ML2 was the only amp that was trying to do HF and LF (still with it limitations as I learned eventually) and do not go apart in anything else at the same time. So, a cogent reader would ask: “Romy, if Lamm was capable to design the ML2’s OPT and get the result the he got with that amps then why you feel that he might not do the same good job with ML3?” It is an excellent questing and I have two answers: first is the Lamm’s attitude and second is the “fundamental design flaw of ML3”.

FIRST: THE LAMM’S ATTITUDE. 

Lamm might do the OPT as good as the ML2 was but also there is nothing that prevents Vladimir to design the ML3 transformer in the way how he designed the ML2.1 transformer. Considering that GM70 transformer is many times more complicated and more expensive then 6C33C the question would be: where Vladimir would say “it is enough for them”. I have no doubts about Vladimir’s capacity to do interesting things but I have quite uninspiring knowledge about his decision making pattern. I would like do not go personally into the subject but stay “outside” and use only the publicly available facts. So, was the ML2.1 transformer “good enough for them”? Defiantly it was: the amplifier had glorious reviews, being sold nicely and generally considered a success model. It is ironic, that the very same person who brought to us that miserable “ML2.1 sound” (reportedly because of the “better” transformer) tries to impress to us the “ML3 sound”. You see where I am coming from? It is too simplistic to see that I appointed Lamm as my person bitch on my site but the realty is way different if to look at the fact. The facts are facts and the LP2, ML2.1 and L2 that came from Vladimir AFTER Vladimir made M1.1, L1 and ML2 are the facts and their performances are self-evident. If a person is an idiot and do not know better (many audio manufacturers) then they juts idiots. The problem is that Lamm is not an idiot and he knows better. Therefore the question with Lamm actions would be: will Lamm, as a commercial products maker, willing to do better? I do not know the answer and what I am observing later regarding Lamm makes me suspicious. I personally very much understand the Lamm’s attitude: “It is it good enough for them”. Sure it is. If I were a manufacturer then (considering my respect to the audio Morons out there) I would take it even further them Lamm does and I would make my amplifiers to explode like a bomb and to kill those “listeners”. Still, I am not a manufacture but a person who is critical about the fact of audio performance –all the rest is secondary. In the end,  the ML3 will be as good as Lamm’s attitude would alow it to be, however the Sound of ML3 will be still absolutely and unarguably limited by the “fundamental design flaw of ML3”

SECOND: “FUNDAMENTALLY IMPROPER DESIGN OF ML3”

Here we go, here is the very major and the most important part in the entire article and I would return you attention back to the subject of price as an applied tool of SET design.

Pretend you have a perfect SET. Let presume that word “perfect” implies the unlimited amount of money, unlimited amount of design skills and unlimited amount of knowledge about the nature of sound and audio (very critical) that were used for implementation of that perfect SET. Since a complexity of SET is limited by its default simplistic topology you puff up that perfect SET with I would say $8000 worth of implementations. (we are still under presumption that prices = quality). Then you do crazy and designed an amazing OPT. Let presume that it is high voltage tube and you went for as high as $5000 for a transformer. Right now you have a stunning, full range SET. Let presume that this SET would be your Lamm ML3 for $125K, or AN for $165K or Wavac for $350K. So, you have a very good amp that cost you a LOT of money, a LOT of affords, years and years of learning about Sound and that your Perfect SET is able to address the most demanding requirements existing in audio reproduction and the most demanding your demands. Now, who would use that Perfect SET?

