Thanks to Mike and Nellie at Audio Federation (http://www.audiofederation.com) here are the first pictures of the Lamm ML3 Signature mono amps. (http://www.audiofederation.com/hifiing/2007/CES2007/day1/index.htm)

I love their coverage every year and can't wait to see more pictures and read their commentary.

Enjoy! :D

Ahh, these guys always provide big-screen-friendly eye candy. I wish I was at home in front of my 30" screen...

these might sound terrific and be great engineering, but the form factor designer needs alot of help...

Now Tzucc...you haven't even heard the ML 2.1's

These look very similar

You don't get Brutus Awards for fashion statements but rather for the sound

If there were pics, I'm not seeing them now.

Still there for me....

Yep, I got em. Of course the may be in my cache.

Now they are there, nust have been down for a few.

Well, I'm sure it's not a surprise, but I'm with tzucc on this one. I'm just speechless how anyone can design a 6 figure amp, and have it look like something built in a garage. But then again, maybe it was built in a garage. If he's going to charge 125K for it, couldn't he charge 135K and make it look like a piece of fine jewelry, AKA Air Tight or Jadis or what ever? If Air Tight can do it this for 5K, I'd think he might be able to do so for 135K. Sorry oneobgyn, I think it should be about great sound AND good looks, they aren't mutually exclusive as shown by your Wilson Alexandrias.

http://www.savantaudio.com/atm2.jpg

Um, sure this isn't the Flintstone Model 3?
Maybe they should've used the pretty wood boxes as covers.

It will sell better the uglier it is. After all the big he man that buys this doesn't want some pansified piece of jewelry.

the high price and limited edition are necessary to ensure traceable end users in case someone buy the product, copy the design, and have it manufactured in China then flood the world market with such good sound. :D

I wonder if they will even be playing the new Lamms at CES in the first place. According to audiofederation's commentary, the amps are only on static display.

- Steve O.

It is my understanding that Vladimir will be playing them but not on Wilson MAXX's as he typically does each year with his amps

OB,

If the room photographed by Mike is the only Lamm Industries room, then bigger Wilsons wouldn't make sense. The room is a smaller suite than what they had last year. It looks like Sophias are the current speakers.

- Steve O.

The unfortunate thing about T.H.E Show which runs concurrently with CES is that all of the vendor's rooms are not conducive to any sort of stereo demo and you can only get a feel for what the room is showing--far from the trus worth of any gear. It is my understanding that for this reason my buddy JTinn will not be showing his new Evolution MM3 speakers at THE SHOW

OB,

Are you talking about Jonathan Tinn? If I remember correctly, he had a Von Schweikert/Dartzeel/EMMLabs setup last year. It sounded pretty good.

Romy posted his thoughts on Lamm's ML3 amp - very interesting...

- Steve O.

You have a link to Romy's comments Steve? I forgot the name of his website.

You have a link to Romy's comments Steve? I forgot the name of his website.

here ya go;

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=3471#3471

i trust you have an interpreter?

...and a few handy-wipes. :D

Curious as to where he heard it inasmuch as it is a static display at CES

I always take Romy's comments with a grain of salt and two Tylenol. He has been a Lamm basher for years

You have a link to Romy's comments Steve? I forgot the name of his website.

Hi Gladiator,

THESE comments are probably based on Mike's photos taken at CES 2007:

http://audiofederation.com/blog/archives/271#comments

The are probably more pertinent that Romy's prior post on his own site.

It will be very interesting to see how the Lamm ML3 rolls out.

- Steve O.

Is the $100 bill laying next to the amplifier meant to convey something? Perhaps that one that purchases this amplifier is throwing away their money?


http://www.goodsoundclub.com/UserImages/LammML3_1.jpg

THAT is it?!? You've GOT to be kidding me. People fall for that these days? Bloody hell........

THAT is it?!? You've GOT to be kidding me. People fall for that these days? Bloody hell........
John,

The simpler the circuit that gets the job done - the better.

If you use a tube that has high linearity; then you don't need a lot of circuitry to correct
for non-linearity; as you have to do with a transistor.

To quote from Jack Hidley in our discussion at the NHT Xd demo:

"A transistor is such an inherently non-linear device"

You don't buy amplifiers "by the pound" - you buy them for what they can DO!!

If a single device could do it all - so much the better!

THAT is it?!? You've GOT to be kidding me. People fall for that these days? Bloody hell........
John,

The simpler the circuit that gets the job done - the better....
Sorry, but you are stretching so far to argue with John that it's silly. I hardly think his "that is it" comment leads one to the conclusion that he was suggesting that amplifiers should be bought "by the pound" or that circuit topologies should be complex etc.

I'd assume his "that is it" comment was another way of saying what I *personally* thought when I saw it, which was "125K for that is a f*cking joke" (but if he can sell them more power to him).

Is the $100 bill laying next to the amplifier meant to convey something? Perhaps that one that purchases this amplifier is throwing away their money?


That was very funny! :D

The simpler the circuit that gets the job done - the better.

I'm simply trying to figure out how such few and inexpensive parts ended up at $126,290. It looks like a $5000 amp. Maybe. I defy Lamm to list his parts cost (aside from the chassis)

I had to laugh at the $100 bill, though, I thought that is what the power supply chassis uses for its cabinetry. Recycled $100 bills ;)

I'm simply trying to figure out how such few and inexpensive parts ended up at $126,290. It looks like a $5000 amp. Maybe. I defy Lamm to list his parts cost (aside from the chassis)

I had to laugh at the $100 bill, though, I thought that is what the power supply chassis uses for its cabinetry. Recycled $100 bills ;)


If you can zoom in enough you can get most of the part numbers then run them through a mouser catalog and the price will be funny. Most of that stuff costs less than 5 dollars. Some of them like the little blue caps are less than 25 cents. Like much in the audiophille world people are fooled by high price, market speak and zero science.

Sorry, but you are stretching so far to argue with John that it's silly. I hardly think his "that is it" comment leads one to the conclusion that he was suggesting that amplifiers should be bought "by the pound" or that circuit topologies should be complex etc.

I was just wondering where the exotic, "one off" parts were. Where's the internal wiring with Vahalla cable? Shielded parts? Point to point wiring? *Something*.

Sorry, but you are stretching so far to argue with John that it's silly.
QQQ,

Honestly - I really DON'T want to argue with John.

