angeloitacare wrote:

i heard the  ml3' s, the last day of the show.I am wondering, how someone would be able to compare the two amplifiers, if one was playing stereo one day, and the other mono the other day ? There was no way to compare. When i heard the ml3's playing mono, i went out after 2, 3 minutes. It was not a interesting apresentation at all.

There are at least two threads going here.  I am onto the idea that Lamm has finally released his latest-and-greatest uber-amp, and I am trying to glean some idea of how it performs, other than the political mirror test.  Obviously the speaker was a factor here, but I am not clear how or why either mono or the lack of A/B comparisons were perceived as  problems.  I have not followed the Wilson speakers because I never heard anything from them but some potential from the giant model (the Cleopatra, or the Sphinx, or something like that), and no one ever seemed to be able to figure out how to drive them correctly or get them properly integrated for any demonstration I ever attended, and the drivers seemed compromised.  Still, it may be that pairing the ML3 with the Puppy was neither coincidental nor gratuitous.

Can we put to rest the idea that Lamm should have done a multi-channel amp?  Clearly, Lamm has aimed his Big Gun squarely at the Big Target.  And while this ALMOST guarantees mediocrity, Lamm's history does make me curious, and I am watching for something worthwhile even if it's only some aspect of his current Statement.  Remember the "X-Factor".  With respect to multi-channel, I'll bet you that if Lamm does this it will be for HT, with surround sound, etc., because that is the obvious course for SALES.  The engine for marketing and developing audio products has been well-analysed at this forum, and Lamm has claimed a niche he seems to well understand.  Maybe if Romy still had some influence on him, we might get multi-channel DSET or a stab at an uber-system.  I seriously doubt he will get any encouragement for such an idea from any of his Market Watch/Fox News cronies.

So now I am left wondering:  If a showgoer heard the ML3 demonstration and found the ML3 undistinguished, what would it have taken to distinguish it?

Best regards,
Paul S

Well, Jessie, I think you're  exercising a wishful thinking but you have, I think, a wrong subject for your thinking. Neither Lamm nor any other high-end manufacture care about result as a concept but rather a result as product. A product but its nature of being a product is a compilation of rendered efforts projected to the reimbursable values. So, the Hi-Fi companies produce Products they do not produce Sound. Sound for them is juts a tradable commodity.

I personally, as a  person who observes Lamm Industries as a company that exists explicitly to generate revenue (it is what any business does, without exception) and that produce “Products” have no problem with ML3, in fact I think it was a brilliant move – Vladimir juts lost money because he did not do it few years ago. However, as a person who is interested in boundary capacity of pure abstract audio I recognize the introduction of ML3 as no event. From the place where I stay even the well-performing ML2.0 was not satisfactory solution anymore – becose it is juts one single amp – what to do with it?

For the amplification solution that I would consider worth interest it should be DSETs. Look what the guy does: can you see him using one single amp for his playback?

Also, I do not see needs to use feedback in SETs. I’m not saying that it is wrong I juts saying that I see not needs. It is very difficult to make a commercial SET with no feedback and the no-feedback SETs are way too sanative for load and require a lot of precise tuning. SETs with feedback address many problems by patching those problems…. however what it the problems do not exist to begin with? The ML2 ran global feedback, and I’m presuming the ML3 does as well (the 12AX7 at line-input). In addition Vladimir it looks like run a local feedback from the GM70 plate to his driver stage. Well, I’m sure Lamm has his rational but this rational I find arguable. Whatever the rational would be if would end up with Lamm’s desire to extend the amp’s response, drop impedance and “simplify” the demands to output transformer. Ironically all those ventures become not the subject of inters in case the amp was made as a DSET.

