ying and yang--Lamm ML3 and darTZeel 458

[KeithR]

Keith

You talk as if you are the voice of experience. As ALF said those who are voicing opinions are all Lamm owners. As far as no remote I understand how that can be a deal breaker. Vlad will never bake a remote with his electronics. For me it is a non issue based on the sonic bliss realized and also the fact that the preamp is a few feet from where I sit. Most users find a gain level on their preamp that is appropriate for almost all music. So until you’re a user Keith you can speculate all you want. The best performance for the ML3 comes from the Lamm LL1 preamp. It’s indisputable. Or is that too dogmatic

No - you guys all came on once some noise popped up and said his only solution was buying a $40k Lamm preamp. Pulease...Its very dogmatic imo. Please list the preamps you've tried with your ML3s. In particular, i'd like to know if anyone has tried a Bespoke with all silver trannies, or an MSB Select direct, or something similar.

And yes doc, I've lived with no remote control (last year actually until my new preamp arrived) and personally discovered its not for me to put it mildly. In fact, there is a forum member who owns a Lamm preamp that can't stand dual manual controls either, but i'll let him chime in if he wants

 

[spiritofmusic]

I used to run the Audion true dual mono 4-box tubed preamp, with yes, dual volume dials, no remote.
12’ from my listening position.
Not for me in the long run sound wise. No remote made the decision to get rid even easier.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

No - you guys all came on once some noise popped up and said his only solution was buying a $40k Lamm preamp. Pulease...Its very dogmatic imo. Please list the preamps you've tried with your ML3s. In particular, i'd like to know if anyone has tried a Bespoke with all silver trannies, or an MSB Select direct, or something similar.

And yes doc, I've lived with no remote control (last year actually until my new preamp arrived) and personally discovered its not for me to put it mildly. In fact, there is a forum member who owns a Lamm preamp that can't stand dual manual controls either, but i'll let him chime in if he wants

back 6 pages, late last night, I hesitated to answer David when he asked me about the noise, knowing the sh*t storm of crap (well intentioned for sure) that would be released on me.

stupidly I hit 'post'.

here we are.

 

[rockitman]

No - you guys all came on once some noise popped up and said his only solution was buying a $40k Lamm preamp. Pulease...Its very dogmatic imo. Please list the preamps you've tried with your ML3s. In particular, i'd like to know if anyone has tried a Bespoke with all silver trannies, or an MSB Select direct, or something similar.

The suggestion of the Lamm pre (at least by me) has zero, nada to do with the noise issue Mike appears to be experiencing. The suggestion was based soley on synergy and maximizing the sound of the ML3's.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

When you get them going Mike, you’ll be happy; besides, with the Lamm LL1, or LL1.1 preamplifiers in the mix, there is no, as you describe, “Limited performance envelope.”

Anything else, you will be subject to falling under a confirmation bias...that’s okay, your guest, along with the rest of us, will understand.

Cheers!
ALF

a preamp is not going to suddenly allow a 32 watt SET do 200-300 watt musical peaks (which are a reality with the dart monos in my system); so the performance is limited. and......I do not need that from the ML3's. I'm happy with everything I hear from the ML3's and need nothing to change except lower noise floor, which only intrudes now with no music.

if it takes the LL1.1 to eliminate that degree of noise in the ML3's then that's a flawed design. I respect levels of synergy and optimization achieved using the LL1.1, I expect that a high quality SS preamp will fall a little short of optimal, and I expect that. i'll live with that compromise, but will not compromise what the dart pre brings to my system.

 

[853guy]

a preamp is not going to suddenly allow a 32 watt SET do 200-300 watt musical peaks. and......I do not need that from the ML3's. I'm happy with everything I hear from the ML3's and need nothing to change except lower noise floor, which only intrudes now with no music.

if it takes the LL1.1 to eliminate that degree of noise in the ML3's then that's a flawed design. I respect levels of synergy and optimization achieved using the LL1.1, I expect that a high quality SS preamp will fall a little short of optimal, and I expect that. i'll live with that compromise, but will not compromise what the dart pre brings.

Hello Mike,

Just a question - sorry if you've already answered this...

Are the ML3's connected to either the Tripoint, Entreq, or Taikos?

Best,

853guy

 

[microstrip]

a preamp is not going to suddenly allow a 32 watt SET do 200-300 watt musical peaks (which are a reality with the dart monos in my system); so the performance is limited. and......I do not need that from the ML3's. I'm happy with everything I hear from the ML3's and need nothing to change except lower noise floor, which only intrudes now with no music.

if it takes the LL1.1 to eliminate that degree of noise in the ML3's then that's a flawed design. I respect levels of synergy and optimization achieved using the LL1.1, I expect that a high quality SS preamp will fall a little short of optimal, and I expect that. i'll live with that compromise, but will not compromise what the dart pre brings to my system.

Why such "if"? You just have to optimize the connections and the grounding schemes, nothing else. We can debate preferences, but technically the Darzeel preamplfiier and the Lamm amplifier are a perfect match! In a short time you will be happily enjoying them noise free!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Why such "if"? You just have to optimize the connections and the grounding schemes, nothing else. We can debate preferences, but technically the Darzeel preamplfiier and the Lamm amplifier are a perfect match! In a short time you will be happily enjoying them noise free!