However, one can do a lot of very good engineering to come up with what looks like a
very simple design.

I've seen LOTS of very sophisticated designs that took lots of analysis; only to come up with
what looks to be very simple. However, the PROPERTIES of the components, so that the
proper choice can be made; is what takes a lot of analysis, and hence is where the money
really is.

The silicon chip that is a CPU really doesn't look like much. However, if you know what's
in it and what it takes to produce it; then you know why it deserves the price it has. But a
CPU chip really doesn't look like much.

So, if I spend the next 3 years thinking about what cheap parts to put in my new amp, I can charge whatever the heck I want and audiophiles will go crazy for it? Yippee! I think I will start working on these design on the beach so that the sound will be sufficiently natural and organic.

So, if I spend the next 3 years thinking about what cheap parts to put in my new amp, I can charge whatever the heck I want and audiophiles will go crazy for it? Yippee! I think I will start working on these design on the beach so that the sound will be sufficiently natural and organic.

The great thing about this country is that you can do that. Then the golden eared fellows who can hear which direction electrons are going in an interconnect wire will be falling all over themelves praising you.

John....you would be the last person from whom I would ever buy anything audio.

BTW John...you haven't been hawking NHD lately...curious to know if you lost your dealership or if Jack Hidley shut you up

So, if I spend the next 3 years thinking about what cheap parts to put in my new amp, I can charge whatever the heck I want and audiophiles will go crazy for it? Yippee! I think I will start working on these design on the beach so that the sound will be sufficiently natural and organic.
John,

If you can design an amp with $100 worth of parts that performs as well as the ML3;
and you are not producing it and undercutting Lamm in cost by at least a factor of 2; then
you're foolish not too.

You can design any way you want. You can build whatever you want with parts as cheap as
you want.

You just have to produce an amp that sounds good enough to warrant the high price.

Design anyway you want; and if you can "deliver the goods" - then more power to you.

John,

If you can design an amp with $100 worth of parts that performs as well as the ML3;
and you are not producing it and undercutting Lamm in cost by at least a factor of 2; then
you're foolish not too.

You can design any way you want. You can build whatever you want with parts as cheap as
you want.

You just have to produce an amp that sounds good enough to warrant the high price.

Design anyway you want; and if you can "deliver the goods" - then more power to you.

But if he wanted audiophiles to take him seriously, he wouldn't undercut the price, he'd double it.

then more power to you

32 Watts SET power would be good :)

You just have to produce an amp that sounds good enough to warrant the high price.

Nope, all I need to do is make people *think* that it sounds good enough. Perception is reality, no matter how bad it measures or performs in actuality, remember? Of course, I don't think I could sucker people as well as Mr Lamm himself, he's a pro, but it would be fun to try ;)

Besides, how do you know the ML3 performs well at all? Right now, I've got a $99 Sherwood receiver here that will blow it away because *at least* it works :D

But if he wanted audiophools to take him seriously, he wouldn't undercut the price, he'd double it.

sort of like when I wanted to limit my OBG practice I raised my fees and ended up being twice as busy. You should try that in gastroenetrology. The GI docs here who are the busiest are the ones with the highest fees

sort of like when I wanted to limit my OBG practice I raised my fees and ended up being twice as busy. You should try that in gastroenetrology. The GI docs here who are the busiest are the ones with the highest fees

The problem is that I could charge double what I do but Medicare, Medicaid, and the insurance companies wouldn't pay me once cent more than they do now. Medicare and Medicaid pay 10-25 cents on the dollar charged and pay a set amount per procedure no matter what. The insurance companies will pay what is contracted. We don't have any private pay prestige type patients in this area anyways. Our multispec. group is thinking about having an executive type service and hopefully we'll do that later this year.

sort of like when I wanted to limit my OBG practice I raised my fees and ended up being twice as busy. You should try that in gastroenetrology. The GI docs here who are the busiest are the ones with the highest fees

Did you double the quality of your services? Probably not! I had a customer who did the same thing. He got tired of his car detailing business, so he went from $50/car to $200/car as a "screw you guys" maneuver and then quickly became the biggest detailer in the town. Same service. Which just shows my entire point. The retail price has little, if anything, to do with actual performance or even cost to provide the product or service. Bose could sell its stuff for 1/5th the price, but why would it? People are buying it en masse.

It's embarrassing to me that high-end has become all about image, which is why I'm pretty well kissing it off. NAD Masters and Xd give me the high-end performance I've only dreamed of previously, so I'm out of the "image" game.

Did you double the quality of your services? Probably not!

Of course he did. Now people get 2 babies with each delivery. :D

Did you double the quality of your services? Probably not! I had a customer who did the same thing. He got tired of his car detailing business, so he went from $50/car to $200/car as a "screw you guys" maneuver and then quickly became the biggest detailer in the town. Same service. Which just shows my entire point. The retail price has little, if anything, to do with actual performance or even cost to provide the product or service. Bose could sell its stuff for 1/5th the price, but why would it? People are buying it en masse.

It's embarrassing to me that high-end has become all about image, which is why I'm pretty well kissing it off. NAD Masters and Xd give me the high-end performance I've only dreamed of previously, so I'm out of the "image" game.

Actually John I did double the quality of my service. We restrict our practice...for instance I would never see a present or former wife of yours---but you get my drift :rolleyes:

The problem is that I could charge double what I do but Medicare, Medicaid, and the insurance companies wouldn't pay me once cent more than they do now. Medicare and Medicaid pay 10-25 cents on the dollar charged and pay a set amount per procedure no matter what. The insurance companies will pay what is contracted. We don't have any private pay prestige type patients in this area anyways. Our multispec. group is thinking about having an executive type service and hopefully we'll do that later this year.

Our practice has little if any Medicare and we do not see MediCal (AKA Medicaid) patients. We have few HMO's...only PPO. Our GI docs get $1-2K/colonoscopy and they do 8-10/day

Actually John I did double the quality of my service. We restrict our practice...for instance I would never see a present or former wife of yours---but you get my drift :rolleyes:

Why do you think I would send them your way given your attitude? I wouldn't "restrict" you, but I would try to help you make smarter decisions, despite yourself.

You wouldn't restrict him with your wives?

Why do you think I would send them your way given your attitude? I wouldn't "restrict" you, but I would try to help you make smarter decisions, despite yourself.


Better yet, why do you think I would even assume their care....a liability from the start

BTW John you have yet to answer my question as to why you are now hawking only NAD and not your Xd's. Are you still a dealer or not? :rolleyes:

Our practice has little if any Medicare and we do not see MediCal (AKA Medicaid) patients. We have few HMO's...only PPO. Our GI docs get $1-2K/colonoscopy and they do 8-10/day

Medicaid is around 10% and Medicare is around 30% of our clinic practice. It doesn't feel right to me to stop seeing those patients.

Better yet, why do you think I would even assume their care....a liability from the start

Well, I found out how my ex "paid" her other doctor, so, yeah, it would be a liability, sounds like you know her :D

BTW John you have yet to answer my question as to why you are now hawking only NAD and not your Xd's. Are you still a dealer or not? :rolleyes:

I don't know what you're trying to say. Of course I'm still a dealer, I just did a 6.3 system driven by Meridian G series and another system that has 3 Xds up front with high-end inwalls in the back and another stereo pair and a couple of add-on subs. Still the biggest Xd dealer in the world, I believe. I was never "hawking" them here, just trying to make Dr Morbid understand how they function and why.

Nope, all I need to do is make people *think* that it sounds good enough. Perception is reality, no matter how bad it measures or performs in actuality, remember? Of course, I don't think I could sucker people as well as Mr Lamm himself, he's a pro, but it would be fun to try ;)

Besides, how do you know the ML3 performs well at all? Right now, I've got a $99 Sherwood receiver here that will blow it away because *at least* it works :D
John,

There's no objective measure of how it "performs in actuality".

Therefore, yes - it is personal perception.

If if would be so fun to try; why don't you then; instead of boring us with unproven assertions.

I don't know how well the ML3 performs; I haven't heard it. All I can say is that I've heard
previous products from Mr Lamm and found them to be very fine.

I expect the ML3 to be another fine product; but I do not assert that without an audition.

Medicaid is around 10% and Medicare is around 30% of our clinic practice. It doesn't feel right to me to stop seeing those patients.

How will you ever afford a $300K if you treat everyone the same? :eek:

Medicaid is around 10% and Medicare is around 30% of our clinic practice. It doesn't feel right to me to stop seeing those patients.

you need to be selective

Everyone in your group MUST decide NOT to take it. Be prepared for a slight fall off in your revenue over the next three-six months BUT then what you will find in your clientele will be so different that you will thank me. Remember..."it is quality and not quanity". Stop pissing and moaning about what Medicare and Medicaid pays you which is less than what your plumber gets--and he charges before he provides services. Doctors are a bunch of wimps who do nothing but cry about their problems. Step to the plate and take control of your destiny rather than letting 3rd party payors dictate your life. First thing you need to do is dump Medicaid and then Medicare

just trying to make Dr Morbid understand how they function and why.
John,

I understand how they work and function. Since I understand the mathematics behind them;
I understand them better than you think I do.

After all; I'm the one that got an admission of error from Kim Ryrie as to the impulse response.

There's no objective measure of how it "performs in actuality"..

Of course not, apparently it doesn't work at all at this point. But you can objectively measure other amps, if you so choose. I'm sure if I were to put that Sherwood receiver in a Lamm box, most of BAAS would be fooled into thinking it was fantastic.

John,

I understand how they work and function. Since I understand the mathematics behind them;
I understand them better than you think I do.

After all; I'm the one that got an admission of error from Kim Ryrie as to the impulse response.

Oh, so you have finally figured out how crossover slopes affect dispersion? Congratulations!

BTW, the "admission of error" was a long known thing. Kim had mentioned it earlier in another post in the actual DEQX user group and explained it, so you hardly pried it out of him.

Well, I found out how my ex "paid" her other doctor, so, yeah, it would be a liability, sounds like you know her

I guess from all of the vast profits you made on being the world's largest Xd dealer. BTW I thought that they didn't allow internet sales so I am perplexed. I guess that you must have sold them to the entire state of New Mexico to make that claim. I am sure that all of those sales did find their way into your store to make the sale

I guess from all of the vast profits you made on being the world's largest Xd dealer. BTW I thought that they didn't allow internet sales so I am perplexed. I guess that you must have sold them to the entire state of New Mexico to make that claim. I am sure that all of those sales did find their way into your store to make the sale

There's a million people in New Mexico, certainly room for 25 or so pairs of Xds per year. Besides, most of my systems involve 4.2 surround. They're quite easy to sell if you understand audio, actually.

There's a million people in New Mexico, certainly room for 25 or so pairs of Xds per year. Besides, most of my systems involve 4.2 surround. They're quite easy to sell if you understand audio, actually.

well ther are over 30 million in California John...just think of the opportunity :rolleyes:

well ther are over 30 million in California John...just think of the opportunity :rolleyes:

Then I'd have to live near you and pay stupid amounts for real estate and taxes and all that crap. All the Californians are moving here, so they're moving to me, thank you very little.

Oh, so you have finally figured out how crossover slopes affect dispersion? Congratulations!

BTW, the "admission of error" was a long known thing. Kim had mentioned it earlier in another post in the actual DEQX user group and explained it, so you hardly pried it out of him.
John,

I've known BOTH the benefits and tradeoffs of how crossover slopes affect dispersion for some
time.

At the time I pointed the error out to Kim Ryrie, I didn't know that he had already owned up to it
in another forum to which I am not a member.

I'm just surprised that he made such an egregious error in the first place; it wasn't subtle.

There's a million people in New Mexico, certainly room for 25 or so pairs of Xds per year.
John,

I expect you probably sell a bunch to the denizens of Los Alamos.

I mean that as a true Lawrence Livermore partisan.

I've known BOTH the benefits and tradeoffs of how crossover slopes affect dispersion for some time.

You sure seemed to not understand it when we were discussing it. I could pull quotes if you like. Well, as long as you think you understand it now, I guess that's all the counts :rolleyes:

I expect you probably sell a bunch to the denizens of Los Alamos.

I mean that as a true Lawrence Livermore partisan.

Actually, one of my best LA customers is moving to LL and is probably taking some Xds with her, having already traded in her Genesis speakers. Maybe they understand physics out here a little better :D

John,

I've known BOTH the benefits and tradeoffs of how crossover slopes affect dispersion for some
time.

At the time I pointed the error out to Kim Ryrie, I didn't know that he had already owned up to it
in another forum to which I am not a member.

