Paul S wrote:

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…

The Sound of ML2.0 did need improving in a number of areas. However, what is very important is to undusted that the “journalist” Marc Mickelson never managed to “mention” (or I believe understand it and it is VERY loaded statement) the ML2.0 shortcomings before he heard the ML3 (with 2 ways Wilson monitor :-). Also, Marc Mickelson never managed to “mention” that ML2.1 that he insistently recommended as a replacement of ML2 was a major step back and was faulty, almost fraudulently faulty, amplifier.  So, what happens now? Do you think Marc Mickelson has any thoughts or any real ideas what he is saying now? Not a chance! A manufacture made a product and Marc Mickelson immediately plugged himself into the process of glorification of the product and creation of incentives to make consumers to express interest about the product. It is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT for Mickelsons, Framers, Valins and rest of the reviewing whores what product is and what it does. Vladimir Lamm could put 20 pounds of bowl movement into metal chaises, show it to a review and say “fetch”. Upon seeing it any reviewer will spread adjectives about the “new product” and about the glory of the New Sound. It is what they do for living and IT IS WHAT THEIR IDENTITY IS. Have you seen any reviewer send a unit back to manufacture refusing cheerleading the product because the product was not worthy? I could tell publicly a lot of interesting stories how it works infernally but I think I have made my case.

angeloitacare wrote:

i heard the  ml3' s, the last day of the show.I am wondering, how someone would be able to compare the two amplifiers, if one was playing stereo one day, and the other mono the other day ? There was no way to compare. When i heard the ml3's playing mono, i went out after 2, 3 minutes. It was not a interesting apresentation at all.

There are at least two threads going here.  I am onto the idea that Lamm has finally released his latest-and-greatest uber-amp, and I am trying to glean some idea of how it performs, other than the political mirror test.  Obviously the speaker was a factor here, but I am not clear how or why either mono or the lack of A/B comparisons were perceived as  problems.  I have not followed the Wilson speakers because I never heard anything from them but some potential from the giant model (the Cleopatra, or the Sphinx, or something like that), and no one ever seemed to be able to figure out how to drive them correctly or get them properly integrated for any demonstration I ever attended, and the drivers seemed compromised.  Still, it may be that pairing the ML3 with the Puppy was neither coincidental nor gratuitous.

Can we put to rest the idea that Lamm should have done a multi-channel amp?  Clearly, Lamm has aimed his Big Gun squarely at the Big Target.  And while this ALMOST guarantees mediocrity, Lamm's history does make me curious, and I am watching for something worthwhile even if it's only some aspect of his current Statement.  Remember the "X-Factor".  With respect to multi-channel, I'll bet you that if Lamm does this it will be for HT, with surround sound, etc., because that is the obvious course for SALES.  The engine for marketing and developing audio products has been well-analysed at this forum, and Lamm has claimed a niche he seems to well understand.  Maybe if Romy still had some influence on him, we might get multi-channel DSET or a stab at an uber-system.  I seriously doubt he will get any encouragement for such an idea from any of his Market Watch/Fox News cronies.

So now I am left wondering:  If a showgoer heard the ML3 demonstration and found the ML3 undistinguished, what would it have taken to distinguish it?

Best regards,
Paul S

Well, Jessie, I think you're  exercising a wishful thinking but you have, I think, a wrong subject for your thinking. Neither Lamm nor any other high-end manufacture care about result as a concept but rather a result as product. A product but its nature of being a product is a compilation of rendered efforts projected to the reimbursable values. So, the Hi-Fi companies produce Products they do not produce Sound. Sound for them is juts a tradable commodity.

I personally, as a  person who observes Lamm Industries as a company that exists explicitly to generate revenue (it is what any business does, without exception) and that produce “Products” have no problem with ML3, in fact I think it was a brilliant move – Vladimir juts lost money because he did not do it few years ago. However, as a person who is interested in boundary capacity of pure abstract audio I recognize the introduction of ML3 as no event. From the place where I stay even the well-performing ML2.0 was not satisfactory solution anymore – becose it is juts one single amp – what to do with it?

For the amplification solution that I would consider worth interest it should be DSETs. Look what the guy does: can you see him using one single amp for his playback?

