| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Audio Discussions » Initial thoughts about new/old Lamm ML2s (216 posts, 11 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 4 of 11 (216 items) Select Pages:  « First ... « 2 3 4 5 6 » ... Last »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  A quest for a better SET...  Still, there is something in it....  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     3  64009  02-05-2005
  »  New  The Silence of the Lamms!..  Well, Lamms are not exactly fun anymore. ...  Audio Discussions  Forum     7  89173  06-12-2005
  »  New  Romy, how does the original ML2 sound in regards to acc..  Modification of Lamm’s SET...  Audio Discussions  Forum     5  67115  06-20-2005
  »  New  Lamm Industries: a special interview with a special com..  Buffer?...  Audio News Forum     105  1319188  09-18-2005
  »  New  Lamm hybrids: M1.2 vs. Lamm M1.1..  Lamm hybrids: M1.2 vs. Lamm M1.1...  Audio Discussions  Forum     0  30043  12-12-2007
  »  New  The short "6C33C Survival Guide"...  Ac filament.....  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     20  373403  12-18-2007
  »  New  Amplification and Consciousness...  Freedom of expression vs. something to say...  Playback Listening  Forum     15  113039  01-07-2008
  »  New  Relief from micro-arcing tube pins?..  Still Going......  Audio Discussions  Forum     6  55347  09-28-2008
03-24-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,644
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 61
Post ID: 4058
Reply to: 4053
Tube rush
My first guess would be that the hiss you are getting is "tube rush" form upstream rather than an artifact of any resistor/voltage divider.  This may mean you still have too much system gain.  Again, properly tubed ML2s make NO sound whatsoever, so keep looking upstream or to connections, per se.  In a hi-gain all-tubed system it's usually some hum or some hiss, pick your poison.  Romy's suggestion that a "clip" may be the culprit reminds me that any less-than-perfect connections can contribute noise, if only because overall HE system gain (obviously) amplifies even tiny/self noises right along with the signal.

I once traced system noise to tube pin/socket connections that I had carefully cleaned and "treated" with Caig Pro Gold.  This worked great for a little while, but the sound got way worse pretty quickly.  Carefull re-cleaning with isopropyl alcohol cleared it up.  Nothing but nothing on my tube pins/sockets now.

Best regards,
Paul S
03-25-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
jessie.dazzle


Paris, France
Posts 456
Joined on 04-23-2006

Post #: 62
Post ID: 4060
Reply to: 4058
Buzz-kill
Paul and Romy,

Thanks for the thoughts...

Romy, you may be right in suggesting that I am "going a little crazy in there" (I consider this a compliment btw)... so for now I decided to try some locally sourced precision metal film resistors (Vishays are not that easy to get over here in small quantities, even though I seem to remember the founder of Vishay being a Frenchman!).

All connections are now soldered, and this totally killed the buzz.

Result : No hiss or buzz issues : Music now plays against a nice quiet background.

Time to get back to work on the horns!

Thanks very much,

jd*


How to short-circuit evolution: Enshrine mediocrity.
03-25-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,644
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 63
Post ID: 4061
Reply to: 3978
When 6N6Ps go bad
No matter how often I go through it I still frequently get confused and disoriented when tubes go bad.  In this case I have been integrating a new (passive) pre-amp and a new (tubed) phono stage into the system, including trying various tubes and new output coupling caps in the phono stage.  And, of course, problems with the system coincided with testing the phono stage rather than surfacing during preamp/CD/bypass testing!

One thought I try to remember to hold is that no matter what system troubles one is presently having, the system IS/SHOULD BE capable of producing the best preformance one has ever gotten from it.  Yet in this case it took me a while to "see through" the new phono stage to the ML2s to trace declining performance back to fading 6N6Ps.  I actually changed the damping on my tonearm before it hit me and I remembered that I had not yet changed the 6N6Ps, because of the too-skinny pins on the new batch I had in the parts closet.  Well, I grudgingly bent and cleaned the pins, swapped in the new tubes, and voila'!  Too bad my present (and much-loved) fading phono cartridge is almost 5 years old, and to my knowledge it (Ortofion MC 3000 II) is no longer made...  (Any ideas for a master-tape-like replacement?)

Problems associated with fading 6N6Ps were a simultaneous fading of bass and a certain reticence, along with a decided "lack of conviction" that turns the music into so much sound.  In fact, it is interesting (and perhaps instructive) that I was able through various manipulations to superficially counter various problems as they arose; yet I was never able to get the music back until I replaced the fading 6N6Ps.  I can't think offhand of a better illustration of the difference between Romy's concepts of "strategic" and "tactical" changes.

The moral of the story is: Do as Lamm (now) says and keep the 6N6Ps fresh (and do it before you make other wholesale changes!).

Best regards,
Paul S
03-25-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,131
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 64
Post ID: 4062
Reply to: 4060
RN60 vs S102... leave it alone.
 jessie.dazzle wrote:
Romy, you may be right in suggesting that I am "going a little crazy in there" (I consider this a compliment btw)... so for now I decided to try some locally sourced precision metal film resistors (Vishays are not that easy to get over here in small quantities, even though I seem to remember the founder of Vishay being a Frenchman!).
I knew that what you solder the adapter accurately you will loose all noses. Anyhow, I feel that you might not need the S102 resistors and the RN60 will do just fine. If you decided to go for S102 then you might order them in any quantities and any values. The actual manufactures of S102 do them one by one, so it is not a big deal for them the small quantities. If the re-sales has no values that you need you might odder them directly from the makers (there are two maker as far as I know). The RN/CMF are available also by many re-sales (Mouser and etc) and they have no minimum. I would really stick with Vishay-Dale RN60. If you would like to make the things absolutely better then do not go for S102 but get ring the ML2 internals loading divider and substitute it with your divider. Stull, even as what you did it should be perfectly good enough.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
03-26-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
jessie.dazzle


Paris, France
Posts 456
Joined on 04-23-2006

Post #: 65
Post ID: 4071
Reply to: 4062
Back on course

Romy,

Thanks for the info on alternative manufacturers.

The resistors I found locally seem to be working super well (precision metal film... didn't ask who made them...they are all black and cost EUR 2.80 each). I may eventually replace these with RN60s just for form, and also go for a bit more attenuation, as I am discovering that the 1:00 position (unity gain) is really still a bit too loud, and that the L2/ML2s combination does sound better with the volume pots further open. I made the fixed attenuators so that changing resistor values is a very simple operation.

Also, I have been meaning to mention that normally I would not choose to discuss an issue which is really related to the L2, in this ML2 thread, but I originally thought the hissing was a product of the ML2s.

So to bring the discussion back on course, these little attenuators have done a lot to get me closer to the ML2s.

jd*



How to short-circuit evolution: Enshrine mediocrity.
06-22-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,644
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 66
Post ID: 4655
Reply to: 4061
Running from 16 Ohm taps.
I have been running my nominally 8 Ohm speakers from the ML2s' 4 Ohm taps for quite a while, in order to keep the sound from getting squirrilly and to keep the bass strong enough.

Today I used the re-capped/improved K&K phonostage as a source and I drove the speakers first from 8 Ohm and then from 16 Ohm taps, and I got a very pleasant surprize.

I am not sure what is happening technically, but based on experience I suspect that the ML2s may make less feedback via their 16 Ohm taps, or at least the damping factor is lowered.  In any case, for the first time via the 16 Ohm taps the sound became at once better focused and more inclusive.  Perhaps lower MF is a tad strong, but it is not a problem; quite the opposite, at this point.  HF through the ribbons was sublime.

The overall results complimented and built on the increased clarity I was getting from the tweaked K&K phono stage.  In fact it was better bass from the K&K that made me think to try the 8 and 16 Ohm taps-- to see if I could get the bass even better, naturally! 

I am not saying feedback/damping is bad, but it appears that in my present circumstances, with my present speakers, less is more.

It certainly gave a clue as to why Romy would opt away from feedback in the Milq's.

And oh, yeah:  Screw the L-pads for the ribbons! (Who needs them?)

Best regards,
Paul S
06-22-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,131
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 67
Post ID: 4656
Reply to: 4655
The plate loading with secondary’s taps.