Now we hit a very interning point. Are we taking about juts an expensive piece of electronics that the short-penis boys buy in order to feel better or we are taking about the “most demanding requirements existing in audio reproduction”? If we are talking about using that “Perfect SET” to address some really demanding requirements then I am sure it won’t be a person who will be plugging that “Perfect SET” into a 30” tall single-driver mini monitor. It is most likely (not to say mandatory), that the person who can reach in his level of audio development the state of the “Perfect SET” would use as evolved rest of the system: the persons’ acoustic system will be as evolved as the “Perfect SET” is. It is my strong and firm conviction that any sound that worth more then a thousand dollars should come from a multi-channel installation where 4-5-6 channels produce sound within partial frequency range. It is complex, it is expensive, it is large, it requires a lot of efforts to make it sound PROPERLY (now a lot of people ever witnesses properly made and instated large multi-channel) but when it done as it should be then it capable to operate at the very same level as the “Perfect SET” - addressing the “most demanding requirements existing in audio reproduction”. Here is where the fundamental design flows of any “Perfect SET” (including the Lamm ML3) demonstrate its limitation in full glory: A SINGLE MORE OR LESS FULL RANGE SET AS NOT A DESIRABLE AMPLIFICATION TO DRIVE ANY SERIOUS MULTI-CHANNEL INSTALLATION.

Any single person who ever went for a PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED bi-amping and line-level crossovering never looked back, ever. An ability to writhe a perfect crossover curve with a perfectly predictable phase characteristic at the line-level is not imaginable at speakers level where impedance is “free running” (any attempts to lock impedance fuck-up sound, it is well know to any people who have ears). Furthermore, the amassing ability to manage damping for each channels, mange harmonics for each channel matching the EXECT need of the driver (by loading each output tubes differently) and at many-many-many other factors  set any properly done multi-amping of  multi-channel  acoustic system very far apart form anything else. Now, tell me: what the hell a person with a capable multi-channel acoustic system would do with a single “Perfect SET”? The person system but its nature of being multi-channeled implies that it wants the best amplification within each channel. However, we have juts one SET, the one that was built like the cooking that fox on the pot with OTP the no mater what you do is juts compromise. I any “Perfect SET” 70% of its cost and efforts dedicated to be wide bandwidth… despite that any more or less serious multi-channel  speaker requires…. narrow bandwidth for each channel. So, here is a clear waste of 70% cost and efforts in your use your “Perfect SET”.

A responsible question would be: why do not use 2 or 3 of that Lamm ML3 to driver a “better” acoustic system? Let again disregard the price, but even then, we might find that an amplifier like Lamm ML3 suddenly become as not attractive candidate for the task of milti-amping. What we need in order to peruse the “most demanding requirements existing in audio reproduction” would be different. We need a LF SET (it might be the very same Vladimir’s ML3) only with huge output transformer’s core mass and having very-very high inductance (many times more then Lamm has in his ML3), with huge among of capacitance in PS, with very precise ability to dial-in the tube’s loading, with as low output impedance as possible and with as much power as possible to get out the given tube (even switching in the end into A2). However, for HF we need absolutely opposite: low inductance and low capacitance in OPT, minimum amount of turns, sensitive “able to react” power supply with near minimal capacitance but large amount of inductance, capable for fast acceleration transformer core,  heavier tube loading, limited power, no switching outside of the pure A1… etc, etc,  etc…. What is the most remarkable that very same Lamm ML3 for instance still might be used but it would just need deferent output transforms. The Lamm ML3 for LF and Lamm ML3 for HF would have transformers for $400-$500 each but the level of performance of the theoretical Lamm ML3 DSET (Dedicated SET) would be so high that the full-range Lamm ML3 could not even imagine it in its dreams.

So, in the example above, looking at the way in which any expensive SET might be used in the real world of serious demands I hardly see any needs worth $100.000 SET. Quite oppositely, I feel that if the SET is more expensive then I would say $7.000-$8.000 then this SET should be divided on two frequencies-depended SETs (DSET), with price of $4.500 each. The Lamm ML3 with it’s (looks like) composite driver stage might most likly to pump a lot of current and it would be so rational to put in there a second GM70 on the same chassis with own transformer, driving it from the same driver stage. The PS and the rest “support” is easy manageable (ML3 has the filaments filters right inside of the amp instead of inside the PS). If ML3 were DSET then it would be phenomenally interesting to see what a direct-heated GM70 might do, that I would like to see the driver stage direct-heated as well – whoa the hell heed a half-ass solutions!? Also it context of DSET it would be much smaller space for the Lamm’s attitude as it would be a relatively not demanding OPT where Vladimir would have mush less space for his “it is enough for them”….

Sumizing my feeling about Lamm ML3 I feel that I would be an OK amplifier but at which level? Certainly it will be expensive amplifiers with Vladimir attempt to place with this SET one ass on many chairs. I was explaining all those sentiments to a friend of mine but he told me that I’m delusional.  He said: “Come on Romy, people out there do not think this way. They pay a lot of money for a brown track to deliver to them and bid expensive loudspeaker of a ‘good’ brand name and they anticipate that by virtue of large investment in a “marketingly developed brand” they would automatically get an interesting sound in their listening rooms.” Sure, those people would perfectly accept ML3 as a solution. He was defiantly correct but I do not see those people because I am delusional but because I refuse to acknowledge them. I do it because the actual result that that those people get in your listening rooms are not worth attention. Well, perhaps I am delusional but as I said in the beginning of this post – I have my opinion and I agree with it.

I do see good prospective for Lamm ML3 to become a suitable solution for many listeners that have dull speakers and some money to spend. Strategically I feel it is wrong direction to use dead speakers and powerful amplification, - I more inclined to “live” speakers and low power amplification, but it juts me…I have also concern that 32W of ML3 is NOT enough for the most of 90dB sensitive speakers it is not about juts volume but “quality” – most of the 90dB sensitive speakers need 100W -150W of class A to demonstrate something worth attention… If you need evidenced lock yourself in a small closet with 85dB sensitive speaker and a good SET (Vintage Lamm ML2 for instance) and play music. You will have more then enough volume but the sound will be still crappy. There is more to sound then just power-sensitively-room size ratio but it is a different subject. In fact I have some feeling that building that slightly ridicules driver Vladimir in his 3 stage design Vladimir did some interspersing bluff. The 32W is not enough to drive most of the speakers out there. For instance the 95dB sanative Wilson (the Wilson customers are the people to whom Lamm would like to pith the ML3) are not as will with his ML2, ML2 might do much better (but there are not good commercial high sensitivity speaks out there). However, the 32W of ML3 are not there also.  So, I think Lamm in ML3 might made higher gain (look at that high gain inpit stage on 12AX7) but with lower power. Let pretend that ML3 had as much as 30dB gain not those damn Wilsons will sound “loud”. You will ask but how about the power – they will collapse into clipping in the peaks? Well, it would be in fact very … good for Wilsons. The Wilsons have 4th Order Bandpas enclosure at the bottom and if you drive it all the way up then it sounds like…4th Order Bandpas. So, it might be the Lamm thought to “compensate” of to mask the problem of the “contemporary woofers” with the “deficiency of his new amplifier? The people out there are deaf and stupid anyhow, and they will listen anything… they bought their Wilsons at the first place….

Anyhow, I feel the ML2 will be warmly accepted by audio public, the same public that very warm accepts the Ml2.1, Kelll  and Dynaudio. It will be another stupid review from another Moron with Wilson MAXX and we all know that will be in the review and what will be next. The audio public is mostly ignorant and has reference points of pterodactyls and demands of vultures - why they should not love ML3? The “big reviewer” Lars Feudal was listening his ML2 with 88.5dB sensitive Veruty Parsifal and was pitching that ML2 was the best amplifier in the word. How he came to this conclusion I had no idea – I head his room and never understood it. Mike from “Audio Federation” (courtesy to whom the images above) has written in his blog:

“Lamm did play their one working ML3 on one of the Wilsons and Neli got to hear it for quite some time….  summarize, she liked it - it appears to be SIGNIFICANTLY better than the ML2.1 in ALL audiophile attributes, especially control of the speaker, dynamics, and transparency.”

I have no doubts that it was exactly how he described, however the following facts might be taken under consideration:

1) ML2.1 is VERY unfortunate amplifiers
2) ML2.1 with Wilsons Watt/Puppy (and partulasy not the 6.3 but 8.0 is not juts unfortunate but nightmarish.
3) What dos it means “better”: more like ML2.1 or more like ML2?

In the end – if the Lamm ML3 will help to some people to discover how SET might sound then it will be fine – the ML3 extends this SET application for a 3dB of sensitively form where ML2 was. Neli, Mike, Vladimir and whoever else  who accustomed to the funny Kharmas,  Wilsons, JM-Labs  and the rest of the mid 90dB sensitive load might eventually with the help of Lamm ML3 learn how a first watt of the vintage Lamm ML2 sounded with a proper over 100dB sensitive load. I am glad that Lamm electronics continue to be educational. I learned a lot from ML2 and a lot among the expressed in this post came form ML2 made me to think. Now it is up to the others to care the torch of the education and since ML2 is no longer available nowadays the Lamm ML3 might be for somebody a useful tool in his/her educational journey about audio. Still, the election of W Bush in White House Lamm celebrated with release of his L2 preamp – the first “idiosyncratic” product from Vladimir. In 2001 I called L2 as the “Electronics of the fist year of nothingness in America”. Will the ML3 become the “Electronics of the seventh year of nothingness in America”? The answer will be pending…..

I received an email today:

http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/lamm_ml3_signature.htm  Too bad you can't afford this amp jerkoff!

To which I replayed:

Thanks for pointing out. If you have little brain then you would understand why I do not need this amp.

Anyhow, I glance at the review even though I did not read it carefully but I did detect any points in the review that I would consider interesting.  The review is quite banal   thinking with multiple stupid assumptions – nothing unexpected.  No event in other words and it is kind of shame. I hoped that ML3 with its current pumping driver and the output stage that can run in A2 would be a good tool for the Morons what use dead speakers.  It looks like that Marc Mickelson in his estimable style Xeroxed another empty review. The question is not about the review but if the ML3 is just another Lamm’s Xeroxed product. Well, the review in Soundstage does not give answer to it. I do not think that Marc did it intentionally, he just is too much simpleton to understand what audio is all about… So, the review is about nothing – Mark was pushing out himself reasons and motivations for his readers to buy this amp. Was it all why the ML3 was built for? Well, if then under the ML3 chassis Vladimir might put a Yamaha SS commercial receiver and the ML3 would be sold with the same enthusiasm. After all Lamm did it with ML2.1 and the deaf cheerleader Marc Mickelson was trampling and drumming that dead fraudulent amp with the same eagerness as he does any other crap the is given to him.

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
09-04-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 57
Post ID: 8149
Reply to: 8146
Way to go, Mr. Reviewer!!!

I actually read the review carefully.

My initials sentiments were very accurate.  Knowing the Vladimir’s reaction to those thighs I might presume that he also feels that this level of “intelligent writing about audio” is no more intellectual then blabbering of a kindergarten infant.

Besides the regular audio-reviewing short-mildness there are few specific moments that I would like to comment.

“ The ML3 Signature is proudly a no-feedback design, which makes the inclusion of the feedback switches curious. "They are there mostly for educational purposes," is Vladimir's reasoning, the switches allowing owners to add 1.2 or 2.4dB of local feedback, meaning in the output stage only. While adding feedback will lower output impedance, seemingly making the amps suitable for use with tougher loads, Vladimir doesn't advocate this. "I prefer to deal with a healthy child," was his aphoristic explanation. Translation: Pick speakers that will work with the amps; don't tailor the amps to the speakers, even if you are able to by adding feedback. Indeed, either feedback level softened the sound of the amps and foreshortened the soundstage. Try it and then forget it's there is my advice.”

I would live the adjustable feedback future aside. It is not as big toy as Mickelson/Lamm are trying to present. Most of the people out there will be using ML3 with ported speakers that have very ugly reactance to bass driver when the port kicks in. The ML3’s feedback might deal reactance, damping the bass driver with modified output impedance of the amp. It is toy? Well, any ported speaker is a toy as far as I concern… So, living the feedback on output tube aside what we have left?  It would be the Mark’s statement “ML3 Signature is proudly a no-feedback design”. Sorry, but it is a bullshit, in fact not bullshit but deliberate disinformation, shout it be call fraud on the Mr. Mickelson’s side? Furthermore, knowing that all Soundstage reviews are corrected and signed of by manufactures before they published would the fact that Lamm approved it be an intentional deception on Lamm side? The ML3 has 12AX7 in input state and I give you 100% assurance that it coved by feedback, most likely from the driver stage. The 12AX7 has under 1V on grid and it is imposable to use this tube at live level signals input without feedback. There is nothing wrong to do it: the ML2 does it and any other devises that use low bias tubes at input. I am very certain that ML3 does not drive the input stage into grid currents and feeds most likely cathode with feedback. How this makes the ML3 being the “proudly a no-feedback design”?  I am not against feedback; I am against loading people with BS. Why Mickelson did not write that ML3 is nuclear powered?   It would be as accurate as saying that ML3 is “proudly a no-feedback design”. Very sad…