Still, as in many other articles of my site I do not criticize manufactures in what they do but rather I criticize the industry reviewer for not performing their duty. In any civilized industry (or in the art world) criticism, the professional criticism, is a valuable tool for consumers and producers navigation. A smart criticism and analyses is something that moves progress in a field.  Look for instance on the history at the greatest musical, literature critics – they advanced their field as much as the greatest composers or writers. They did it but fertilizing “better” and de-fertilizing worst. In case of Hi-Fi we - the consumers and manufactures - as the producers have not such a filter. Would it be then most of the Hi-Fi product, the Lamm ML2.1 for instance, would not be possible. So, who could say if the ML2 was a prerequisite of ML3? In my auricle “About destiny of “High-End Sound”:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=3520

I will lead the readers to the idea that for today typical Audio-Moron a definition of “Hi-Fi quality” is in fact a simulated surrogate of sonic artificiality and many of the recent “suddenly successful” hi-fi products intentionally were made to satisfy those “simulated surrogate demands: Lamm ML2.1, any products of Harmonic Technology, Kharma and Magico loudspeakers, SACD and many others… Will the ML3 as the next step of the “Lamm’s progress?” So far no one said that ML2.1 was a failure. The “critics” Marc Mickelson and Art Dudley (actually Art was more sensible) provided “deep analyses” and concluded that the ML2.1 was : “one of the very best amps on the planet. Don't miss them.” Sure they did not miss it. What was missed was an ability of people like Marc Mickelson   to send the amps back suggesting to Lamm “keep working and let me know when you make to right”. Unfortunate it is not how it works in this stupid industry.

BTW, I got an email from a visitor of my site who proposed that I should not be as hard on Mickelson as he could receive for his review the Lamm ML2.1 amplifier with…  the ML2.0 internals.  Well, would not even know how to comment on it. I personally doubt that Lamm would go for this but if it was the case then … I do not know even how to name it….

Rgs,
The caT

PS:

jessie.dazzle wrote:

The future L3 preamp could be equipped with 5 or 6 pairs of outputs.

Yep, keep dreaming. The L2 had 2 outputs; one was with reversible polarity, one without. I am sure Lamm had default time to keep the preamp under $15K if he put an extra relay in there to fix the polarity of second output. There is also some poorly technical problem why I hardly see it happens. Paraphrasing what Paul said: any general product guarantees mediocrity….

jessie.dazzle wrote:

Yes yes yes  .... Lamm Industries is a BUSINESS... This is abundantly clear whenever I order tubes from them!

Hm, I did not know that you use any Lamm electronics. In fact I just realized that I have absolutely no idea what any of the visitors of my site use for their playback.

jessie.dazzle wrote:

But the most desirable of Lamm's past creations are not the kind of things born solely of a desire to make money.

Perhaps, as I understand whatever Lamm made so far was designed in one way or other by him back in Russia where relationship between money and creatively were way less screwed then in Western world (at least how is use to be). Some people attribute the outstanding artistic potential of Russian cinematographers during 1920s to the … very inadequate supply of Russian-made movie-shooting equipment. When in the begin of the 20-century Europe and America produced film equipment and shut films the Russians had no cameras, no film and instead of shooting they were THINKING how they will shot if they have the cameras and film. When the 1920s Russians got the Western film equipment they begin for a few years to do the things (artistically) that no one ever dreamed of.

jessie.dazzle wrote:

Yes, the idea that Lamm turn his ear to the manufacturing of speakers is a highly unlikely scenario. But a pair of speakers that worked (I mean really worked) with a single pair of ML2s, even at $126,000, would have a market

Contrary to this a dedicated LF and HF ML3 would be able to drive virtually ANY loudspeaker. BTW, with 3 stages driving the GM70 into A2 it is possible to get out of LF channel almost 50W…

jessie.dazzle wrote:

For now we have the ML3 (almost). So, with regard to how it might sound…

I have no reasons to question its sound at this time. I question it’s usability for the people who might like its sound. Regardless to price, getting one ML3 people will confine themselves for one single loudspeaker. Getting even a two pairs of ML3 people will be able to bi-amp but they will use for each of those channels fundamentally compromised amps because the very same ML3 with dedicated for a given bandwidth output stages will be way out there….

Paul S wrote:

So now I am left wondering:  If a showgoer heard the ML3 demonstration and found the ML3 undistinguished, what would it have taken to distinguish it?

Paul, the “showgoer” it seems that was juts clueless what he is doing there. Even disregarding the personal comments of the “showgoer” who apparently does not know how to perform the “target listening” there are general rule: do not comment on negative results at the shows but comment only on positive results. There is zillions reasons why Sound could be very bad at the trade shows. At any single show that I have attended the Lamm’s rooms always had very poor sound (with 1.5 exception but it was not public demonstration). However, trust me: a constant poor result at the trade shows is absolutely normal and absolutely not indicative. So, the rule are that if the room turns out to sound good (mostly accidentally) then it worth judgment. Otherwise, if the room turns out to sound poor, then it is absolutely irrelevant how the room performed. Sure for an evolved listener who is well familiar with the subject even a bad sounding room might give a lot of information. However an “intelligent showgoer” is a very rare commodity in Vegas….

