How low can you go?Or...I just lack the audiophile vocabulary. I absolutely love Lamm products and think they can be a base of a phenomenal sounding system.
I have found the same level of joy with low wattage simple circuit SET however.
2 watts can drive the Hartsfields quite nicely. My current favorite amp on my system is a PX25 SET.How low can you go?
I do really think that Dartzeel is a brand you should try on your system Ron.I want to thank the participants on the thread for indulging me in these endless amplifier options musings, and for brainstorming about possibilities with me!
I do really think that Dartzeel is a brand you should try on your system Ron.
So no I have not heard this amplifier but wanted to comment based on my experience with the company.Back to our regular programming . . .
Is anyone familiar with this 100 watt SET amplifier:
View attachment 119107
Thank you very much for this first-hand report!So no I have not heard this amplifier but wanted to comment based on my experience with the company.
I did have the Icon LA 4 Mk ii preamplifier in my system for close to a year and I was extremely impressed with the build quality and sound. The preamp is truly a value proposition and punched way above its $$$ class in my system. In a direct comparison with a Jadis preamp it conceded nothing. Had I not already ordered my exotic Monbrison preamp I would have been happy with the Icon.
I also had the pleasure of communicating with the designer David Shaw who was knowledgeable, forthright and quick to personally respond to my inquiry. It's nice when you get this type of service. The Canadian distributor Warren at Audioarcan is also a pleasure to deal with.
So based on my experience I would recommend you give the amp a listen. It probably doesn't compare to others that you are looking at price wise and it may not be what you are seeking but I would bet that you don't find it disappointing.
Thank you for the suggestion.I do really think that Dartzeel is a brand you should try on your system Ron.
I wish I still had those Lamm M2.2’s to let you borrow. They were special.Thank you for the suggestion.
On Keith's system I preferred the LTA to the darTZeel he was auditioning on tube wetness and "breath of life" grounds.
I want to move closer to SET, not away from tube.
Thank you for the suggestion.
On Keith's system I preferred the LTA to the darTZeel he was auditioning on tube wetness and "breath of life" grounds.
I want to move closer to SET, not away from tube.
I wish I still had those Lamm M2.2’s to let you borrow. They were special.
Thank you for the thought! I am trying to stay all-tube on the amps.I wish I still had those Lamm M2.2’s to let you borrow. They were special.
Try not buy!Thank you for the thought! I am trying to stay all-tube on the amps.
Thank you for the thought, Rob!Hi Ron although you are probably sick of amp recommendations by now another one to maybe consider is EAR890.
In mono block form you get 140 W/PCh in class A using KT90 tubes.
I made an effort to listen to many pre and power amps at home some time a go and remember being particularly fond of the EAR.
It sounded like a tube amp, duh, without being overly warm or lush with no high frequency roll off i could tell.
A very punchy tight bass with pop recordings(lots of drive) and just the slightest hint of extra weight/warmth in the upper bass and lower mids.
There is also the 509 but i feel it may be a little on the neutral/dry side for what you are wanting.
A review from Art Dudley seemed pretty accurate to me.
And on Mike’s system, which is also a four tower SOTA assault system? As I recall there was the Lamm SET, a high-powered tube and Mike’s reference Dartzeel.
32 watts and 89 watts are quite different. and the ML3's push things to get their 32 watts, not a ton of headroom in the design. compared to the 22 watts of the ML2's. i admit this is something i have read explained to me, and i am out of my depth making that claim.On Mike's system I loved the ML3 only for simple music.
In view of my recent experience with 80 watts on the 89dB Pendragons, I am actually now not sure why the ML3s did not work with a broader range of music on Mike's 96dB speakers. I guess it is because even at 96dB Mike's midrange/tweeter tower has a lot of surface area to drive?
32 watts and 89 watts are quite different. and the ML3's push things to get their 32 watts, not a ton of headroom in the design. compared to the 22 watts of the ML2's. i admit this is something i have read explained to me, and i am out of my depth making that claim.
maybe a Lamm expert can comment and correct me if i am wrong. or explain it more properly.
Why did you get rid of them?I wish I still had those Lamm M2.2’s to let you borrow. They were special.