Positive Feedback published David Robinson’s review of Lamm M1.2 amplifier.
Frankly speaking I do have interest to see what people might say about Lamm M1.2. Not that I care about a review’s observations - I have no idea who David Robinson is and only by the fact that he writes “audio reviews” for an industry publication makes me to declare him as an Audio Morons™ or as a person who is completely brainless despite that he should have some sanity in accordance with a position he put himself in. However, knowing where all those audio reviews “slip”, how they develop the idiocy of readers in accordance with primitivism of reviewed product and knowing Lamm products well I hoped that it would be possible to read between the lines.
What was and is my interest? I am curios about the upcoming LAMM L3 preamp. I do not think that it will have the transparency of Placette Buffer (nothing has so far) but there is a remote chance that so valued by me X-factor that Lamm’s L1 and L2 preamplifiers have would be still available in the Lamm new L3 preamp, but hopefully without the L2’s other limitation. It would be true if we presume that the X-factor was not an accidentals element but well-intended by Vladimir property of L2 and L1 Sound. I know that 99.9% of people who read this site do not really understand what Lamm preamp’s X-factor is. They do not understand it even after reading my article about it:
and they do not understand it even afar a few years or owning and using the L1 and L2!!! (I spsoke with many L1 and L2 users). Well, I am not in the business of selling of X-factor’s benefits, and if you do not “get” it then you do not need it and you will not have it. I do know what it is, how to use it and I am very much optimistic to learn that the X-factor might be available at new for Lamm level of line-level transparency – hopefully in L3 preamp (and hopefully without the typical Lamm’s Ester Eggs).
So, trying to foresee with witch level of seriousness Lamm will approach his future L3 preamp I was curious to see in which direction Lamm gone with his M1.1 amp. I have witnessed that Lamm vandalized the sound of his ML2.0 converting it to ridiculously-poor sounding revision - ML2.1. I do not know it was an “accident” or it was the well deliberate strategic objective (I would understand the rational of it in either case.) Since the Lamm M1.2 is a next revision of Lamm M1.1 and since I well know the Lamm M1.1 amp I am curious if the Lamm M1.2 is a progress of a regress. I never heard Lamm M1.2 in a controlled situation and when I ask people who used it they claimed that Lamm M1.2 is way more superior then original Lamm M1.1. Inters tingly that none of them were able to say why they feel this way: intellectually or subjectively. I extend very little credibility to those people and therefore their comments worth nothing.
More interpretable data I thought might be coming from David Robinson review. But unfortunately Mr.Robinson said absolutely nothing about Lamm M1.2. He names some semi-idiotic CDs and describes his semi-barbaric experiments that he makes with own perception of Lamm’s sound. I hardly understand what he was doing and what he wanted to say. I know that the publications are recruiting among the most bottom-laying audio-retards to compose their reviews but the rules is that a reviewer should mask out hide own audio-retardation. Why David Robinson screams about it I have no idea.
Furthermore David Robinson “concerns” that he has his Lamm after Boulder 2060:
“…second minor nit to keep in mind is that pushing the M1.2's hard without hitting any overload point can lead to just a touch of congestion, a distant suggestion that some compression is taking place. I only noticed this a few times, though. In retrospect, I think this may have been due to the fact that I was hearing the Lamms shortly after having the Boulder 2060 in my listening room. The 2060 is so utterly neutral and effortless …so completely transparent in my experience …that you tend to notice minor deviations like the tiny hints of congestion in the M1.2s by contrast… “
I do not know what kind cartoons Professor Robinson run in his mind but I am very familiar with Boulder 2060. I heard it at least 4-5 times in well-controlled conditions and with various speakers. The Boulder 2060 is so far off the scale from what Lamm M1.1 was able to demonstrate that it was even hardly possible to call both of them amplifiers. If the Fledmartial Robinson found the Lamm M1.2 and Boulder 2060 comparable or even the Boulder 2060 being better then two opportunities are available.
1) Lamm M1.2 is killed version of Lamm M1.1. Turns the lights off. :-(Does anyone know the true sonic story of Lamm M2.1? Was it a step forward or a step back after the Lamm M1.1?
2) David Robinson is an audio-Moron ™ who should not be reviewing audio amplifiers but only to review welding machines for Home Depot
Romy teh Cat
"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche