Lamm LP2 and WE417A tubes


I recently purchased one of these and it really is a world class phono stage. Over the years I've had both Pass ONO units, the CJ pr15, an earlier version Aesthetix IO, and lots of lesser units. It is by far the best sounding with the possible exception of the IO.

I was suprised to find Raytheon 5842's in after reading the claim on their website:

Its unique circuitry utilizes specially selected very low noise high trans-conductance Western Electric 417A / 5842 vacuum tubes.

When I asked them about this they said that the dash between 417A and 5842 means "or." They told me that the WE tubes are too expensive and hard to get so they use the Raytheon. In my opinion this is being deceptive since WE also stamped their tubes with 5842 and Lamm invokes the WE name with no intention of ever using the tubes.

So now I sit here and wonder if I'm missing something by not getting some real WE 417A's to try, but I don't want to spend that kind of money if it doesn't change things for the better.

Has anyone tried real Western Electric tubes in it?
herman
My unit is an early-production one (comparatively, anyway) and uses the WE 417As. The sound is excellent, this indeed is a top-class phono stage. I have no idea how it would sound with the Rayethons, though I'd expect it's a matter of personal taste rather than one type being "better" than the other; however, I'll check tonight, I may have a couple of spare WE417s at home. in which case I could lend them to you to try out, if you'd like.
I use a LP2, too, and I would be interested in these NOS results, too.
I think, too, that this is a outstanding good unit ( even with stock tubes ), it outperformed lots I compared easily.
I did tube rolling with my Aesthetix and the result is fine, but changing alone is not the secret, you need the right tubes. At the moment I have a Lamm LL2 here, fitted with NOS Mullards, never listened to it with stock tubes, and I am deeply impressed from it and from Lamm in general.
Herman, you are quite correct in your observation. The mentioning of the Western Electric tube was kind of semi-fraudulent, as Lamm never used the 417’s. Probably because Lamm believes that the WE name sound “sexy” for the audio propagandas, so he dropped this "flashy" audio title. With the same result Lamm could name Thomas Alva Edison as a co-created of his phono-preamp.

The Rcprince comment are not accurate: the LP2 never was produced with 417A, would it be early or late production. Probably he bought it used the previous owner placed the 417A tubes in the unit. BTW, the replacement the tubes from 5842 to the 417A is quite questionable procedure as it creates a lot of own” issues”. Generally, I feel, this phonostage does not worth to do any re-tubing or any further experiments as it is not really serious RIAA corrector. There was an article about it at

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=708.

You might find it worth to read.
The correct article location is:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=708
I read the article and could not disagree more. Despite the misleading statements about the WE tubes, this unit never fails to bring out the best in my system. I think it sounds wonderful.
That is fine that you disagree. Audio does need some stratification in order the different phonocorrectors “bring best” in the different systems, for different people and even in different music. Certainly it could not be an argument if YOU THINK that the LP2 “sounds wonderful” or not. The issue was if the LP is an adequate quality phonocorrector, abstractedly speaking, without any reference of the specific limitation of yours or anyone else’s playback. Unfortunately the LP2 on the scale of 10 being the best would be somewhere at 5 points in MM and somewhere around 3 points in MC mode. Happy you or not …it would be juts the stage of your satisfaction but not the objective performing characteristic of a given audio device..
There was nothing to support his position that it was not accurate other than his perceptions. I think it is very accurate. Who is correct?

He did not like the sound of it and went into great detail to make his point, but at the end of the day it was just an opinion. Why should I give any more weight to the guy you referenced than Olsher? I don't. Olsher loved it and so do I. The guy you referenced didn't. So what?

I think I'll stick with my opinion and continue to enjoy what I consider to be a very nice phono stage.
Hmmmm...I notice an uncanny similarity to the writing style of RBES and that of the so called author of the article he points to...similar misspellings, similar grammatical errors, same use of ALL CAPS here and there.

sounds like you should have said..."hey...this product sucks...let me point you to another website where I say it sucks also...just in more detail and in a more abusive manner."

welcome to Audiogon.
*** There was nothing to support his position that it was not accurate other than his perceptions. I think it is very accurate. Who is correct? He did not like the sound of it and went into great detail to make his point, but at the end of the day it was just an opinion. Why should I give any more weight to the guy you referenced than Olsher? I don't. Olsher loved it and so do I. The guy you referenced didn't. So what? I think I'll stick with my opinion and continue to enjoy what I consider to be a very nice phono stage.