I'm just surprised that he made such an egregious error in the first place; it wasn't subtle.
I had the pleasure of meeting Kim at this years CES. Nice guy and very low key. This posts comes off as egotistical.

I had the pleasure of meeting Kim at this years CES. Nice guy and very low key. This posts comes off as egotistical.

It wouldn't be a Morbius post if had not, unfortunately.

Kim's a great guy, very cool.

I had the pleasure of meeting Kim at this years CES. Nice guy and very low key. This posts comes off as egotistical.
Randy,

I'm sure he's a nice guy. It's just that he hyped his product with a claim that wasn't true.

Probably not the first - won't be the last.

I just expected better from someone as nice as he appears to be.

Actually, one of my best LA customers is moving to LL and is probably taking some Xds with her, having already traded in her Genesis speakers. Maybe they understand physics out here a little better :D
John,

My theory has always been that it's the altitude.

I just wanted to post this in honor of Greg and John, are resident flame warrior duelists :).

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/Assets/duelists.jpg

In a perpetual personal feud, Duelists generally don't menace anyone but each other, unless, of course, another Warrior foolishly gets between them. They may not even remember what started the fight, but now they seize every opportunity to go at each other. When the other Warriors eventually weary of their endless kvetching the Duelists will be shouted down or Nanny will ban them. Even after getting the heave-ho from one forum, however, it is not unusual for them to seek each other out in other forums to renew their fight.

I just expected better from someone as nice as he appears to be.

So, your own personal plan is for everyone to expect nothing from you? :D

It's just that he hyped his product with a claim that wasn't true.

Which claim what *that*?

John,

I've known BOTH the benefits and tradeoffs of how crossover slopes affect dispersion for some
time.

At the time I pointed the error out to Kim Ryrie, I didn't know that he had already owned up to it
in another forum to which I am not a member.

I'm just surprised that he made such an egregious error in the first place; it wasn't subtle.

I had the pleasure of meeting Kim at this years CES. Nice guy and very low key. This posts comes off as egotistical.
But no one else at this forum, including without limitation John, ever posts anything egotistical. :rolleyes:

Indeed, about 1 year ago John promised he was leaving the 20K+ Forum because those that did post here were not intelligent. Search the archives if you disbelieve. In other words, if you disagree with John, you are not intelligent.

Give me a fuc***g break.

Ron, I'm not sure I follow the logic of your post directed at Randy. Is it:

"John is more egotistical than Morbius therefore your criticism of Morbius in incorrect".

or

"John is egotistical therefore he cancels out any possibly egotistical post by Morbius".

or

"I think John is the a$$hole therefore your comment towards Morbius is uncalled for".

or

"Morbius may have made an egotistical post but John is a much bigger a$$hole so give me a f*cking break".

Of course there there are other possible interpretations as well, I'm just trying to follow your fuzzy logic :D.

If you can zoom in enough you can get most of the part numbers then run them through a mouser catalog and the price will be funny. Most of that stuff costs less than 5 dollars. Some of them like the little blue caps are less than 25 cents. Like much in the audiophille world people are fooled by high price, market speak and zero science.


This is so true. One can build a amp for 100$, say some fancy word that don't make any sense and sell it for stupid prices.

Just look at the review of the 40K$ CD player in Stereophile that "sounded great", but measured like a 4 year old have made it! :D

you need to be selective

Everyone in your group MUST decide NOT to take it. Be prepared for a slight fall off in your revenue over the next three-six months BUT then what you will find in your clientele will be so different that you will thank me. Remember..."it is quality and not quanity". Stop pissing and moaning about what Medicare and Medicaid pays you which is less than what your plumber gets--and he charges before he provides services. Doctors are a bunch of wimps who do nothing but cry about their problems. Step to the plate and take control of your destiny rather than letting 3rd party payors dictate your life. First thing you need to do is dump Medicaid and then Medicare


I'm not pissing and moaning. Most of the doctors in our group view treating those patients(esp. the Medicare population) as a duty. We are the only multi-specialty group in our small town of around 20,000(drawing population of around 100,000) and those people would have to go 1.5 to 2 hours away to get care if we didn't see them.

Hey Q^3, the answer is: yes!

Ron, I'm not sure I follow the logic of your post directed at Randy. Is it:

"John is more egotistical than Morbius therefore your criticism of Morbius in incorrect".

or

"John is egotistical therefore he cancels out any possibly egotistical post by Morbius".

or

"I think John is the a$$hole therefore your comment towards Morbius is uncalled for".

or

"Morbius may have made an egotistical post but John is a much bigger a$$hole so give me a f*cking break".

Of course there there are other possible interpretations as well, I'm just trying to follow your fuzzy logic :D.Or perhaps Kim is a big a$$hole because he was hawking his product with dubious claims when we know that no other high end product salesman does that? The fact that he then admits his error is a sign of his lack of morals and he should have known better and need I go on? As far as John goes, there is no hope.

Give ME a fuc***g break!

Or perhaps Kim is a big a$$hole because he was hawking his product with dubious claims when we know that no other high end product salesman does that? The fact that he then admits his error is a sign of his lack of morals and he should have known better and need I go on? As far as John goes, there is no hope.

Randy,

My whole point in bringing this up wasn't to be egotistical.

As usual, in a previous post John contended that I finally figured out how crossover slopes
affect dispersion; as though I didn't know this previously.

I'm pointing out that I DO understand both the advantages and tradeoffs [ which John ignores]

I found out about the erroneous claim from John; and recognized it as a bogus claim.

If John truly understood the implications; he would ALSO have recognized the bogus nature
of the claim; but he didn't - and passed it on as if he were passing on authoritative info.

We know that the claim was indeed bogus, since Kim Ryrie acknowledges it.

If I'm as clueless on the operation of Xd as John claims, and John is the font of all truth on it,
then why did I identify the erroneous claim, when John didn't?

Everyone, myself included; makes mistakes at times.

The question is what percentage of the time is someone correct and tthe percentage of the
time that they are wrong. Those percentages vary tremendously depending on the person.

Randy,

My whole point in bringing this up wasn't to be egotistical.

As usual, in a previous post John contended that I finally figured out how crossover slopes
affect dispersion; as though I didn't know this previously.

I'm pointing out that I DO understand both the advantages and tradeoffs [ which John ignores]

I found out about the erroneous claim from John; and recognized it as a bogus claim.

If John truly understood the implications; he would ALSO have recognized the bogus nature
of the claim; but he didn't - and passed it on as if he were passing on authoritative info.

We know that the claim was indeed bogus, since Kim Ryrie acknowledges it.

If I'm as clueless on the operation of Xd as John claims, and John is the font of all truth on it,
then why did I identify the erroneous claim, when John didn't?

Everyone, myself included; makes mistakes at times.

The question is what percentage of the time is someone correct and tthe percentage of the
time that they are wrong. Those percentages vary tremendously depending on the person.I don't excuse John, like I said no hope. I am not sure that Kim is the technical person (I don't believe he designed the DEQX). He was not the one that did the slopes (60 DB) on the demo that I sat through. Indeed, when someone said that the highs were a little shrill, he agreed. I am not sure mistakes as a percentage are the best way to judge a person's character. You are no doubt a genius, but that does not make your character any better than someone who is average or less in intelligence. I am certain you are great guy, but I think your post came off as egotistical because of the wording. Would you have said the same thing to Kim in person as you posted?

Hi

I must say the price of the item bothers me... I mean the other Lamm which I have heard by the way and related this to this forum a while back was more than impressive. I have not heard it on OB speakers and from all account it is great I have no doubt.

Now my questions and I am open to your criticisms:

Aside from 3 dB more in loudness How much better this amp is, to justify costing almost $100,000 more than OB's (I hope ) current Lamm amp?
Don't you think there exist presently amps that cost much less that would deliver many if not all of the subjective qualities of this amp?

Come on people the build quality is not 126,000 and the parts are no great shake...

Well I will drop it there enjoy it but I think such pricing for an amp is madness... My opinion..




P.S. $126,290 is a Ref 3 + MAXX-2 + Lamm 2.1 + EMMLABS CD Transpoert + EMM Labs Procesor + Valahalla Cables Just to put things in perspective...

I found out about the erroneous claim from John; and recognized it as a bogus claim.

Again, which "bogus claim" was made by Kim Ryrie?

Or perhaps Kim is a big a$$hole because he was hawking his product with dubious claims when we know that no other high end product salesman does that? The fact that he then admits his error is a sign of his lack of morals and he should have known better and need I go on? As far as John goes, there is no hope.

Give ME a fuc***g break!
:) ;)

P.S. $126,290 is a Ref 3 + MAXX-2 + Lamm 2.1 + EMMLABS CD Transpoert + EMM Labs Procesor + Valahalla Cables Just to put things in perspective...

MSRP on ML 2.1 is ~$30K---the best amp I have ever heard.

At CES this week an audiophile friend of mine was speaking to Vladimir who told my friend that the ML 2.1 sounds best with the X-2 Alexandria. Why would I want to switch? :)

I'm not pissing and moaning. Most of the doctors in our group view treating those patients(esp. the Medicare population) as a duty. We are the only multi-specialty group in our small town of around 20,000(drawing population of around 100,000) and those people would have to go 1.5 to 2 hours away to get care if we didn't see them.

Thank you for having your heart in exactly the right place.

MSRP on ML 2.1 is ~$30K---the best amp I have ever heard.

A truly great amp wouldn't be audible at all.

At CES this week an audiophile friend of mine was speaking to Vladimir who told my friend that the ML 2.1 sounds best with the X-2 Alexandria.

again..."sounds"? Anyway, something about which to think.

if you disagree with John, you are not intelligent..

No, but you might not be correct. I have been known to be right at times, you know, even against the mighty Morbius (who still won't admit he didn't know how crossover slopes affect dispersion in a system)

No, John, I accurately quoted your previous comments to the 20K+ crowd.

I (think I ) do agree with you on one point, however, namely that a great amp is not audible at all.

I might choose different language to express what I believe you are trying to state (at the obvious risk of making an assumption here). Some might describe the ultimate goal here as aspiring to achieve neutrality. Some use the language that the gear should get out of the way of the music. A lot of other trite expressions are commonly used.

I would state that the goal ought to be: put the amp behind a curtain and listen to the music. If you can correctly identify the amp as being tube, solid state, battery powered, or dilytheum crystal (spelling?) powered, then perhaps something is not quite right.

This, of course, does not address the flavor choices that one might otherwise choose to color the sound to one's taste.

Unfortunately, the "taste chasers" claim they're seeking "better" rather than "better for them". Then when a true advancement in performance happens, they don't like it because it wasn't made to suit their tastes.

In any case, I like discussing audio, even debating it, but quarreling with people who think they know everything about everything and try to put themselves over other people is generally a waste of time.

As long as you're not personally attacking me, I'm actually a pretty nice and reasonable guy. If I said "the sky is blue" here, I'd get personally attacked for it.

As long as you're not personally attacking me, I'm actually a pretty nice and reasonable guy

The mods need to put a "sticky" to that post because that is the funniest thing I've ever read from you :D

I don't excuse John, like I said no hope. I am not sure that Kim is the technical person (I don't believe he designed the DEQX). He was not the one that did the slopes (60 DB) on the demo that I sat through. Indeed, when someone said that the highs were a little shrill, he agreed. I am not sure mistakes as a percentage are the best way to judge a person's character. You are no doubt a genius, but that does not make your character any better than someone who is average or less in intelligence. I am certain you are great guy, but I think your post came off as egotistical because of the wording. Would you have said the same thing to Kim in person as you posted?
Randy,

I don't think we're judging Kim "as a person". That judgment doesn't involve intelligence and the
like.

I don't proffer judging a person's character on the basis of what percentage of the time they are
correct. I only advocate "track record" as a metric of the probability that the person is correct,
until you can actually ascertain the truthfullness of their statements.

I wasn't trying to put Kim down by saying I expected more - although my wording may merit
that interpretation. On the contrary, I've heard good things about Kim; and therefore I am
somewhat surprised by the error.

It's like discovering that Einstein made an algebraic error. It doesn't diminish the accomplishment
of Einstein - it just means that you don't expect Einstein to make a simple error in algebra when
he did tensor calculus so flawlessly.

I'm sorry, but what *again* did Kim lie about in the first place?!?

Oh, that's right, *nothing*.

