I think I need to make some commentary in here as BS will be swallowed as usually and somebody shall take stand on it. Before is a small prelude. Sometimes back in his comments about RMAF 2010 Show Report the Federated Mike wrote in his blog:
“I just came here after reading Romy’s ‘critique’ of yet another idiot review of the Lamm ML3. I differ from Romy in that I do not despise the people involved, but I do indeed despise the shallow level of discourse that passes for detailed analysis of the sound of high-end audio equipment these days.”
I am sure that his “position” helps him to sell the “alternative” brands but it is not the point. Where Federated Mike was factually wrong is sensing my animosity to the people involved. Yes, I am hard on Lamm products but it is absolutely not from some kind proverbial despise but from my respect to Truth. I was in quite friendly relationship with Lamm Company and with Vladimir personally up to 2001-2002 until I begun to feel that many things that Vladimir did were a deviation from what I perceive was Truth. The fact that I was a buddy did not make my blind and I did not feel comfortable. In the end I sent to Lamm a long letter explaining my position and fired him from the circle of people I would like to be befriended. Sure, he is a talented and capable man but demands to talented people are higher. After all it is my choice to what kind BS I would like to be exposed dally.
Now is the subject. I went to Lamm page today and saw the announcement of Lamm ML2.2 SET. The line that picked my attention was the following:
“The ML2.2 is an amplifier that sonically is much closer to the ML3 Signature while pricewise is closer to the ML2.1.“
That is exactly the BS that that I very much found annoying in Vladimir, interesting that the same BS (I would say in much larger scale) Lamm deploys at personal level to the people who patronize him.
Let drop all sentiments and look at the facts. There is no single person I know off who credibly would be able to testify that ML3 is better sounding amp then ML2.0. In fact I did have some opposite reposts from people deserve credit but I do not trust to those reports ether. The enthusiastic and over-exuberant reports that did show up about ML3 were too primitive and were written by low rank listeners. Still, juts for sake of illustration let presume that ML3 has some sonic advantages over ML2.0, then let see what Lamm does with it.
He introduces another amp with alleged “change of input stage” and he claims that this change made “ML2.2 sonically is much closer to the ML3”. I am sure that it will help Vladimir to sell many amps to idiots (and good for him, why not) but unfortunately it is also a deviation from Truth. There are many difference between ML2.0 and ML3, design and I presume sonic but to presume that the differences come from input stage is simply a presumption that anyone who would read it are idiots. ML3 use direct heating output tube that absolutely different by sound and by topology then 6C33C. The GM70 not only much more powerful tube but it is the tube that as many other DHT might work fine driven into class A2, that is why Lamm made that powerful 4 tubes buffer in the second stage of ML3 – to deal with grid currents of GM70. There is nothing wrong with it, what is wrong is to claim that by changing a basing schema of the input stage would make the ML2.2 sound similar to ML3. Ridicules! It is like saying that if a man would have an earring in his ear then it would make him be able to conceive and to bare children like women can do.
Anyhow, I do not make any judgments about nether ML3 or ML2.2 but I would like to note that this type of comment that I hear from Lamm very much remind me why I stay away from his operation and have high mistrust to whatever he did for the last 10 years.Rsg, 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