Herman,

very interesting observation! The most exciting is the part where you contemplate to whom you should “give more weight”: to Romy or to Olsher? That was a titanic intellectual battle on your part: you picked the side but… you importantly lost the phonostage. I might open a secret to you: the LP2 was design specifically for the people who are accustomed to “pick the sides” in audio… I’m not kidding, Herman.

I do not think that it would be relevant or necessary to teach you about the specific and unambiguous shortcomings that Lamm LP2 has. You said that “you love it” and this pretty much sets all bids off. It is similar to you are dating an ugly woman – she is ugly…. but if you love then her ugliness do not bother you, quite in contrary – you, under the influence of your love, find here beautiful. I’m do feel comfortable with this arrangement but answering your question “So what?” I would say: Love her but do not drag her to the world competition of female beauty (let presume that they have any merit). The people who played at THAT level have seen more objectively attractive women and have more developed reference points of prettiness.

The said parts in this entire thing people in audio are not trained or tuned to deal with the subject of the equipment’s performance and they are unable to objectively assess the sonic results. The Audio is bult around the “ audio items made to be love” and the people who looking for justification and conformations why they are in love with the “audio items”. Romy The Cat calls those people “Audio Zombies”…

In any rate, this thread is not about the misery of LP2 but about the Lamm’s Linguistic trickery around the WE 417A. Since you so love your LP2 then I’m sure you have found many alternative tuby solutions to your Lamm’s phonocorrector. I’m glad you love your “item” and enjoy what your discernment makes enjoyable.
I apologize for my my poor use of the English language. What I meant to convey was that I did not choose either of the reviewers sides, but that I would stick with my own assessment, it is a fine stage.

To call me an audio zombie is an insult that I choose not to ignore. I have been active in this hobby for many years and have listened at length to many of the world's best phono stages. I do not blindly follow the advice of reviewers. My assessment is based on many years of direct observation, your's appears to be based on the observation of a single reviewer. You offer nothing other than a link to a review by an unknown who you choose for some reason to invest total trust.

I will say this once more and move on, your reviewer offered nothing more than his subjective opinion. I find it curious that you choose to follow one reviewer's opinion as gospel and dismiss another with absolutley no objective data.
I did not call you audio zombie I said that you behaved like on in your posts above. Regarding the rest… well, the reason why I referred you to the Romy’s observation is because it was my article, so I kind of very much “agree” with it. In the end, I am glad that you are in peace with your “known reviewer”, with your “listened at length to many of the world's best phono stages”, with yours “many years of direct observation”, and with your “objective data”. I wonder if you were able to hand the “real data” if I present it…. But I do not wonder anymore. Anyhow, Herman, I think it might be the end of the conversation between me and you regarding the Lamm LP2. I think we said much more then this phonocorrector deserves.
Well Romy, I agree we have nothing more to say about the LP2. Thanks (I guess) for coming clean and admitting that from the beginning you intended to deceive us. Now that we know you cannot be trusted to be forthcoming we can factor that into our analysis of your opinions.
Deceive you?!!! Are you out of you mind? How did I deceive you, or was trying to? Deceive YOU? Do you really feel that to deceive you is my objective and that might serve any value? God, apparently there are more egomaniac people then myself!!! How more forthcoming a person should be then to be just myself? Did you confuse me with Osama Bin Laden or with your local brothers with whom you would like to kiss and glorify each peas of hi-fi crap? Herman, you need to do really something more to earn my “deceiving attention”. You could bring any factors into your “analysis” you wish but so far it does not look that your “analysis” has any substance. The LP2? It was never the subject of my article – this phonocorrector does not really deserve any serious writing or mine. The subject or that article was to demonstrate the “reviewing idiocy” that the reviewer full presented. The Lamm LP was juts a comfortable and lucky illustration that, as an RIAA corrector, is good ONLY for the illustration. I am sorry that the phonocorrector-illustration replaced for you a phonocorrector. Actually, why sorry, - it was bult for you. Enjoy the ride…
You deceived us by pretending to be someone else, directing our attention to an article and not revealing that you had written it. This deception would lead us to be believe that the opinions stated were not only yours but were also held by others, thereby giving them credibility. This is no different than when a dealer posts a positive review of their own products without identifying themselves as a dealer.