Randy,

I don't think we're judging Kim "as a person".
.I guess it is just the way "words" are used. For example, I was addressing your statement, and you have now introduced others to back up what you have said ("we're"). Look, I am not that interested in continuing this because it really doesn't go anywhere. If you say you didn't mean to judge him as a person, I accept that. Continue with your exchange with John if you like because I don't really care about that. It is going to happen no matter what. I just hate to see anyone brought into it that can't really defend themselves (because they aren't part of this forum). Truce!

I'm sorry, but what *again* did Kim lie about in the first place?!?

Oh, that's right, *nothing*.
John,

Not a lie - but an "admission of error"!!!

It's the same admission of error that you acknowledged in your post #56 of this thread,
that Kim Ryrie explained in the DEQX forum.

Try to keep up.

Not a lie - but an "admission of error"!!!

It's the same admission of error that you acknowledged in your post #56 of this thread,
that Kim Ryrie explained in the DEQX forum.

Try to keep up.

If you're speaking of the reality that steep slopes will have ringing (which largely cancels acoustically), when did Kim say that it didn't exist? You're trying to conflate an "admission of imperfection" with being guilty of something. Kim brought this up earlier. Since you're not a DEQX owner or user, you'd probably not have gotten the "memo".

You are the one lacking in character and intellectual honesty, not Kim. God forbid that all electronics manufacturers don't run to you to confess all the imperfections in their gear, Lord Morbius.

If you're speaking of the reality that steep slopes will have ringing (which largely cancels acoustically), when did Kim say that it didn't exist? You're trying to conflate an "admission of imperfection" with being guilty of something. Kim brought this up earlier. Since you're not a DEQX owner or user, you'd probably not have gotten the "memo".

You are the one lacking in character and intellectual honesty, not Kim. God forbid that all electronics manufacturers don't run to you to confess all the imperfections in their gear, Lord Morbius.
John,

I'm just countering your claim that I didn't know how steep crossover slopes worked in the Xd.

I merely pointing out that I immediately latched onto an "error" or "imperfection", if that's what you
want to call it now - that evidently escaped you and Kim Ryrie, although Kim evidently realized
the problem and reported it on the DEQX forum.

How is it that someone who didn't understand how the DEQX works according to you; namely
me; immediately latched onto a flaw, error, or imperfection of the system? How does one do
that without understanding how the system works?

I'm citing that as evidence that I DO UNDERSTAND the workings of DEQX and steep slopes
in the Xd. Evidently I understand it better than you do. After all, I'm the one that caught the
flaw we're talking about; when it escaped you totally, and evidently escaped Kim temporarily.

I'm just countering your claim that I didn't know how steep crossover slopes worked in the Xd.

I believe there are, what, 30 pages of you *asking* me how steep crossovers affect dispersion because your contention was that they didn't. Funny how you want to rewrite history to not look intellectually challenged.

I merely pointing out that I immediately latched onto an "error" or "imperfection", if that's what you
want to call it now - that evidently escaped you and Kim Ryrie, although Kim evidently realized
the problem and reported it on the DEQX forum.

WHAT?!? Talk about EGO. Kim is an engineer and clearly knew about "ringing". You asked him about it and he explained it to you. He was asked about it on DEQX forum long before that and when you brought it up, I explained that I remember something coming up about it and Kim explaining that it exists, but acoustically cancels, at least in the horizontal axis. NOW you want to act as though you *discovered* this?!? That's, well, I'd say unbelievable except it is you. You are really Al Gore, aren't you?

How is it that someone who didn't understand how the DEQX works according to you; namely
me; immediately latched onto a flaw, error, or imperfection of the system? How does one do
that without understanding how the system works?

You understand math, you just don't understand audio very well. Want to go over your incredible "half-wavelength" theory on proper placement of dipoles again, Mr Brainiac?

I'm citing that as evidence that I DO UNDERSTAND the workings of DEQX and steep slopes
in the Xd. Evidently I understand it better than you do. After all, I'm the one that caught the
flaw we're talking about; when it escaped you totally, and evidently escaped Kim temporarily.

You didn't catch the flaw, it was already known and discussed long before our argument over how steep crossovers function.

Keep up your fantasies.

I believe there are, what, 30 pages of you *asking* me how steep crossovers affect dispersion because your contention was that they didn't. Funny how you want to rewrite history to not look intellectually challenged.
John,

Talk about rewriting history. I said that steep crossovers can't totally CORRECT dispersion
errors. One is in the frequency domain; the other in the polar domain.


WHAT?!? Talk about EGO. Kim is an engineer and clearly knew about "ringing". You asked him about it and he explained it to you. He was asked about it on DEQX forum long before that and when you brought it up, I explained that I remember something coming up about it and Kim explaining that it exists, but acoustically cancels, at least in the horizontal axis.

I'm refering to the fact that I wrote an e-mail to Kim Ryrie explaining why it DIDN'T
acoustically cancel; and I received a reply for Kim Ryrie that I was CORRECT - it
DOESN'T acoustically cancel. John Atkinson's measurements also reflect this.
If it "acoustically cancels"; how did JA's microphones pick it up?

I believe I posted Kim Ryrie's reply that I was correct in one of our previous discussions.

If you knew this as well as you think you do - then you'd be up to speed on this.


You understand math, you just don't understand audio very well. Want to go over your incredible "half-wavelength" theory on proper placement of dipoles again, Mr Brainiac?
Audio is physics and physics can be expressed in terms of math.

The "half-wavelength" discussion is correct. If you had the mathematics background, you'd
understand that. If you've improved your mathematical acuity in the mean time, I can explain
it to you again.


You didn't catch the flaw, it was already known and discussed long before our argument over how steep crossovers function.
I recall that at the time you were expounding as to how the Xd was "perfect" and that there
weren't any flaws - that I just didn't understand how they work.

Now you say that you, or at least somebody; knew about the flaws all the time.

Which is it?

BTW, I had a chance recently to hear the NHT Xd again in San Jose.
It exaggerated the size of the image of the female vocalist; that or somewhere on this planet
is a female vocalist with a 4 foot wide mouth. Dispersion for dispersion's sake is not a good
design principle; it must be tempered.

John,

I'm refering to the fact that I wrote an e-mail to Kim Ryrie explaining why it DIDN'T
acoustically cancel; and I received a reply for Kim Ryrie that I was CORRECT - it
DOESN'T acoustically cancel. John Atkinson's measurements also reflect this.

