Ok, so how do you explain the fact that the ML3's are apparently running out of steam...providing 32watts/ch ( plus headroom) to just the tweet/mid panels of the MM7's??
ying and yang--Lamm ML3 and darTZeel 458
- Thread starter Mike Lavigne
- Start date
Ok, so how do you explain the fact that the ML3's are apparently running out of steam...providing 32watts/ch ( plus headroom) to just the tweet/mid panels of the MM7's??
Ok, so how do you explain the fact that the ML3's are apparently running out of steam...providing 32watts/ch ( plus headroom) to just the tweet/mid panels of the MM7's??
compared to not running out of steam in other 'non-horn' systems?
and it's not a 'mid-tweet' panel, the 7 foot tall, 750 pound, passive main towers of the MM7's are flat to around 40hz. that's mid bass borderline deep bass. and as I've said a number of times and you have ignored a number of times, the ML3's are more dynamically alive in my system than my recollection of Steve's system, which you feel is dynamically just fine. which takes us back to the difference in our references as to what is not running out of steam being the issue. i simply have higher expectations than you do. when i feel the ML3's face recordings where they fall short, it's in direct comparison to my reference with the big darts. nothing to be ashamed of there, no other SET could compete either.
do we need to circle around this same issue a third (or is it the fourth) time? as i said before, your references for ease and authority on large scale music need some work. maybe we should only discuss issues when we are both listening to the same thing together......so we can get past this semantics and reference issue.
come on up to my room and hear what i mean by ease and authority on large scale music. or realize that we view Steve's ML3 room (which is fine and i liked) through different reference perspectives.
Last edited:
That the Lamm ML3 can even drive these main towers in a large room seems pretty amazing.
Hmmm. I thought the conventional wisdom was that, holding circuit topology and power output (SPL) constant, the lower power amplifier would tend to sound better than its scaled up, higher power version.
For example, if you play the Jadis JA-80 and the JA-200 at the same power output, the JA-80 would sound slightly better than the JA-200? Am I wrong about this being the conventional wisdom?
they are an easy load, 97db, 7 ohm. and on more than 75% of what i normally play, the ML3's are plenty lively and control the speaker without any concern at all. the bass is to die for, best I've heard anywhere. and the music projects with great energy and drive. the big (also 7 foot tall, 750 pounds) powered bass towers and their special approach to complete integration certainly help the perception of ease and drive and give things a wonderful foundation, even in my large room. so it's all there, assuming the music does not demand too much.
when the music wants to soar past a certain point, as some does, the ML3's reach a point where that soaring stops no matter what is done with the volume control. you could be playing music for 2-3 hours and not realize there is a limit. but when that limit is reached, it's reached.
is this such a surprise to some? really? does it reflect negatively on the amps or the speakers? i think not. i purchased these amps fully aware that exactly this would occur. it was the plan to also enjoy the darts and be able to fully enjoy both approaches optimally.
DING, DING, DING, DING! RogerD and morricab back to your corners!
We should all be past this basic fencing. Not every post needs to start with the Big Bang.
RogerD, why are you having so much trouble accepting the fact that some people prefer the sound of tube amplifiers?
morricab, why are you having so much trouble accepting the fact that some people prefer the sound of solid-state amplifiers?
Why don't one of you please start a whole new thread on this subject, and let Mike get back to the subject of his opening post?
We should all be past this basic fencing. Not every post needs to start with the Big Bang.
RogerD, why are you having so much trouble accepting the fact that some people prefer the sound of tube amplifiers?
morricab, why are you having so much trouble accepting the fact that some people prefer the sound of solid-state amplifiers?
Why don't one of you please start a whole new thread on this subject, and let Mike get back to the subject of his opening post?
Ok, so how do you explain the fact that the ML3's are apparently running out of steam...providing 32watts/ch ( plus headroom) to just the tweet/mid panels of the MM7's??
Mike has explained articulately many times that, for him, at the level of his system, it is not about merely having decent SPL come out of the speakers. It is about having enough power (enough headroom) so that the amplifiers can effortlessly take the system as high as the music propels it to go, without the slightest hint of compression or strain or hardening.
Mike's "running out of steam" likely is most peoples' "chugging merrily along."
almost completely contextual. it all depends on the load the amp sees. a 1 watt DHT 45 or 2 watt 2A3 on the right horn will sound better than a higher watt SET typically (ignoring the low noise solid state horn crowd). but stress the lower powered amp with a tougher load and the context of what the first watt has to do changes the equation of which amp sounds best.
so for each topology their are generalities that sort of apply. specifically with those Jadis there are sweet spots in the line up and it's hard to generalize. but i'd say it seems that quality of transformers and power supplies (ML3's are more powerful than the ML2.2's, but have more special transformers and obviously a separate tube power supply) seem to be the biggest difference in sound quality beyond load verses power. and then there is the issue of headroom. all other things being equal more headroom (allowing the amp to be in it's performance sweet spot) makes for a better amplifier. but rarely are all other things equal.