Wojtek wrote:

...since you're quite critical about last Lamm's creations the chance is that the amp is indeed poor...

Sorry but if company ask $126K for an amp with parts count worth of 500$ plus maybe , maybe another $500 in transformers I'd think they could spend a few grands to make the room to sound good.

I love this thread .Paul paid $12k for an amp he never heard ,300$ for a pair of 15$ tubes and now we talk about the amp nobody heard. I guess thats what you call "target listening" personally I don't give a fuck what owners of big Wilsons will use to drive their speakers but I'm interested how the amp performs.

Besides guys who spend half a million on hi-fi are not going to bother with bi tri-amp . How would you market this concept?

All the competition is able to do with one channel and Lamm needs two ??

Gregm wrote:

No-one is criticising the ML3 (amplification) product. We are discussing the concept and the applicability of such products, i.e. the ultimate limitation of an amplifier called upon to work from DC to daylight and, accordingly, drive a loudspeaker that's also supposed to produce music in a homogenous manner from DC to daylight. The ML3 served as an illustration and, as it's a new product fm Lamm, we also speculated as to its design parametres.

Wojtek wrote:

Sorry but if company ask $126K for an amp with parts count worth of 500$ plus maybe , maybe another $500 in transformers I'd think they could spend a few grands to make the room to sound good.

Wojtek wrote:

I love this thread .Paul paid $12k for an amp he never heard ,300$ for a pair of 15$ tubes and now we talk about the amp nobody heard. I guess thats what you call "target listening" personally ….

Gregm wrote:

HOWEVER, I don't know if it's impossible to market (bi-amping) -- in fact, I believe that someone like Lamm could market such a product and people would listen …

It is EXACTLY how I feel.

Gregm wrote:

That's not quite correct. You'll notice there are products -- see loudspeakers -- where the bass section is already amplified independantly. So the idea of needing different/discreet applification for low frequencies vs the rest of the spectrum is hardly novel.

Sure. Bass section and MF sections have completely different demands to rooms and…. to amplifiers. If from MF amplifier removes the demands of bass amplifier then it is very different ball-game… Still, in many loudspeakers the bass section is already amplified independently not because it is necessary but because they would like to do it half-ass, very cheap and very poorly. The speaker manufactures could not afford to demand for this product bi-amplification most of the time. If they do then they offer own amplification and crossovering solutions that mostly are very poor. The companies that specialize on high-end amplification (like Lamm for instance) could do WAY better…Anyhow, when a properly implemented independent bass section is driven by SENSIBLE dedicated properly done amplification then it is very far from what is usually know in Hi-Fi. Sure, the LF amp should not be a baby amplifier and it in most of the case should be equally “complicated” amp (expansive) as rest of the frequency, ideally it should be the same amp only with LF optimization… BTW, the validity of this concept will be re-test very soon at very and I hop I will be able to come up with some interesting observations when a new Zaratustra II will be competing with bass section of super Melquiades. The Zaratustra II will have some futures that is astonishingly expansive to implement in SET environment.

Gregm wrote:

If, OTOH you're referring to the marketing risk (i.e. so many amps are "wide bandwidth" dc-to-daylight" and Lamm can't do this, I again think that with Lamm's market reputation, the "two channel per channel "Lamm  (as you describe it) might have created a stir in the Market...

I very much hope so. Here is where I see the price of Lamm ML3 as its fundamental limitation. If the ML3 was an amplifier with the price tag I would say $50K then for a single-95dB-speaker-person it would be a “reasonable” step-up from ML2.0 as the ML3 has more power and use debatable better output DHT tube (indisputably better electrically). If this amp is done properly then I would not be surprised that ML3 will sound more interesting then ML2.0. So, why the people who are currently satisfied with SINGLE PAIR of ML2 should not consider ML3?  Or why the ML3 if it performs better then ML2.0 should not cost more?

However, for $126K it looks like it would be the “last solution”. However, the “last solution” in SET world might not be a single “dc-to-daylight” type of amp or a single “dc-to-daylight” type of loudspeaker. So, the messages that I read with new “Lamm ML3 Reference” (I think that is the amp’s full name) is that after this $126K “ML3 Reference” should follow a $255K “ML4 Statement” or the dual channel ML3 in DSET configuration. However, as I explained if the second part of the following post:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=3492

.. tThere are very well-defined cost threshold for any SETs and the ML4 Statement DSET should be … less expansive then ML3 Reference, also the ML4 Statement DSET will deliver better results for.... consumers.

In the end, writing this post I was not able refuse smiling about the ease with which we pontificate about the $255K, $126K or $50K amplifiers.  The industry almost made us to agree upon the notion that AN AMPLIFIER COULD COST MORE THEN IT SHOULD. However, the very same industry so far is failing to teach us that regardless the price tags an amplifier is not a PRODUCT but a SOLUTION, a solution in context of our playback installation.

Paul S wrote:

All the criticism notwithstanding, Lamm is clearly one of the most interesting amp builders out there, and IMO he is someone worth watching…

Unquestionably, and it is what I do - watching. However, here is where I have my extra “puss” on the subject.  If you read careful the following thread:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=930

then you might sense that I personally feel that the industry affiliation is like cancer’s maltase – it destroys a person’s awareness regardless how serious a person take the industry rules in. The same feelings regarding Lamm I expressed in the Dedications Section the Milq’s release notes. So, for me, watching Lamm (and few other companies) is like observing a clinical study….

Pay attention; any manufacture in the history of audio (with no exception) after they introduces anything interesting always (always!!!) when down in their publicly available potency. It is how the industry maltase works. Would be the L1/M1.1/ML2.0 that Vladimir did in a specific period of his “industry disease” the best things that he did commercially? Without doubt whatever he did after do far did lead to very depressing but not unexpected conclusions. Will the new ML3 and his prospective L3 preamps something that set for Lamm a new horizon? No one knows it yet, I do not think ever Vladimir knows it yet.

Although the ML3 is an amp that comes to the consumers from the times when Kharma-type-sound and Magico-type-sound rules the market but I do sincerely hope that Lamm will be stubborn (and frankly speaking stupid enough) and will make something worthwhile. Unfortunate not one know it yet and at looks like the there is no framework within which the truth about ML3 will become known… Will see…

I kind of less care about Lamm or about his new amps but rather I am interested using the example of ML3 to see what the DHT tubes are capable off.  There are some people who worship direct-heated tubes and attribute to them some ventures (like absent of higher harmonics and a special micro-fineness). There are other people who see in that micro-fineness an excessive granularity – I tend to agree. I do not know exealsy, as I hardly heard any SETs that I like generally and particularly the  properly used SET. I personally had no seriously-made DHT in my room and frankly speaking I see no motivation to peruse anything else. Still I thought that the ML3 might be educational what DHT tube might do. Dima is considering 6E5P-2A3 for himself… but I would like to see in a DHT amp a direct heated driver as well. If someone know any seriously-made, two-stages, mid-frequency-centric amp with direct heated driver AND direct heated  output stage then I would go to listen or might borrow it. In exchange I might lend my full-range Milq…. Anyhow, it would be a different thread…..

Gregm wrote:

Actually, that could be a viable commercial product: a "stereo am"p allowing for four channels. One hi side, one low side, per channel. Any moron purchasing this could be stratosphrically happy flabbergasting his pals by "passively biamping" his speakers with what looks like one amplifier!

It might be not directly related to the subject of this thread but I do feel that it has quite a good relatively. Are you laughing that your Lamm made his new amplifier with a price tag of $126K? Well, think again.  Do you remember as  the inflames deaf whore with a sentimental name Jonathan Valin puffed up Karma products up to the point were price for those speakers shot form $6.5K to $45K? Do you remember when another whore Michele Framer just “touched” that AU turntable and made $50K price to become $100K? I told before thatany manufacture in this foolish industry makes products not to deliver a Result but to satisfy the demands of industry reviews? Well, today I got April/May TAS and scanned its pages… Why I mention it in context of the Lamm thread?