 Paul S wrote:
Today I used the re-capped/improved K&K phonostage as a source and I drove the speakers first from 8 Ohm and then from 16 Ohm taps, and I got a very pleasant surprize...... .It certainly gave a clue as to why Romy would opt away from feedback in the Milq's.
Paul,

is has absolutely nothing do with feedback. The ML2 uses tabs and moving from 4R to 8R, or from 8R to 16R you are juts more unloading the output tube. The more tube loaded the less power and fewer hammocks you get out of it. Do not feel that idling tube irrationally would necessary bring all kind of benefits as if you go too far for the capacity of the driver driver/crossover then the Sound become too much “extreme” and in many instances almost like digitalized.

Surely in a compromised context of a full range SET (not DSET) it is seldomly possible to find a proper loading for each driver…. Anyhow, when I used my ML2s I always used 16R tabs with whatever speakers I had at that time. In fact I remember I disconnected the 4R tabs and had 2 pairs or 16R binding posts…

Rgs, Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
06-22-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,644
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 68
Post ID: 4658
Reply to: 4656
Loading for hammocks
Thanks, Romy.  I did notice that there is more "apparent volume" at the same gain setting on the pre, and harmonics certainly come into better perspective.  Also, the image opens up more vertically, which is a nice effect.  I could always run CDs off the 16 Ohm tap with less change vs. the 4 Ohm tap, but until recently LPs just lost too much focus, and they were too inconsistent.  Oddly, with the K&K as it is now, focus has improved consideraly using the 16 Ohm taps.
 
I have made no working assumptions about idling, but I am prone to keep systematically moving along the lines of a benefit until it craps out, then I go back to where it worked best.

I have to say, however, that the effect of running from the 16 Ohm taps versus 4 Ohm is similar to what I remember from messing with feedback, except -- and I suppose this is notable -- that I really do not lose bass strength, albeit the character of the bass changes (for the better, IMO) from tighter/"faster" at 4 Ohms to being harmonically more broadly articulate overall and (sorry...) "more musical" from 16 Ohms.  Also, deepening the bass with the phono  caps and re-positioning the speakers for the most interesting midrange must have somehow helped to even out what had been pretty uneven bass response, too, or it helped me to focus on and solve the "real" problems, and that evened the bass.  Otherwise, I am a loss to explain it.

Anyway, I will try to learn more about the 16 Ohm sound after I get settled in my new digs (including getting the power and ground issues dealt with!).

Best regards,
Paul S
08-11-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,644
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 69
Post ID: 5002
Reply to: 4658
Up again, and messing with V/A

I was beginning to wonder if I'd ever get the new listening room checked out electrically and the new system ground installed, etc., but I finished this work yesterday, including a soldered-rather-than-clamped ground wire-to-rod connection.  While I was at it, I also changed my tonearm cable ends from female to male jacks so I could plug the arm wire right into my tranny instead of using jumpers; but that's another story.

The new room is smaller than the old one; in fact it's the smallest room I've used with the DEBZs, and I wondered if this might help the ML2s, if not overall sound quality.  I measure the new room at 20' 6" X 17' 2" X 8' = 2,829 cu ft.

The system was down for about 7 weeks for/from the move.  I had finally figured out just before I shut it down for the move (after futzing with my tonearm, looking for bass,  AGAIN!) that the 6N6Ps were going sour (again), after only 3 1/2 months, so I put in some new ones (again).

It took ~3 1/2 hours for the system to charge up and start working as a system again, and then I tried Romy's suggestion to try dropping current (and raising vlotage) on the ML2s.  I experimented again and stuck with the 16 ohm taps, and as I listened I moved the V/A points around, eventually deciding on 54 Watts as a pivot, and I settled on 29.5 mA and 183V.  I love pretty much everything with respect to the music at these settings.  Bass is not only harmonically richer and more articulate, it is deeper and amazingly strong with my non-greedy 15" BRs.  Oddly, overall timing improved quite noticibly, too; go figure.  Basically, there is no down side for me with this change, except you might say that the "image density" is somewhat lessened by it; but this is more than made up for -  in my system/IMO  -  by the much greater tonal variation at the "new" settings.  YMMV, of course, but this does mean the the V/A parameter can be used as a sort of tuning device.  I have to say, it changes things more profoundly than just tube rolling, although it is not like two different amplifiers.

