Lamm Industries ML3 Signature monoblock power amplifier Specifications

Sidebar 1: Specifications

Description: Tubed monoblock power amplifier (ML3) with outboard power supply (ML3-PS). Tube complement: one 12AX7, four 6N30P-DR, one GM-70 (ML3); six 12AX3 (ML3-PS). Output power: 32W into 4, 8, or 16 ohms at 3% THD (32dBW). Frequency response at 30W into 16 ohms: 20Hz–20kHz, +0, –1.5dB. Input impedance: 41k ohms. Input sensitivity: 850mV for maximum output. Slew rate (61.96V peak–peak): 5V/µs. Signal/noise ratio, ref. 4V RMS into 16 ohms: typically 92dB, A-weighted.
Dimensions: ML3 and MLS-PS (each): 15.8" (406mm) W by 8.2" (210mm) H by 20.2" (518mm) D. Weights: ML3, 79 lbs (35.9kg); ML3-PS, 80.1 lbs (36.4kg).
Serial numbers of units reviewed: G10029, G10030.
Price: $139,490/pair. Approximate number of dealers: 10.
Manufacturer: Lamm Industries Inc., 2513 East 21st Street, Brooklyn, NY 11235. Tel: (718) 368-0181. Fax: (718) 368-0140. Web: www.lammindustries.com.

Share | |
Comments
popluhv's picture
Finally!

For some reason these amps really piqued my interest when they came out (always been a fan of the laboratory aesthetic), but I could find little in the way of a review other than show reports.  What really made my day was to find Jansch and Renbourn were used for the review; always nice to match the calibre of the music with the system! 

MVBC's picture
Lammings

$140,000 in order to get stock metal boxes, no significantly special rare component, basic cabling inside, that ultimately will bring "more-than-adequate" bass and yet will be able to ruthlessly discriminate between  speakers cables, speed light % or whatever.

And we're warned it's nowhere near the real thing... despite its muscular 32w feeding $200,000 average 92dB/w/m sensitivity speakers! Who would have guessed?

At this rate, it'll be cheaper to buy a lifetime of live concert tickets and live forever after with the memory of these performances! crying

John Atkinson's picture
Sigh...

MVBC wrote:
And we're warned it's nowhere near the real thing... despite its muscular 32w feeding $200,000 average 92dB/w/m sensitivity speakers! Who would have guessed?

It's all too easy for someone to carp from the sidelines, and yes, these amplifiers are silly-priced. But until you have actually listened to them driving the Wilson speakers, as Michael and I have done, your opinion is meaningless.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

MVBC's picture
Silly priced

these amplifiers are silly-priced

You said it. So why don't you provide information such as the real cost of designing and building one unit and a thorough investigation to what should be the price as a result since you acknowledge the present price is silly?

Nothing in this open chassis suggests anything special in manufacturing or parts. A set of bulbs at about $120 is rather mundane... That this amp would sound good is the least this stuff can do!

But what is also too easy is to flog outrageous priced product and what amounts to a large slack on the technical level (euphemism such as more-than-adequate, in spite of bloomier, less than that attacks etc... when elsewhere you are counting the 0.0001%) given to this product as an argument of authority. Information over promote.

John Atkinson's picture
Missing the point...again

MVBC wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
these amplifiers are silly-priced

You said it. So why don't you provide information such as the real cost of designing and building one unit and a thorough investigation to what should be the price as a result since you acknowledge the present price is silly?

I meant "silly" as in super-expensive, not that the price was out of proportion to its manufacturing cost or its sound quality. If you think this amplifier is over-priced, then please, do not buy it.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

MVBC's picture
Silly?

I perfectly understand, "super-expensive", so please justify why with information instead of cult peddling. Are the transformers made of pure gold, the capacitances in platinum, since you kindly offered that the bulbs are about $120 bucks... Enlighten us

enlightened

P.S.: For instance, some expensive speaker manufacturer is billeting their enclosures from solid aluminum. I may not buy their product but I indeed appreciate the information and do understand the process would make their product more expensive than particule board kitchen cabinets. Do I make myself clear?  

 

ChrisS's picture
Everything, including the kitchen cabinet

You know the difference between this power amplifier and a kitchen cabinet, but you're asking someone who's not at all involved with the design, manufacture, and marketing of this product to explain and apologize for its cost?

Does that make sense?

MVBC's picture
Do you make sense?

No I am asking someone who supposedly offers a critical assessment of these products to offer information instead of arguments of authority. If it's to rehash the manufacturer's website, then what's the point? Where is the value to a potential buyer reading that stuff?

gozoogle's picture
Pricing 101

"Are the transformers made of pure gold, the capacitances in platinum"

What's with the obsession over the cost of the components?  Who cares what the cost of the components are?  Are you planning to melt it down for scrap cost?  It's like saying you wouldn't pay more for a camera lens that performs better (because of the optics design) if it wasn't made out of expensive fancy materials.  Or, all chipsets/DSPs are just made out of the same materials, right, so who cares about firmware/software?

The reviewer provided a critical, albeit subjective, review, along with objective measurements of the product performance.  It's up to the buyer to decide whether that level of performance is worth the price.  End of story.  If you think another product is better at a lower price, don't buy it.

John Atkinson's picture
Really missing the point

MVBC wrote:
I am asking someone who supposedly offers a critical assessment of these products to offer information instead of arguments of authority.

I think you are reading a different review from what Stereophile published. We described this amplifier, informed readers what it cost, discussed how it sounded, and offered a full set of measurements, along with its specifications and details of the system used to audition it.

No, we didn't condemn it because of its very high price. While that will restict total sales of the Lamm amplifier, that alone should not preclude recommendation.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

MVBC's picture
Not missing one bit

On the contrary... I never asked you to condemn anything, on price or on whatever else but to explain what in the components, manufacturing etc... can justify such price. I even took an example to make myself clear. Yet, you keep misrepresenting my position. Fine. [flame deleted by John Atkinson]

Doctor Fine's picture
A complete misreading of audio standards

Michael sets up the typical audio ignorant straw man arguement at the outset of the article:  "Unlike Video which has standards such as grey scale, tracking accuracy blah blah blah---Audio has NO standards and is simply whatever the mastering engineer prefers."

Well, no.  Actually this is totally wrong and part of the reason the High End is so full of horse puckey.  Baloney about audio seems to permeate the Domestic "experts" and I for one would like for it stop and for domestic audio to start advancing once again leaving behind the snake oil and mystery which is so easily sold to the misinformed.

There are in fact many standards employed by mastering engineers.  Simply peruse the lastest coffe table marvel from Recording Architecture, a british audio firm which is leading the charge to standardise mix, mastering and post audio playback rooms. 

The list of audio qualities that they enclude in every project is as long as your arm.  It is all designed to avoid the misery of old thinking---where every listening room had a different take on the balance and thus the hapless professional would go mad trying to find consistency in their work from one room to another.  And from one playback type (Pro Audio) to another (Domestic Audio).

Even a superficial investigation of the big shots of the mix world would immediately reveal their dedication to standardising domestic playback results.  The playback accuracy attained by the world renown mix engineers is a direct result of the "correctness" of their studio playback equipment and rooms. It is in fact part of the reason these guys make the big bucks.  Their stuff WORKS.

Please go look on line at this subject.  These guys work their butts off to make consistent standards of excellence which translate across the audio medium.  There is a TON of stuff which audiophiles should be stealing in ideas from the masters in the recording industry.  The pro guys use OUR stuff all the time.  But thats just where they BEGIN.  Their attention to setup is astonishing compared to the slap dash way most domestic audio is built as systems.

Most top pros use better gear the YOU do Michael.  Wilsons are nice but I have seen lots of pro rooms where just the room itself cost twenty times what your entire system costs.

Apparently Michael has also been left out of the loop when it comes to the elaborate reference standards imposed on theater audio by THX.  Mike should visit some of the elaborate designs that this industry builds in the determination to standardise playback fidelity to a high standard of excellence.  Mix rooms may in some cases require the construction of actual movie theaters simply to make no mistake about what the consumer is supposed to hear.

I really do not appreciate this level of mis information coming from a professional audio publication.  Please cut it out.  Michael please go to school and learn what you are talking about.  I love your writing and you have a ton of street level cred and knowledge but this subject has apparently been completely left out of your education with glaring omission.

Site Map / Direct Links