Last edited:
I'd like to know what the real measured impedance of the MM7's are. If you look at measurements in Stereophile, impedance loads of the speakers are always measured much lower than that the manufacturer states as the nominal impedance. It's impedance that really matters here.
What am I missing here....I own a VAC 70/70 and a pair of 140's but my high powered SS amps are better....what can I say. They do everything the VAC's can and more. I just have different experiences then everybody else albeit my amplifiers are extremely rare...if I'm out of line here...just say the word and I'll bow out but I don't believe my opinions have been problematic.
Jeff, I’ve never seen MM3 measurements but the diminutive MicroOnes have been reviewed with extremely flat phase graphs. Presumably both use low order cross overs
Mike, were not circling...so far I haven’t seen anything that would make sense to me as to what you are stating, except to say that the volume you are listening at might be quite excessive ( for my taste, obviously YMMV) with the Dart’s. Please don’t assume you know what my reference is for ease and authority on large scale music...you really have no clue about that.
Thanks for the invite, maybe if I’m up in the Seattle area.
Meanwhile, enjoy the excellent sound that I am sure you are getting from the Lamm’s.
A quick search showed that Evolution Acoustics states that the MicroOnes are 6 Ohms. The Hi-Fi Plus review has measurements that shows the impedance dips to, but not below 4 Ohms at 200 hz. The impedance is below 6 ohms from 100hz though 4K. So, like most speaker manufacturers, you have to take the impedance specs with a big grain of salt.
You are right, the conventional wisdom is that the lower powered version of the amp typically sounds better. This is absolutely the case with the Jadis amps, IME. However, there is a limit to which you don’t want to go below...at least with the Jadis line.. However, and this is a biggie, if the amp cannot do the speaker justice, then opting for the better sounding lower powered version is absolutely the wrong thing to do....as a good friend and fellow a’phile found out the hard way! As usual, it’s horses for courses with this gear...and using ones own ears are the very best arbiter, all imho.
+1
In my previous post, I mentioned my friend who had acquired, based on a dealers recommendation, a very pricey speaker that he was told could be driven to full power by a superb low powered tube amp. This speaker had apparently a fairly benign impedance characteristic, except it really did not...and the amps ( which the very same dealer also sold to him) couldn’t come near to powering the speaker correctly.
Let’s just say that the dealer has now lost any further business from my friend....
But he also admits that he should have listened first to the pairing before making the purchase.
That has been my impression over the years, that raw power does not necessarily improve the sound as you go higher, and can do the opposite. Nelson Pass has said in a moment of candor (when somebody asked him his opinion) that sound quality does not improve by virtue of higher power in his own amp lines. The remark seemed to be shooting himself in the foot (although he is probably beyond caring) since his business is a lot about feeding the beast of raw power hunger and huge amplifiers in power mad audiophiles. He also established First Watt with the idea of exploring topologies with generally modest power ratings and most simple circuits possible to get better sounding amps.
Also, over they years, with speakers as well as amps, there always seems to be a model somewhere in the middle that hits the "sweet spot" and is reputed to sound the best, rather than the largest and most expensive models. I know I heard of a guy who took a speaker tour, and the speaker manufacturer who makes very large speakers to satisfy that market slipped and stated that his favorite speaker in his line was the one second from the bottom of a multi speaker line. The guy on the tour said he looked like he regretted the remark as soon as he made it.
I am sure there are many qualifying conditions, of course, there always are.
However, the notion persists that you can hear "raw power" that exceeds the nominal SPL requirements of your room and system above and beyond. If you are talking about 82db sensitive Apogees, that is one thing, but speakers in excess of 90db or even 95db sensitivity? That's a head scratcher.
That's why I said it would make a good DBT or pseudo DBT or whatever.
Last edited:
Be careful what you say other SETs could or could not do in your system...I know of a couple that would likely have higher limits than the ML3s. Not a comment on sound quality just on limits and sense of "ease" when pushed.
That is what he was saying Ron. It was others that were challenging him on this "conventional" wisdom (Micro and Keith R I think).
Agreed, I don't see that you and I were fencing about this topic and I also never stated that I hate all things SS. In fact, I owned not long ago a good hybrid amp (with SS output) and for many years owned KR Audio, which is 2/3rds SS (only output is tube).
I have been keenly interested in Mike's compare and contrast and discussions about limitations of the ML3s he perceives...all on topic as far as I can tell.
Similar threads