Well, the TAS published overview of the CES2007. It looks like Lamm was there. It looks like a “journalist” Jonathan Valin was responsible for covering of the “expensive” products presented at CES2007. So, what Jonathan Valin did? Mr. Valin spends 4 pages to performing a public fellatio to manufactures that sponsored him: Kharmas and Magico and then Valin “failed” to mention the damn Lamm's room. Is the presents at the show of a room featuring: LAMM ML3, LAMM ML2.1, LAMM M1.2, LAMM L2, LAMM LP2,  Wilson Audio Watt/Puppy is a sufficient reason to mention the room for an objective journalist? Well, not relay. For the “journalist” Jonathan Valin to be at the show is an opportunity to extort some cash for future writings and spread his moronic influence. It is shame for the TAS that he was not fired after the story with the Nordost cables....

People who read my site know that I am the one of the most objective and decisive public critic of Lamm products but my demanding attitude also implies allowing the equal opportunities.  Yes, I understand that bad-boy Lamm does not advertised in TAS in 2007. I understand that Jonathan Valin did not have chance to profit on Lamms since he moved to the Kharmas universe as even the Valin’s primitive ears understand that to use his Lamm ML2 with Kharmas is like to eat shit with a golden spoon. Yes, I understand that the stage is set for Marc Mickelson to “warm his hands” on Lamm’s ML3 and Valin has not leverage with his agenda in the Lamm’s camp? Still, this was juts TAS observation about the show… could he have a dignity to mention that Lamm was there? Lamm paid his $15K for this trip just to be mentioned, why to refuse him in his right?

Well, I don’t know how Lamm handles it but if I were in the Lamm’s shoes Ithen  would do EXECTLY what Lamm did: make another product with irrelevant sound, put on the product a price tag of $126.000.00 and to bless the product with the proverbial: "Fuck you, assholes, eat it!". Thanks you Mr. Valin - you did your duty….

Yesterday I got two emails asking me about Lamm ML3. I replied as I usually do, saying that I that I do not practice in satisfaction in audio-consumer curiosity.  Still, it made me to think again about a hypothetic amp around GM-70.

I am not a fan of GM-70 as in my view high volume should derive from a sensitivity of acoustic system not from power of amplification. Still, GM-70 is a very linear triode as some people might consider it. So, if to have an abstract task to get “better” GM-70-based amp then would I make/buy something similar to Lamm ML3?

Nope I would not.  My rational would be not just me suspicions that after the Lamm ML2.1 the ML3 will be loaded within a bunch of the “Easter Eggs”. My rational would be purely architectural as I personally would like to see in an “ultimate” GM-70 implementation (if I personally have inters in that tube) something different. So, what my version of a “stepped-up” ML3 would be?

1) Two stages only. It looks like ML3 has one superfluous capacitor-coupled stage – unnecessary.  For better architecture search better tubes.

2) Grounded cathodes. There is nothing further should be said.

3) The Input chokes filtration with SS rectification. The contemporary Silicon Carbide Schottky diodes can run up to 1200V, have no reverse or forward recovery and they can switching incredibly fast. Behind choke filtration is way more preferable powers source for any constant current drowning amplifier.

4) Class A1 operation only. What Lamm was doing in his ML3 making GM70 to run with grid currents? Why is it necessary? Because we want to drive GM70 deep into A2 and get more power from the amp on order to punch the dull speakers? It would not be my objective and I would like my GM70 to stay only in class A1 operation.

5) Voltage. It is obvious why ML3 has that powerful current buffer built up in second stage – because Vladimir wanted to make it to stay at low voltage with his ML3. I would estimate ML3’s GM70 has 850V on plate and here is where Lamm’s needs to dive into A2 in order to get 32W. At 1000V GM70 does 40W in A2 and at 1300V it can do 32W in A1. Many, very very many people who used GM70 report that at 1200-1400V the GM70 begin to sound much better. I do not know why they report it – it is possible that they have low-sensitively acoustics and they need more power in pure A1. I would not look for a lot of power but if to go for a powerful triode and demand a lot of power then I would prefer A1 power instead of A2 power.

6) No feedback. I really do not find it is necessary to use DHT and run feedback, particularly in the way how ML3 implemented (circuit board assembly). It looks like ML3 runs 2 feedbacks and none of them are truly necessary. The global adaptable feedback with which Lamm let people to play with damping to make the amp to work with various LF sections of loudspeakers. I do not feel that it should be there. It would be OK solution for $3K amps what a person would like to put one ass on all stools but it is not a solution not for an “objectionable” amp. If you want to exact-load your bass section with your SET then go DSET. There is no needs to change the operation of the enter amp, applying a global feedback, juts because the port of your loudspeaker does something funny. The second feedback ML3 runs most likely from second stage to input. Why was that necessary? Because Vladimir was too lazy to find an input tube with higher bias voltage and decided to jack up the 12AX7 cathode with rise of signal I see no needs for it and call it patching. Search better input tubes an do not cure them with feedback.

7) No DC filaments. There are so many solutions nowadays how do not drive DHT with DC on heaters that using DC in an “objectionable” amp became kind of cheap.

I got surprising amount of emails form visitors of my site asking is I will be going to CES-2008. Nope, I am not. My days and interests with CES are over, I closed down that show and I hope the rest of the industry would follow me on it. In fact I have heard that many companies have chosen to sabotage CES-2008 – good for them and my hat off to those companies. I hope in 5 years all that will be left from High-End audio section of CES will be just a dozen of industry writing pimps sitting in a room, licking popsicles and taking each other pictures…

The last TAS I bought published an ad where Lamm advertised the demonstration of ML3 at CES 2008 promising that it will be a result that no one experienced yet. OK, I wish him and to everyone else good luck and I keep laughing as I know very well what exactly it will be. Unquestionably the demonstration of Lamm ML3 should be an interesting experience. Still, let set the expectations of this experience at a level of ordinary sanity.

Lamm ML3 is no different from Lamm ML2 (beside the fact that when Lamm made ML2 he had way better demands to himself and the demands to results). ML2 and ML3 are the same amps (conceptually) with one major difference – the type of output tube (GM70). That difference that might be described in 3 sections:

1)      It is a  very linear DHT

2)      Because it is DHT it works well in A2 (in ML2, as well as in Milq the 6C33C in dead in A2)

3)      Because GM70 can work in A2 class the ML3 has a very powerful high current-capable second stage (I do not know it they are 4 parallel 6H30 of some kind of composite follower) to be able to handle the GM70’s grid current.

So, the ML3 is the A2-capable ML2, hopefully the ML3 will be the ML2.0 not the ML2.1, if you know what I mean… Certainly, it would be absolutely magnificent if the highly inelegant sound of Lamm ML2.0 would have more of the A2 power. Still, was the ML2 power-limited?  Not really, although the 99% of all audio Moans use it with 90dB sensitive speakers and claimed that it “sounded good” for them. Well, can we propose that ML3 will be for 90dB sensitive speakers what ML2 was for 110dB sensitive speakers? I do not know answer but I have very many reasons and rationales to doubt.

OK, what kind expectation a “sane person of my caliber” :-) might expect from the CES’ Lamm demos?

I expect that at CES 2008 Lamm room will demonstrate the very same extremely mediocre sound as it has been demonstrating for years. In any CES that I attended Lamm room never sound interesting. I know it, Lamm know it, and anyone who does not make leaving kissing other asses knows it. The problems with Sound in Lamm rooms was not related to Lamm amplifiers – there was always many other reason – I will go into them at this point. Still if in past Lamm used his nightly capable ML2 and M1.1 amps and had bad sound then why should I feel that a change of power amp will make any difference. I do not think it will and it will not.

However, I do anticipate an extremely positive reaction from a number writing cretins about this demo, partially if Lamm will kiss the necessary asses. The sad part is that any positive of negative outcome form his CES demo will not shade any lights about the Lamm ML3’s Reality.  I know it because the very same as the army of the audio writers that paid their idiotic writing glory to Lamm ML2 never got any truly understanding what they deal with while they used ML2.0.

Sure, sure a new Lamm amp will require for industry a new array of selling adjectives and stolen metaphors – the ceremony where the true performance of ML3, whatever it is, will be diluted and basically vanished. Lamm might not even connect the out tube to the anode voltage and to use a cheap op-amp intently – the result of the “demonstration” will be the same...

I regularly visit 6moons News Section that lately became quite good sources for audio news. It is same that Srajan not willing to share the news in RSS or compatible format, anyhow…

The today new is Elina Lamm announces that "we are extremely pleased to announce the commercial availability of our flagship model, the ML3 Signature power amplifier [$139,290/pair]. The ML3 Signature is a single-ended tube amplifier with a separate power supply using a powerful directly-heated triode called the GM-70 (125 watts plate dissipation). The ML3 Signature features 32 watts of zero overall feedback, pure class A power... Advanced technical solutions are used in the design of the ML3 Signature. Custom-made output transformer of the highest quality, unique front-end and output stages plus the sophisticated power supply let the ML3 Signature drive most real-world-load speakers yielding effortlessly dynamic sound."

My predication about the price of these amps was right spot on. Since Lamm announced last year the amp for $126K his spiritual and ideological brothers from W. Bush administration so fuck up US economy and so tear down our American dolor that Lamm need to ascend the price of the thing to $140K in order to be able to keep up with “today booming economy”.

What is unpleasant however is a very minor but completely unnecessary play of the BS words in this amusement. I would like habitually to blame Srajan The Reviewer but it was a quote from Elina Lamm, so Srajan is out of picture.

1)     “…Pure class A power…”. Hmmmmmmm, what that crap mean? Is any “un-pure” class A power in SET? For whatever it is worth a “pure” class A is operation in class A1 and ML3 does NOT do it. The GM70 deep in A2 with +30V on grid has very low grid currant, around 20mA -40mA and ML3’s second stage is designed to deal with it. The entire amp is designed to run itself into class A2 in order to “drive most real-world-load speakers yielding effortlessly dynamic sound" (means 9XdB- sensitive speakers). It is VERY far from being “pure” class A. I think Lamm had studied too much his White House press releases and he learned too much from them.

BTW, setting the ML3-like amp into a “Pure class A1” with the same or even more power would require to go for 1200V on GM70 plate. That would bring an involvement of higher voltage capacitors, probably 300-400 investment, and consequential incase the price of the overall amp for $273.430.28K . Sure that step Lamm did not take and he was really care about the customers do not pay more than necessary.

2)     “… zero overall feedback..”  Were this crap came from? The ML3 input stage use 12AX7 and that tube can’t work in input without feedback. The ML3 use most likely the very same input stage as ML2 used, with feedback. There is no problem with it, so why there is a need to spread fabrications about it. Is Lamm willing to stress the fact that in his in ML3 he applies feedback from second stage? So what and who cares? Why it is necessary to present the “zero overall feedback” as a virtue if the amp runs feedback two local close loops. No one say that feedbacks are bad. The ML2.0 had “overall feedback” and it was very fine amp. The virtue and the proud should be expresses if you managed to make a SET with no feedback if any kind and the amp still sound “serious” (that has own set of problems for low sensitive load). However, if you do use feedback in SET then juts shut up your mouth about the feedbacks.

I do not know how about you but I do monitor what Lamm does. I owned a lot of his equipment, I know the performance of his electronics as no one else and I do see some very interesting attempts in what Lamm is or at least was trying to undertake. Lamm did a number of less interesting models and made a number of “eastern eggs”-stapes but the stressing marketing idiocy is never was what Lamm did – it was what his idiots-reviewers did for him. Now the tide is looks like shifted and the marketing idiocy is coming directly from Lamm himself. Perhaps he butters up the ground for his boy Marc Mickelson to “brash the fields” with ML3 review but… does it all sounds too stinky?

I found it being a very troublesome symptom…

jessie.dazzle wrote:

I don't have a problem with what Lamm has done in offering the ML3 (ignoring the price)... If I have a problem it is more related to how the product is being represented. Representations aside, depending on how it sounds, the ML3 could well be a product that has its place.

I don't have a problem with what Lamm has done in offering the ML3 including the price. ML3 might be a fine product for anyone who understands the value of amplifier at the level of “presold products” instead of at the level of the most optimum solution for a given application. Marketing-wise what Lamm does is perfectly fine, still I the ML3 might be an OK sounding amps but it is by default is a compromised IDEA of better single ended amplifiers. That is what I against in ML3. I would not be bitching if Atma-Sphere, Audio research, Wavelength or Cary came up with some “pretentious” SET – they accustom to do mediocre things but my expectorations with Lamm are much higher.  If Lamm, at least that Lamm that I use to know and who made ML2.0 and L1, will run production with half-ass or quart-ass objectives then from whom else to ask?

jessie.dazzle wrote:

I would of course really like to see Lamm offer (in parallel) amps that inspire speaker makers to concentrate on high-sensitivity offerings... A no-compromise 5-watt SET for example. Offering a DSET solution would be really interesting, but I don't see how it could be done without knowing exactly to which load (speakers) the amp might be paired. This would seem to require working closely with a speaker maker... But once again, why not? Lamm certainly has the credentials and the contacts...