He said it doesn't perfectly. This is obvious. However, as I have said repeatedly, it *largely* cancels. This is the case. As usual, you insert words into people's mouths, then claim they are incorrect. It's a unique version of shadow boxing. Your actual opponent doesn't exist except in your mind.

I believe I posted Kim Ryrie's reply that I was correct in one of our previous discussions.

That it doesn't *completely* cancel is true. That it is mostly canceled in the horizontal domain where it counts is also true. A little bit of off axis (above and below the listening axis) ringing is no worse (and probably better) than off axis acoustic interference from shallow drivers. Therefore, as an objectionable artifact, it essentially is non-existent.

Audio is physics and physics can be expressed in terms of math.

Can be, but it wouldn't work that well because we don't listen with two calculators and our brain isn't a computer. As usual, you forget psychacoustics in your mathematical "formulations".

The "half-wavelength" discussion is correct. If you had the mathematics background, you'd
understand that. If you've improved your mathematical acuity in the mean time, I can explain
it to you again.

Only for setting the lowest useful frequency response of the system. But it *still* has nothing to do with how to place a speaker for best imaging. You're practicing bad science.

I recall that at the time you were expounding as to how the Xd was "perfect" and that there
weren't any flaws - that I just didn't understand how they work.

When did I say the speakers were "perfect" or had no flaws?!? Again, you put wrong words in someone's mouth and then say "WRONG!!!" I said no such thing. A big step *towards* perfection? Yes. Yes they are.

Now you say that you, or at least somebody; knew about the flaws all the time.
Which is it?

Since I never said the speakers were flawless or perfect..........

BTW, I had a chance recently to hear the NHT Xd again in San Jose.
It exaggerated the size of the image of the female vocalist; that or somewhere on this planet
is a female vocalist with a 4 foot wide mouth. Dispersion for dispersion's sake is not a good
design principle; it must be tempered.

That's why they make......room treatment. I don't have that problem at all. You can put a heavily flawed speaker in a flawed room and spend tens of $thousands on amps and cabling or you can put a more idealized speaker in a flawed room and then work on fixing the room. We're doing room treatment for a $40K Meridian/Xd system and it is only going to cost about $1000. And, yes, it will image beautifully when I'm done.

Can be, but it wouldn't work that well because we don't listen with two calculators and our brain isn't a computer. As usual, you forget psychacoustics in your mathematical "formulations".

John,

The pressure waves in the room are what can be described mathematically.

We don't hear with calculators - but that calculator can be used to figure out what the
pressure wll be that our ears sense. If the laws of physics tell you the pressure has to be
a certain value - then that's what our ears will sense - and psychoacoustics is downstream
of that.


When did I say the speakers were "perfect" or had no flaws?!? Again, you put wrong words in someone's mouth and then say "WRONG!!!" I said no such thing. A big step *towards* perfection? Yes. Yes they are.

Since I never said the speakers were flawless or perfect..........


Oh BROTHER!!! After the NHT / Wilson "shootout" at OB's house, I explained how I heard the
Xds "botch" the sound of the cymbals - that the Wilson X-2 handled flawlessly; and you kept
saying that the way the Xd reproduced it was what HAD to be on the recording.

For months we heard how Stereophile was going to review the Xd and proclaim them the best
speaker by far. Then when Kal Rubinson actually did the review, he rated the B&W 802D
better at "eerie recognition". You claimed the Xd would beat the Wilson X-2 and Wilson Maxx 2;
and it couldn't better the B&W 802D.

The two of you just crack me up

The two of you just crack me up
OB,

Yes - I'm outta here!

John,

The pressure waves in the room are what can be described mathematically.

We don't hear with calculators - but that calculator can be used to figure out what the
pressure wll be that our ears sense. If the laws of physics tell you the pressure has to be
a certain value - then that's what our ears will sense - and psychoacoustics is downstream
of that.

We weren't speaking about setting up bass response at the time.



Oh BROTHER!!! After the NHT / Wilson "shootout" at OB's house, I explained how I heard the
Xds "botch" the sound of the cymbals - that the Wilson X-2 handled flawlessly; and you kept
saying that the way the Xd reproduced it was what HAD to be on the recording.

Ah, now who is using the term "flawless"?!? If the tweeter on the X2 is anything like that of the Maxx 2, it measures far worse than the tweeter on Xd, which is +/- about 1dB between 2kHz and 10kHz. The response of the Maxx 2 in that area is 2-3 times as inaccurate. Morever, the Xd, by design, has better off axis dispersion, so it isn't finicky like the Wilsons. You have a funny definition of "flawless" which, in your dictionary, apparently means "whatever OB's system does".

For months we heard how Stereophile was going to review the Xd and proclaim them the best
speaker by far.

No, I said that would almost certainly not happen because if they did that, it would *wreck* the high-end industry as we know it by validating a less expensive option as objectively superior.

Then when Kal Rubinson actually did the review, he rated the B&W 802D
better at "eerie recognition". You claimed the Xd would beat the Wilson X-2 and Wilson Maxx 2;
and it couldn't better the B&W 802D.

Eerie Recognition™ is an interesting attribute for a speaker. What Kal refused to offer up was the many ways in which the Xds outperformed the B&Ws - sweetspot, soundstaging, resolution, midrange/treble accuracy, bass accuracy/precision. I have repeatedly said that the Xd system would measure better in dispersion and accuracy than either the B&Ws or the Wilsons. Any and all of them. This remains true. I never said that biased reviewers who always "prefer" the more expensive products would *like* the sound of Xd better. But it does follow with your modus operandi of putting words in people's mouths. I hear Atlanta is looking for a new DA.

What Kal refused to offer up was the many ways in which the Xds outperformed the B&Ws - sweetspot, soundstaging, resolution, midrange/treble accuracy, bass accuracy/precision...
John,

ROTFLMAO - I just had to respond to this.

When a reviewer like Kal doesn't heap praise on your Xd and prefers something else, John says,

"What Kal refused to offer up was ..."

Perhaps he "refused to offer up" because he didn't find it to be true.

John--for a guy who profers to be the worlds biggest Xd salesman I simply don't know how you can say that when all you do is sit and crank out post after post here as welll as on other forums. No wonder your wife left you.

When do you ever get time to rub one out? :D

Yes - I'm outta here!

Typical Morbius. Make a series of false accusations and then run. :rolleyes:

We weren't speaking about setting up bass response at the time.

John,

Right - we were talking about the full spectrum.

