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: Amplifier is not a 'product' but a 'solution'.Posted by Romy the Cat on: 1/29/2007
 Gregm wrote: |
| No-one is criticising the ML3 (amplification) product. We are discussing the concept and the applicability of such products, i.e. the ultimate limitation of an amplifier called upon to work from DC to daylight and, accordingly, drive a loudspeaker that's also supposed to produce music in a homogenous manner from DC to daylight. The ML3 served as an illustration and, as it's a new product fm Lamm, we also speculated as to its design parametres. |
|
I juts wish that everyone were able to “get” what is going on as lucid and as cogent as you do.
| Wojtek wrote: |
| Sorry but if company ask $126K for an amp with parts count worth of 500$ plus maybe , maybe another $500 in transformers I'd think they could spend a few grands to make the room to sound good. |
|
Well, first of all you are wrong at the scale. The output transformer for ML2 cost to Lamm to make $900 in 1990s. I’m not wiling to divulge any proprietary information and I’m bringing it up only because I know that Lamm made comments on record about the price of his OPT for his SET. I would not be surprised if I learned that the cost of ML3 transformer would be even $5000 to make. Also, Wojtek, if you have a really serious demand for a output transformer for instance and am familiar with subject (I do not think you do) then you would know that you need to spend literally years unit you fine someone who were able to satisfy your design demands. What wherever it worth: why you think the ML2.0 sound so different then most other SETs out there?
Do not get me wrong, I do have my disagreement with some price application within Lamm Company but the sarea of my disagreement has nothing to do with what you implied. Also, if you afraid that Vladimir takes too much money in then do not be too sure. All that I can tell you that if Vladimir was a lead engineer at some DuPont or Boeing then he would do much successfully fanatically then he is doing with Lamm Industries. I feel it really unfortunate as for the years of spending with Audio he deserves to make much better living then he does making his amplifiers.
| Wojtek wrote: |
| I love this thread .Paul paid $12k for an amp he never heard ,300$ for a pair of 15$ tubes and now we talk about the amp nobody heard. I guess thats what you call "target listening" personally …. |
|
Well, ironically the ML2.0 nowadays costs around 10K used and if a person can use it then I sincerely feel that the ML2.0 is the best buys in today audio among all off the shelf single-channels amplifiers. The “fool-Paul” did pay for it but you do not see him disappointed, do you? Also, "target listening" is not what you think it is. The "target listening" is a situation when a person knows EXACTLY what he/she needs to hear whale he is listening… if you do not know it then you do not know it and all bets off.
| Gregm wrote: |
| HOWEVER, I don't know if it's impossible to market (bi-amping) -- in fact, I believe that someone like Lamm could market such a product and people would listen … |
|
It is EXACTLY how I feel.
| Gregm wrote: |
| That's not quite correct. You'll notice there are products -- see loudspeakers -- where the bass section is already amplified independantly. So the idea of needing different/discreet applification for low frequencies vs the rest of the spectrum is hardly novel. |
|
Sure. Bass section and MF sections have completely different demands to rooms and…. to amplifiers. If from MF amplifier removes the demands of bass amplifier then it is very different ball-game… Still, in many loudspeakers the bass section is already amplified independently not because it is necessary but because they would like to do it half-ass, very cheap and very poorly. The speaker manufactures could not afford to demand for this product bi-amplification most of the time. If they do then they offer own amplification and crossovering solutions that mostly are very poor. The companies that specialize on high-end amplification (like Lamm for instance) could do WAY better…Anyhow, when a properly implemented independent bass section is driven by SENSIBLE dedicated properly done amplification then it is very far from what is usually know in Hi-Fi. Sure, the LF amp should not be a baby amplifier and it in most of the case should be equally “complicated” amp (expansive) as rest of the frequency, ideally it should be the same amp only with LF optimization… BTW, the validity of this concept will be re-test very soon at very and I hop I will be able to come up with some interesting observations when a new Zaratustra II will be competing with bass section of super Melquiades. The Zaratustra II will have some futures that is astonishingly expansive to implement in SET environment.
| Gregm wrote: |
| If, OTOH you're referring to the marketing risk (i.e. so many amps are "wide bandwidth" dc-to-daylight" and Lamm can't do this, I again think that with Lamm's market reputation, the "two channel per channel "Lamm (as you describe it) might have created a stir in the Market... |
|
I very much hope so. Here is where I see the price of Lamm ML3 as its fundamental limitation. If the ML3 was an amplifier with the price tag I would say $50K then for a single-95dB-speaker-person it would be a “reasonable” step-up from ML2.0 as the ML3 has more power and use debatable better output DHT tube (indisputably better electrically). If this amp is done properly then I would not be surprised that ML3 will sound more interesting then ML2.0. So, why the people who are currently satisfied with SINGLE PAIR of ML2 should not consider ML3? Or why the ML3 if it performs better then ML2.0 should not cost more?
However, for $126K it looks like it would be the “last solution”. However, the “last solution” in SET world might not be a single “dc-to-daylight” type of amp or a single “dc-to-daylight” type of loudspeaker. So, the messages that I read with new “Lamm ML3 Reference” (I think that is the amp’s full name) is that after this $126K “ML3 Reference” should follow a $255K “ML4 Statement” or the dual channel ML3 in DSET configuration. However, as I explained if the second part of the following post:
http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=3492
.. tThere are very well-defined cost threshold for any SETs and the ML4 Statement DSET should be … less expansive then ML3 Reference, also the ML4 Statement DSET will deliver better results for.... consumers.
In the end, writing this post I was not able refuse smiling about the ease with which we pontificate about the $255K, $126K or $50K amplifiers. The industry almost made us to agree upon the notion that AN AMPLIFIER COULD COST MORE THEN IT SHOULD. However, the very same industry so far is failing to teach us that regardless the price tags an amplifier is not a PRODUCT but a SOLUTION, a solution in context of our playback installation.
Rgs,
Romy the CatRerurn to Romy the Cat's Site