I would not generalize sound belong a topology. What we call SET or PP sound are juts characteristics of bad SETs and bad PPs. Even if we do generalize then it is not my observation that SETs “slightly electrify” sound. Rather they sound soften  but still it is very foolish generalization as I have seen SETs that were more brutal then many SS PP amps.  So, go figure. Perhaps the some SETs that you heard did have the qualities the you described but that where ONLY the characteristics of those specific SETs…

Yes, I am familiar with those "plastic" colorations. Amny, VERY MANY so-called audiophile parts have those colorations… and the damn audiophiles recognize thier “quality” ONLY if those colorations are presented. The Hollands are juts beginning of the VERY long list: large polypropylene caps the may used as substitute of electrolytics, all flat coils and many many many others…

The older production of ML2 had none of that. It was very neutral, very subordinate and very I would say pastel (in very positive connotation of this word). I sincerely feel that timbre and tone-wise the older ML2 was unmatchable. If it would be the only demand I had from an amplifier then I would never stepped away form the Lamm ML2

The caT

k100 wrote:

If I were to try to find a pair of ML2's that are older production, what years of production does this include?

All ML2.1 are the new version of ML2 and they are not good as ML2. However, I have seen the original ML2 marked as ML2.1. So, go figure what they did with it! The only thing that would be worth in this case is the honesty of the manufacturer who would divulge the real information behind a serial number but in case of the Lamms the “frankness” would be a highly colorized and mostly contain the misguided data that would be “strategically given out” only because they by giving it out would obtain some very specific, mostly fanatical, benefits. I have heard about the situation that Lamm, when he was approached with questions about the original ML2 encouraged people do not get involved with use ML2 but to buy his new ML2.1 because “the parts got worn out in the old model”. What could be more self-indicative then this?!!!

Very generally, Lamm began to convert his ML2 into a pile of Hi-Fi *** in 2003. When exactly he begin to produce under the umbrella of good ML2 reputation his own “striped down” version of ML2.1 I do not know, and it is very possible that my estimate of 2003 is way off. There is one very none-objective sign that you might use. The original ML2 has plastic biding posts – the subject of perpetual bitching of the audio idiots of all calibers who complained that $30K amp had no expansive gold-platinum biding posts. Lamm refused to change them claming that they sounded the best (and he was very correct in it – I went over very lengthy evaluations of all imaginable biding posts when I built my external crossovers for AG). Later on Lamm decided to let it go and begin to arm the ML2 with inferior “big gold posts”. At that time Lamm justified it that a Switzerland company that produces his old biding posts can’t supply them anymore. (It was his typical “Lamm BS” as the posts he used were the Superior Electric’s posts from the Allied catalos for $11 a pair, still they were the best posts ever!). So, Lamm in the late production of ML2 begun probably to staff the ML2 with some “audiophile approved crap” and I presumably simplified the amp making it cheaper (I know that he went for another, way inferior output transformer and cheaper coupling caps). How and if he modified the circuit of the ML2.1 I do not know as I never opened up the ML2.1. Therefore I think if you see the ML2 with the plastic biding posts then it was before the Lamm’s “flipped over”. To be completely in the save side get the ML2 before Bush came to the White House as after that Lamm did nothing interesting in audio besides running around the Brooklyn, screaming that he proud to be a requested republican and dreaming that he would make a new big $150K amplifier that would be able to transmit all intelligence and beauty of his Texas Fuhrer voice…

k100 wrote:

Is it a waste of time to try out ML2's that were built 1 - 2 years ago?

This is a complicated question. I personally do not like how the new production of ML2 sounds though I do not think that my opinion should have any value for anyone who would like to try it.  Still, I feel that it is funny that the audio media equally welcomes ML2 and ML2.1. This one more time indicates that the people who review the audio products are just the clueless and deaf idiots. 

Does my stand mean that the ML2.1 should not be considered and trying it might be a waste of time? I do not think so. ML2.1 is totally different amp then ML2 and it should be approached without any references to the ML2. Those amps kind of looks alike and people feel that the ML2.1 is somehow a derivation from the ML2 but it is mistake. ML2  (no mater that I disagree today with many design decisions in this amps) was made with love and with Lamm’s intention to show off what he was able to. The ML2.1 is made by hate: hate to the industry, hate to the customers, the republican hate to humanity general. ML2 was designed but the ML2.1 was budgeted, calculated and strategically deployed to the pre-hated market… I am sure Lamm feels much better financially after his “flipped over” as this crappy sound that his today’s equipment does is very much affinity with the expectation of the Morons who buy it today….

