Again, a manufactures make a product, gave it to reviewer and the reviewer expressed nothing but indication of own idiocy.

Here is comes:

http://www.theaudiobeat.com/equipment/lamm_ml22.htm

First of all the description of the amp is not accurate but it is not the point. The recommendation what kind loudspeakers the amp might or might not drive is also at the level of kindergarten.  The comment “… improved parts, including a new power transformer, also made for an amp [ML2.1] sounded slightly more powerful than the ML2” deserve the “Audio Dildo Award”. Really, the improved parts and new power transformer would make class A SET to sound “more powerful”. And how do you recognize that it has become “more powerful”, mister reviewer?

I do not hold against Mark Mickelson that he allowed the truly bad amp to pass through. After all there is no evidence that Lamm did not give to Mickelson old good sounding version of ML2 in ML2.1 enclosure. It would not explain why Mr. Mickelson was drooling over himself, describing how ML2.1 was better than ML2. If it was not the case and he used the ML2.1 then it was unadulterated fraud from Mark as ML2.1 was a horrible amp that had no resemblance to ML2.0.

Anyhow, the time of ML2.1 has done and now a new SET in market ML2.2. The approach the Mark took is funny. Why he does not observe the sound of ML2.2 on context of ML3? This would be very reasonable and very reasonable analyses considering the Mark has ML3 and considering the he insist the he knows its sound. We all know that he has no old ML2 or ML2.1 in house. Mark, very much like any other audio pimple dumps the equipment in used marker as soon he learns about a new upcoming model is coming out. I know the people who sell the after-review equipment for him and for some other people. So, why the ML2 vs. ML3 fight never took off? Well, because Mark is an idiot, and he clearly wrote about it.

Take a look, the fool accumulated half-million dollar equipment and feel that he has able audio aliments to reproduced sound. So, he get the high-flying SET amp and writes a review using the Patricia Barber's Modern Cool as the only informed sound for sound evaluation. Mark, I am sorry but you need to be ashamed of yourself and your friend Vladimir Lamm has to stick his amp, along with burning tubes in your ass, in order you get some feeling what you do. To play your Patricia Barber CD impressive your do not need any impressive audio but you need mass-market audio from end of 70s with good tone controls.  The crap you wrote permanently disquietly you from anything. If you do not get it then you need to start making living honestly and do not sell audio by selling articles but move boxes in audio warehouses.

Anyhow, there was a review and there was no review. In his inimitable way, Vladimir Lamm once told me years ago that the ideal reviewer is dead reviewer, I think you, Mark Mickelson, is truly “Right" and "Real".

Romy the Cat wrote:

... mostly idiots and Lamm cronies... The caT

Romy the Cat wrote:

If you have a chance to hear Lamm ML2.0 then try them...

Romy the Cat wrote:

You can’t compare Wilsons with Lamms against Magico with Spectral. For all intended purpose Wilsons are more or less advanced loudspeakers vs. Magico is juts the high-end industry vomit. Then there is the Spectral electronics… Spectral itself a crap but with Magico you get the worst possible result, I can’t believe that anybody even consider to use it. Ironically I know Spectral 30 and Spectral 360 monoblocks VERY well, I had it a few times, even one in my own room once and I use to own the Spectral 2000 DAC. I do feel that to sell Spectral with Magico has to be a criminal offence…  The Cat

Stitch wrote:

I wanted to do that, but they are so rare and I found nobody to visit.