2. amps-preamps
  3. 1310434255

Lamm 2L Reference vs CJ GAT

Just wondering if anybody has a chance to compare the two pre.
I have L2 Reference.I am using it with Lamm LP2 and Lamm M2.2 . Lately I am a bit annoying with the lack of remote control. So I have been playing with the idea of changing the preamp. Also, I could use an extra input more than one direct and 2 line inputs on Lamm. I can't find any information on CJ input impedance to see if it might match LP2 3500 ohm output impedance. Pre to power should not be a problem, impedance wise.
I already ruled out ARC Ref5, heard the 40th Anniversary Pre but I prefer something with slightly more tubey sound rather than ARC neutral, somewhat leaner sound. My local dealer should have one to try soon but will be awhile before it is burned in properly.
suteetat

Showing 3 responses by onemug

onemug
784 posts
 
Hi Lloydelee,

I have read Myles thoughts about the GAT and know he loves it. At this level, I think it gets very personal and of course there is the amp/speaker/room interface so even the same person might prefer one of these top pres over another depending on what it's put into.

I do envy you when/if it comes to trying different 6922's as you will only need 2 and I need 10 :(.
onemug
784 posts
 
"A deal breaker for me with the CJ, is all their preamps invert polarity."

It was a deal "maker" for me. Their ART and ACT 2.2 only have "one" gain stage and invert, I would assume the same for the GAT. Don't see any drawback, do see a benefit. Everytime you do something to the signal (like add a gain stage) you mess with it. Maybe it's audible, maybe not but I like the idea of "less is more". Like Joe said, just reverse + and - on the speaker cables. If you need to worry about things, rumor is that a great number of recordings are out of phase to begin with.

Remotes: non-issue if done right.
onemug
784 posts
 
Jafant, I agree with you about the ACT 2.2. Mine seems to keep sounding better and better as it ages.

Lloydelee21, I "think" I agree with you too (about the ACT 1). I say think because while I never heard the original ACT 1, I did have a CT-5 which reviewers and CJ themselves said was so close to the original ACT, and at a much lower price, they had to completely redo the ACT into a series 2. CJ has said that pretty much the only thing the ACT 1 and 2 have in common is the faceplate. Probable why sending them the 1 to upgrade to series 2 cost 5000 dollars.

So, based on what I have actually owned, the ACT 2.2 was a huge upgrade over the CT-5, so I would assume over the original ACT also.

I love CJ preamps. Besides the ACT 2.2, I have an ART 2 and ART 3 in my other 2 systems. I've given some thought to replacing the ACT 2.2 with the GAT but the ACT is so nice. Then I think about swapping one of the ART's but then there is something very special about them too. One day I hope to be able to demo a GAT and see for myself what it's all about but I'm completely happy now so, the push isn't there.

Anyway, we all have our individual tastes. Some will prefer a 6h30 based pre (ACT), some the 6922 (ART), and some the GAT (6922/mosfet). Viva la difference.
More to discover