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: Lamm ML3, L3, and 40W at 1000HzPosted by Romy the Cat on: 1/15/2007

 Paul S wrote:
I think that bit of marketing hype must derive from Lamm's ML2 (& 2.1?) "Operating Manual", which says: [the ML2] "Maximum Output Voltage" "with continuous sine waves, at 1kHz @ rated line voltage" [is] "(blah, blah, blah), corresponding to 40 watts peak."  Same general nonsense regarding "Maximum Output Current".

It was exactly what I was trying to explain – power in SET’s OPT relates to frequency. I do not see why ML2 should not have 40W at 1kHz or 100W at 10.000Hz…..
 Paul S wrote:
So, if the ML3 costs more, it's got to be "BIGGER" and "MORE POWERFUL" and generally "BETTER", right?
I my article I was trying to explain that my definition of "BETTER" has nothing to do with more power. The GM70 is a good tube, much more linear then 6C33C, it is direct heated, which is “different”… There are a lot of interesting thing that might be in ML3, the problem that I have that BETTER in single ended world is not bigger or more powerful but “friqency-horizontal balance loading across” multiple SETs. Would it be based upon GM70 or any other tube is irrelevant as in the DSET configuration many cons and pros or many tubes become equalized. DSET is my definition of BETTER. Or put in this way: perhaps not BETTER but certainly worth investment and efforts.

 Paul S wrote:
From what I have heard so far, I believe that feedback is important rather than incidental in the ML2 design and sound, and I am betting Lamm uses it in the ML3, as well.  I think this helps tons with LF *given the "FR" design parameters*, and to my ears it also (somehow...) helps with "organizing" HF (IMO, ML2 has killer HF).  Anyway, I bet Lamm stays with it, and probably he adds some sort of driver loop or other "overdrive" A2 for the new "Flagship".
 There is nothing wrong with feedback if it is necessary and if it is properly implemented. ML2 used global feedback. The ML3, it looks like used feedback from the plate of GM70 to the driver stage (it is not know why yet), so the OPT is out of the loop.

 Paul S wrote:
Anyway, you had to know that Lamm would take at least one more free shot before he retires or "returns to his roots".
Well I have less concern about ML3. I burn 14dB in voltage dividers with 6C33C, what the hell would I do with GM70?! I was looking before at this tube thinking how to make it with it 5-7W amp but I did not come up with anything interesting. To me the 2A3 is more attractive then GM70, it is also direct-heated. There are some sources that suggest that direct-heated have advantages that compromised by the DC on filaments. I have seen some Russians who drive GM70 with AC on heaters (using some crazy techniques) and it “might” be interesting. What would be more interesting to me is to see Lamm coming up with his L3 preamp. If he preserve his xFactor but get rid all those misery that L2 inflicted to Sound then it will be very worthy, as no one makes preamps in this way as Lamm did (though it of cause it might be “the things” in L2 as well). I had my suspicion that the xFactor was kind of accidental side-effect; there are some evidences that it was the case but I am hesitant to say that I convinced and I will extend in my judgment one more change to Vladimir. The L3 will set the things strait…

The Cat

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site