Lamm ML3 + LL1, at last!
- Thread starter microstrip
- Start date
XLFs more transparent than Soundlabs and with better midrange? At least with the electrostats I have had, no Wilson I heard ever had better midrange or were more transparent...more dynamic maybe...more bass. Surprising comments to be sure...
Are you saying you never played the L2/M1.2 combo on the XLFs at all? Or it was only from the first time you had XLFs and the memory is too old to truly compare? Can't you hook them back up to see? Maybe the transparency difference is not the speakers but the Old vs. new Lamms?
Transparency is a subjective concept and can have different meanings to people and some people, I consider XLF's more transparent than any electrostatic I have owned, perhaps with exception of the ELS63. However this will happen only if the XLF's are properly and optimally positioned. In this condition they are seamless (another subjective concept) and show all the inner details of real voices and instruments, with plenty of air. They surpass panels because they add to this feature impressive micro dynamics and coherent full range. For me transparency also means the capability of showing the recording in a 3D natural space.
IMHO a speaker should be balanced in the full range - some electrostatics suggest great transparency but only in a very limited range - yes, violins sounded great in the Audiostatic's and similar panels from Holland.
BTW, I am not surprised at all by your comment - I know our references and preferences are very different.
Just to help to frame my opinion - I find the ELS63 more transparent than the ESL57. At less it was so thirty years ago, when my hearing was surely better than today in the high frequencies, I have not listened to ESL57 since long.
Last edited:
Yes, I have connected them more than once. And yes, memories too old or too short lived to truly write comparisons. I have a global idea of their mutual performance and how it fits in my preferences, but I am not able to write accurate comparisons.
Transparency is a subjective concept and can have different meanings to people and some people, I consider XLF's more transparent than any electrostatic I have owned, perhaps with exception of the ELS63. However this will happen only if the XLF's are properly and optimally positioned. In this condition they are seamless (another subjective concept) and show all the inner details of real voices and instruments, with plenty of air. They surpass panels because they add to this feature impressive micro dynamics and coherent full range. For me transparency also means the capability of showing the recording in a 3D natural space.
IMHO a speaker should be balanced in the full range - some electrostatics suggest great transparency but only in a very limited range - yes, violins sounded great in the Audiostatic's and similar panels from Holland.
BTW, I am not surprised at all by your comment - I know our references and preferences are very different.
Just to help to frame my opinion - I find the ELS63 more transparent than the ESL57. At less it was so thirty years ago, when my hearing was surely better than today in the high frequencies, I have not listened to ESL57 since long.
Well, it seems we can agree on SET amplification and a good tube preamp at least
.I consider overall balance of a speaker and transparency two completely different criteria. I have heard some Dynaudio speakers, for example, that are very evenly balanced from lows to highs, nothing jumps out but they were quite opaque towards hearing the
inner life of the music in addition to being dynamically constricted.
Interesting you mention Audiostatics as I once had ES100s that were super transparent...only the small STAXes were more so. They even had decent bass at moderate volumes. Their main weakness was a Venitian Blind effect in the highs that made things like cymbals jump around the stage if you moved your head a few mm. They were FAR more transparent than Quad 63 (or any of the latter ones based on that design). i find the Quad 63s to be relatively non-transparent for an electrostat...far worse in that regard than the Audiostatics, STAX or Acoustats I have owned. They were, though, probably better balanced...far more so than the old 57s. Stacked 57s was quite good though.
STAX, driven properly were nearly hallucinogenic in their imaging etc. My Acoustats could make very realisitc 3d images and soundstages...as good as I have heard anywhere.
Where does that leave Wilsons? I have only heard XLFs once but I have heard it's progeny (Alexx, Alexia 1 and 2 etc. ) and, sorry, more transparent they are not...more dynamic, sure, more extended...at least in the bass. Now, I am not that familar with the Soundlabs but based on what you are describing they sound wanting for an electrostat if they can't out transparent a Wilson.
Well, it seems we can agree on SET amplification and a good tube preamp at least
I consider overall balance of a speaker and transparency two completely different criteria. I have heard some Dynaudio speakers, for example, that are very evenly balanced from lows to highs, nothing jumps out but they were quite opaque towards hearing the
inner life of the music in addition to being dynamically constricted.
