I don't understand this snarky post. This is a subjective hobby.
If Peter is musically satisfied with his current system, why would you or anyone else suggest otherwise?
SET amp owners thread
- Thread starter bonzo75
- Start date
If Peter is musically satisfied with his current system, why would you or anyone else suggest otherwise?
I suspect it’s all original Ron. I cannot be sure. David told me he inspected and tested everything before he shipped them to me. That’s all I know. Nothing to do with coyness.
This is worth finding out. Back in the 1950s there simply was not the selection of high quality caps we have today, although there were some fairly good parts. One thing is certain, using a middle of the road part that is good as opposed to an ancient-best-at-the-time part failing due to age is a no brainer. I've replaced plenty of parts from that era; its more and more common these days that old capacitors simply have to be replaced.
Oh Do give it a rest Ron … You Have Zero experience of the Vitavox CN-191 whereas I have … I find it most odd that you construe my personal experience with these CN-191 as ”snarky” rather than experience ? Perhaps you might quantify you post , what is your experience with these vintage transducers ?
Last edited:
This depends on what you mean by modify. The baffles and structural frame are clearly his design. He has many original Eurodyn speaker sets and parts. Can you be more specific about what you think he modified?
Although this is getting far removed from the thread topic. I simply mentioned the 16 ohm tap on my amplifiers to match my speakers answering a question. Not sure we need to get into vintage speaker modification discussions in this thread though it is an interesting topic
Edit: Kedar, I just spoke to David and confirmed that both my speakers and Tang’s speakers are not modified.
Tang’s speakers are very special because of the original condition of the drivers. David compared them to others by listening. He replaced some corroded wiring with original good condition wiring. That is all. He did some cleaning and testing of both of our speakers. Tang’s baffle design is completely new as is the structure. The baffles are very adjustable for bass control. In a sense this is a new speaker using excellent condition third-party vintage drivers. David also designed the crossover to the subwoofers.
Last edited:
This completely misses the reason why your post was snarky. It has nothing to do with whether I have any experience with those speakers.
Your post was not snarky because you described your own unsatisfactory experience with those Vitavox speakers. Your post was snarky because you rejected and discredited Peter's happiness with his own Vitavox speakers.
How very weak of you Ron… Ergo you are quite Happy Clappy for folks on this forum to post whatever pops into their minds regardless of credibility … without question , and yet you view my real world contrary experience to be ‘Snarky” in your world view ? I have no wish to dispel Peters “happiness” with his Karmeli supplied transducers ,and Karmeli supplied Lamm electronics … that said you seem to be entirely comfortable with :
“ Yes, of course. Vladimir Lamm told my dealer David Karmeli that the ideal speaker for his ML2 amps is the early version late 1950s Vitavox CN-191.”
Seriously ? I am astonished that Lamm amplification owners do not have HiFiDo on speed dial desperately seeking a pair of Vitavox CN-191’s to complete their high fidelity dream system !
Last edited:
I agree.
I also think it’s very cool that David asked his good friend Vladimir to recommend a speaker for that amplifier design. David told me that Vladimir recommended this early version speaker, knowing it was extremely rare. Apparently, he doubted that David would actually find a pair. I think he is having fun with David. They did have a show together where David exhibited a later pair of these corner horns. It was later that David found an actual early matching pair.
I do not know of many stories where an amplifier designer names a specific speaker that would be an ideal match for his design. Of course it’s only his opinion, but I think it’s very cool. I don’t really care what other people think of this combination. Very few people have heard it. I made my choice by listening and liking what I heard.
Last edited:
Peter,
You are reporting something that happened more than 20 years ago. Since then Vladimir Lamm designed two improved versions of the amplifier (ML2.1 and ML2.2) and referred to other speakers.
For understandable marketing reasons amplifier manufacturers usually avoid openly endorsing speaker brands - and it could seriously affect distribution of their products. But searching with some care many times we can find their preferences.
You are assuming the later versions sound better and differences were made purely for sonic reasons. That is a bold assumption. To know the true story you should talk to David Karmeli.
Yes, I understand that which is why you don’t see designers recommending speaker. Precisely why I think it’s so cool that Vladimir did so to his good friend. A rare instance where he wasn’t influenced by industry pressures and what was best for his business. Remember, his suggestion was for an almost unobtainable pair of speakers. The recommendation had no commercial benefit. That is why it is so refreshing and cool to hear about. An honest answer to the question without outside influence.
Well, given that David seems to have changed his view on this subject, you might want to ask him because I agree with others here the caps are likely not performing up to their original standards.
