Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site
In the Forum: Audio Discussions
In the Thread: The ultimate worst best things in audio.
Post Subject: One more illustration that DSET rulesPosted by Romy the Cat on: 1/21/2015
fiogf49gjkf0d
Stitch, even though you are not wrong what you say but I do
not think it has a direct relation to what I call the "worse". My angle
was different: the demise of SET concept if the amp increases some rational cost
level. The cost of LAMM electronics is not truly a subject, it cost what it
cost. Lamm just multiplies self-cost (and he dose to run too cost- efficient production
I have to say) to 10 and the rest is just a presence of people out there who
agree to pay the price. The problem that
I see is with systemic designing thinking. Making an expensive SET amp is not different
then to attach those Faberges to toilet plunger and I think it was no where
better presented then this demo at CES.
BTW, another aspect is kind of interesting that worthy to
consider, particularly if you are a conspiracy theorist. The upper range of Verity was
driven not by another ML3 but by ML2.2. I never heard the ML2.2. The ML2 was
great, the ML2.1 was crap. I do not what ML2.2 is. What I know that Lamm decided
to use it to drive upper range. Would it be because the upper range of ML2.2 is
better then ML3? That is highly possible as ML3 uses GM70 at high voltage that demands
much more capacitive OPT and consequentially more dehydrated HF. It might be also
because Lamm decided to bring more divert amps in case he get a demo buyer at
CES.
Anyhow, it is not so important. The important past is that a
guy invest a lot of effort to built a great and expensive SET… and he can't use
if to drive a conventional acoustic system to get a good result. To me it feels
as rational as to spend year to design a super-duper snow blower but as snow falls
to use a shovel to clean the driveway….
The CatRerurn to Romy the Cat's Site