Interesting you mention Audiostatics as I once had ES100s that were super transparent...only the small STAXes were more so. They even had decent bass at moderate volumes. Their main weakness was a Venitian Blind effect in the highs that made things like cymbals jump around the stage if you moved your head a few mm. They were FAR more transparent than Quad 63 (or any of the latter ones based on that design). i find the Quad 63s to be relatively non-transparent for an electrostat...far worse in that regard than the Audiostatics, STAX or Acoustats I have owned. They were, though, probably better balanced...far more so than the old 57s. Stacked 57s was quite good though.
STAX, driven properly were nearly hallucinogenic in their imaging etc. My Acoustats could make very realisitc 3d images and soundstages...as good as I have heard anywhere.
Where does that leave Wilsons? I have only heard XLFs once but I have heard it's progeny (Alexx, Alexia 1 and 2 etc. ) and, sorry, more transparent they are not...more dynamic, sure, more extended...at least in the bass. Now, I am not that familar with the Soundlabs but based on what you are describing they sound wanting for an electrostat if they can't out transparent a Wilson.
Your post just shows again how different is our experience. And I am addressing the XLF's in optimum condition, not theirs progeny. For some reason I returned to XLF's not to other Wilson speakers. They match my preferences and expectations, I am just saying why. And sorry I will not enter debating your skewed reasoning concerning Soundlab's. They are great speakers, the XLF's are in a different class. I own XLFs and Soundlab's, it seems you can mostly imagine them. Thanks for chiming, but nothing I could say would please you ....
BTW, the great XLF's and great Soundlab's share one point - unless properly used they can sound really miserable. It is why we have such extreme opinions of people with limited experience with them on audio newsgroups.
IMO there is no comparison between the M1.2 and the ML3 you’re comparing a $30K hybrid with a $145K SET. Until you hear the ML3 you can speculate all you want. It’s apples and oranges
In my system the ML3/LL1/LP1 are in a league of their own. They are keepers for life
In my system the ML3/LL1/LP1 are in a league of their own. They are keepers for life
No, the ML3's were in my system sometime before I reported in WBF.
My audio timeline has too many rows ...
I fully agree on apples versus oranges. But someone just wanting fruit can ask about them! I will come on the subject later.
BTW, people speak mostly about the ML3. IMHO Vladimir Lamm should not sell the ML3 without the LL1!
The preamplfier is needed to fully understand the ML3 sound.
Last edited:
Yep...Lamm LL1+ML3; otherwise, as we all have read, the Dart silences the Lamm ML3 output by a deadly 50%...I’m happy to read that my old Lammies ML3 friends have found an appreciative home!!
Lamm comparisons...it would be the ML2, the ones with the magical transformers, to the ML3...this would be the interesting contest.
Cheers!
ALF
Lamm comparisons...it would be the ML2, the ones with the magical transformers, to the ML3...this would be the interesting contest.
Cheers!
ALF
Is that the mistake Mike made then? He never found out with the Dart pre what ML3s could do?I fully agree on apples versus oranges. But someone just wanting fruit can ask about them! I will come on the subject later.
BTW, people speak mostly about the ML3. IMHO Vladimir Lamm should not sell the ML3 without the LL1!
The preamplfier is needed to fully understand the ML3 sound.
Yep, that’s the one...definitely an all-time top five choice amplifier...
Cheers!
ALF
Last edited:
Members online
- justubes
- Frank is here
- Argonaut
- Geoffkait
- JGlacken
- flkin
- mtemur
- Michael S.
- analogsa
- abeidrov
- redscouser
- Jon Q
- dsyzling
- fleetowner123
- rafale
- RCanelas
- bonzo75
- digit_linn
- joeling
- nkjtbushwood
- hopkins
- Be Quiet...Listen
- Richard Austen
- Long Live Analog
- Emorante
- jadis
- andromedaaudio
- Bonesy Jonesy
- kasin
- rock416
- Dylan
- Tesuka
- Legolas
- rt662
- LammJunkie
- dennis h
- Murrayh
- J007B
- Victoriosierra
- iansr
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |