Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

I actually read the review carefully.

My initials sentiments were very accurate.  Knowing the Vladimir’s reaction to those thighs I might presume that he also feels that this level of “intelligent writing about audio” is no more intellectual then blabbering of a kindergarten infant.

Besides the regular audio-reviewing short-mildness there are few specific moments that I would like to comment.

“ The ML3 Signature is proudly a no-feedback design, which makes the inclusion of the feedback switches curious. "They are there mostly for educational purposes," is Vladimir's reasoning, the switches allowing owners to add 1.2 or 2.4dB of local feedback, meaning in the output stage only. While adding feedback will lower output impedance, seemingly making the amps suitable for use with tougher loads, Vladimir doesn't advocate this. "I prefer to deal with a healthy child," was his aphoristic explanation. Translation: Pick speakers that will work with the amps; don't tailor the amps to the speakers, even if you are able to by adding feedback. Indeed, either feedback level softened the sound of the amps and foreshortened the soundstage. Try it and then forget it's there is my advice.”

I would live the adjustable feedback future aside. It is not as big toy as Mickelson/Lamm are trying to present. Most of the people out there will be using ML3 with ported speakers that have very ugly reactance to bass driver when the port kicks in. The ML3’s feedback might deal reactance, damping the bass driver with modified output impedance of the amp. It is toy? Well, any ported speaker is a toy as far as I concern… So, living the feedback on output tube aside what we have left?  It would be the Mark’s statement “ML3 Signature is proudly a no-feedback design”. Sorry, but it is a bullshit, in fact not bullshit but deliberate disinformation, shout it be call fraud on the Mr. Mickelson’s side? Furthermore, knowing that all Soundstage reviews are corrected and signed of by manufactures before they published would the fact that Lamm approved it be an intentional deception on Lamm side? The ML3 has 12AX7 in input state and I give you 100% assurance that it coved by feedback, most likely from the driver stage. The 12AX7 has under 1V on grid and it is imposable to use this tube at live level signals input without feedback. There is nothing wrong to do it: the ML2 does it and any other devises that use low bias tubes at input. I am very certain that ML3 does not drive the input stage into grid currents and feeds most likely cathode with feedback. How this makes the ML3 being the “proudly a no-feedback design”?  I am not against feedback; I am against loading people with BS. Why Mickelson did not write that ML3 is nuclear powered?   It would be as accurate as saying that ML3 is “proudly a no-feedback design”. Very sad…

“You may be wondering why there are no measurements accompanying this review. It's not because Vladimir Lamm didn't want them -- quite the contrary, as we've measured many of his products in the past. No, the amps I received for review are serial numbers 1 and 2, and, due to a supplier issue, they have different output transformers than production units that followed. "The amps are sonically identical," Vladimir explained, "but their measurements will be slightly different from those of a production amplifier." Given this, we had a choice to make: publish the very first review of the amps or wait until Vladimir could send production models for review and measurements, which may never happen, given that Lamm doesn't have a stock of the amps. We went with the former -- and decided to divulge all of this for the sake of completeness. We hope to publish measurements of the ML3 Signature in the future (and I just might have to do some follow-up listening).”

Ironically I was suspecting something like this from Lamm. It is not allegation but juts my suspicions: Lamm played very fealty games with ML2.1. The ML2.1 was very poor sounding amp. Most likely ML2.1 had simplified (means much cheaper to make) design and specifications. I do not think that Lamm did it intentionally it just happened and he did not care, I would not if I were him. So, Lamm kept for reviewing purposes a number of ML2.1 amps with the ML2.0 intestines. The reason why I feel this way because I personally heard a pair of the very early ML2.1 production that did sound OK. Then the rest of ML2.1 sounded like a Denon receiver… now the question is – what would be the “default” sound of ML3 if the company has the alleged reputation to moderate quality of production models (it happened with L2 preamps as well) and partially knowing that ML3 is built to order?

“And then it does get better. Amps like the ML3 Signatures, which use hard-to-find tubes that have no substitutes, don't really lend themselves to trips down the new-old-stock path. However, Vladimir Lamm has a small cache -- about six sets -- of some copper-plate GM70s. The amps come stock with carbon-plate GM70s, and it is with these tubes in use that my comments about the amps up to this point have been written. The copper-plate tubes are a different breed from the stock tubes, increasing the leading-edge speed and midrange detail just enough to make clear their superiority. They sound more spacious too, never a bad thing with a tube amp, and a very good thing when an amp is single ended. While Vladimir Lamm is reluctant to sell these tubes, ML3 Signature owners who won't accept anything short of the very best sound possible should contact him. I shudder to think what a pair of these tubes -- when Vladimir has only six -- will cost.”

Oh, come on! People build GM70 amps for years and the graphite vs. copper anode on GM70 is an old subject. (BTW, some people prefer graphite but them the GM70 shell be used slightly different). As I understand the purpose of this crap was to bust interest to “unique” and “secretive” copper-plate GM70. I am sure Lamm have $1000 price tag on it in his “limited cache”. Well, the graphite GM70 you can pack with shovel in Russia for the price of a few 6C33C or a dozen 12AX7. The copper-plate GM70 is less common and this is why it cost 30-50 more expansive: $60-$100 per tube instead of the regular $25-$60. How that all makes sense when we are talking about $140.000 amps I clearly have no idea.

“The Lamm amps that showed up here were a well-used demo pair that immediately displayed an unusual lateral shift of the soundstage. I flip-flopped the amps to make sure they were the cause, and the center image shifted in the other direction. Luckily it's easy to check the ML3 Signature's operating status (as long as you have a volt-ohm meter), and this revealed the problem: One of the GM70 tubes couldn't be adjusted to its normal plate current, so the amplifier in which that tube was used was noticeably lower in output. Lamm sent a replacement pair of tubes, and this solved the problem, reinvigorating the sound in the process. While the maintenance involved in owning tube amps gives some audiophiles cold sweats, the ML3 Signature and, indeed, all Lamm amps are about as easy to own as a tube amp can be.”

Way to go, Mr. Reviewer!!! So, you was listing amps with screwed plate current on one of output tubes and desired to correct it ONLY after you detect the unusual lateral shift of the soundstage? So, if the soundstage did not shift then you would run the amps as they were?

“A friend of mine who owns some very good hybrid and solid-state amplifiers maintains that the best bass he's ever heard came from Lamm ML2s. Having owned those amps, I have an idea of what he means …”

I relay hate what ANY of those “reviewers” does it! This is YOUR article and you thought (pursuable thought not juts typing. Do not trade in your article somebody’s else view and judgments!!!

“….. This music flowed from the Wilson Audio X-2 Series 2 speakers, which created a soundfield that was wall to wall and, more significantly, from the floor to nearly the ceiling. This gave the upright bass truly lifelike stature, and each note of the guitar was carved out from the others by the amps' handling of transients.”

Well, this is what I would expect from GM70 amp. I wrote about it before, read my comment about the GM70’s “Elephant Sound”. The large plate and high anode voltage do have tendency to make sound large, partially the higher anode voltage, forcing the output transformer to have more isolation, making HF uniquely-dehydrated. That all crate in big transition tube that run high voltage a very lucrative perception of “size”. I would not argue that but I would argue if those amps can play “small” if the music is called upon. I witnessed that the amps that go into “elephant sound” do not do well with “minuteness”. I do not hear the ML3 and I do not know how it hands it but I did not see in the review this subject even touched. If you can tolerate the “size” of the presentation that Martin Logan Statement throw on you with ALL MUSIC than you should not worry…

In the end, there was another subject that was no touched in the review and I found it very peculiar. Marc Mickelson stressed a lot of transients, transients and one more time transients but he never even thought how the transients projected to harmonics. What the hell he was listening in ML3 if he did not comment on this subject?

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site