Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site
In the Forum: Audio News
In the Thread: Lamm Industries: a special interview with a special company
Post Subject: Deconstructing the "review", and "little remarks".Posted by Paul S on: 1/27/2007
While it is rare that any component under "review" will be panned outright, it is not uncommon for the "reviewer" to refer obliquely to the component's flaws. In some cases, the flaws may even be presented or offered up as "features", or it may be suggested that the flaws are rather in some way part of the amp's "character", as though that "character" could be likened somehow to your eccentric Uncle Vanya, and so you might "learn to love it" or "make it work for you", for all its flaws.
In the "thumbnail review" Marc actually says the ML3 has "greater drive" than the ML2.1, and that it has more/better "ability to propel the music's pace forward". I don't know about the ML2.1, but was not aware that the ML2 needed "improving" on this score. Could this mean the ML3 "pushes" the sound like SS? Is ML3 feedback not "user-selectable" ? Marc does not mention feeback here. My only amp with "adjustable feedback" was the original Music Reference RM-9, and I can say that it simply sounded more natural with the least possible feedback, regardless of any other consequences, including the bass. Even bass was "more natural" with less feedback, even though bass might be weaker with less feedback with given speakers. In cases where a given speaker "had to have" more feedback, then that speaker never did sound very good with the original RM-9. I don't know what, if anything, this says about the ML3's feedback, I am just mentioning my own possibly-related experience in the interest of furthering this discussion.
Marc also says the ML3 provided "greater high-frequency delicacy and air, rather like those amps I've heard that use 845 tubes." Could this mean that the ML3 sounds in this system rather like a typical 845? Is it the consensus here that the 845 performs benchmark frequency extremes?
Then, Marc says, "The midrange was as corporeal as that of the ML2.1, but the bass had more power, though nothing Vlademir played displayed its very depths." I am not experienced enough with ML2.1 sound to comment on this, but I can say that the "vintage" ML2 is both "corpreal" and truly amazing with bass frequencies. I would not say I needed "more" bass or "stronger" bass than the ML2 provides, at least with my speakers. Although my very limited time with the "WATT Puppies" was based on the decision to get and stay away from them, I am guessing that the ML3 is aimed directly at this type of speaker (and the richer guys who own this type of speaker), so I would not be at all surprised if the ML3 is "bigger" with these speakers in as many ways as could be accomplished; and this, likely, is how it was/is intended to come across.
By putting all the pieces together we may actually have more useful information than is immediately apparent in this quicky-drawn ML3 "review".
Best regards,
Paul SRerurn to Romy the Cat's Site