 AnonymousUser wrote: |
| Sorry for the delay but my computer is down! I would like you to tell me squarely why your amp sounds to your ears better than the lamms tenors and the likes! what is if you prefer the impact of yur driver stage compared to all those mega bucks amps -and yes I knoiw it is just your opinion. |
|
Well, let take out of consideration the faulty concept of “mega bucks amps”. There are no such a things as mega bucks amplifiers. When we imply the mega bucks amplifiers we mean the mega bucks performances not the mega bucks price because the mega bucks price is absolutely irrelevant and mostly misleading.
Let looks at the prices first. The Lamms SET and Tenors as near $30K retail with street price of a half of even less. In addition the Lamms SET and Tenors have has own positive for consumer glitches that drive the prices down: Lamm has new version of ML2.1, which many idiots out there admire and are willing to buy. This is great as it drives the prices for the older and way better performing ML2 down as now the older ML2 is not “current version”. There are few other reasons why the Lamm’s prices for ML2 are down from where they might be. The same is with Tenors: the marketing foolishness of this company drove them out of business and nowadays the Tenors worth very little. So, now much from those $30K the Lamms and the Tenors are actually cost and worth? Knowing how both of them built and ho both of them marketed and distributed I surmise that they are in $2.500 range. Add the manufacture markup, add the cost of the marketing, cost of advertising, cost of the industry bribes and fees, add the cost of support and warranty fixing, add the 60% mark up in the distribution chain and you would end up with those $30K.
Now about the worth of those amps regardless of the price.
ML2, the old production, from my point of view is the most interesting SET out there, regardless its price. Ironically it is relatively cheaply made and by limited menace and intentions but it delivers very serious results. Does it have sonic limitations from my point of view? Yes it does. How critical those limitations would be for you? I do not know. I personally did not heard any single installation and did not meet any single person who was credible from my perspective was able to describe me his dissatisfaction with ML2 limitations, or at least name them justifiable in context of the results of his playback. Whoever I have seen who were bitching about ML2 were form my perspective people who did not take advantage of even of 70% of the ML2 capacity. It doe not mean that ML2 is perfect, but it means that it’s capacity is way beyond the average Moroninty of audio person that I typically was familiar with over the years. How Melq better then ML2? If you let me know squarely what dissatisfied you with ML2 then I will squarely let you know if the Melquiades would be able to deliver in this specific dimension a more interesting result.
Tenor, is a different story. It is OTL, that should be sufficient enough to describe it’s sound. Tenor, was made in Canada, the amp was nothing special: the typical sharp and expedited OTL sound. When it became available I had them and spent a week with them. I find them quite fraudulent in harmonic department and good for nothing else but jazz, not the best jazz I have to add. However, ay the time when Tenor ump showed up at the map Lars Fredell (who pretty much put Lamms on market) got beef with Vladimir Lamm and therefore he decided to declare Tenor as his new sponsored Messiah. (It is know that the audio-idiot do not buy Sound but buy the crap the they were told). What Lars forgot to mention in this propaganda session during that time that during that first year he was a distributor of Tenors in US. Ironically, he really believed in the Tenors but once again: running 87dB sensitive Verity vise and driving them with ML2 was a summit of reviewing idiocy. Lars juts did not know anything better… later on the Tenor was picked up by a number of the worst scams and the most primitive spices in the industry (Jonathan Tinn, Mike Lavigne and the rest alike…) Regards the publicity that the Tenors temporary had it is not really interesting amplifier, with very pure sound not to mention the problems in operation. The Morons at Audiogon drool about it but there is a reasons why I call them Morons…
Regarding the rest amplifiers, I do not know what you heard. It would be foolish for me to clime the Melquiades is better then this or that amp. I might make some claims from a very specific perspective of the very specific performing characteristic. So, far I like what Melquiades does. I am in a way a whore and have no loyalty to anything. If tomorrow I discover another topology or another product that does better I would discard my former views and embrace the new. So far I am comfortable with Melq and I have no motivations to search for another amp of other amp perfomance. It might not say a lot to you of course...
If you read the Melquiades history in this site than you might learn that Melquiades was initially meant to overcome some very specific imperfection (from my point of view) of ML2’s Sound. Melquiades does it very-very well and take it way beyond. If you have a dissent speakers and Lamms and Melq in the same room then it will be no contest. If Melquiades would not be able to do it then I would not removed my two pairs of Lamms out of my listening room.
Still, the biggest question is not if the Milq is good but if you would be able to take advantage what Melq or old ML2 are able to do. You see, there is not a lot of harmonically properly sounding amplifiers out there. Most of then or too sharp (musically) or too slow. “Different “ (acoustic) harmonic signature with maintaining this signature across dynamic range and frequency range is something that distinct old ML form most of the other amps. I learned it form ML2 sound and I was trying to do the same with Melq. The difference between old ML2 and Melq that Melq dose it many times quicker, with more dynamic, much-much more articulation (and partially in bass), with better extremes but still preserving the very same acoustic harmonic signature. In addition Melquiades has that “resilient viscosity dynamic” (courtesy to the 6E5P in the given application) that I find is quite uniqe.
| AnonymousUser wrote: |
| I understand your reservations concerning the power: I run an 845 amp at about 16-18 watts and it is enough except on the most demanding passages! |
|
Well, as I told you that if you are interesting in Melq then get a prototype of the Melq first stage and drive with it your 845. I’m not a big fun of the 845 and I have no idea what transformer you use in there with it but I suspect that you will get some feeling of the Melquiadinization. Still, if you feel that 845 is “enough except” then I would not go for 6C33C. The 6C33C is much more delicate tubes and meant for quality sound, not for wild power. Do not forget that driving Patricians in 17000 cu feet to way out of the reasonable intention of those loudspeakers and you are somewhere in DJ mode. The large rooms is very different story and require very different method of handling.
Rgs,
Romy the Cat
"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche