I would like to share my observations about public perception of Melquiades - The Realty Reconstructions Amplifier.

Melquiades, or as I affectedly-abridgedly call it “the Melq” was released to pubic exactly a year ago:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Melquiades.aspx

Before it was released publicly there were one pair of full range Melquiades built and one pair of the Melq’s 3-chanals version - Super Melquiades built. Since then, the first full range Melquiades was sold and it problem-free is running in a NY. The Super Melquiades runs also problems-free in my own listening room. During the last year after the Melq was made available to public I have built one more Full range Melquiades, primary because I had an extra chassis and the set of the previously prepared parts, including magnetics:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=2502

Over the course of the last year 3350 people downloaded Melquiades circuitry PDF file and over 20.000 of visitors read the Melquiades.aspx page. Still, the attempts to build Melquiades out there are minuscule. Currently I know about 4 people who more or less seriously pursue Melquiades. I hope when and if then will be though then will share their observations. There were a number of times within the number of the DIY-minded sites when Melquiades circuits become a subject of discussions. Unfortunately the people in those discussions have the DIY-typical limited horizon of understanding and they did not express anything besides the shallow judgment or juts plain Moronic options.  I had over the last year approximately 2 dozens of private inquiries about Melquiades and it was pretty much it. Despite of the fact that Melquiades is fully disclosed and that it is delivers a sonic results (if the mentioned requirements-conditions preserved) beyond of any known to me amplifier I do not see people out there trying Melquiades. This fact does not affect my ego, but I find it fascinating to see how even some people who knows me personally do pay thousands dollars for off the shelf amps, disregarding the opportunity to build the Milq.

Over the last year my Super Melquiades cosmetically was not changed.  A few minor things were changed though:

1) Added an impulse relay to the PS allowing the amps stage from a push-pedal
2) Added a gauge that measures the elapse time (time in use) on the tubes for each amplifier.
3) Some of the wires layout was refractored (very minatory)
4) A major flow in the Melquiades gauges were resolved. Each single plate current measurement that was made by Supper Melquiades internal gauges had to be multiplied by 25%. Please, people who read the older posts take it under advisement, as the numbers that I read form the gauges and posted wee incorrect.

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=1175

5) A possibility to add another channel for tweeter amplifier is being considered.

Generally I am glad with the state of Melquiades. It doe serves well in my room. I would like more folks out there try it but as any nation deserve own idiot-president the same way any audio person deserve own amplifier. My major happiness about Melquiades and public is that I did not let myself to be persuaded by a number of people in past and did not licensed Melquiades to industry production.  The further I went were a number of conversations with a few industry whores where I was very quickly detected that Melq has no ability to be understood by the typical, plugged into the industry idiots, and that those people has no justification to participate in the Melquiades distribution.

I personally do not see any further changes I might do to Melquiades. The HF channel would be a nice addition, I have the bulge enclosure-add-in but now the project is on the hold. Anyhow, two years after it’s birth and a year after it public release the Melq make me quite happy. I would enjoy if more folks embrace the Melquiades but since I appreciate animals more then I audio people it is well understood why my Cat loves to starch herself up on the warmed Melquiades…

Interesting….. It is interesting to think about the relational of Melquiades slow take-up. I think that major contributing factor is that guy who calls himself Romy the Cat. Really, I think it’s it. The people who are capable to build amplifiers more or less are centered around the DIY movement and my position regarding the DIYer is well know and it was not once voiced from this site - I generally do not like those freaks. So it is perfectly understandable that if person is wiling to invest himself into multi thousands dollars project then he would like to be handles and treated with respect. I mostly despise them and they just can’t handle it. Here is a very typical reaction of those cretins:

Post by andyjevans: “By the time I had waded thigh high through the pompous definitions of what you should/should not be as a listener, what you should/should not have for speakers, what you should/should not do with bi-amping I'd decided that whoever could digest pages of such claptrap was welcome to the product. “

I think the andyjevans-like are very correct in their reaction. If I were a kindergarten boy and someone would explain to me the Theory of Relatively then I would not be able to connect the said into something the would make sense to me… apparently there are reasons why I look at the DIY crowd with disrespect.

cv wrote:

I tell you what it is that's putting everybody off, it's that bloody input stage biasing arrangement...

Yes, and I heard a lot of “criticism” about it. “Why, don’t you use a simple automated bias in there?” “where is my Black Gates in catode?” Or as somebody John Caswell  elegantly put: “ Just had a look at the "Melquiades' amp cct and must admit that the bias arrangements for the input valve IMO are just OTT. A simple 3V button cell would provide all the necessary bias for the grid of V3 without the hassle of R10/12 and V2. Similarly I would not bother with the positive side but just put a hi quality C between R3 (and make that about 1M) and R5 and do away with R4/VR1 et al. Shades of the tail wagging the dog here! KISS works a treat.”

Sure, if the design of audio would be supply just the necessary voltages to the necessary parts of the circuits then each audio device would be wonderful. Unfortunately we all know that it is not the case. There is a difference between designing an amplifier and designing Sound by means of amplifiers. I hope John Caswell   with all his ‘Keep It Simple Stupid” would understand it, not to mention that I do not live in the realm of the “Simple Stupid Sound”.

cv wrote:

…. solid state rectification

….which in combined with fast and soft switching SS diode AND input choke filters produce way more interesting result then tube rectification.

cv wrote:

…6C33…

Actually the output tube might be whatever they wish… I have chosen the 6C33 for my reasons, other people have their own reasons. Stick in the output stage whatever you which: a properly implemented 2A3, 211 or GM70 and the amplifier should be virtually the same….

cv wrote:

enormous no-name PSU caps

They are not no-name. They are the well-tested and selected after many months and hundreds and hundreds dollars Nichicons NR and NX. The largest Computer Grade Nichicons are Rolls-Royce among capacitors of Sound is the priority but not a cheap marketing hype. Just no one have sold this fact to the Morons-DIYvers and they “afraid”…

cv wrote:

6E5p wha? (Can't tube roll that...)

The 6E6P or 6E6P-DR will do tube rolling. Unfortunately no one ever manufacture any tubes of the similar class. The 6E5P and 6E6P are one of the very few tubes that Russians did not steal from West and designed on their own. (BTW the 6C33C is in the same camp)

cv wrote:

As well as the complexity of the biasing in terms of parts and hassle, it may be a case of "Not invented here" , particularly if its benefits are not theoretically obvious (in addition to its complexity).

Actually it “looks difficult” but in realty it is very simple. To feed gas tube might be made and tested separately. It is practically imposable to do it wrong, and if even you do it then… nothing will happen and it will be no damage to the amplifier or to anything else. The circuit is so stable and so well though that I even pulled the gas tube out of the amps… while the amps were up and running and with the connected speakers! Nothing happen, although I would defiantly do not suggest to try it.

drdna wrote:

I am sadly missing the living presence in my system, and I thought from your description, that the Melquiades might be a solution

I think this requires me to raise my voice as I feel that this presumption is very common and unfortunately very mistaken. Melquiades might NOT be a solution. It can not be a solution as well as any other element of playback, would it be a speaker, and amplifier or a sexy capacitor, might not be a single solution of a complex and compound problem. The performance a playback is a result and reflection of composite solutions and listener’s objectives and a sidle, even the bets performing element is enabled to do anything in playback, because it is not necessary become a part of a global system of sound reproduction and global personal views of the system owner.

I have seen again and again when audio people heard in somebody else’s inhalations the results that they found worth to imitate and they ran and bought, built, borrowed the elements that they thought were responsible for the “better result”. It never worked for them and it never should.

Better sound come as a since of self-realization and realization of the nature or reproduced sound. A person should evolve his reference points and his assessment algorithms up to the point when he will be able to identify within his current sound the specific and very precise shortcomings. Then, only then a specific solution might be brought as a delta between what the sound currently is not and what it should be. ONLY THEN, that  person should bring an amplifier, a cable or a driver the will address this well-identified problems and to fulfilled his very specific objective.

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=432

Without it the process of making audio is similar to the countless idiots-DIYers who colder anything solderable juts in order to get “any sound” and then built the theories what this amplifiers, cable or sound should be better then “Audio Research” or “Makr Levinson”

Romy the Cat wrote:

I think this requires me to raise my voice as I feel that this presumption is very common and unfortunately very mistaken. Melquiades might NOT be a solution... A person should evolve his reference points and his assessment algorithms up to the point when he will be able to identify within his current sound the specific and very precise shortcomings. Then, only then a specific solution might be brought as a delta between what the sound currently is not and what it should be.

drdna wrote:

.... I have high-sensitivity horn loudspeakers and use some 2A3 SET amplifiers, which make very good sounds but I am looking to get closer to the Sound, which to me is feeling as if the musicians are in the room making decisions about the way they are playing and you have insight into the whole thing in a real and palpable way... Adrian

