CAT JL-2 Mk2 vs LAMM M1.2 ... on WP 6 or 7

As an owner of the JL-3 Signature amps for almost 6 months I am still so very impressed with this product. I have not been able to find anything on a JL-3 non-signature model so perhaps this was a first generation of a JL-2 mono design. With the JL-1 signature, I understood this to be a more beefy output transformer than the standard JL-1 to accommodate more difficult speaker loads. And since I did not expect to own any crazy speaker out there, I was thinking a non-signature JL-3 would have worked for me due to a lower cost. I really like the idea of mono amps and I’m sure the JL-2 would have sufficed, but when I a good deal on the JL-3 signature came my way, the temptation was just too great.

The JL-1 L.E. is the JL-1 Signature with refinements having much to do with the transformer materials that Mr. Stevens spent a lot of R&D time to perfect. I found the information on Arthur Salvatore’s site covering the different JL amplifier versions to be of great value. Mr. Stevens’ letter to Mr. Salvatore discusses the major differences made to achieve the L.E. model.
http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Amplifiers.html

Notice that Mr. Stevens’ response indicates that the technology from the L.E. is now in the JL-2 & JL-3. Who knows all the specifics, but I think it is a fair assessment to say that the additional $20k cost of the L.E. was to pay for the improved transformer R&D and to provide this to a few people willing to pay the price to get this last effort by Mr. Stevens in his JL-1 product. Now with this design effort as part of all new JL series amps, the cost is not so prohibitive.

There seems to be a consensus that the JL-2 is a major sonic improvement by all who heard it vs. the Non-L.E. JL-1. The Soundstage website CAT factory tour article,
http://www.soundstagelive.com/factorytours/cat indicates that the $12k JL-2 replaced the $30k JL-1 Signature monos. How often do we read that a company brings on an improved product at such a drop in price? …… very rarely! … and I commend Mr. Stevens for making such an awesome performing product affordable to so many more audiophiles. It also states that the $30k JL-3 signature replaced the $50k JL-1 L.E. I highly doubt that Mr. Stevens would bring on a new “statement” product that is sonically inferior to his previous “statement” product. And again, it is at a significant price drop.

One post on Audigon that Mr. Stevens contributed to is the following:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1099200096
Mr. Stevens writes about the JL-3 being far more linear than the JL-1 and much more energy storage than the JL-3. Whether or not the JL-1 mentioned here is the L.E. is not relevant to what he talks about in this thread.

There seems to be a lot of focus on the $50k price of the JL-1 L.E. which would indicate this is still THE top JL amp. The text in the above links would indicate that the JL-3 Signature has (for many reasons) indeed has displaced the JL-1 L.E. as the best amplifier released by Mr. Stevens. Of course only a direct shootout between the two models would put such a discussion to bed.

I feel there is often too much focus on the issue of what is “best”. And I would say that for most systems out there, most likely mine included, the JL-2 and the JL-3 signature would essentially be the same most if not nearly all the time. I suspect the big difference would come with very complex and dynamic material.

No matter what CAT you end up with, you are going to need a dedicated line for the amp. These things draw a lot of current when initially powered on!!! When I wrote to Mr. Stevens about power requirements, he was very helpful with ideas on what I needed. He suggested one 30A circuit would suffice for the two JL-3’s provided I waited 5 seconds but not more than 10 seconds (due to the steady state current being drawn by the first amp) before turning on the second amp. I already had 2 circuits available and so I upgraded the wiring to 10GA and put in two 30A breakers. No more flickering lights or tripped breakers…..and no more counting seconds between powering up amps. 8-)

I would personally have a concern with driving Wilson speakers with CAT amps. I found WP 5 speakers to be so very analytical and sterile. They were however incredibly resolving and dynamic, both of which are also major strengths with the CAT amps. And the CAT amps do not at all have a lush warm sound often associated with tube amplifiers. So this combination could almost be too much in the neutral/resolving direction with perhaps a significant loss in decays, volume of space, etc. There is quite a balancing act to achieve all these qualities and I would be cautious here unless the latest WP6 and WP7 speakers have come a long way in the 3-dimensionality dept. since the WP 5. But something like a tube preamp could resolve this issue as well.

John

Raquel: I don't think it was ever Mr Stevens' intention to sell $50k amplifiers for the long haul. Nobody survives on this very long. He simply needed to recover the R&D costs for the all-out assault to develop the finest output transformers that I suspect he was very eager to do. Surely a lot of different materials, topologies, etc., were tried and ultimately not acceptable until the one finally to meet (or come as close as possible at the time to meet) the desired specification.

We all know a lot of software is re-written and much hardware is thrown in the recycle or trash bins for the sake of R&D. The cost of time and parts to build a production unit does not at all reflect the cost it took to get there. And with a "limited" production run, the recipients of those units pay a high cost for any improvements.