Also, I do not see needs to use feedback in SETs. I’m not saying that it is wrong I juts saying that I see not needs. It is very difficult to make a commercial SET with no feedback and the no-feedback SETs are way too sanative for load and require a lot of precise tuning. SETs with feedback address many problems by patching those problems…. however what it the problems do not exist to begin with? The ML2 ran global feedback, and I’m presuming the ML3 does as well (the 12AX7 at line-input). In addition Vladimir it looks like run a local feedback from the GM70 plate to his driver stage. Well, I’m sure Lamm has his rational but this rational I find arguable. Whatever the rational would be if would end up with Lamm’s desire to extend the amp’s response, drop impedance and “simplify” the demands to output transformer. Ironically all those ventures become not the subject of inters in case the amp was made as a DSET.

Still, as in many other articles of my site I do not criticize manufactures in what they do but rather I criticize the industry reviewer for not performing their duty. In any civilized industry (or in the art world) criticism, the professional criticism, is a valuable tool for consumers and producers navigation. A smart criticism and analyses is something that moves progress in a field.  Look for instance on the history at the greatest musical, literature critics – they advanced their field as much as the greatest composers or writers. They did it but fertilizing “better” and de-fertilizing worst. In case of Hi-Fi we - the consumers and manufactures - as the producers have not such a filter. Would it be then most of the Hi-Fi product, the Lamm ML2.1 for instance, would not be possible. So, who could say if the ML2 was a prerequisite of ML3? In my auricle “About destiny of “High-End Sound”:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=3520

I will lead the readers to the idea that for today typical Audio-Moron a definition of “Hi-Fi quality” is in fact a simulated surrogate of sonic artificiality and many of the recent “suddenly successful” hi-fi products intentionally were made to satisfy those “simulated surrogate demands: Lamm ML2.1, any products of Harmonic Technology, Kharma and Magico loudspeakers, SACD and many others… Will the ML3 as the next step of the “Lamm’s progress?” So far no one said that ML2.1 was a failure. The “critics” Marc Mickelson and Art Dudley (actually Art was more sensible) provided “deep analyses” and concluded that the ML2.1 was : “one of the very best amps on the planet. Don't miss them.” Sure they did not miss it. What was missed was an ability of people like Marc Mickelson   to send the amps back suggesting to Lamm “keep working and let me know when you make to right”. Unfortunate it is not how it works in this stupid industry.

BTW, I got an email from a visitor of my site who proposed that I should not be as hard on Mickelson as he could receive for his review the Lamm ML2.1 amplifier with…  the ML2.0 internals.  Well, would not even know how to comment on it. I personally doubt that Lamm would go for this but if it was the case then … I do not know even how to name it….

Rgs,
The caT

PS:

jessie.dazzle wrote:

The future L3 preamp could be equipped with 5 or 6 pairs of outputs.

Yep, keep dreaming. The L2 had 2 outputs; one was with reversible polarity, one without. I am sure Lamm had default time to keep the preamp under $15K if he put an extra relay in there to fix the polarity of second output. There is also some poorly technical problem why I hardly see it happens. Paraphrasing what Paul said: any general product guarantees mediocrity….

jessie.dazzle wrote:

Yes yes yes  .... Lamm Industries is a BUSINESS... This is abundantly clear whenever I order tubes from them!

Hm, I did not know that you use any Lamm electronics. In fact I just realized that I have absolutely no idea what any of the visitors of my site use for their playback.

jessie.dazzle wrote:

But the most desirable of Lamm's past creations are not the kind of things born solely of a desire to make money.

Perhaps, as I understand whatever Lamm made so far was designed in one way or other by him back in Russia where relationship between money and creatively were way less screwed then in Western world (at least how is use to be). Some people attribute the outstanding artistic potential of Russian cinematographers during 1920s to the … very inadequate supply of Russian-made movie-shooting equipment. When in the begin of the 20-century Europe and America produced film equipment and shut films the Russians had no cameras, no film and instead of shooting they were THINKING how they will shot if they have the cameras and film. When the 1920s Russians got the Western film equipment they begin for a few years to do the things (artistically) that no one ever dreamed of.

jessie.dazzle wrote:

Yes, the idea that Lamm turn his ear to the manufacturing of speakers is a highly unlikely scenario. But a pair of speakers that worked (I mean really worked) with a single pair of ML2s, even at $126,000, would have a market

Contrary to this a dedicated LF and HF ML3 would be able to drive virtually ANY loudspeaker. BTW, with 3 stages driving the GM70 into A2 it is possible to get out of LF channel almost 50W…

jessie.dazzle wrote:

For now we have the ML3 (almost). So, with regard to how it might sound…

I have no reasons to question its sound at this time. I question it’s usability for the people who might like its sound. Regardless to price, getting one ML3 people will confine themselves for one single loudspeaker. Getting even a two pairs of ML3 people will be able to bi-amp but they will use for each of those channels fundamentally compromised amps because the very same ML3 with dedicated for a given bandwidth output stages will be way out there….

Paul S wrote:

So now I am left wondering:  If a showgoer heard the ML3 demonstration and found the ML3 undistinguished, what would it have taken to distinguish it?

Paul, the “showgoer” it seems that was juts clueless what he is doing there. Even disregarding the personal comments of the “showgoer” who apparently does not know how to perform the “target listening” there are general rule: do not comment on negative results at the shows but comment only on positive results. There is zillions reasons why Sound could be very bad at the trade shows. At any single show that I have attended the Lamm’s rooms always had very poor sound (with 1.5 exception but it was not public demonstration). However, trust me: a constant poor result at the trade shows is absolutely normal and absolutely not indicative. So, the rule are that if the room turns out to sound good (mostly accidentally) then it worth judgment. Otherwise, if the room turns out to sound poor, then it is absolutely irrelevant how the room performed. Sure for an evolved listener who is well familiar with the subject even a bad sounding room might give a lot of information. However an “intelligent showgoer” is a very rare commodity in Vegas….

Wojtek wrote:

...since you're quite critical about last Lamm's creations the chance is that the amp is indeed poor...

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.

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 I don't give a fuck what owners of big Wilsons will use to drive their speakers but I'm interested how the amp performs.

Besides guys who spend half a million on hi-fi are not going to bother with bi tri-amp . How would you market this concept?

All the competition is able to do with one channel and Lamm needs two ??

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.

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.

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 ….

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.

Paul S wrote:

All the criticism notwithstanding, Lamm is clearly one of the most interesting amp builders out there, and IMO he is someone worth watching…

Unquestionably, and it is what I do - watching. However, here is where I have my extra “puss” on the subject.  If you read careful the following thread:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=930

then you might sense that I personally feel that the industry affiliation is like cancer’s maltase – it destroys a person’s awareness regardless how serious a person take the industry rules in. The same feelings regarding Lamm I expressed in the Dedications Section the Milq’s release notes. So, for me, watching Lamm (and few other companies) is like observing a clinical study….

Pay attention; any manufacture in the history of audio (with no exception) after they introduces anything interesting always (always!!!) when down in their publicly available potency. It is how the industry maltase works. Would be the L1/M1.1/ML2.0 that Vladimir did in a specific period of his “industry disease” the best things that he did commercially? Without doubt whatever he did after do far did lead to very depressing but not unexpected conclusions. Will the new ML3 and his prospective L3 preamps something that set for Lamm a new horizon? No one knows it yet, I do not think ever Vladimir knows it yet.

Although the ML3 is an amp that comes to the consumers from the times when Kharma-type-sound and Magico-type-sound rules the market but I do sincerely hope that Lamm will be stubborn (and frankly speaking stupid enough) and will make something worthwhile. Unfortunate not one know it yet and at looks like the there is no framework within which the truth about ML3 will become known… Will see…

I kind of less care about Lamm or about his new amps but rather I am interested using the example of ML3 to see what the DHT tubes are capable off.  There are some people who worship direct-heated tubes and attribute to them some ventures (like absent of higher harmonics and a special micro-fineness). There are other people who see in that micro-fineness an excessive granularity – I tend to agree. I do not know exealsy, as I hardly heard any SETs that I like generally and particularly the  properly used SET. I personally had no seriously-made DHT in my room and frankly speaking I see no motivation to peruse anything else. Still I thought that the ML3 might be educational what DHT tube might do. Dima is considering 6E5P-2A3 for himself… but I would like to see in a DHT amp a direct heated driver as well. If someone know any seriously-made, two-stages, mid-frequency-centric amp with direct heated driver AND direct heated  output stage then I would go to listen or might borrow it. In exchange I might lend my full-range Milq…. Anyhow, it would be a different thread…..