Antonio J. wrote:

This is to me the most difficult problem to solve. For example, you may decide that your problem is a lack of spaciousness, which may be due to a lack of correct delay, wrong bass response, poor detail retrieval or whatever. Some issues can be corrected just by a good speaker positioning into the room, but others may come from speakers' limitations, amplifier's shortcomings or source flaws. The questions are: How you get to the conclussion that the "problem" is the lack of spaciousness? do you have a reference (in audio) that shows clearly that the spaciousness you "need" is attainable? even supposing that the specific issue is solvable, can it be corrected into your room and circumstances? And what's worse, once you get that spaciousness, was this the problem which needed to be corrected? have you introduced new problems?

The answer is very simple: do not listen reproduced music as reproduced music. Also during the evaluations do not listen played or performed music but listen how your inner-you reacts to the core of the musical context. Everything that is on the way of your consciousness, that impediment your perception are the bi-products of performing or reproduced art. It is very easy to distinct them: the performing problems have reasons. The reproduced problems have patterns….

Antonio J. wrote:

I believe that the Melquiades can be the solution to many problems that Romy detected and which once solved, helped him to get closer to his desired results. We don't know which were those problems, and it's difficult to really understand his goals, since in spite of his explanation elsewhere in this site, translate his inner language into my inner language is a tricky process. To have Milq working as intended, we should have speakers that match Milq electrical performance the same way it does at Romy's. We should have sources that can offer similar results (I don't think Melquiades can correct most of the garbage that SACD o upsampling DACs introduce into the music) as his, and also we should have his very same "musical sensivity" which I believe is at other perceptive, intellectual, emmotional and probably even social levels than mine and of many of us, I guess.

I do not think so. The Milq is juts a good amplifier with a very lucky balance between the volume of data and speed of data exchange. It has a number of interesting idiosyncrasies, from my point of view in way unique idiosyncrasies, but it defiantly not a magic stick that can fix the randomness of audio person’s listening objectives.

Romy the Cat wrote:

...The answer is very simple: do not listen reproduced music as reproduced music. Also during the evaluations do not listen played or performed music but listen how your inner-you reacts to the core of the musical context. Everything that is on the way of your consciousness, that impediment your perception are the bi-products of performing or reproduced art. It is very easy to distinct them: the performing problems have reasons. The reproduced problems have patterns.....

Romy the Cat wrote:

The answer is very simple: do not listen reproduced music as reproduced music. Also during the evaluations do not listen played or performed music but listen how your inner-you reacts to the core of the musical context. Everything that is on the way of your consciousness, that impediment your perception are the bi-products of performing or reproduced art. It is very easy to distinct them: the performing problems have reasons. The reproduced problems have patterns…. the Milq is ... defiantly not a magic stick that can fix the randomness of audio person’s listening objectives.

Guys, I would like do not send a wrong message and it is important to understand it. It is perfectly possible to identify, practically intentionally what is wrong with a playback. I’m not talking about the reasons for the sonic failures (this might be very complicated and enormous process) but to name the quality/qualities witch present the delta between the Real Sound and the Garbage Sound. To name the problems it is mostly enough 5 seconds of listening for any well trained and experienced listener, who has well-evolved listening inelegance and who knows what to listen. However, even if the problem in the sound are names and the prospective directions are set then I do not think that there are any person (a least I do not know of any) who have a knowledge or even strong “opinions” HOW those directions could be fulfilled. There is a big difference between knowing were to go and knowing how to do it. I mostly know exactly what I would like to accomplish in Sound but I very seldom, if ever, know HOW to get there. The “ways to go there”, the implementation techniques are completely different subject and could not be visualized:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=2770

Romy the Cat wrote:

Despite of the fact that Melquiades is fully disclosed and that it is delivers a sonic results...I do not see people out there trying Melquiades...I find it fascinating to see how even some people who knows me personally do pay thousands dollars for off the shelf amps, disregarding the opportunity to build the Milq.

Speaking for myself, I am seriously considering the Melq, but that is a LOT of money for me. A huge risk financially because there really isn't much third party validiation of the amp's true performance. A "Catch-22" really. Not enough people have had success with it to encourage a large amount of others, yet that can't happen without someone stepping up to the plate.

Since I am overhauling my system for a new set of priorities, the idea of Melq has me once again looking it over. I had an Almarro A318B integrated, 18wpc SET - 6C33CB, in my house for 4 months this year and certain aspects of it's sonic  presentation were unique and superior to the 300B, EL34, and PX-25 SET amps that I have. With all other things being the same in my system except the different amps, I found the the Almarro had signs of being the least colored and neutral tonally. It was by no means a perfect amp, but it did give me an inkling of what might be possible with that output tube with a no-holds-barred design. So, I am defninitely intrigued by the Melq's potential.

darkmoebius wrote:

That's because "off the shelf" amps can be easily resold for little or no loss of money if they are not to the buyer's liking. The Melquiades, on the other hand, leaves the builder with $3,000 worth of parts not easily resold if it doesn't fit well with the builder's musical goals. So, there is a far greater financial risk involved in chosing Melq over a commercial amp.

It is difficult to argue. I never seen any person with Audiogon URL instead of ears or brain who was ever was able to accomplish any interesting Sound.

darkmoebius wrote:

Your attitude (and writing style) certainly doesn't help the amp get serious consideration amongst those most capable to build the amp.

I am well familiar with it and I am in a way quite comfortable with it. I have little if any interest in the “serious consideration” of DIY-type people. Quite opposite, to understand “how” and “why” the Milq sounds a person should be well beyond the typical DIY mindset.

darkmoebius wrote:

Also, I think most profficient builders are more comfortable in discussing  how things work or are designed rather than the listening experience because the latter is extremely subjective and filled with unknown variables whereas the "nuts & bolts" of building is filled with known reference points. It seems to me that you (Romy) are more focused on the listening experience itself.

Yes, it is correct. I still hardly understand why the Milq’s driver stage sound in the way it is. BTW, some greatest minds of audio engineering, way more inelegant then  your typical DIY Morons, also have no idea what responsible for the Milq’s driver stage Sound.

darkmoebius wrote:

And that's the most accurate reason why no one else has really tried your amp - the Melquiades serves you well, in your system, in your room, for your tastes/goals. Not many people have any idea what your system and room actually sounds like. And since your repeatedly say that 95%+ of other people's systems and components are junk or horrible and they lack the mind to understand music, there is no common reference point to encourage people to risk $3,000 on your design.

Yes, I would agree.  Also in the Milq release note I insisted that the person who would like to pursue the Melquiades should have “mature and refined expectations in sound reproduction”. I did not say that “95%+ of other people's systems and components are junk. However I do always said and I do insist that 95%+ of other people's expectations in sound reproduction are junk. Think about the difference.

darkmoebius wrote:

Speaking for myself, I am seriously considering the Melq, but that is a LOT of money for me. A huge risk financially because there really isn't much third party validiation of the amp's true performance. A "Catch-22" really. Not enough people have had success with it to encourage a large amount of others, yet that can't happen without someone stepping up to the plate.

darkmoebius wrote:

Since I am overhauling my system for a new set of priorities, the idea of Melq has me once again looking it over. I had an Almarro A318B integrated, 18wpc SET - 6C33CB, in my house for 4 months this year and certain aspects of it's sonic  presentation were unique and superior to the 300B, EL34, and PX-25 SET amps that I have. With all other things being the same in my system except the different amps, I found the the Almarro had signs of being the least colored and neutral tonally. It was by no means a perfect amp, but it did give me an inkling of what might be possible with that output tube with a no-holds-barred design. So, I am defninitely intrigued by the Melq's potential.

darkmoebius wrote:

Hopefully, a few more people will build your amp because it might nicely fit into the new direction I'm taking my system with a set of cornerhorns designed by RCA's Dr. Harry Olson using his legendary 15" LC-1C coaxial drivers - (picture 1 & 2). The cornerhorns were never commercially produced. The owner of The Ah! Horn Company has provided public access to a sketch, given to him in the 70's by Dr. Olson,  of what Dr. Olson considered the ultimate cornerhorn for his ultimate driver. A rough mockup of the driver and cabinet had terrific free-air frequency response. Even though, they have moderate high(er) efficiency, I wuld like an amp capable of exemplary current drive to control the large drivers, plus great LF response.

“exemplary current drive to control the large drivers”… Hm…. I kind of feel a pain in my teeth… Where you people dig all that BS?  Anyhow. if you are for “great LF response” (that would be hardly possible in context of RCA drivers) then be advised that I believe in DSET and I do not feel that a full range SET should driver LF section. You see, there are some very intricate nuances of LF dumping with SET. It is highly possible that you would need differently load your output stages for LF and MF sections it order to have the correct Sound. Unless you are of course incredibly lucky….

