Lamm ML2, VLadimirs best effort to date?

I have had both the Ml1 and ML1.1 and as far as sound they both sounded about the same. The ML1 did sound a bit better overall but is was broken in more when I had them side by side. Both are amazing amps and just about the best I've heard. I use Bananas so the binding post are not a huge deal to me. WBT would be very cool and add a bit of improvement. For the money I have no problem removing a few screws if I had too over the ML1.1. I still have never had to replace a fuse knock on wood.

In answer to the original question, as was pointed out earlier, the ML3 is supposed to be Lamm's best effort to date. Since I found that I cannot get a Federal bailout to buy them, they will have to remain a dream. As between the ML2 and 2.1, I think that you'll find many ML2s are close to being ML 2.1s, as in later production a lot of the changes that were ultimately incorporated in the 2.1 were also in the ML 2s--some of the changes may have been due to changes in suppliers, etc. So you might want to look for a unit with an earlier serial number to get what you're hoping for.

As for the different binding posts, I can tell you that I own ML 1.1s, and previously owned ML1s, which have the same binding post changes as made in the ML2s. While the difference in sonics attributable to the binding posts may or may not be significant (hard for me to tell given the other changes made between the two units), the new binding posts will, with some coaxing, accomodate two spade lugs (for biwiring) where the old ones were almost impossible to work with in this application--this, plus the plate fuse being accessible from the top of the amp rather than requiring me to turn it over and take off the bottom, made the sonics almost secondary (fortunately, I liked both versions, with a slight preference to the 1.1). I like Syntax's idea, as the WBTs are superb posts, I might try that.

Thank you for your replies, the binding post issue brought up by Rhyno and Syntax coincides with that of the opinion of two other owners that I know.

However one insists the M2 is the better sounding design, I have not heard the M2 in a system.

Jtinn thanks for joining in, the M2.1 was a direct replacement for the M2 with a few changes including new boards that were not available at the time the M2 was developed.
Along with modified output transformers, compatible world wide electrical adjust ability and [ heavy duty speaker binding posts ]....The worm in the apple.

Finally , I admit I was a bit hasty with my title and rightly deserved the light ridicule up top, just excited at the prospects of a totally new system.

I replaced the binding post with WBT pure Silver and the difference is Huge. I would do that also with a ML2 :-)

binding posts do make a big diff IME, and the superior electric posts he used in the ML2s are regarded as the best avail (very little actual metal on them---ala eichmann bullet plugs).

i'd get the 2.1s and swap the superior posts in. you will notice an improvement

Steve I'm sure Vlads statement ML3 is everything owners say it is and more, I'm happy for you.

I do not think that the ML2.1 was meant to be a sonic upgrade. I understood it to be a change easier for voltage usage, meaning 110 / 220 and a few parts differences, i.e., binding posts.

I have heard both and they were very similar.

I may be wrong.

Per Steve ML2.0 + ML2.1 = ML3...;-)

A smart reply Mechans [grin]

Pick one of the following.
1.If The Vladmeister says one or the other is best, I would trust he knows why.
2.If you have auditioned both and disagree with Vladimir then OK it's your party and the best one is always the one you like the best.
3 Be sure to check that one doesn't cause minor meltdowns, fires, explosions, or eats tubes like candy.
Often due to an engineering error that should be recalled but their are few consumer groups policing Hi End Audio
4.Listen to your bossy and loudest audiophile friend's opinion, and cowardly agree with him her.
5.Let your wife decide.


The answer is ... you all know it's number.......evif.