+1, +1000, completely agree. that is all I'm saying. I need to 'fix' the noise problem. not add boxes.

everyone else wants me to fundamentally change my system direction. my intention is to 'fit' the ML3's into my current direction, not change directions.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Hello Mike,

Just a question - sorry if you've already answered this...

Are the ML3's connected to either the Tripoint, Entreq, or Taikos?

Best,

853guy

hello 853 guy,

reading this post from late last night might help.

the ML3's are sitting on passive SRA Virginia Class stands. no Taiko Tana involved.

best,

Mike

 

[ALF]

a preamp is not going to suddenly allow a 32 watt SET do 200-300 watt musical peaks (which are a reality with the dart monos in my system); so the performance is limited. and......I do not need that from the ML3's. I'm happy with everything I hear from the ML3's and need nothing to change except lower noise floor, which only intrudes now with no music.

if it takes the LL1.1 to eliminate that degree of noise in the ML3's then that's a flawed design. I respect levels of synergy and optimization achieved using the LL1.1, I expect that a high quality SS preamp will fall a little short of optimal, and I expect that. i'll live with that compromise, but will not compromise what the dart pre brings to my system.

Yikes Mike, we are just trying to help you out...

Your Dart preamplifier, like the Reference ARC preamplifiers, are a great fit and match for the Lamm Ref 1.2 amplifiers; however, they simply do not have the lift to get the most out of the ML3s. I am sure that you experienced wonderful, and sometimes painful, PEAKs at David’s...synergy, without going into how it all is important, it can be your friend.

Now, I’ll go ahead and take the bait on your Flawed Design,” comment:

...there are flawed designers and flawed audiophiles...I do know both, Mr. Lamm and Mr. Lavigne; IMO Mr. Lamm, is not a flawed designer.

 

[853guy]

hello 853 guy,

reading this post from late last night might help.

the ML3's are sitting on passive SRA Virginia Class stands. no Taiko Tana involved.

best,

Mike

Ah, I missed that one.

Thanks for the clarification.

Best,

853guy

 

[gian60]

Dear Mike,
only i can understand you
I have a top ss amp like yours and we are very happy
You enjoy your Lamm like i enjoyed my Kondo Souga with some records
Nothing else
Ciao
Gian

 

[Steve williams]

The suggestion of the Lamm pre (at least by me) has zero, nada to do with the noise issue Mike appears to be experiencing. The suggestion was based soley on synergy and maximizing the sound of the ML3's.

Precisely my point

I wasn’t discussing noise at all. I did say I have zero noise in mine but we did say there is better synergy if the Lamm preamp is used. That’s a given. Nothing more. I also said that I understand about lack of remote with dual gain controls and I said I understand that.

Keith. Do you read what is posted or are you just reacting

Christian and I are saying the same thing and it has nothing to do with noise but rather getting the most out of the ML3

 

[gian60]

At top level same pre and amp is the best synergy,sure,but for what i understood Mike use Lamm amp like a second choice to listen some special record with this special amp.
So for now don't need to change pre

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Yikes Mike, we are just trying to help you out...

Your Dart preamplifier, like the Reference ARC preamplifiers, are a great fit and match for the Lamm Ref 1.2 amplifiers; however, they simply do not have the lift to get the most out of the ML3s. I am sure that you experienced wonderful, and sometimes painful, PEAKs at David’s...synergy, without going into how it all is important, it can be your friend.

Now, I’ll go ahead and take the bait on your Flawed Design,” comment:

...there are flawed designers and flawed audiophiles...I do know both, Mr. Lamm and Mr. Lavigne; IMO Mr. Lamm, is not a flawed designer.

Alan,

all the feedback, including yours, has been given in a helpful spirit, I realize that. so please don't feel that I'm upset about it. only that it's 6 pages of it since last night. mostly telling me I 'have to' acquire an LL1.1 or else.

regarding my 'flawed design' comment; I only said that if it takes that specific preamp to get the noise to a reasonable level in the ML3's that would be a flawed design. emphasis---reasonable level. I accept that the LL1.1 would be optimal for the ML3's, and that the dart pre would not quite measure up to optimal, which I'm fine with.

 

[KeithR]

+1, +1000, completely agree. that is all I'm saying. I need to 'fix' the noise problem. not add boxes.

everyone else wants me to fundamentally change my system direction. my intention is to 'fit' the ML3's into my current direction, not change directions.

and don't forget the 40k, 3 box Lamm phono preamp that would then be "required" after the LL1.1

 

[jeff1225]

and don't forget the 40k, 3 box Lamm phono preamp that would then be "required" after the LL1.1

An we all love spending Mike's money......

 

[spiritofmusic]

Not me, I never have .

 

[asiufy]

Mike,

I second Francisco's mention of using the Zeel cables and an adapter on the amp/RCA end. This has always been a worthy experiment, IMHO...


cheers,
alex

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike,

I second Francisco's mention of using the Zeel cables and an adapter on the amp/RCA end. This has always been a worthy experiment, IMHO...


cheers,
alex

Alex,

Agree and that was going to be my next move.

The reason I had not yet tried that was the extreme stiffness of my long Evolution Acoustics ‘zeel’ interconnects and the location of the inputs on the right front side of the ML3’s makes getting those cables in place to work will be a nightmare of boxes at weird angles. It might be better to remove my “Herve” zeels from the King-Cello run and use those as they are flexible. But those are tucked in the seam in the floor between my carpet and wood flooring. But likely less effort than the EA’s.

The things we do for Hifi lust!!

Mike