We can prevent bass cancellation with the front wall spacing; and a
little "toe-in" will send the back-wave treble off into the sides of the room,
so that one doesn't perceive an "early reflection".


No, I said that would almost certainly not happen because if they did that, it would *wreck* the high-end industry as we know it by validating a less expensive option as objectively superior.

Yes - it's all a big conspiracy to prevent the Xd from taking its rightful place as the "perfect"
speaker / product.

Talk about Fantasies!

It exaggerated the size of the image of the female vocalist; that or somewhere on this planet
is a female vocalist with a 4 foot wide mouth.
I just had to repeat this line! Outside the world of music reproduction, the imagery and connotations are, well.... ;)

We can prevent bass cancellation with the front wall spacing

Um, no, that would be entirely incorrect, genius.

and a
little "toe-in" will send the back-wave treble off into the sides of the room,
so that one doesn't perceive an "early reflection".

And that would also be almost entirely incorrect. That might work with a laser beam, but not with sound. Reduce? A little.

Yes - it's all a big conspiracy to prevent the Xd from taking its rightful place as the "perfect"
speaker / product.

No, it's business as usual. The rule is that you never compare products of the same price, you compare to a more expensive product, proclaim the more expensive product to be "better", but the affordable product is a good value. Kal knows what Xds do better, but it's bad form to state that an affordable product does anything better. Unfortunately, Xd is more than just a good value, it's ground-breaking and measures as such. Whether you like it or not is of no consequence, though I do note that you keep going back to listen :D

If you want to read an intellectually honest review of Xd, read The $ensible Sound article.

I just had to repeat this line! Outside the world of music reproduction, the imagery and connotations are, well.... ;)

Sounds like the perfect date for Morbius to go with his 4' wide ego ;)

John...has anyone ever told you that you are trying to stuff a dew worm up a wild cat's ass??

Is your store vacant today or have you just sold to everyone in New Mexico that there is nothing left for you to do

I talked to about 15 people and sold about $4K today between sparring with Morbius, actually. Not bad for a mellow Saturday.

As for dew worms, Morbius is putting words in my mouth and in Kim Ryrie's mouth. Not surprising since he's in Nancy Pelosi's district. Pretty lame tactic to accuse people of saying things they never said.

I Not surprising since he's in Nancy Pelosi's district.
John,

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG - a thousand times WRONG!!!!

True to form, you can't even read the Congressional map!

Nancy Pelosi is NOT my Congressional Representative.
Her district is on the other side of the Bay.

Livermore is in California's 10th District represented by Ellen Tauscher:

http://www.house.gov/tauscher/

http://www.house.gov/tauscher/district.shtm

Here's a map of California's 10th District served by Ellen Tauscher:

http://www.house.gov/tauscher/maps.shtml

John,

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG - a thousand times WRONG!!!!

Ummmm, fine, but I think that was "one time wrong". Learn to count, Mr Math.

Livermore is in California's 10th District represented by Ellen Tauscher:

Wow. Big difference :rolleyes:

The point remains whether it's Tauscher or Pelosi. Same difference.

:
The point remains whether it's Tausher or Pelosi. Same difference.
John,

WRONG again!!!

Why don't you do a little research before you expound on anything?

In fact, I've heard from collegues at work who brief the Senators, Representatives,
and their staffers on Laboratory programs that Tauscher and Pelosi are on opposite
sides of the fence on most issues.

Pelosi is liberal; and Tauscher is conservative; one of the "Blue Dog Democrats".
She used to work on Wall Street and became one of the first women to hold a seat
on the New York Stock Exchange:

http://www.house.gov/tauscher/biography.shtml

For example, Tauscher is a big supporter of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
and Sandia National Laboratory - Livermore. In fact Tauscher often states that she is
the only Representative that has 2 national laboratories in their district. She has been
a big supporter of the National Ignition Facility at Livermore.

Pelosi, on the other hand; thinks these facilities are evil incarnate. She's a San Francisco
liberal.

One would be hard-pressed to find Congressional Representatives more different than
Tauscher and Pelosi.

WRONG again!!!

No, not wrong. My point (learn to read, please) is that you put words in people's mouths and then say "wrong!" so it makes them *seem* like they're wrong. This is a typical political tactic, such as the "imminent threat" mantra used against the President. Most politicians seem to use this, Pelosi comes to mind, but either way, it doesn't make you any less guilty of doing the very same thing *no matter who you congress woman is*. Get it yet Mr Intellectual Dishonesty?!?

No, not wrong. My point (learn to read, please) is that you put words in people's mouths and then say "wrong!" so it makes them *seem* like they're wrong. This is a typical political tactic, such as the "imminent threat" mantra used against the President. Most politicians seem to use this, Pelosi comes to mind, but either way, it doesn't make you any less guilty of doing the very same thing *no matter who you congress woman is*. Get it yet Mr Intellectual Dishonesty?!?
John,

I can read!!! You said, "The point remains whether it's Tausher or Pelosi. Same difference."

You ascribe a trait of intellectual dishonesty that you've noted in Pelosi when you state
"Pelosi comes to mind,". However, have you ever noted that trait in Tauscher?

If not - then why are they "Same difference"?

Honestly, I've never encountered a more muddle-headed "thinker" than you!!!

No wonder nobody can communicate with you.

What certain members of the U.S. House of Representatives have to do with audio, I don't know
beyond John's feeble attempts to tar the citizens of a given Congressional District with the
traits he's noted in the Representative for that district.

As Randy stated above; you're a lost cause!!!!

Looks like all one has to do to have this sparring going is to use the word "Xd".. John would jump in and Greg would retort..


From the Lamm Picture to these Alimentall/Morbius exchanges , is there a better definition for OT

Greg and John: Please drop it.. Do not give more fuel to an inane debate. This is way beneath both of you

Greg and John: Please drop it.. Do not give more fuel to an inane debate.

Frantz,

Sure.

This is way beneath both of you

... and THAT'S saying something!

John,

I can read!!! You said, "The point remains whether it's Tausher or Pelosi. Same difference."

I meant basically "close enough to make the point". You use cheap political tactics. Most of them do it, therefore "same difference". You were trying to escape my point by obsessing about something largely inconsequential to what I was stating.

Greg and John: Please drop it.. Do not give more fuel to an inane debate. This is way beneath both of you

Hey, I can go high or low! :)