Well, I read what Vladimir Lamm said about the subject. Many others also addressed the subject. Should we consider they were all fooled?
Do you also think that the LL1.1 is not better than your LL1 ? And the ML3 is inferior to the original ML2?
Sorry, I respect David Karmeli, but I do not consider him as the alter-ego of Vladimir Lamm and you as his spokeperson in WBF. Most of what I learned about Lamm comes from material taken from the Lamm Industries before they suppressed his old interviews and russian audio blogs (thanks to google translator) . If David wants to tell us of his version, he can do it directly in WBF.
IMO the interesting subject would also be why technically and subjectively he recommended these speakers, not the moving audio episode. Corner speakers are not an universal panacea.
Sometimes what you say in public I don’t want you tell a good friend in private or different. I have not compared the LL 1.1 to the LL 1 so I do not know which one is better. Between the ML2 and the ML3 it is a matter of trade-offs because they sound different. You get some things with the bigger amplifier, but you also lose a couple things. It is a choice. Extra boxes and price differences aside.
Why are you apologizing? No one considers DDK an alter ego of Vladimir Lamm. That is just a weird comment. I’m not David spokesperson and there is a lot. I choose not to say publicly on this forum. I don’t doubt you learn things by reading materials. You would learn more if you spoke to David directly and he chose to share things with you. He will not come back to WBF.
You can move on from that.
No one is saying anything about a universal panacea. Based on what I gather from David, the recommendation had to do with the appropriate load for the amplifier and the quality and performance of the speaker. That is why he specified the early version.
I only mentioned it in this thread because someone asked me if my amplifiers have a 16 ohm tap after I mentioned that my speakers are 16 ohm.
“I disagree with Vladimir’s explanation that it was a “natural sound”. Let's face it. Any sound that comes from playback is not natural by definition, it is not a result of the vibration of subjects in the open air but a result simulation of those vibrations by artificial means. So, Lamm’s and David’s concept of natural sound (in my view) is a desire to wrap something good in a marketing (means transferable) narrative.
I do not see why ML2 should have any preference for Vitavox CN191 and what Vladimir’s was reportedly saying is irrelevant. ML2 needs a speaker with high sensitivity and easy to drive, there are not many of them out there. Vitavox CN191 is not an “exceptional” speaker. It is a very good 2-way speaker with exceptional drivers. Probably one of the best corner horns available off the shelf. If the same Vitavox did with the same driver stand-alone 4-way version, then it will be even more interesting (in my view). Look at what this guy from the North of London does with the same drivers. It is not “better” it is different but still very good. I must note that none of them, including me, can get out of Vitavox 15” driver what CN191 can do in a good room. I do not feel that it has anything to do with ML2. What I am saying is that if you dive into the world of vintage drivers, then there is an array of very different opportunities. The Vitavox CN191 is a very simple and effective off-the-shelf solution. Do I feel that Vitavox CN191 is the best representation of ML2? Nope, I do not feel it. In my the original ML2 is much much much more intelligent and capable than ML2. “
Romy The Cat.
Romy has some very interesting ideas about audio. I like his latest videos on his third way. I enjoyed watching him air conducting Bruckner on his digital after cooking a delicious lunch. David stayed for three more days answering questions and working on Romy’s system.
It is why I keep private opinions that were given me privately for me, only sharing those who were explicitly said to share. And once I share them in public, they become my responsibility. You are spreading rumors about Lamm in this forum and then back under secrecy.
Ok, but your ignorance does not affect my point. Do you really think that Lamm upgrades did not increase sound quality and were just marketing decisions?
Just a matter of trade-offs?
No experience with the ML2. But I had the ML2.2 and the ML3 side by side driven by the L1 in my room and it was a night and day difference. The intrinsic sound quality of the ML3 was much better, independently of speaker, even at low levels.
Surely David shared a lot with me when I had the Lamm's. We agreed and disagreed on many things. But is was a private exchange of mails and it stays so.
Many speakers are similar or better loads to the ML2. Are you suggesting that the the Vitavox was the subjectively preferred speaker of Vladimir Lamm at that time?
Yes, thanks, I have noticed it.
Nice to know that they are friends. A pity that the nasty and denigrating comments that Romy wrote in his forum about Vladimir Lamm are still strongly affecting the credibility of the brand.
Bulls Eye perspective from Romy here …”Natural Sound” as reproduced by an electro mechanical methodology Is nothing more than contrived marketing terminology and utter BS Imho …
Last edited:
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |