Wilson is a good example, IMO, of a brand that had an awesome sounding speaker (the original X1 Grand SLAMM) which would work well even with low powered amps and made their speakers progressively less sensitive and arguably better measuring but, again IMO, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I have a friend who owned the MKI version of the X1 and it sounded really alive and worked well with a mid-power SET or push pull triode amp. Later models (X2, XLF etc.) progressively lost this capability.
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Agreed! Nothing better than a win/win.Everyone benefits
And record stores lost customers going from LPs to CDs. I guess the CD manufacturers thought that was progress. Now we stream. More progress.
Record stores are doing pretty well in this town, FWIW.
Eventually digital did get good enough that its enjoyable (digital clock stability is easily two orders magnitude more stable than it was in the mid 1990s, which helped a lot...). Hard to imagine that wouldn't eventually happen with other tech too.
Now that is fair. They went from lower power friendly to less lower power friendly, while shaping the sound to be more compatible with less subdued high frequency devices. One should wonder about offering both for market share.
I think you missed the point. I used to work for the architecture firm that designed all of Tower Record stores in the US. They shut down while we were told of the superiority of CDs. The industry moved on in the name of progress, but people still covet the old technology.
Good luck with your class D amps.
Please listen to new wilsons and compare to old wilsons. I had Alexandria X2 series 1 and it was more dynamic more alive than new wilsons.
Most audiophiles may prefer new wilsons but I like old big wilsons more.
I am not saying which is better for me, or you, just that no one thought it was a creative strategy to decrease the sensitivity on purpose with no other goals.
My limited amateur understanding is the application of his theory or constructs that he labeled "the Absolute Linearity of a System" goes across the board for all Lamm components. I called it a kind of unified field theory of amplifier design that explains how an amplifier should measure if it is to reproduce sound congruent with the way people naturally perceive it. An amplifier should preserve the harmonic structure and spectral balance of the musical source signal while paying attention to the types and values of feedback used. He read that account and accepted it.
Maybe nice in theory but in practice the LAMM hybrids don’t sound at all like the LAMM SETs. The measurements also look pretty different.
Perhaps. From what I've heard all orient to how people hear music.
For me it is hard to know. We hear these amps in combination with the speakers being driven, and compare with the alternatives. In my case, I compared the Lamm hybrid to the Pass on Magico and preferred the Lamm for the same reasons I preferred the Lamm phono to the Pass phono. It sounded more natural.
I also compared the Lamm M1.1 to the Lamm ML2 on the Magico. The hybrid was excellent and sounded much more complete because it was a more appropriate match to the load, but the SET had a magic in the midrange that was less developed with the hybrid, so I chose the amp I preferred and then found a better matching speaker.
Depends on how they are used. And you know there is a hierarchy of models.
Similar story here. I had the M1.2 Ref hybrids on three different Wilsons after choosing that after evaluating the ARC 250s and the Atma-Sphere MA-1 (which I owned at the time.) Along with the load of the Wilsons I needed an amp that broadened review opportunites. I wanted to switch to the ML2.2 and searched for speakers. Brad, you might recall my thread on that search (here) in which you participated. I gave up the search for something new and contemporary and ended up where I am now. I am quite satisfied although ideally I would like to bi-wire the M9500s with another pair of ML2.2s.
In the case of both amps along with the Lamm LL2.1 linestage, the LP2.1 phonostage, the L2.1 Reference linestage, the LP1 Signature phonostage and the LL1.1 linestage -- all of which I had in system for many months and now owning the latter two -- I believe I have a pretty good handle on the character of what I'll simply call 'the Lamm sound'. While there may be different measurements and specs for the different models, that character is not dissociated across the different components from lower level models to higher level models. The higher level models bring greater sophistication, substantially better bass, more resolution and yield more insight to the music I enjoy.
Tim, I like this summary. I guess that is why you are a good reviewer. “…more insight to the music….” That is it for me too.
I own the LP2.1 Deluxe and LP1 phono stages and the L1 and LL1 preamps. I find the higher multi box models present more information in a clearer, slightly more natural way. I hear slightly more nuance and convincing presence. I agree the biggest change is the bass quality, but basically, it is just a more natural presentation as you move up creating a more involving listening experience. I also agree that the Lamm essence is recognizable in all the models, at least in the ones that I have heard.
It is impossible to have any known transistor have the same kind of output as a tube to this day. The transistors work in a linear fashion together, but have to tamed otherwise. A single one on it's own without any kind of feedback will just shoot off into the stars. A tube on the other hand basically only needs a tiny bit to make it stable in the circuit, not with itself. The point being you cannot make the output damping the same no matter what you do. Obviously certain things can help some like class A operation but even the Lamms are limited in power in class A. The voltage gain at 39/31 tells us that he is applying a tasteful amount of feedback, if it where zero (and you have infinite cooling) then it would be much higher gain. The more feedback the lower the gain as a basic principle in solid state.
Using a tube front end certainly helps set the character but the amount of finagle afterward to maintain it is extremely complicated and I doubt even Lamm spent as much time as needed to figure it out - in fact I know this to be true. I am not saying the Hybrids are not good but there are some thing that would grossly complicate the existing amp out of the current chassis to get it closer to tube sound. Sad fact of the matter is it all tends to lose efficiency on the power consumption side, which is already a lot.
Ergo part of the Lamm Sound signature DNA … In respect I am reminded of a slightly more refined souped up 1947 Williamson .
Last edited:
Similar threads