I think all my comments would be worthless if the ML2.1 would sound differently. But since it sound in the way how it is then there are only two possibilities: 1) this amp is a fraudulent product of experienced and mature con-artist who manipulate with capacitors and resistor inkstand of the playing cards 2) Lamm has no clue what and how he dose what he does, he is in complete denial regarding his own limitations and his success with original ML2 was an accident…. (He never did after ML2 anything worth sounding). I have some evidences for the both cases, but I still do not know (or do not care) what would be the truth.

Does ML2.1 deserve listening time? Sure it dose, like any other amp. Does any other amp deserve listening time? I do not know. Everyone has own rules how to answer this question…. Still. I feel that ML2.1 might be very competitive, or even better then many other amps… which is not the indication of the ML2.1’s quality but rather the quality of “the many other amps”….

BTW, there is one more interesting aspect regarding the latest ML2.1. Lamm started to produce the ML2 I believe in 1996 and the amp, although it was very good, did not take off. The problem was that ML2 sound was too sophisticated and too complex for the majority of the audio cretins that infested audio. ML2 was not flashy, not screamy, it was not “impressive” and it required quite evolved taste to be able to get out of it what it might. Therefore for years the ML2 was not flying away form the Lamm’s shelfs but was very slowly distributed but the small network of the dedicated devotes. If you look at the mental demographic of the ML2 owners in 90s then fascinating picture will show up: ML2 were staled down in the listening rooms of evolved people who really know what audio is all about and how to use audio.  Interesting that since the Lamm went for his “new views” and killed the ML2 ‘s sound then the popularity of ML2.1 when over the roof and the regular audio Morons begin to accept the ML2.1 readily. Today many Audiogon’s cretins successfully use ML2.1 and Lamm is a common commodity within their language and within their dally practice. I think this is one of the most powerful indicators of the company demise: since a company products receive favor from the most tasteless and the most dim-witted horde in audio then something exist in the company’s Sound that serves the barbaric expectations of that horde….

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Well, have a good time, Stitch. Generally as far as I know Lamm equipment not modified a lot. When I own Lamms I make some minor changes that were not modifications but rather accommodations to the needs of my particular playback.

I would say that ML2.1 is not a good candidate for “modification” at least by parts swapping you will not get anywhere. I do not know if it is correct but reportedly Lamm changed output transformer when he moved from ML2.0 to ML2.1 and that killed all sound. Again, it is just gossip but the fact is that ML2.1 has not even residual signature of what ML2.0 had. If the ML2.0 was a great distance away from most of the SETs out there then I do feel that a typical $2K-$3K SET amps of regular consumer level performs as the same level as ML2.1. It is shames that the industry embraced ML2.1 none problematically and each reviewing whore who received ML2.1 as a gift consider own duty to blab that ML2.1 is some kind of improvements of ML2.0. Ironically that only proves the Vladimir’s accusation that most of his customers who have been using his ML2.0 for year still are clueless of what kind amp they have and what the amp is able off.

So, I truly do not know what you will be doing with the ML2.1. If you do it for somebody then do whatever, cash you check and forget about it. If it is your amp then, and I am not kidding – your can easily sell your ML2.1 as it considered “better” and get yourself an old used pair of ML2.0. You shall have a few thousand dollars left over; here is where the payment to those felines’ shelters would be handy…

If you get the ML2.0 then it might be interesting to learn what you found there worth to modify and what result you will get. I would personally very much be interested to get run out the out tube regulation as I feel it might be responsible foe some things that I found might be better in ML2.0. It I hard to say – I never seen the ML2 circuit and never was trying to reconstruct it.  At the time I used ML2 I had no knowledge to do it, recently when I had a pair of ML2s home I have no interest.  Welkl, in fact I do – I would like to learn how Lamm biased the output tube – I presume it is fixed bias but I did not look at it when I had it here.

Anyhow, as you might know I am not big fan of parts swapping, at least the things that I feel need to be improved in ML2 or  ML2.0 I would hardly expect you would be able to fix by changing the caps and binding posts.