Romy the Cat wrote:

The "Catch-22" with Melquiades is not the Melquiades price but the fact that I SPEND NO EFFORTS TO CONVINCE ANYBODY to build it...I made the Milq available and frankly speaking for myself, I feel more gratified that I revealed the Milq’s circuit then the fact that I was able to get out of Milq the necessary sound. The Milq is out and my job is done. It is up to others to embrace or to reject it. Trust me; it will hardly affect me, or even my ego, if the Milq’s progress would goes one way or another.

“the no-holds-barred DESIGN”? Hm… I do not think I ever had these objectives.

I described how I made it but I did not care about economics.

“exemplary current drive to control the large drivers”… Hm…. I kind of feel a pain in my teeth… Where you people dig all that BS?

Anyhow. if you are for “great LF response” (that would be hardly possible in context of RCA drivers) then be advised that I believe in DSET and I do not feel that a full range SET should driver LF section. You see, there are some very intricate nuances of LF dumping with SET. It is highly possible that you would need differently load your output stages for LF and MF sections it order to have the correct Sound. Unless you are of course incredibly lucky….

There is one interesting contestant thought…. I have unconfirmed evidence that the infamous Harry Olson had his own 15-inchers Dual Concentric driver. I heard a speaker that reportedly was Olson’s speaker and it was very interesting, free from some problems I observed in the Tannoys. Unfortunately during that the only listening session the Olson’s speaker was in context of an installation where was very difficult to say anything more critical…

There is a difference between “no holds barred" implementation of a specific design end no “no holds barred design”. The later is bogusness. Still, I would insist that even the first one is very frequently is bogusness. “Expensive” implantation very frequently is not the optimum chose for a chosen topology. A unit should do what it should do technically and sonically and it should be it.  The notion “no holds barred" I feel is very much not applicable as objective for amplifier as it instantaneously set the non-existing price-result rational….

I heard Olson speakers twice, not the cornerhorn. I head among many cornerhorns juts one installations that I liked, it was not Olson. Still all cornerhorns, regardless of design have a lot of limitations – they all spread imaging across and behind the back wall, making all sound volume-flat. Anyhow, let do not talk about it anymore and this thread is not about the cornerhorns.

darkmoebius wrote:

Now, I also need an amplifer capable of letting it's full potential "shine through".

You are correct about the load matching, for the Super Mild LF channel a half-Ohm of loading change bass quite dramatically.  Still, the idea was to make this SET completely without any intentionally implemented feedback. It is juts not necessary in there…

Anyhow, if a person has high sensitivity speakers that it is very easy to make Melquiades for all seasons and all reasons. You see, I suggested using for full range operation the Lundahl LL1627A transformer.  That sucker has multiple secondary sections and it could be configured to drive absolutely anther. You can combine the sections, using primaries as secondary and vise versa, and have a LOT of flexibility without using any taps.  I feel that whatever other SET can drive the Melq could drive as well. If you have not enough power and dull sparkers then put instead the 6C33C some kind 211, 845, or GM70 – the Milq’s driver stage will drive them perfectly fine and it will be the same amp only with the “bid tube sound” . Still I’m not a big fun of the large high voltage tubes:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=2182

In fact to try in the Milq output stage some small, perhaps direct-heated, tubes might be more perspective…

Paul S wrote:

and dm did say he's tried (and rejected?) several SETs already, in the context of Klipsch Horns.

If you ever said that Melquiades is the amp for all seasons and all reasons, I missed it; yet I wonder how many people run across it and gloss over what you say about it and think it's some sort of plug-and-play proposition they can just build and then use to drive whatever.   And of course you probably think that's funny, and likely you'll be even more amused when someone still doesn't get it after all my flailing.