Well, a reference version of ML3 should be DSET with two GM70 (if to choose to use this tube). One GM70 should be for MF without any running into A2, with not buffer build up in second stage, with low inductance OPT perhaps with no feedback from output stage (no one case about the output impedance in there). It might be even perhaps some kind of other lower power DHT with AC on filaments – and, as you said, I would LOVE to see LAMM make 5-10-watt SET – it will be more HF capable because the negligible capacitance of OPT.  The second GM70 is the bass drive with all heavy entering into A2 and with exact matching of output impedance and large capacitance in PS + a very large core mass of OPT. That amp, I call it ML4 might have the same price as size as ML3 but it perform at absolutely different level then ML3. So, I do not call ML3 as “bad amp” but I do vote ML3 as fundamentally compromised IDEA of better amp.

What is also is very funny is that Lamm himself injected those seeds in my dead. When I was a few years back was asking Vladimir if ML3 (ML3 was read as a prototype a very long time ago) will be able to over-perform two sets of ML2. Vladimir told that two ML2 will be more advanced than ML3. Interning was that he was lying, as in many other occasions and two ML2 are not the same as one ML3. ML2 in order to be contestable for DSET configuration should go a major overview and Lamm obviously did not what to be engaged in THAT conversation…

I still, in my infinite stupid maximalism, would like to see a noble and objectionable ideas rendered into production amplifiers not just another tool to pay mortgage. I do not see ML3 as “objectionable idea” that might push anything further. The Marc Mickelsons-like cheerleaders will sell for Lamm that amp to public and it will push well nicely the noise out of the crappie Wilsons’ ports. It will be it and the idea of a better amp from Lamm will be fulfilled only at the level of the “Sound by Singer” showroom.

el`Ol wrote:

Some facts: The Japanese horn scene uses colored amps like 300B and prefers to buy Japanese amps. American horns are mostly slightly modified pro gear, quite a bit away from the price range Lamm has in mind, so the market there is not larger than that in Europe (where he would have to work hard to get as legendary as in the US).

el`Ol, I would argue the view about the nationally of horns. There is no (at least as I feel) such a thing as Japanese horns of American horns as better home-targeted horns commercial manufacturing is not institutionalized and driven unfortunately by very seldom enthusiasts who care less about own cultural tendencies. I would agree that an idea of low-powered, a few watts Lamm, is very interesting, in fact it would be something that would not mind to try in my system. At this point Vladimir is trying to cash out on the people who buy audio based upon the Robb Report advertising. Who knows, perhaps before Lamm retire we will see a Lamm SET around 2A3 or the similar…

el`Ol wrote:

A bit OT: I wonder whether the 6C33 amp from Rank would be a cheaper substitute for the ML2. Rank is also Ukrainian if I remember right, and used to build monster triode amps with good reviews.

I do not know Rank amps, care to post a link? A “substitute for the ML2” is very complicated question, which also is very interesting question. (I mean the ML2.0 not the ML2.1 as there is a good substitute for ML2.1 – it called Krell). There was so much of extremely “loaded” things in ML2 that I truly feel bad that ML2.0 if gone now and that general audio consciousness did not spend necessary attention to that amp. About the Sound of that amp should be writhen books not a few idiotic reviews that had said nothing valuable about the sound of ML2.0 (do not be under impression that ML2.0 also has no problems).

I do not know if you spent time with ML2 if you do then you understand why I feel that ML2 never was understood by audio public. Let me to tell you a story about ML2 and you will be able to put the thing in perspective. There was a guy who became Avantgarde dealer in NY who was trying a few year back different amps to drive his Trios. I might say it now because his business is gone now. I visited the guy twice, he was not partially experienced but he was “trying”. Eventually the industry “got him” and he became one of many institutionalized fools. In the beginning of his business however was capable for some raw sensitively and natural reactions and it was very interesting his reaction after he tried ML2.0. He said to me  “Romy, among all my customers I have nobody who would  truly understand what ML2 does with sound”. It is exactly the plase where ML2 took in audio world.