“You may be wondering why there are no measurements accompanying this review. It's not because Vladimir Lamm didn't want them -- quite the contrary, as we've measured many of his products in the past. No, the amps I received for review are serial numbers 1 and 2, and, due to a supplier issue, they have different output transformers than production units that followed. "The amps are sonically identical," Vladimir explained, "but their measurements will be slightly different from those of a production amplifier." Given this, we had a choice to make: publish the very first review of the amps or wait until Vladimir could send production models for review and measurements, which may never happen, given that Lamm doesn't have a stock of the amps. We went with the former -- and decided to divulge all of this for the sake of completeness. We hope to publish measurements of the ML3 Signature in the future (and I just might have to do some follow-up listening).”

Ironically I was suspecting something like this from Lamm. It is not allegation but juts my suspicions: Lamm played very fealty games with ML2.1. The ML2.1 was very poor sounding amp. Most likely ML2.1 had simplified (means much cheaper to make) design and specifications. I do not think that Lamm did it intentionally it just happened and he did not care, I would not if I were him. So, Lamm kept for reviewing purposes a number of ML2.1 amps with the ML2.0 intestines. The reason why I feel this way because I personally heard a pair of the very early ML2.1 production that did sound OK. Then the rest of ML2.1 sounded like a Denon receiver… now the question is – what would be the “default” sound of ML3 if the company has the alleged reputation to moderate quality of production models (it happened with L2 preamps as well) and partially knowing that ML3 is built to order?

“And then it does get better. Amps like the ML3 Signatures, which use hard-to-find tubes that have no substitutes, don't really lend themselves to trips down the new-old-stock path. However, Vladimir Lamm has a small cache -- about six sets -- of some copper-plate GM70s. The amps come stock with carbon-plate GM70s, and it is with these tubes in use that my comments about the amps up to this point have been written. The copper-plate tubes are a different breed from the stock tubes, increasing the leading-edge speed and midrange detail just enough to make clear their superiority. They sound more spacious too, never a bad thing with a tube amp, and a very good thing when an amp is single ended. While Vladimir Lamm is reluctant to sell these tubes, ML3 Signature owners who won't accept anything short of the very best sound possible should contact him. I shudder to think what a pair of these tubes -- when Vladimir has only six -- will cost.”

Oh, come on! People build GM70 amps for years and the graphite vs. copper anode on GM70 is an old subject. (BTW, some people prefer graphite but them the GM70 shell be used slightly different). As I understand the purpose of this crap was to bust interest to “unique” and “secretive” copper-plate GM70. I am sure Lamm have $1000 price tag on it in his “limited cache”. Well, the graphite GM70 you can pack with shovel in Russia for the price of a few 6C33C or a dozen 12AX7. The copper-plate GM70 is less common and this is why it cost 30-50 more expansive: $60-$100 per tube instead of the regular $25-$60. How that all makes sense when we are talking about $140.000 amps I clearly have no idea.

“The Lamm amps that showed up here were a well-used demo pair that immediately displayed an unusual lateral shift of the soundstage. I flip-flopped the amps to make sure they were the cause, and the center image shifted in the other direction. Luckily it's easy to check the ML3 Signature's operating status (as long as you have a volt-ohm meter), and this revealed the problem: One of the GM70 tubes couldn't be adjusted to its normal plate current, so the amplifier in which that tube was used was noticeably lower in output. Lamm sent a replacement pair of tubes, and this solved the problem, reinvigorating the sound in the process. While the maintenance involved in owning tube amps gives some audiophiles cold sweats, the ML3 Signature and, indeed, all Lamm amps are about as easy to own as a tube amp can be.”

Way to go, Mr. Reviewer!!! So, you was listing amps with screwed plate current on one of output tubes and desired to correct it ONLY after you detect the unusual lateral shift of the soundstage? So, if the soundstage did not shift then you would run the amps as they were?

“A friend of mine who owns some very good hybrid and solid-state amplifiers maintains that the best bass he's ever heard came from Lamm ML2s. Having owned those amps, I have an idea of what he means …”

I relay hate what ANY of those “reviewers” does it! This is YOUR article and you thought (pursuable thought not juts typing. Do not trade in your article somebody’s else view and judgments!!!

“….. This music flowed from the Wilson Audio X-2 Series 2 speakers, which created a soundfield that was wall to wall and, more significantly, from the floor to nearly the ceiling. This gave the upright bass truly lifelike stature, and each note of the guitar was carved out from the others by the amps' handling of transients.”

Well, this is what I would expect from GM70 amp. I wrote about it before, read my comment about the GM70’s “Elephant Sound”. The large plate and high anode voltage do have tendency to make sound large, partially the higher anode voltage, forcing the output transformer to have more isolation, making HF uniquely-dehydrated. That all crate in big transition tube that run high voltage a very lucrative perception of “size”. I would not argue that but I would argue if those amps can play “small” if the music is called upon. I witnessed that the amps that go into “elephant sound” do not do well with “minuteness”. I do not hear the ML3 and I do not know how it hands it but I did not see in the review this subject even touched. If you can tolerate the “size” of the presentation that Martin Logan Statement throw on you with ALL MUSIC than you should not worry…


In the end, there was another subject that was no touched in the review and I found it very peculiar. Marc Mickelson stressed a lot of transients, transients and one more time transients but he never even thought how the transients projected to harmonics. What the hell he was listening in ML3 if he did not comment on this subject?

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
09-05-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,511
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 58
Post ID: 8159
Reply to: 8149
Lamm ML3 and the clipping characteristic.

One more thing that I would like to point out in context of the recent Marc Mickelson’s review. Marc wrote:

“The Atma-Sphere amps are certainly more powerful than the ML3 Signatures, but not noticeably so unless you clip the Lamm amps. “

Here is where Mark, as most of his dim-witted and easy on mouth ruining colleges, just mentioned the clipping of ML3 as some kind of self-understandable fact. He, I am sure, had clipped ML3 with his Wilsons and knows what he is talking about. Sure, you dream!!! Those idiots-reviewers just toss the words without any meaning and most of the time without any understanding of what they are saying.  Anyhow, forget about the Mickelson – he was spreading his stupid weeping about ML3, trying make Lamm to give him the amp for so call “long term landing” – Lamm might just do so even despite to the fact the Mickelson sold his former “long term landing”  (Lamm L2 preamp). It is just a cost of doing busses in high end industry – somebody shit on your head and you kiss them in the ass juts because it is profitable…

So, as I said forget about the Mickelson the Reviewer - there is more interesting fish to fry. The subject of my attention is the Lamm ML3 clipping as I feel ML3 might be a very good tool to research and finally to answer the question of SET clipping. 

Let pretend that we have ML3 driving some kind of reasonable load and the signal voltage goes up. What would restring the power of the output and what would make this SET to clip? Living the various moments of bad and stupid design out we would have the following suspects:

1)  Input stage clips
2)  Driver stage clips
3)  Output  Transformer Clips

The stages might clips by current or by voltage but we presume that Lamm know what he does and ML3’s stages are properly powered, loaded and current or and voltage clip at the same time. So, the ML3’s input stage would be hardly a suspect of clipping as it sit on feedback and the cathode voltage will be lifted up with the output voltage goes up. The Output Transformer might be the one that clips first but we have no control or knowledge how it was designed and where it intended to begin to clipping. Then we have the Driver stage that might go into clipping – here is where the subject of ML3 become very interning.

Lamm made the ML3 driver with 4 paralleled 6H30 assuring that the driver stage can produce very high current. Why we need a lot of current in there?  Because the next stage has only limited amount of voltage on the GM70’s grid. As soon the positive voltage of the signal goes up and become equal to the negative voltage on the GM70’s grid then the tube enter to class A2 operation and develop currents. To navigate the tube further the source stage shell be able to battle the grid current with own current capacity. Having the 4x6H30 is a very powerful current source, so the ML3 has a good provision to have driver stage to be very clipping-resistant.

Now, let compare the clipping-resistance of ML3 and Melquiades. Melquiades driver stage is very current-weak-it has only 18mA. Melquiades was design to have absolutely different objectives then ML3. Melquiades use voltage driver stage – the tube with very high gain (35) that takes sub 3.5V of input stage (-4V on bios)  and with just one single amplification stags it might develops over 120V to drive the output stage. There are two reasons why Milq never care about currant.

First reason, the Milq meant to drive very high sensitivity loads. Take a look the Milq’s driver performance. It is the performance of driver of the bass channel, loaded to the bass section of Macondo and paling heavy bass music for 10dB-12dB louder than I ever play in ordinary.

 The 0V AC is at the bottom of the screen between the first and second square. The scope is set for 10V/div and 9 divisions up we have -92V of the bias voltage of my output tube. The positive AC voltage of signal runs up and doe but it never apaches the square 10, the rise of 90V what it would go into class A2. So, with the sensitivity of Macondo more current out of the Milq’s driver stage is just not necessary

The second reason why Milq never meant to have currant capable driver is because Melquiades using the 6C33C. Let pretend that that in my measurement above I loaded the amp to an equivalent resistor and drive it with even more voltage. Then the driver stage will send to output tube the voltage that would be equal to more than the 6C33C’s bias and the 6C33C go to A2 operation. In fact it was what I did and what happen?  6C33C responses very none linearly and clips quite fast. I was driving the driver tubes with 35mA and once even paralleled them trying to see how 6C33C would behave if the driver can push over the grid current. The 6C33C responded very stubborn and not very good. It looks to me that 6C33C hated grid current.

OK, how it all related to Lamm ML3. Well, Lamm is in a very different game as he has no two Melquiades’ reason I descried above.  Obviously Lamm would like his amp to be able to drive as wide range of speakers in tern sensitively as possible – in fact he knows that most of them will be in 90s dB not in 100s dB. And the second is that ML3 uses not A2-hating 6C33C but the A2-loving GM70. The GM70 is direct heated and it has no problems to work positive voltage on grid – many transmission tubes were designed to do it. So, the only this that Lamm case in his case was to build a good current supply for the GM70’s A2 operation – if it ever goes there… Here is where the 4 paralleled 6H30 come handy. BTW, many do not know it and fell that 6H30, or the BAT’ Super Tube is the wonderful discovery of Victor Khomenko from BAT. It is not the case. The 6H30 was suggested to Victor Khomenko by Vladimir Lamm before Victor knew the tune and the business -savvy Victor converted it into the BAT’s marketing success.

That all is relatively know and simple things but there is one big aspect behind all of it, the aspect that I do not know how to judge and it might be exactly where ML3 might be  wonderful tool to research. We have a tube that is capable and that “likes” the A2 operation. We have the driver stage that is perfectly cable to support the tube in the class A2. So, what would happen with Sound when the tube favorably inclined to the A2 conditions does enter the A2? This is VERY interning question and the Lamm ML3 might be a wonderful playground to research the subject. I do not really know if the A2m operation is bad by the definition or it is bad juts because in most of the cases it is just badly implemented. I still do not think that crossing between A1 and A2 would have no consequences to Sound but I never had the environmentally and methodologically clean condition to do this assessment, nor did I need it with 110dB sensitivity…  The ML3 would be a good opportunity to try answer this question but it would be too much for Marc Mickelson to ask. Not to mention that 4-other band bass woofer at the bottom of the Wilsons would certainly disqualify Mark from making any more or less lucid appraisal on the subject of class A2 entering….

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
09-05-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,138
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 59
Post ID: 8160
Reply to: 8159
DHTs and A2 operation
Nice, primer, Romy.  Thanks.