Anyway, I'm not saying it can't work, just that maybe he's right when he hesitates because of risk...but I am looking at what he says he wants and thinking

it might not be as difficult and/or risky if he first tried ML2s or Pass Alephs, or something like that to drive first his Klipsch Horns and then his Olsen corner horn prototypes.

darkmoebius wrote:

I would never just jump in and attempt to build the Melq (or any other amp) without months of studying the design …

Good motivations. To simplify everything: the Melquiades was at attempt to make two stages, capacitor coupled, no feedback SET, having the cathodes sitting on ground and using the unique 6E5P as a driver. My selection of output tube was because at that time I meant to use it with Lamm ML2 but now only. The 6C33C has enough power to drive my bass and very good sound, at least in context of ML2 (I did not like any other amps that I heard with 6C33C)

The first versions of Melquiades were not what you see now and it was typical to many other similar attempts by other people. For instance Russian designs Anatoly Manakov had his version that takes advantage of the 6E5P:

There were few others.  I will not comment what I do not kike in the Manakov’s amplifier and why, I juts say that Manakov amps is a reasonable electronic implementation of the tubes operation points but it has hardly to do anything with Sound.  Still the Manakov’s amp should sound OK and I sincerely feel that it should over-perform the most of the pop-corn sounding 6c33C amps that you accustom to hear.

However, my objectives were much further then just proving a concept that such an “unplugged” person as I am would be able to make an objectives-driven amplifier. Anyhow, after all events, mistakes, experiments, false concussions, moves to the wring directions and so on the Melquiades (as it reviled) is a tip of the iceberg of quite complicated though process about audio generally and amplification in particularly. Quite few people are turned off by obnoxious, demanding, overly confident and assertive tone of my release notes…. and I feel it great. The release notes are a low order filter that reduces the amplitude of Morons who might consider building the Milq.

You, or anyone else, might or not might consider approaching the Melquiades built but my view toward the subject will not change.

Well, it is always difficult to me to deal with audio people because any expressing any abstract notion in front of them those enslaved people perceived as a preamble to some kind of “deliverable good” and the sick audiophile imagination has already paint in their minds the pictures of a large brown truck, delivering a big and fully insured  package. When I couples days ago mentioned that I consider the Cessaro Horn Acoustics Gamma system is quite fruitful direction to go in sound reproduction then the readers minds inimitably interpreted it as a sign that Cessaro Horn are “better” then other speaker and  should be immediately considered as “strong buy”. What a Moronic and bogus way looking at the things! No wonder that in many instances I feel incredibly bored talking with audiophiles! Please, people, spare me from this primitive behavioral pattern on my site!!!

Paul S wrote:

Basically, Romy, I think you have got a "niche product" on your hands.

The very same with the Melquiades. What does it mean "niche product"? Let leave aside all bogus motions of “prodactism”. An amplifier should amplify nothing else. All amplifiers amplify and all of them do “something else” but it is not the point. The point is that Melquiades is not a released DIY product but MY DESIRE TO SHARE A VISION how a 22-24dB gain amplifier, loaded into >100dB sensitive acoustic system should/might amplify. When I decided to release Melquiades to pubic I did not feel myself as I am some kind of person who found new good settings for a circuit and made a new amplifier-kit available to public. if you want THAT then there are quite many companies out there who sell kits allowing you to set the components in acceptable operational points. Melquiades is nothing like this. The Melq’s objective is to let people to learn what Sound the amp does and then, experiencing the effect of Melq’s Sound on prolonged period of time be able to experience some things about witch the people do not know yet. It might sound too pretense for someone but where did you see me care what the people who have no clue what I’m talking about think about my views?

Anyhow, I have no idea how to interpret somebody’s view that Melquiades is "niche product", besides probably suggesting to those people to read less audio magazines and “pick” wisdom at audiogon.com. I find that the concept of “niche” is completely not suitable for the objectives I have with Milq. Perhaps you, Paul, after spending  a prolonged period of time with your vintage Lamm ML2, and after observing your listing habits changing, you might eventually understand that labeling  Melquiades as “niche product” was as bogus as labeling introduction of penicillin as niche medication…

Romy the Cat wrote:

To simplify everything: the Melquiades was at attempt to make two stages, capacitor coupled, no feedback SET, having the cathodes sitting on ground and using the unique 6E5P as a driver. My selection of output tube was because at that time I meant to use it with Lamm ML2 but now only. The 6C33C has enough power to drive my bass and very good sound, at least in context of ML2 (I did not like any other amps that I heard with 6C33C)

However, my objectives were much further then just proving a concept...Anyhow, after all events, mistakes, experiments, false concussions, moves to the wring directions and so on the Melquiades (as it reviled) is a tip of the iceberg of quite complicated though process about audio generally and amplification in particularly.

Quite few people are turned off by obnoxious, demanding, overly confident and assertive tone of my release notes…. and I feel it great. The release notes are a low order filter that reduces the amplitude of Morons who might consider building the Milq.