SET amp owners thread

[Ron Resnick]

Are you remotely serious here ? As a previous Vitavox CN-191 owner myself I do not know whether to laugh or … laugh harder at this utter BS fable , I actually feel quite sorry for you Peter that your entire musical fidelity world seems to revolve around this construct that you were sold by Karmeli .

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?

 

[PeterA]

Why so coy, Peter? It's a bit difficult to believe that you don't know the answer to Ralph's question.

David posted:

I'm not endorsing anything Francisco and personally wouldn't modify vintage speakers or buy one that is modified. It's not because that there isn't room for improvement but because there aren't many people out there competent enough to holistically improve the overall sound without butchering it. I don't have that knowledge either but if I could get Vladimir Lamm staying with me for a few months I'd consider modifying Bionor's crossovers!

------------------------------------------------------

I think David either is skeptical about replacing capacitors in vintage loudspeakers, or has a policy of not replacing capacitors in vintage loudspeakers.

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.

 

[Atmasphere]

That’s a question for David Karmeli. He gave them a thorough inspection before shipping them to me.

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.

 

[Argonaut]

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?

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 ?

 

[PeterA]

He later changed this as he modified Tang’s Eurodyn. That was the first speaker he modified. I am for modifying all vintage speakers

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.

 

[PeterA]

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.

Thank you Ralph.

 

[Ron Resnick]

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 ?

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.

 

[Argonaut]

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 !

 

[PeterA]

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.

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.

 

[microstrip]

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.

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.

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, and I am very happy with it.

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.

 

[PeterA]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[morricab]

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.

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.