Lamm owners- still in love with your amps/preamps?
- Thread starter ozy
- Start date
Thank you for all the replies... Great input form everyone.
I'm looking for something different for my TAD ref1s, besides the burmester 909s... In addition , not instead.
Which lam amp/pre would suit the best?the m2.2 hybrid, or the ml3?
I'm looking for something different for my TAD ref1s, besides the burmester 909s... In addition , not instead.
Which lam amp/pre would suit the best?the m2.2 hybrid, or the ml3?
Hi Davey F,
The difference between the Lamm and CAT products is depending on what Lamm line you choose.The Lamm M2.2 is a very beefy amp,but I prefer the CAT by a small margin.On the Lamm M1.2 I prefer the Lamm over the CAT,not quite as beefy but a tremendous sonic presentation.It will drive very tough loads but the CAT seems to have tremendous reserves.For speakers with decent sensitivity(91 0r above) and impedence curves the ML series are in a league of their own,nothing can touch Lamm single-ended designs.So pure!
Robert
The difference between the Lamm and CAT products is depending on what Lamm line you choose.The Lamm M2.2 is a very beefy amp,but I prefer the CAT by a small margin.On the Lamm M1.2 I prefer the Lamm over the CAT,not quite as beefy but a tremendous sonic presentation.It will drive very tough loads but the CAT seems to have tremendous reserves.For speakers with decent sensitivity(91 0r above) and impedence curves the ML series are in a league of their own,nothing can touch Lamm single-ended designs.So pure!
Robert
Hi Ozy,
The Tad is a fine speaker and if the sensitivity is in the low 90s and it does not have a crazy dip in the impedence the ML3's and Tad would get along great.They really deserve a pure single ended design.
Robert
The Tad is a fine speaker and if the sensitivity is in the low 90s and it does not have a crazy dip in the impedence the ML3's and Tad would get along great.They really deserve a pure single ended design.
Robert
Reality is that he hasn't found any remote controlled attenuators sonically the equal of passive ones he's using. I have four that remote isn't a necessity for most people, if really needed one can always locate the preamp by the listening chair or add a pair of remote controlled attenuators in line between the preamp and amps.
david
Actually, I think I'm serious. If I want high-power tube I would always turn to VTL. I would use a hybrid amp over high-power VTLs or low power Lamms only for a special application, such as driving woofers in an active bi-amping configuration.
But for low-power applications, based on how Lamm can tame the metal dome tweeter in big Wilsons, I really would not need to look anywhere else. (Yes, I think the Lamm all-tube amps are that good.)
Oh, how do the lamm's components compare to the balanced audio gear, especially the recent rex2amps and preamps?
Steve, I used to be a remote fiend. Now i don't use them. If i need to change the volume i get my butt up and turn the knob.
In course of my recent 'due diligence' as to a replacement for my Power amplifier, the Lamm M1.2 having made my short list, I revisited that article Several times, in particular to the paragraph where the author pens his considerations of the Lamm M1.2's in comparison to ARC's Ref250's. A most interesting read in which the author concludes " In summary, each of these amplifiers has its own strong sonic appeal, and I’d love to own them both"
After much deliberation, synergy with my incumbant ARC Ref10 pre and a fully ballanced signal path won out in the end (but only just) in my choice of the revised ARC Ref250 SE, however! a long term plan has been formulated that with luck, should see me emulating Mr Aucremann's wish.
Uses the same tube 318B tube, although different implementation. Victor designs gear to be fully balanced push-pull, while Vladimir usually has taken a single-ended approach.
I've owned lots of BAT gear, just not their Rex and beyond. I've always wanted to try ML2.1s from Lamm, but just haven't been able to pull the trigger as I fear they might be dark with my speakers. I find, as Ron said, Wilson/Lamm to be an exceptional match - and I ran all BAT on my Wilsons back in the day and can vouch for that pairing as well. I have not heard the newer Wilsons with soft dome tweeters on either.
You can have a mechanical remote that has no impact on the signal path. a la Allnic et al.
I bought the M 1.1 as the best sounding amp I know to be able to drive the infamous Apogee Scintilla (linear 1 ohm impedance over the whole frequency range!) and the M 1.1 drives the amp murdering Scinnies with ease while sounding excellent.
Has anyone directly compared the M 1.1 with the M 1.2? I heard or read somewhere that the M 1.1 has better parts and sounds better than the M 1.2. Is that true or rumour?
On my very easy to drive Apogee Studio Grand (linear 6 ohm impedance, about 87dB per watt in 3 meters, dipole!) I prefer my KR Audio amps. KR Audio Kronzilla SX with 50 SET watts and VA350 with 30 SET watts per channel.
I have to admit that I have never heard Lamms SET amps, though.
Has anyone here compared the SET Lamms with KR Audio SET?
Has anyone directly compared the M 1.1 with the M 1.2? I heard or read somewhere that the M 1.1 has better parts and sounds better than the M 1.2. Is that true or rumour?
On my very easy to drive Apogee Studio Grand (linear 6 ohm impedance, about 87dB per watt in 3 meters, dipole!) I prefer my KR Audio amps. KR Audio Kronzilla SX with 50 SET watts and VA350 with 30 SET watts per channel.
I have to admit that I have never heard Lamms SET amps, though.
Has anyone here compared the SET Lamms with KR Audio SET?
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |