Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site
In the Forum: Audio News
In the Thread: Lamm Industries: a special interview with a special company
Post Subject: Perhaps despite himselfPosted by Paul S on: 1/27/2007
Of course this is basically propaganda. Who argues otherwise? However, I have found that it is possible at times to glean a modicum of useful information from "reviews" like this via a careful reading of what is said and somtimes via a certain type of inference created by what is not said. I learned a long time ago to read these things a little differently than the ostensible manner and tone in which are presented.
I am curious about what Lamm has done here, so I am trying to get a better idea of what he's done with the ML3 by understanding it in terms I am familiar with, including my growing familiarity with the ML2s and the language of these industry wonk/"reviewers". After all, I've been reading these cranks for 45 years. While it may be that I upon finally hearing the ML3 differ with Marc as to the amp's salient characteristics, I would not be surprised if it turns out that it does sound like some sort of giant, powerful 845 driving the WATT Puppies, since that is probably a smart direction to go if making/marketing a Big Expensive Amp for the boys with the Big Expensive Speakers. Of course I am merely observing it, and my remarks here are aimed only at circling around, trying to sniff out what the ML3 may actually do.
But how can any of these "reviewers" at this point say that any King Hell Amp is "accurate" or "natural", or "tonally neutral" when they have already said that many times about innumerable "value" products? It couldn't be more obvious that the only way these guys can pump up any given debut product without taking away from other product lines is to glorify the newcomer in terms of its (already-glorified) immediate predecessors. In cases where the successor is more expensive it is not common that it will be unfavorably compared with its predecessor. In cases where the successor is MUCH more expensive than its predecessor, unflattering comparisons are almost unheard of.
No, it takes a careful reading to get to the heart of anything these "reviewers" might happen to say, perhaps despite themselves. As you pointed out, Romy, the mention of the "reference" speaker alone can speak volumes. Likewise, the source material, etc., etc., ad nauseum. And while these "reviewers" may lack credibility, that does not mean they aren't saying anything at all worth knowing.
And believe me that I am in no way "attached" to the ML2 or any other piece of gear I own for any reason other than demonstrated performance capability (or simple inertia!). The second I hear something better I will drop today's prized whatever like a bad habit, circumstances permitting. All gear needs "improving", so it's really a matter of doing the best you can in terms of your overall system performance. What too few "audiophiles" seem to realize is that a given piece of gear can "improve" upon another in some ways while giving up ground in others.
Best regards,
Paul SRerurn to Romy the Cat's Site