I was afraid the DEBZs might overload the new room, but this was not the case  -  at all.  By the time I concluded today's session I was wearing the DEBZs like headphones, sitting darn near up between the speakers, which are presently about 6' apart and about 7' off the back wall, in this room.  I have not done much with speaker/room loading yet, but I quickly found the best bass, which spots will serve as my reference points.  If it goes like it did at the last place I will leave the speakers where the sound is most "interesting", then re-tune for bass and/or take a hit on that score, if necessary for the greatest tonal/dynamic range.  Last time the two spots -  "interesting" and best bass  -  were not far apart.  I am getting a nice sense of "immediacy" right now, which I like, and yet I can listen to crappy records again, too.  Perhaps the system has sounded more "clear" before, but it is as musically "articulate" as it has ever been, despite the apparent paradox.

The other day I saw an online photo of Wilson Wamm speakers sitting next to what may have been a pair of ML2s.  I sure hope they were 1.1s, or something.  Sure, I am enjoying myself mightily with the DEBZs; but it is already obvious that although the ML2s do better with tougher loads than doubters might suppose, they also continue to up the ante if you go to them, electrically.  I'm not looking for horn parts yet, but I am thinking about it more and more...

BTW, about 90 degrees out today, and all is well, or at least OK.

Best regards,
Paul S

08-11-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,131
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 70
Post ID: 5004
Reply to: 5002
The ML2's 6C33C operation point.

 Paul S wrote:
It took ~3 1/2 hours for the system to charge up and start working as a system again, and then I tried Romy's suggestion to try dropping current (and raising vlotage) on the ML2s.  I experimented again and stuck with the 16 ohm taps, and as I listened I moved the V/A points around, eventually deciding on 54 Watts as a pivot, and I settled on 29.5 mA and 183V. 

Paul I do not think I suggested dropping current and raising voltage as I have no idea what loudspeakers you are using. I might suggested to play with taps and play with different current and voltage settings  but I would defiantly would not propose to go toward explicit dropping current and raising voltage. BTW, the 295mA (I ma sure it was not 29.5mA) and 183V is very close to what Vladimir suggests to use (175V and 300-310mA).  BTW, a few years about I was asking Lamm what was max current his ML2 transformer is gaped (to know what would be my current boundaries when I was dropping voltage) and he replied that it was his proprietary information that he is not wiling to divulge. What a hoot!

BTW, if you still looking for bass then you should dump you ML2 and but Lamm ML3 as according to some Morons ™ the ML3 has “better bass”….

Rgs, Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-11-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,644
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 71
Post ID: 5005
Reply to: 5004
295 mV, of course; sorry readers (hope no one blew anything up...)

Romy, at some point you did mention lowering current and shortly thereafter, if not in the same post, you added something to the effect of raising voltage.  You even mentioned values you have tried, and I printed it out.  But since I am usually pretty cautious, I took care to hold VA at or below stock, as you observed.  I did not have any preconceptions but went with what worked best for tone, and the bass was a bonus.

As for the BR bass, I think of basketball there, too, as though you slam the ball down at the floor, but the floor moves away slightly as the ball starts to touch it.  No, my bass is not the best, but the ML2 does a remarkable job with it, considering, and I have been futzing with foam inserts to +/- plug the vents, for reasons other than extension.

I would be interested to know if you can get good results with SET on your sealed units?  I have thought for a long time that either a "mostly sealed" unit or a non-greedy sealed would be best, practically speaking, but I never played much with the practical limits of sealed, at keeping the drivers "off the air cushion".  At this stage of my journey I am just glad that the ML2 can drive the BR about as well as can be done, given the built-in limits of both designs.

Let the suckers jump on the ML3.  I'm holding out for the ML3.1!

BTW, I have a "funny story" about losing track of a decimal on my Fluke DMM when testing (and then installing) some plate resistors...

Best regards,
Paul S

09-29-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,644
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 72
Post ID: 5460
Reply to: 5005
Putting in new 6AK5s
If I were more scientific I suppose I would do a better job with controlling other factors involved, but in this case the tubes are cheap, so I just swapped them out.  Sound had gotten "disorganized" and bass was weaker, both in a way that reminded me of things new 6AK5s improved when I last replaced them, just 6 months ago.  Who knows for sure if the subsequent improvement in sound in just those areas was mere coincidence, suddenly better electricity, or what?  I suppose I ought to get tha amps warmed up and swap the previous tubes in again as a blind, and maybe I will do this at some point.  Likewise I will tell if the sound reverts to the "pre-new-6AK5 status" with the new tubes installed.

Romy has said that the ML2 is relentlessly "polite", and this may be true, compared to Milquiades, etc.  At this point I much prefer the "organized" ML2 to the "disorganized" one that happens with bad electricity and/or bad 6AK5.

I am a little pissed that my last 6N6Ps only lasted about 4 months.  I hope the 6AK5s will generally last more than 6 months.  It always takes me a while enduring bad sound of one sort or another before the idea of bad tubes dawns on me.

I repeat my current hi-fi mantra:  The system is at least as good as it ever sounded...


Best regards,
Paul S

"...there are certain delicious sensations which are no less intense for being vague."  Charles Baudelaire
09-30-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,644
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 73
Post ID: 5475
Reply to: 5460
What can we draw from this?
Some time ago Romy threw me a fish in the form of two numbers, 280 and 185, meaning mV and V, respectivly, and I finally got around to chowing down.  I was getting annoyed with the sound this morning to the extent that I busted out the DMM, and I found the bias had drifted up considerably.  As I dialed it back I decided to just keep going, and I am glad I did.

In my case, lower plate current and/or less power worked a treat.  It cleaned things up considerably and harmonics became better as well, including bass, with no loss in "articulation", placed in quotes because IMO bass "articulation" is not really present without proper harmonics.  In this case, bass was no more harmonically enriched than the rest of the spectrum, with the effect that sections were audible and interesting contributors in complex music.  Another beneift of the change was less HF hash, and in no way did the DEBZs lose power or "drive".  In fact, the net effect of less hash was more music and "drive" at any given volume setting.

As I understand it, lowering plate current raises output impedance, so this is another move that "makes no sense", especially since the DEBZs are nominally 8R.  Still, the Lowthers certainly benefited from the change; but so did the big Audax.  The ribbons were the same, except they were dealing with less noise, so in that sense they benefited, too.

Now (as usual...) I wonder how far I could go with this, at what point(s) the benefits would reverse.

A nice thing happened after the change today:  This is the first time I have been able to really enjoy the Solti/CSO Mahler 5 (London ffrr), as it was finally unraveled and expanded enough to make it really interesting as opposed to somewhat oppresive.  Quite a nice recording, actually.

Best regards.
Paul S
09-30-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,131
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 74
Post ID: 5476
Reply to: 5475
Honesty, it sounds like fantasies to me…

 Paul S wrote:
Some time ago Romy threw me a fish in the form of two numbers, 280 and 185, meaning mV and V, respectivly, and I finally got around to chowing down.  I was getting annoyed with the sound this morning to the extent that I busted out the DMM, and I found the bias had drifted up considerably.  As I dialed it back I decided to just keep going, and I am glad I did.

In my case, lower plate current and/or less power worked a treat.  It cleaned things up considerably and harmonics became better as well, including bass, with no loss in "articulation", placed in quotes because IMO bass "articulation" is not really present without proper harmonics.  In this case, bass was no more harmonically enriched than the rest of the spectrum, with the effect that sections were audible and interesting contributors in complex music.  Another beneift of the change was less HF hash, and in no way did the DEBZs lose power or "drive".  In fact, the net effect of less hash was more music and "drive" at any given volume setting.

As I understand it, lowering plate current raises output impedance, so this is another move that "makes no sense", especially since the DEBZs are nominally 8R.  Still, the Lowthers certainly benefited from the change; but so did the big Audax.  The ribbons were the same, except they were dealing with less noise, so in that sense they benefited, too.

Now (as usual...) I wonder how far I could go with this, at what point(s) the benefits would reverse.

Hmmmm, I do not exactly believe in it, Paul.

First of all what do you do not controlling the plate current? Lamm drivers his out stage quite hard and it does require monitoring, or you easily jump to the too high currents with all know negative consequences.

Secondary, I do not believe that dropping the plate current to 250-280mA at the same (or higher) voltage might “cleaned things up considerably”. With lover current you should have in some instances deeper bass (because less power). All other things should not be changed too much. You might be very careful driving the ML2 at sub 35W or with one plate as the amp has global feedback and I detect that with dropping more then 3dB in feedback the amps become unstable, in fact you have no sensitivity in your speakers to go for lover plate power.

You might run across the ML2 taps, finding better harmonics but it is pretty much all the you can do with that amp. If you are not happy with harmonics of your channels with ML2.0 then it is absolutely undeniable evidence to me that you need to replace your speakers and do not try to twist ML2. The ML2 has stunning harmonic integrity, like no other amps I even seen, and they maintain the harmonics across VERY wide range of load. If you report that harmonic balance changes with dropping plate current from 300mA to 280mA then something is VERY wrong ether with your playback or with your perception. It is theoretically possible if you use ML2 for LF section and your bass damping is in “critical mode” but I very doubt that it is what it going on in your case.

Anyhow, you might review your findings… perhaps with other electricity. Do not mystify the output tube operation point. It is VERY simple to find the right operation parameters for your given load. You need to set your output 6C33C in the regime what at full power to your load the current and the voltage are clipping at the same time. Everything else is fantasies. I made countless experiments with that tube and find that with perfect semantic clipping the tube sound absolutely the best, not only this one but any other tube the I have tried.

Rgs, Romy


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-30-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,644
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 75
Post ID: 5477
Reply to: 5476
Coincidental clipping
Maybe my output tubes are fading already because that seems like a lot of drift happening pretty fast compared to what I have experienced so far.  I suppose there is a lesson in it, in any case.

No fantasy about dropping the current from 320 mA & 310 mA (where right and left channels had drifted) to 280 mA and raising the voltage from 183 to 185.  At the points where they drifted to they sounded "over-driven" (as you might imagine), rather like my speakers sound when they are over driven, and at 280 mA (measured as VDC) the sound settles down with excellent harmonics and all else.  Whatever the reasons, the differences in sound between these operating points are considerable, and in my stystem it involves more than just bass.  For one thing output in the "worst case" drops from ~59 Watts to ~52 Watts.  Although I would never intentionally shoot for 59 W, it is also unlikely that would I have gone to 52W unless you had tossed out those numbers.

I have not tried to calculate whether the 280 mA/185 V combination is the mutual-clipping point of voltage and current with my speakers, but unless it damages the amps I will run them where they sound best.  As I mentioned earlier, my speakers are nominally 8R but they have a significant spike and also a sharp dip to 4R, so I would not know apart from listening which calculated points to regard.

In this case I measured the amps' OPs because it was obvious that something was wrong.

OTOH, at the referenced lower operating point the harmonics from this amp are far and away superior to anything else I have ever heard; pretty much of a revelation, really.  Pitch and timbre are just excellent, and I am very happy with it.  Also at the referenced points noise damps down and the whole comes into much better focus musically.  With my speakers, Lamm's recommended points sound more hi-fi and less musical by comparison, along with an edge that I find annoying, especially at HF.  Also with my speakers the whole thing "congests" at lower SPL/complexity when set at the "stock points".  Maybe I have just better matched my speakers, or for all I know I am rolling off HF, although I have to say that musical HF improves at the lower setting.  Likewise with the bass.  But I am not trying to explain it, I am just reporting.

It does make me think when you report preferring the same operating points with such different speakers.

Sunday is usually OK for electricity here, and today was OK.

Obviously I will have to keep a closer watch on the OPs.


Best regards,
Paul S
10-01-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
jessie.dazzle


Paris, France
Posts 456
Joined on 04-23-2006

Post #: 76
Post ID: 5478
Reply to: 5477
Bias and heat
 Paul S wrote:


"...Obviously I will have to keep a closer watch on the OPs..."
 

Paul,

Though I don't let my ML2s go more than a month without verifying the bias, once, due possibly to a screwy tube, one of them did go significantly off spec... I don't remember how far off, but I do remember noticing that the power transformer (??? well anyway, the one on the right as you approach the amp) on that amp was significantly warmer to the touch.

This difference in temp could of course have been due to something else... for one thing, the two amps are on independent circuits... it could also have been something like my waf simply leaving the window open above one of them while I was off working on horns.

Since that time, I have not been able to confirm any relationship between bias and transformer temp; as it takes half the day for the transformer to reach thermal stability, this is not something one can check in five minutes. Also, I have been keeping an even closer watch on the bias, and have been monitoring the transformer temperatures at shut down, which now always feel the same (meaning the right transformer on each amp is warmish, and the left is cool).

Have you or any other ML2 users ever noticed a relationship between bias and transformer temp?

jd*


How to short-circuit evolution: Enshrine mediocrity.
10-01-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
jessie.dazzle


Paris, France
Posts 456
Joined on 04-23-2006

Post #: 77
Post ID: 5479
Reply to: 5478
Source of heat
Ok, I just thought of something...

