Paul S wrote:

Yesterday a nice fellow drove off with "my" Lamm ML2s.  Now it is really sinking in: How will will I find anything else this good, along with more power? These amps were like a PhD in sound, what might be done with hi-fi.  Yes, I have been over 5 years learning these lessons.  Still, there is no way my understanding would be where it is today without the ML2s, not to mention the joy of classical music in my home during this time! To say I will miss these amps is an understatement, since I had truly grown comfortable with them.  And despite I have found their "limits", replacing them will likely be my toughest audio challenge to date. The ML2s remain one of VERY few audio "recommendations" I would make; I recommend them whole-heartedly for efficient speakers.

• Pin receptacles fully enclose each pin and do not let the pins "breath.
• Pin receptacles have less mass than the original type sockets and what mass they do have is concentrated around and directly under each hot pin.
• Heat causes the metal in the pin receptacle to lose it's springiness; it then dilates and starts arcing at the pin, thus generating more resistance > more heat > more dilation and on and on... 

Robert Harley made a review of Lamm ML2.2 with his Magico Q7 loudspeaker of 94dB sensitivity.

http://www.lammindustries.com/reviews/ML22%20TAS%20February%202013.pdf

He feels that “Q7 allows to hear ML2.2 at it’s best”, and the fact that he just reviewed Q7 and has them in his room as a trophy probably has nothing to do with that.

I like when Robert Harley makes “smart” comment about SET as he is the one who spend a career hassling industry’s high power SS amplifiers.  It is no surprise that among the speakers that Robert muscled from the industry 94dB was the higher sensitively.

Another lobule mater was his playing Dave Brubeck “Time Out”. This is kind of subliminal message to all audio white trash out there – sort of a proof of quality according to those people.  Funny, a few weeks back a local audio friend of my, a jazz devotee himself stopped by at my place and after an hour of so of playing my music I played to him his Dave Brubeck “Time Out”, I have some kind of super-duper vintage Japanese pressing. My friend asked me to spot doing it because it was “essentially very boring music”. Why that ML2.2 made Robert Harley to have interest in Dave Brubeck? Was it ML2.2 problem of Harley’s head problem? Was it the Robert intention to make mode audio-idiot out there to buy ML2.2 and by referring to “Time Out” he cover a wide ground of audio fools out there? I do not have an answer.

Another thing is Robert Harley stressing 3% of total harmonic distortions.  If Robert Harley was another new writer then this stupidity would be appropriate or even implied. He however is an experienced guy and he understands that total harmonic distortions number give no picture. To analyze the harmonic context and progression of harmonic context with volume was a bit out of Mr. Harley paying grade. Very unfortunately. It is also very stupid to total harmonic distortions if you know that it means virtually nothing.

Another wonderful thing was to use “Nojima Plays Liszt” by Reference Recording. This disk features an amazingly barbaric play and if Robert Harley has no metal, cultural or esthetic capacity to understand it than what the hell he is doing by attempting to review audio? Well, I shall not be too hard on Robert Harley as my long-trim answer is that the industry reviews are the bottom of the barrel, sort of a waste that builds up on your teeth if you do brash then for long time. The proof in the pudding and the review above is the proof.

In the end I would like to point out that I do not express any negative or positive comments about neither Q7 nor ML2.2. I did not hear Q7. I hear the provisos models and I believe that Magico is a horrible company with horrible sonic, cultural and ethical objective and with sub-acceptable reference points. Therefore I do not have any optimistic expectations toward whatever they produce. I heard ML2.1 in multiple occasions and I was very vocal and persistent critic of ML2.1 sound. That however was 10 years back and it was not ML2.2. The ML2.1 was dead on arrival and it come reportedly from the fact that Lamm “turned economical” on output transformer. I have absolutely no idea what output transformer Lamm used with his ML2.2. He also might install on the “reviewer model” the output transformer that was used on ML2.0 and it would be absolutely different amplifiers. I do know that some manufactures when they send equipment to reviewers make custom version for them. I know about only one of such case in Lamm history and I do not know how wide spread this practice with Lamms. Anyhow, it is not comments about Q7 or ML2.2 but to point out one more time that any audio manufactures can go away with absolutely anything because the QA of the industry, the reviewers who sell the equipment to public are idiots.

I think it is both Product placement and stupidity.  Robert Harley has a room with tall ceilings and a lot of open space on the sides that suck out LF very strongly.

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/follow-up-the-magico-q7-loudspeaker/

It is not huge room but it is way larger room for 94dB sensitive speakers as at LF in this time of room you need a good 150-200W. Well, unless Robert runs the room at 85dB of sound pressure... It is not about volume but about the fact that Lamms are IHT and they behave very ugly without any headroom. It is interesting that all those idiots who use to stocked up Magico and Kharma 4-Ohm crap nowadays are approached by Constellation dealers. As the result they do they are dumping their SET amplification and swear by high power Constellation.  It is as much predictable as laughable.

Anyhow I do not insist that in THAT room with Q7 and 20W Lamm Mr. Harley has bad sound but I do insist that sound of both  Q7 and Lamm might be significantly better if it was driver by power-sensitively appropriate combination.

Stitch wrote:

Personally I am not interested to talk about reviewers, because it is wasted time (they don't review something, they design a Product Placement and maybe they add that they 'like' it...)

... just parroting the direct quotes from the reviewers’ talking points. So, in the way observing the reviewer’s stupidity one can perfectly predict the development of the industry tendencies for a next few years...

... she feel that I have unrealistically high expectations....