darkmoebius wrote:

Believe it or not, this very short, direct, explanation helps put everything else I have read about the Melq evolution in perspective.

Hm, darkmoebius,I really do not know why it clears skies for your in anyways. I have written about the very same subject many times within my “Milq’s diaries” (the posts that I made when I was doing through the Milq project) and within the Milq’s support forum. In fact, jut looking at the Melquiades circuit it is very clear what were the initial topological objectives. One of the things that is not immediately visible is that the 6C33C is in a way irrelevant tube for the Melquiades Sound. Beside the many other reasons I used 6C33C because I know this tube quite well (not a lot of people who use 6C33C know it). Anyhow, I relay do not know what “perspective” it helped you to discover as what I said were quite simplistic things. Anyhow, I am glad it gave you the “perspective”, whatever it was….

Paul S wrote:

By the same token, how many read Hegel, or Musil?

Paul, I think you are entering dangers water in here. I very much NOT wiling to sound as a person who would suggest that Milq has such a “special sound” and  if a person is not able not recite from memory Inayat Khan then the person won’t be able to “understand” the Milq’s Sound. Melquiades is much simpler in a way and my objectives with Milq’s publicizing were, in a way, more “earthy”.

You see, people who do audio, do not do things together and they do not mutually peruse the “better sound”. We mostly think and act AGAINST each other. It only externally and superficially looks like they help, inspire and motivate each other and the idiots at the places like AA, DIYAudio and many others love to prostitute with this faulty believe that they embrace others. In realty everything is very much different.  Audio people disgust to learn from each other and they generally hate each others guts. The more they publicly kiss each out in their ass then more dirt they dump to each other privately. Only God knows how much filth I heard the audio people were saying about each other: private parties about the private parties, industry player about the industry player… Eventually I got sick form all that hypostatic chip crap and I say only what I feel, at least in audio. Anyhow, for most of the people in audio who are still in closet with their hate of audio people the satiation is difficult. For them, the audio success of failure of individual practically never server any composite beneficial value. The industry whores pretend that they try to “unify’ and generalize something in audio but unfortunately they mostly very restricted, conditioned, superficial,  ignorant in what is important… not to mention that when they just open months then you hear the sound of … a whore.

When Melquiades was taught to sound in the necessary way the question that I was faced was what to do with it next. I had some proposals from the people who know that I was not kidding to license out the Milq’s design. I also explored some other means to make Melquiades publicly available. Taking with few people and seeing their level of the “horrendous nothingness” I lost any interest to sign off Melquiades to the hands of fealty barbarians. Knowing the rules of engagement in the Industry I certainly had no intention to become one of them.  Still, I did have and still having intention to make Melquiades Sound as a part of public audio awareness, and here is why. I believe that I know something about sound, and I believe I know quite more then many audio people. The Milq is in a way a “residue” of that knowledge. I would like others experience it.  Perhaps they could via experiencing the Milq’s Sound are able to enrich own views about Sound or perhaps they might via own sonic experiences enrich my sonic views… I do not propose Melquiades to others as “better amp then they currently have”. It would be too primitive for my position, although Milq should audiophile-wise wipe most of the SETs of own class. I offer the Melquiades as a tool to learn what might be “next”, after juts a good hi-fi. Once again: to recognize it is not necessary to listen the amp but rather ourselves….

I do not look forward to develop friends, admires or devotee in Audio. (I have developed some admires at this site and I hate it). But I do not mind to participate in COLLABORATION with others about the Audio Boundaries of Possible.  The Milq was sent to the World with exactly this purpose: to show itself off. I would not have problems if people hear Milq and inform me that it is poor performing amplifiers - I just would like to hear their rational and reasoning – I hope that by thinking about thisr rational they (or I) might learn something about Sound….

In a way, I feel that any person who does audio seriously should have own implementation of the sound of his/her mind. Not the ready-to-go, cookie-cutter, pre-caned sound from a dealer showroom but deeply personalized sound via highly tailored installation. Stating form a CERTAIN LEVEL some people would discover some very interesting common things…  that might be perfectly use as a common denominator of composite audio consciousness. Music world use it for centuries but the idiots audiophiles still jerk entertain off by the “subjectivism of perception”….

Nope, I do not advocate DIY but I advocate a personality and ability to render that personality via audio expressionism.  Unfortunately all that crap cost a lot of time and efforts and not a lot of people can afford it or wiling to do into that extend. To built the first Milq cost me near $15.000 and almost 6 months of time off. As the result Melquiades was too precious for me top sell the design and the Melquiades’ sound was too significant to me to cash it out. Long time ago, when I was a teenager, my “adult” girlfriend taught me that the most beautiful things come to life for free, as gift. The Melquiades is such a gift and it is given out not only to “drive speakers” but to make the people who might be using it to think that “the thighs” might be different in Audio. Melquiades is a tool in a way but it would be very difficult for me explain how to use it. Lamm ML2 is also a tool but if I begin to explain what is relation between the ML2’s best performance and boundaries of “conceived realty” then hardly anyone undusted it. Melquiades also operates “out there” but differently, and it is up to you to learn it or not. Of course some Morons do not care and they have the only demand for an amplifier is to maintain the resale value….