The 6C33Cs which make so much heat are located on the right side of the amp, one of these is within close proximity of the right side transformer... Is it possible that the incorrectly biased tube was heated beyond normal and then heated up the closest transformer via simple radiation?

jd*


How to short-circuit evolution: Enshrine mediocrity.
10-01-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
jessie.dazzle


Paris, France
Posts 456
Joined on 04-23-2006

Post #: 78
Post ID: 5480
Reply to: 5478
Source of heat
Ok, I just thought of something...

The 6C33Cs which make so much heat are located on the right side of each amp; the rear tube is within close proximity of the right side transformer... Is it possible that the incorrectly biased tube was heated beyond normal, to the point that it then radiated this difference in temperature to the nearest transformer cover?

jd*


How to short-circuit evolution: Enshrine mediocrity.
10-01-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,644
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 79
Post ID: 5481
Reply to: 5479
I wouldn't want to touch one
Jessie, you can imagine that the output tube was hot at 59 watts.  FWIW, I never go a month without checking OP, usually within 2 weeks, and in this case I had checked it less than a week before.

The tube itself is the heat source, much hotter than the transformer, at least externally, but it should run and ventilate OK if OP are within range, given normal air temp and decent circulation.  It was very hot here over long stretches this summer, to 108 F, and it may be that the amp had thermal gremlins in addition to the bad summer electricity, I can't say for sure.  They have never had so much as an electrical hiccup, however, with respect to soldiering on.

The thing I wanted to share is the way the amps perform at those OPs, at least in my system.  It is very nice, and not something that would go unnoticed.  You may remember that I got better performance by moving in that direction, and continuing made it better yet.  Needless to say the difference from turning down the truly overdriven tubes was very great.  Still, the OP I mentioned really cleaned up the sound I get from my speakers, in addition to enriching it.  Perhaps my speakers are more sensitive to these changes than Romy's.  I don't know.  But I do know where I'm running my amps now.

It seems always to be the case that my perceptions of a component morph over long term exposure; I become more aware of more qualities that accrue to the component in question.  I woulld not say that nearly a year with these amps has exactly changed my perceptions of them, but I would say that I can now identify more things that are amp-specific.  I never expected perfect amplification, mostly because I am not sure yet just what that would be.  But I have gottem plenty of very nice bonuses from these amps along the way, and they have basically exceeded my expectations by exceeding my experience rather considerably.

I still struggle to come up with words to explain these amps to non-users.  For instance, how can you say they "organize" the sound without it seeming mechanical or artificial?  How do you compare them to other SETs?

Best regards,
Paul S
10-02-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,131
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 80
Post ID: 5500
Reply to: 2941
Feedback “working” in the ML2
 Paul S wrote:
I absolutely hear the feedback working in the ML2, and I happen to like the effect a lot…
Can you elaborate on it in subjective terms? How what you hear are you able to attribute to feedback and how do you know that it was the feedback’s influence?

Rgs, Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Page 4 of 11 (216 items) Select Pages:  « First ... « 2 3 4 5 6 » ... Last »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  A quest for a better SET...  Still, there is something in it....  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     3  64009  02-05-2005
  »  New  The Silence of the Lamms!..  Well, Lamms are not exactly fun anymore. ...  Audio Discussions  Forum     7  89173  06-12-2005
  »  New  Romy, how does the original ML2 sound in regards to acc..  Modification of Lamm’s SET...  Audio Discussions  Forum     5  67115  06-20-2005
  »  New  Lamm Industries: a special interview with a special com..  Buffer?...  Audio News Forum     105  1319188  09-18-2005
  »  New  Lamm hybrids: M1.2 vs. Lamm M1.1..  Lamm hybrids: M1.2 vs. Lamm M1.1...  Audio Discussions  Forum     0  30043  12-12-2007
  »  New  The short "6C33C Survival Guide"...  Ac filament.....  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     20  373403  12-18-2007
  »  New  Amplification and Consciousness...  Freedom of expression vs. something to say...  Playback Listening  Forum     15  113039  01-07-2008
  »  New  Relief from micro-arcing tube pins?..  Still Going......  Audio Discussions  Forum     6  55347  09-28-2008
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts