I have m1.2s I have never read that? But if your happy with m1.1 keep them
I have been delighted with my lamms; if your m1.1 r better all power to you and hang on to them cos my m1.2's r wonderful, just wish they had power of 2.2 which i had before
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?
I didn't say my M 1.1 are better than M 1.2. I said I heard or read that somewhere.
I'm not talking myself into that because I cannot afford to upgrade ;-)
I would love to directly compare the M 1.1 with the M 1.2 to find out which one sounds better (to me).
But that most probably will never happen. In central Europe, Lamms aren't that widespread.
The M 1.1 was easily the best amp I heard on the dreaded 1 Ohm Apogee Scintilla (don't know if Ypsilon amps would be able to drive the Scintillas but they "could" even sound better if they don't break on that load).
On easier speakers, I prefer my KR Audio amps over the M 1.1, though.
And then again, I have never heard the Lamm SET amps. I guess they are even a lot better sounding than the M 1.x (and M 2.x) on suitable speakers.
I hope that JackD201 chimes in soon as according to Steve he is in the fortunate position to compare them all.
Hi Cristoph I can only give generalities between the ML2.1 Lamm SET and the Kronzilla DX IIs that we have here. It's very apples to oranges since there aren't many speakers the 18 wpc ML2.1 can perform at its best with. Having also had other KR models here like the 855, 900, 910 as well as the other Lamms like the push pull ML1.1, and both hybrids I would say that in general Lamm has more transient "pop" and a touch more definition while the KRs have a touch more weight and body. I'm not very good at descriptions really and that's the reason I lean very heavily on demonstration. Personally, I think both appeal to a broad swath of listeners because neither get in your face and have a good sense of flow. I do think that they sometimes push different buttons in different listeners. While say another brand we carry the all solid state, high switch speed, very accurate CH Precision line keeps you alert and in a state of visual immersion and the KR's being very tactile in the lower midrange where I'm sure you have experienced the feeling of the hair on your arms vibrating sympathetically keeps one "swoony" and blissful, the Lamm's are in between with more of a tug at the gut especially whith sweet sustained tones and vibratos. To be candid, that is the reason we carry all three. We also carry a modestly priced line from Germany called Valvet that in turn falls in between the Lamm and KR house sounds.
In a few months time we will have the 200wpc 842VD based KR amp and that should be easier to compare with the M2.1 Lamm Hybrid at least with my speakers. I'll try and chime in then. I wish I could have been of more help.
I also think that KR is very underrated. IMO Marek Gencev their chief designer is very talented and has really brought the original designs of Riccardo (RIP friend) to new and greater heights. Ricacardo would have been proud of his one time protege.
I lived with a pair of Lamm M1.1 for more than 10 years before I heard that M1.2 and decided to upgrade. To my ears, the two characteristics of the M1.1 that was most significantly changed by the M1.2 are: 1) the disproportionately big but very pleasing low frequency of the M1.1 compared to the rest of the frequency range, and; 2) the darkly lit soundstage of the M1.1. The M1.2 had better balance in the reproduction of the entire frequency range, and; the soundstage is more brightly
The only speaker I owned that the M1.1 could not drive is the Stax F81. The M1.1 simply shut off every time I hooked them up to the Stax F81.
On your first question, if you are asking if the different sound character i hear between the M1.1 and M1.2 is due to my preference or system synergy, the answer is no. The description is what I heard using both amps to drive Magnepan 1.6, original WATT, WATT/PUPPY 5, Spica TC50, Yamaha NS 1, Metaphor 2, and Crosby Quad 63. I believe what I described are the inherent sonic signatures of the two amps.
I have not tried the M1.2 on the Stax F81 yet.
The tube I use in both the M1.1 and M1.2 is CV2492 made by Mullard. I started using the CV2492 about halfway through my ownership of the M1.1. I just transferred the tubes from the M1.1 to the M1.2 the moment I took delivery of the M1.2. I'm still using the same tubes up to now. Don't use my experience to gauge the life of the tubes. My tubes last longer because I rotate amps in and out of the chain.