Paul S wrote:

Frankly, I am annoyed that I have been unable to grasp your notions of the "X Factor" …

Borrow L2 for a weekend and you will be able to see it. I it hard to explain.

Paul S wrote:

So then I imagine Milquiades as another serious shift, which you abandoned the ML2s for, which does not strike me as odd so much as it facinates me.  Hell, I'd start to work on those amps right now if it didn't also entail re-thinking and re-tooling my speakers, etc. in the bargain, just to give the suckers a listen.

Nope, the Milq are not “serious shift” from ML2. What the “vintage” ML2 did was very fine and I was trying very hard to now loose many of the ML2 befits. However, when I went for my next amp I have the very specific objectives that were targeted to address some ML2 limitation that I clearly identified over the years (I’m not wiling to explain what it was). The Milq did addressed, even in it’s fist revision, many demanded aspects but then it took some work to “slow” the Milq down and make some other Sonic changes. As I have writhen the Milq’s Sound was initially completely conceptualized even for 2 years before I started to work with Dima I called my next amp during those years as an AmplifierX, clearly know how it should sound but without havingit. Then, when the Melq come to existance, the amp was taught to sound in a specific way, still, the Melq itself did taught me something as well....  It was approximately 2001-2003 when realized that I wanted more then ML2 and within a year or so I knew what exactly I wanted from my next amp.  Unfortunately at that time I was not able to deal with Lamm about “more then ML2” because as soon I expressed that ML2 was good but NOT AS GOOD AS IT COULD BE the Vladimir become to feel threaten and begin to loaded on me his typical self-serving lying and deceptions.

Paul S wrote:

Is it so strange to you that someone would act to build your amps simply because he thinks he "takes your word" on the subject and "goes along"?  And I do not mean myself, but now that I've said this I'm thinking also that the amps will get built by the people who build them, for the reasons they build them.  In that sense, it seems you have lost control of the future of your creation, which I am not saying to inform but rather to remind.

Sure, I have no problems with it. Still I do not propose to “take my word” and I strongly encourage anybody who considered the Milq to make juts on channel prototype and to try. It is what I would do if I have an interest in some kind or design.

Paul S wrote:

But I wish you would compare and contrast the "relation between ML2's best performance and boundaries  of 'conceived reality' ", at least give us a shot at it...

Try to “compare” the “boundaries of conceived reality” between vintage ML2 and vintage M1.1. Yes, the ML2 is way more interesting amps but not in ALL aspects.  To be intestionally-abstractive: The M1.1 is way more liberal in music rendering (disregard electrical characteristics) then ML2 and give more “space for imagination". ML2 is “stiff” and stubborned and forces the things in it’s own way…  I am not talking that the ML2 ways are bad ways; in fact they are phenomenally useful… but only at certain level. When listening awareness get developed and the boundary where the ML2 operates too closed then ML2’s “forthfullness” might not be as effective anymore, quite opposite… it become self-suffocating….  However, here is where we enter the realms of the Lamm’s personal limitations where control and republican “love” are the “operational parameters”….

You may remember my first impression of ML2 was its "organizing".  And you may also remember my saying that SET just "allows" the signal, including its dissipation.

Not to "sell" Milquiades, but how (other than multi-channel and bandwidth limiting) would an SET not crap out full range?  Even the "big" ones just give out at too soon, and they can't maintain balance under any sort of pressure.  I love your Milquiades image of every note "open to infinity", because that is the SET promise, although the SET never fulfills its promise.  So far I am still waiting for the "cap" sitting on ML2 notes to actually restrict dynamics, at least compared to other amps.  OTOH, even my 2A3s sound "wide open" - until something actually happens, and then they collapse.

The truth is, all I was looking for in the ML2s was an SET powerful enough to drive my +/- "fullrange" speakers without gross distortion.  You can imagine my surprise when I fired them up for a first listen!  I expected a steroidal SET and got instead Stokowski - plenty to keep me excited and busy for a while yet.

Pisser about Lamm's limitations.  Might have been a fruitful collaboration for both of you.

Best regards,
Paul S

Paul S wrote:

Not to "sell" Milquiades, but how (other than multi-channel and bandwidth limiting) would an SET not crap out full range?  Even the "big" ones just give out at too soon, and they can't maintain balance under any sort of pressure.

It has nothing to do with Melquiades. Yes, SET is bandwidth limited machine that is why I advocate DSET. However, you said that that your SETs “give out at too soon, and they can't maintain balance under any sort of pressure”. This is completely different subject that has no relation to bandwidth. What do you mean “give out at too soon”? It sounds to me as somebody use SETs with inadequately made power supplies and drive with then impropriate speakers….

Paul S wrote:

I love your Milquiades image of every note "open to infinity", because that is the SET promise, although the SET never fulfills its promise.  So far I am still waiting for the "cap" sitting on ML2 notes to actually restrict dynamics, at least compared to other amps.  OTOH, even my 2A3s sound "wide open" - until something actually happens, and then they collapse.

Well, the ML2 dynamics is VERY complicated subject. I would in a way agree with you but then you said “compared to other amps”. Then ML2 dynamics could not be directly compared with most of other SET’s dynamics. You need to look in the subject deeper and perhaps longer… Do not write off ignorantly the “vintage” ML2 dynamics limitations and there is a lot of merit in ML2 to maintaining exactly the same dynamic stricture as it has. There is actually number of meaning of word “dynamics” in context of ML2….

jessie.dazzle wrote:

As a way of forcing myself to see the thing as a whole, I will start by converting this schematic to a 3D CAD model, illustrating each component and its relation to the others (with more distance between the parts than in photos of the completed amps) so that I can really see it, turn it all around in space, zoom in and tour the site like goldfish. The more experienced may laugh, but this exercise will help me get familiar with the composition… something like the act of writing. This is exactly the appraoch I use whenever I set out to rob a bank... its what they call "casing the joint". Once I create the data, if I feel it really is a help, I will make it (or at least high res static images of it) available to anyone interested.

I thought it would be worth if I pass some comments about out Milq layout. Whatever methods you use: 3D CAD model of getting the actual parts and moving them around there are some basics that you should take under consideration. I will pass the rules that I used, feel free disregard them, to employ them or alter them.

Let look at the Milq circuit:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/PDF/Melquiades_SET.pdf

First thing first you have to decide what version of Milq you intend to build. There are two major layout-affecting versions available: using input choke filter and using input capacitors. The Milq second stage must be input choke filter – this is not negotiable, but driver stage and bias supplies might be input capacitors. The benefits of input capacitors is that entire PS become more compact, and we are talking about 3 power supplies. With CRC you have no hot running bleeder resistor, no chokes and lower voltage transformers – it all will make the Milq simper. I would like to avoid in this post arguments about input choke vs. input capacitor – I juts would say that input choke has own benefits as well. It would be worth however to note that I have built Milq with input choke and with input capacitors supply and I would not say that there was a whole a lot of sonic differences. Once again, in the outs stage to use the input choke is a must. So, if you go for input capacitors then you have only few large parts: 3 power transformers, output transformer, C2, C10… and it’s it, the Milq is really simple circuit to build from there…

I would also suggest that for sake of simplification and space saving it is perfectly possible to drive the positive gas tube form the power supply of the driver stage, droving voltage on a resistor. I did it and it does sound perfectly fine.

Some other things that you should under consideration I the Milq layout:

1. Prototype-position your parts, as they will be positioned, and determine the shape and location of your main ground terminal. This is important. I usually make my circuit’s main ground with 3 cross-wired 8ga copper stranded cables, then bend it in the shape I need and then fill it with solder. All the rest companies are just portioned with this “minus” around the main ground terminal.
2. Keep R2 as close as possible to the pate of the driver tube. Actually solder the resistor leg right at the tube socket.
3. R5 and R6 should also have this legs sitting right on the tube socket
4. Keep R4 right at the left side of R5
5. Keep the returns legs from C4 and C5 right at the socket of V1 and V2
6. If your negative supply is not too far from your out stage then c12 is unsavory.
7. Run a fat “ground” cable form the cathode of the driver stage to the chasses in the very single point: the negative terminal of you RCA into jack.
8. Position C10 as close to the OPT as possible.
9. Position OPT as close to the tube plate as possible.
10. R20 should go directly to the V4 grid.
11. C3 should bridge the stage and be very short but beware the heat dissipated by 6C33C. You might position the cap relatively close to the 6C33C but it will depend from the air-flow in your amp, elevation of the components and so on.
12. Be carefully with positioning anything within 3” from 6C33C – it will be running hot. Use high temperature melting solder to solder the 6C33C’s filaments.
13. Try to use the native element’s leads wherever is possible. The shorter pass is better.
14. All AC runs should be crossed-wired. Use crossed-wired with DC feeds if it is applicable.

It would be pretty much it, at least t is all that it atop of my mind at this moment.