I thought we were done discussing the LP2? Glad to see you took yet another opportunity to bash a piece of equipment that other than your analysis has received glowing praise. Everyone that sits down for a listen in my system raves about how lifelike the vocals are, singer present in the room, etc., etc.

Your observation below is so far removed from my experience and that of everyone who has listened to my system that I wholeheartedly agree that we have nothing further to discuss concerning this phono stage.

You wrote
Also, the LP2 do has a lot of problems with human voice and particularly with upper region. LP2 converts everything above ~4000-5000Hz into a nonspecific, glycerin dipped (thanks for 417A)… tenorsish vaseline… In your world it called “urgency of human voice”. In my world it means “the urgency to writhe anything is a review”

As for the rest of your rant in the last post, I'm sorry, but the sentence construction is so poor that I'm not really sure what you are trying to say.

I think I'll go listen to a record. I really am enjoying this ride!
*** You deceived us by pretending to be someone else, directing our attention to an article and not revealing that you had written it. This deception would lead us to be believe that the opinions stated were not only yours but were also held by others, thereby giving them credibility. This is no different than when a dealer posts a positive review of their own products without identifying themselves as a dealer.

Hm, I never thought in this way. I refer to the article because I though it would give you some education. You have to learn to deal with the subject and with points of the writing not with the extending the “respect” to the author of the writing. You said: “his deception would lead us to be believe that the opinions stated were not only yours but were also held by others, thereby giving them credibility”. It was exactly where you come very short, insultingly short, unforgivable short! Who cares how many others people hold my opinion and that would extend any credibility? Come on, are you still object you audio-Zombie inclinations or you wiling to sing me more songs about your personal listening experience? Anyhow, since you self-disqualified yourself I would like to point out (again) that Lamm LP2 was initially designed to address the very specific and very restricted level of audio consciousness… I am glad that you found the match

*** Glad to see you took yet another opportunity to bash a piece of equipment that other than your analysis has received glowing praise. Everyone that sits down for a listen in my system raves about how lifelike the vocals are, singer present in the room, etc., etc.

This juts portray your surrounding but it said nothing about the performance of the LP2. Furthermore, reading your “singer present in the room” it is self-evident that you, audio-wise, still swim in very shallow water. Stay with LP2, it is fine preamp for you. I was not trying to be smart-ass in that last sentence; I was very serious and very positive.

*** Your observation below is so far removed from my experience and that of everyone who has listened to my system that I wholeheartedly agree that we have nothing further to discuss concerning this phono stage. You wrote:Also, the LP2 do has a lot of problems with human voice and particularly with upper region. LP2 converts everything above ~4000-5000Hz into a nonspecific, glycerin dipped (thanks for 417A)… tenorsish vaseline… In your world it called “urgency of human voice”. In my world it means “the urgency to writhe anything is a review”

Well I very stay behind of what I said and if should you behaved I might explain what you might do to distinguish this “quality” of LP2. However, you said enough for me to make a conclusion that it might be waste of my time. Defiantly the ignorance is blessing…
So far you have called me an audio zombie, described me as ignorant, dismissed my powers of observation as being inadequate, questioned my intellectual capabilities, characterized me as swimming in shallow audiophile waters, observed that trying to educate me would be a waste of your time, and observed that I would not be able to handle the truth if you decided to share it. This brings nothing to the debate other than the same insulting and condescending attitude you took in the article you wrote about Olsher’s review. Yes, you have every right to disagree and to publish your opinions, but even if you are correct in all of your observations it does not give you the right to attack another’s work in such a smug and demeaning manner.
Actually, Herman, I do not call you by any names by any means but I just REACT to the behavioral patterns you indicate in your posts. Northing else! I think that instead of observing my unquestionably condescending behavior you should look slightly more critically to your own verbal actions. From the place where I stay the people who preoccupied with building the base of own supporters on order to shape up “own visions”, the people, who reject whatever they did not know yet and the people who use hypocrisy as “evidences” do have very distinctive names. That was a fan thread and I hope that now the psychological profile of a typical Lamm LP2 owner well exposed itself. I have seen at least dozen folks who were feeling the same way as you do about this phonocorrector and I might report the you all gays have some “similarities”. No hard feelings. … Just an easy phonostage and the easy user… Enjoy you easy time in audio….
So now you have switched from being a condescending jerk to being a patronizing jerk? You did indeed directly use the insults I cited. " Defiantly the ignorance is blessing" was not calling me ignorant? "That was a titanic intellectual battle on your part:" was not questioning my intellect? Need I go on? Do you really think I am so stupid that I don’t realize you are insulting me? Your tact throughout this thread has been to attack and deride. The article you wrote about Olsher's review was unquestionably abusive and you evidently took great pleasure in mocking him. No matter how right you think you are it does not give you license to be less than civil.

Do you treat people with such utter disdain when you deal with them face to face or just when hiding behind the wall of the internet? Are you so insecure that you can only feel good about yourself when you belittle others?

Although you would not know it by reading your posts, it really is possible to take an opposing view without ridiculing the other person. You are evidently an intelligent individual, but it is impossible to take anything you say seriously when the only way you are able to make a point is to scoff at the person you disagree with.
*** So now you have switched from being a condescending jerk to being a patronizing jerk?

Nope, I was not a patronizing jerk but I patronized a jerk.

*** You did indeed directly use the insults I cited. " Defiantly the ignorance is blessing" was not calling me ignorant? "

And what is wrong to be ignorant? Ignorance is the fact of unawareness and you certainly unaware about many aspects. If you feel insulted that you are ignorant them my presumption that you jerk was not so off the mark. Do you wont me to go on with it or you would calm down? We both have decided that there is not rationale for me to educate you how to recognize the real LP2 capacities. So what else you want to talk with me? To accuse me that I’m a bad Cat? Ok, I agree, so what?

*** Do you really think I am so stupid that I don’t realize you are insulting me? Your tact throughout this thread has been to attack and deride. The article you wrote about Olsher's review was unquestionably abusive and you evidently took great pleasure in mocking him. No matter how right you think you are it does not give you license to be less than civil.

Civility is a stature of perception and it is high colorize thing that fluctuate with a given agenda. If I turn myself around and begin to parse your wisdom that made you to mate your Avantgarde Dos with 300B then you would kiss me in my taily ass. In reality, I really do not care about you and frankly speaking you are insulting yourself much more than I would expected. Well, this is your prerogative: do whatever makes you happy

*** Do you treat people with such utter disdain when you deal with them face to face or just when hiding behind the wall of the internet? Are you so insecure that you can only feel good about yourself when you belittle others?

And what would be the different if it internet or face to face? You would be the same and you would be expressing the same boredom and you are doing now.

*** Although you would not know it by reading your posts, it really is possible to take an opposing view without ridiculing the other person. You are evidently an intelligent individual, but it is impossible to take anything you say seriously when the only way you are able to make a point is to scoff at the person you disagree with.

You are incorrect. I ridicule the ridiculeable and in this given case it is you. I never ridicule a person who says something. You do not say anything. All that I heard from you that you have a pack of your friends who come to your house and who told you that your LP2 sound is was a “cool” phonocorrector. Sorry, my friend, I am not the person who is impressed with the “baseball inelegance” and the “bumper sticker-wisdom”. It was the last time when I replied to your lightweightness.

Take care...
wow, that was interesting
Wow, interesting indeed.

I have not heard the LP2 but there has been so much praise by virtually everyone here who has either owned this or heard it that I would love to hear it vs. my Io. But maybe the Io would stir up less emotion (of the non musical kind) ... or is that, commotion?

Herman: It sounds like you have joined the group of those who love this unit. Do you find it to have a lower noise floor than the Io?

Rbes: I have a couple of fair questions: 1) Why did you not simply say from the start, "I happen to be one person here who did not care for the LP2 and here is a report as to my findings"?; 2) What is your reference phono stage that so well "showed up" all the problems of the LP2?
*** I have not heard the LP2 but there has been so much praise by virtually everyone here who has either owned this or heard it that I would love to hear it vs. my Io

Hm… you will find that Io it compatible to LP2. From certain prospective the LP2 is more interesting because it has some X-factor (look my article about L2) and some other things but Io is less “brick wall flat” then LP2. The Io is very mud-spattered vs LP2 us too syntactic. Witches are better? Both are no there…

*** Do you find it to have a lower noise floor than the Io?

Hm, I would not say so. The LP2 has 453 zillions dB less gain then Io and it looks like it quieter. Also, the LP2 is too sharp (musically speaking) that snips the noise and many that Patricia Barber so “attractive” for some people… In addition, the 417A/5842 tubes that used in LP2 are unfortunately VERY finny. They pick noise, they deviate gain, and they go into crazy sometimes. They have HUGE percentage (~80%) that might not be use in the LP2 input stage. The 417A/5842 is very unstable tube and there are many much better high mu tubes that might be bult a phonocorrector around, including the two stages 65dB gain instead of the 37dB gain that Lamm made in his LP2. What is the purpose to have a insufficient gain glycerin- like-sounding phonocorrector and to use it with transistor-table-radio-like-sounding transformer-condom? What to use it with, the $300 worth MM Grado?

I have to admit that I kind of slightly harsher on the Lamm LP2 because to me it was a disappointment phonocorrector. I even paid $250 in order Lamm to inspect it and to confirm that my unit was not broken. After a year of trying to push the demanded sound off my unit and after facing the SAME sound form at least 10 other units I declared the LP2 as juts an ordinary audiophile crap. I never extend more credibility to any other piece of audio that I had in my room and I never work harder trying to get out of LP2 are reasonable sound. Probably my frustration with this phonocorrector have licensed me to be slightly more critical to what the LP2 does. If some of the “older guys” remember the text of my add and my picture when I was dumping my LP2 on this site then you might decipher how I felt about this init.
Wel Jafox, if the LP2 is audiophile crap and your IO is worse you must be feeling pretty silly about spending all of that money :>)

I once had an IO but that was a while ago and it was a single power supply older unit in a completely different system so I won't attempt to compare the IO to the LP2. I was very happy with the IO and it is one of the few pieces I regret selling. The IO is much more flexible in terms of loading and the Lamm does have limited gain so if you need the extra gain (I don't) then the Lamm is not for you.

I too am curious what the reference phono stage could be.
And what is a juts finny syntactic phonocorrector? Inquiring minds need to know!
Herman: I too have an older Io with one PS and still it is wonderful. It was quite a step up from the very nice BAT VK-P10 in the ways of portraying a more open and realistic 3-dimensional presentation. But with Albert Porters' posts here on suggested tube rolling, I spruced up the Io with a complete tube overhaul and this change far exceeded what I ever could have imagined. I got yet another tier of harmonic richness and decays with the Telefunkens and Mullards. And yes I need the gain. I typically run the Io at 74db gain for either the Koetsu Rosewood Sig or the Clearaudio Accurate.

Guido, Guido, Guido: Behave! 8-)
JaFox, now that I think about it, the tube thing was the reason I got rid of it. It was getting the point of needing tubes and a factory set was $500 for a single PS unit. Getting into tube rolling was beyond my means at the time and even a stock set was a stretch so I decided to move on. I got a Pass AlephOno which wasn't up to the task of competing with the IO but was a fine unit at the price.

If the Lamm is crap and the IO is worse then I hate to think what the Pass was. Probably ruined my hearing.
Ok Jafox, really, I am tryin', I am tryin'!
Herman, I can send you my spare set of WE 417a tubes to try if you'd like. Although I didn't do extensive a/b comparisons, I believe the WE to be slightly more refined presenting a smoother sound with similar tonality. It wasn't a huge improvement, less than I expected, but worth the $200 investment in my opinion. The LP2 sounds good to me but I'm not as critical as Romy (Rbes). If there is something better mass produced, reliable, and at a similar price point, I would like to hear it.
Thanks for the offer Ethannn, that is a very kind and civilized thing to do. I will contact you via email.
Wow! $500 for just a pair of EL34 and 6 12ax7's for the PS? Something is very wrong with that. I just put in a pair of EI EL34's and 6 EI 12ax7's for a combined $98 in the Io and it sounds mighty good. I must try the same with the Callisto which has Mullard EL34s and Telefunken 12ax7....but another day. Anyway, you're a happy camper with the LP2.
Sorry for the confusion, I meant $500 for a full set of tubes, power supply and phonocorrector.
what do you lp2 owners out there think of using the clearaudio titanium cartridge with this unit?If not what are some of the best choices, I currently have a transfiguration temper W...
@ Romy... "I would like to point out (again) that Lamm LP2 was initially designed to address the very specific and very restricted level of audio consciousness… I am glad that you found the match"

So, let me get this right..... Lamm has psychologists designing their gear now??!!
you are always very humorous, your writing style, as quirky as it is, never fails to entertain! Thank you for the laughs.

I currently own the LP 2 Deluxe with WE 417a tubes and find their performance improves resolution vs the stock Raytheons. I believe Lamm designed it for the WE 417a and intended at one point to put these tubes in the LP12, but their cost and microphonic nature made this decision not practical for a consumer product.

I own several phono stages and have used numerous phono stages including the IO Eclipse with 2 power supplies, which I enjoyed immensely, but think the Lamm has its own signature, which can or can not compliment a system. If your system is boarding on excessive resolution, you will need to voice your LP 12 with different, power supply tubes, power cords or interconnects, etc to see if it will be a good fit. In fact in some cases it not be the best fit with your other components.

It has enough gain for most cartridges, but not the really tough ones such as Koetsu.

When properly dialed in it can offer exceptional bass response and transparency, which are at the top of the class.

I really do not believe Lamm was trying to deceive anyone in mentioning the 417a as I believe he designed the unit with this tube in mind, but it was not practical in the end, as noted above.
This thread is 5 years old and more or less dead. But, the LP2 was made for datas of the WE417A, it is a superior sounding tube. I bought them with a Mullard 6x4, they last a few thousand hours. The LP2 does not burn tubes (compared to other Designs).
It uses Jensen Transformers, they are better than most out there from other manufacturers, one reason why this unit sounds like the real thing (when the other parts of the System can show this).
When the stock gain is not enough for your low output cartridge, you can ask Lamm to replace them with higher gain Jensens. He will do it.
Also when you have some preferences for the Impedance of your favorite cartridge (for example 2-9 Ω ...)

A good Phonostage can't be rated on its gain only. For example, on phono stage design, a scratch or bit of dirt on the LP can send a high-amplitude high- frequency transient to the phono stage, and some phono stages will momentarily overload or run into slewing problems because of this. And when an amplification circuit overloads or slews, it usually takes some time for it to recover, which will exaggerate the audible consequences of the LP scratch. In other words, you want a phono stage with high overload margin and very good stability in the ultrasonic range (at least up to 100kHz).
Sometimes other "problems" are responsible, when the "Sound" does not meet the Phantasy of the Listener. For example, Lyra cartridges are designed on the principles of dumping mechanical energy as quickly and completely as possible into the tonearm.
If the tonearm has a good armtube structure and the bearings have been adjusted carefully for minimal play and are solid, dumping mechanical energy into the tonearm will be fine. If the tonearm doesn't have a good armtube structure or there are bearing problems, dumping mechanical energy into the tonearm will obviously cause problems.
The LP2 Performance has to be seen in combination with the Gain from the connected Preamp and the connected amps. When there is no mismatch you can use every cartridge > 0.22mV, I used a 0.25mV Miyabi without any problem for years.
Come on Logenn, after more than 5 years of not using WE tubes his web page still says "Its unique circuitry utilizes specially selected very low noise high trans-conductance Western Electric 417A / 5842 vacuum tubes."

Any reasonable person would expect to find WE tubes based on that statement. No matter what his original intention was after 5 years he should have corrected this. By leaving it that way it is clear he wants you to think you are getting WE.

.
Herman- I can see why you think they are being shifty; the marketing for the LP 2 certainly could be more prescise, but having owned Lamm products and receiving support from the factory would lead me to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Valdamir sets new standards for service IMO; and his wife immediately will notify you of any progress. In fact he will contact you while out of the country if you have a problem to support you, until he can personally observe and rectify the issue.

I sent my Lp 2 in for service and he telephoned me to let me know it would be ready in a day or two and that he was pleased I switched to the WE 417a tubes as they were made for each other. I quized him on why they were not standard and he said too difficult to obtain in quantity and too costly. How many pre amps do you know come with NOS tubes anyway?

I also had an issue with the ML 2 and his level of commitment leads me to think they are not wired that way. I can tell you horror stories about other tube manufactures.

What Logenn said - superb service from Lamm is something I've come to expect. I have never gotten even a whiff of "marketing-ese" from them.
I have never gotten even a whiff of "marketing-ese" from them.

You are correct, continuing to use the name Western Electric in their description of the piece when they have no intention of using them is not a whiff, it is a stench.

.
No mention of "WE", just 417A/5842.
.

copied and pasted from their web site listed below

Its unique circuitry utilizes specially selected very low noise high trans-conductance Western Electric 417A / 5842 vacuum tubes.

http://www.lammindustries.com/PRODUCTS/LP2descr.html

.
Oh, I looked in "specs" page and all it said was 417A/5842.