I had a pair of Wright WPA3.5s until last year.  They are a very simple DHT (2A3) SET and that easily slips into A2.  Although they use some sort of cathode follower-type loop of the 6SN7 driver's "pairs" to pump up the volume, they do not to my knowledge use any other form of feedback.  IMO, these amps sounded by far their best in A1, but they could operate right up to the limit of A1 without problems, so there was a tremendous feeling of power and "ease" compared to other 2A3s.  Once they went into A2, however, the distortion shot way up.

I am guessing that Lamm has arranged some sort of feedback to track and/or compensate for added distortion in A2 operation.  He obviously has no special aversion to feedback, nor should he, IMO, based on prior results.  After all, this amp is aimed at a certain target, and my guess is that this thing would provide a "solution" to the one-amp-per-channel connundrum faced by most checkbook audiophiles, given still-reasonably-efficient speakers (say, 95 dB).

It does seem, though, that people keep forgetting that one must at least double the amp's power to get each 3 dB of headroom, and that the conversion ratio is much worse at LF.  Naturally they will be used on the big Wilsons, etc; but I would not recommend it (unless bi-amped!).

Best regards,
Paul S
09-06-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
decoud
United Kingdom
Posts 241
Joined on 03-01-2008

Post #: 60
Post ID: 8166
Reply to: 8149
Orthodoxy
I imagine the resistance to the DSET concept does not come from idiocy - Lamm may well be steeped in vanity and avarice, but he is certainly no idiot - but from resistance to combining amplification and loudspeaker in a single, coherent, monolithic system. Abstracted from the conventions of the audio world, it makes no sense to unify the amplification step when the transduction step is necessarily segregated. I wonder what Lamm said when you spoke to him about the DSET idea (as I imagine you must have done, no)?
Page 3 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  43131  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  20975  03-16-2005
  »  New  The Silence of the Lamms!..  Well, Lamms are not exactly fun anymore. ...  Audio Discussions  Forum     7  52017  06-12-2005
  »  New  Romy, how does the original ML2 sound in regards to acc..  Modification of Lamm’s SET...  Audio Discussions  Forum     5  44598  06-20-2005
  »  New  Lamm L1 vs. L2 preamp..  L1/L2 & Police Breathalyzer...  Audio Discussions  Forum     5  50447  06-25-2005
  »  New  Jonathan Valin smokes Lamm LP2..  Jonathan Valin smokes Lamm LP2...  Analog Playback Forum     0  18071  03-27-2006
  »  New  Initial thoughts about new/old Lamm ML2s..  Voltage Divider in ML2 Input Stage...  Audio Discussions  Forum     215  1151922  10-12-2006
  »  New  DHT driver & input..  Effects of radiation...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     25  162276  02-01-2007
  »  New  A DSET is better then an expensive SET..  DIY Stradivarius...  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     41  242825  09-21-2007
  »  New  Lamm ML2.1 "No longer available"?..  My favorite song...  Audio Discussions  Forum     16  89060  04-09-2008
  »  New  The loudspeakers for a powerful SET..  Mission Accomplished?...  Audio Discussions  Forum     48  281399  04-11-2008
  »  New  Dual channel SET..  Space exploration...  Audio Discussions  Forum     8  54577  04-17-2008
  »  New  Incorporating active crossovers into DSET..  Thanks...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     2  29412  07-22-2008
  »  New  RMAF 2008 observations, opinions 1) ceramic drivers..  Mystification-masturbation?...  Audio Discussions  Forum     32  186355  10-15-2008
  »  New  Lamm introduced LL1 Signature Preamp…..  An Oscar for the most retarded comment printed in audio...  Audio Discussions  Forum     19  96363  05-16-2009
  »  New  A new CES 2010 loudspeaker?..  Good idea, indeed......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     15  116096  01-13-2010
  »  New  Lamm ML2.1 "No longer available"?..  My favorite song...  Audio Discussions  Forum     16  89060  04-09-2008
  »  New  Lamm ML2.2 and Mark the BS teller...  Keeping beaching about Spectral…...  Audio Discussions  Forum     7  45336  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