Do you really think there is a $20k, a $10k or even a $5k cost in the ultimate hardware/materials updates to the JL-1 signature to make it an L.E.? Of course not! The sonic improvements from this effort could be phenomenol. But the price here is all about R&D costs to achieve that last improvement of the JL-1 before focus was to shift to the next generation amplifier. I suspect the ultimate cost to push this new technology into the later models was rather low once Mr. Stevens had the materials and process in place.

Rather than wait to recover these costs on later amp designs, several JL-1 amps were obviously available for a "limited" production run with the latest transformers. And no doubt Mr. Stevens made other improvements that he had discovered along the way. It is how engineers work. 8-)

Once the L.E. costs were recovered, the Signature and Limited Edition suffixes could be removed as the new JL-2 and JL-3 models were soon to follow. And now we have already seen a JL-3 signature appear that according to Brian is $8k more than the standard JL-3 with most likely improvements beyond just the output transformer. Again, I am not surprised as I have read many articles that Mr. Stevens is constantly improving his products but does not follow each update with a new model suffix nor with a higher price that we often see elsewhere in this industry.

Do we need to learn of a L.E. model at a much higher price to finally feel that the JL-1 L.E. has been replaced by a new top CAT amp? That seems rather silly. Perhaps when Mr. Stevens is eager to do another all-out assault with one of his designs, it just might end up in a new model at a lower price than the current top model. So what will it be...a $40-50k JL-3 L.E. or a $20k JL-5 stereo amp that takes the current JL-3 signature to the next level? I think we get too focused on the model designation and the costs here.

One final thing: When an engineer designs a state of the art product that takes the world by storm, as surely did the JL-1 in all its versions, that engineer does not simply stop there. There are always things to improve upon. I have never heard of an engineer to be satisfied to simply say, "hey, I did the best once, now second best at a lower cost will be fine from here on". There's simply too much drive to continue to do better and even at much lower cost. And this is the JL-2 and JL-3 series.

John

Schorly: I use a 25' MIT 350 EVO cable from an Aesthetix Callisto to the CAT amps and this too works very well. For awhile I used a 14' NBS Statement with an XLR-to-RCA adaptor into the CAT but of course only one of the phases of the Callisto's balanced output was being used. This too worked out very well. I don't think there was an issue of cable length but rather a different sonic character between the two cables: a little more midrnage warmth with the NBS and a little more top-end resolution and openness with the MIT.

Bob: I assume you are in Cincinatti with your Audiogon member name. I wish we lived closer as I'd be so eager to lug over my amps so we could get an opportunity to hear the two models in one system.

Brian: That is an amzing idea you are thinking as I was thinking exactly the same thing. Wow, weird!

Bob: I need to go to Chicago to drop off a turntable to be repaired by Brian's friend and I figured that since I will be there, I might as well take the CAT amps too. And then when I read your interest to also hear these two amps, I was thinking Brian's place would be perfect.

My system here is on the warm and bloomy side with some compromises to the ultimate in neutrality and resolution. Dynamics and contrasts are very good but not quite excellent. Brian's system has much more resolving and dynamic capability so this should really show the strengths and differences of each of the CAT amps.....and in comparison to the Atma-Sphere amps. This would be a very cool opportunity to hear these amps in a state of the art system.

My only concern is that we might triple his monthly electric bill in just one day. Hopefully there are one or two spare 30A circuits to use.

So gentlemen, let me know if this sounds possible in late July or early August.

John

Well in all fairness to Bob, I can relate to the hassle of having to haul these beasts around. And with this taking up most of 2 days with travel and several hours of listening, that's tough for anyone to do these days. It's easier for me as I already was planning to make the journey, and I previously mentioned to Brian that I would bring the amps with me. If I had not planned for nor had a reason to drive to Chicago other than for this listening session, I'm sure I would have replied much the same as Bob did above.

As for the outcome in the listening session, we all have some expectations here. And we would certainly hear qualities from Brian's burned-in Atma-Sphere amps driving the U1s that exceeds either of the CAT amps.

With or without the opportunity to hear these two amps at one time, Bob and I both realize how fortunate we are to own these amplifiers.

John

Schorly: Rcprince raises a important issue on gains. Another product to consider is the Aesthetix Io. The Io has capability up to 80db gain. The non-signature model comes up now and then on the used mkt for much less than the LP2 deluxe. The Io has an awesome portrayal of space and decays but has a higher noise floor and is not quite as resolving as the more costly units. Lots of opportunity with tube changes to really get this unit to sing.

For even less cost, the BAT VK-P10 is a wonderfully musical unit. It has a gain in the low 70 dbs with the internal step-up transformer that I found to not get in the way of the music. It has a lower noise floor than the Io but not quite the 3-dimensional qualities described above.

John