Lamm ML 3

Hello, Cjfrbw thank you for your thoughtful and detailed insights with the ML 3 with your local group's listening sessions over at Oneobgyn's. I guess he was somewhat happy to move the looming switching decision on down the road. It must have been a real treat to have heard the Lamms in that setting and be able to get a feeling for the differences between the two amplifiers. Without discounting your initial description, as you discussed the session it makes one feel there might have been a temptation of trying to walk directly into the soundstage.

Our member oneobgyn had them in his possession for over a month, and several of the audiophiles in our local group had an opportunity to hear them with his Alexandrias. I don't think anybody who heard them wasn't impressed. There were also some shootouts switching the amps between the 2.1 and the ML 3. There is no doubt the ML3 is better. I wouldn't call the ML 3 holographic, which implies some kind of evanescant quality, but more of an absolute sculptural quality to the sound where you could peek around corners and feel textures you didn't know were there in the signal, even with the ML 2.1. It was also very warm sounding without being the least bit mushy. The sound stage was big but sounded like it scaled to the signal appropriately and showed the size relationships between sources that seemed to evade other kinds of amps. The ML 3 also rendered dynamics better than the ML 2.1. Whopper solid state amps might do better or as well in dynamics, but I doubt they could otherwise render the sense of space, timbre and tone in any way close to th ML 3. It didn't sound quite like anything I have heard in amplifiers before, even SET amps, but did manage to sound very natural.
The ML 2.1 didn't sound similar to the ML3 to me (in disagreement the reviewer's observation), but is probably more neutral sounding and a bit less dimensional, but only by comparison. Worth the money? I would have to defer to the big wallets on that one.