Tubed amps for WP7s

I just wanted to get an idea of the kind of tubed amplification used to drive WP7s -- both SET and push-pull. I know the Lamm ML2.1s are on the top of the list. What are the other WP7 owners using?
For my WP 6.0's, I'm using a single BAT VK75SE. Love it...
The ML 2.1's are the most musical amp I have ever owned. They are in a league of their own. At 93Db efficiency on the WP 7, the ML 2.1 will drive them easily. Bear in mind however that they are an SET amp and only 18 wpc. As a result if you are used to the bass slam from a big SS amp you won't find that with the Lamm. Instead however will be a very well defined bass. I doubt if I will ever buy another amp.

Another option to consider is Vladimir's hybrid M1.2 reference. Also fantastic
I will vote for the VTL 750s. And I use all the power, but it truly depends on your room size, music and prefered listening volume. The 750s aren't the last word in detail but they are the last word in musicality at loud volumes.
I have a wp7 and also own the hybrid ss/tube lamm 2.2 mono amplifiers.

I previously ran the wp7 with rowland 302 solid state stereo amplifier.

The Lamm's easily best the rowland when it comes to capturing the emotion and feeling of music. The lamm can also have as much bass slam as the rowland if you get cables that match amp/speaker combination well. I had my lamms with nordost valhalla and then switched to purist dominus interconnect between amp and speaker. The nordost did not provide enough down low bass with the lamm. The purist definitely does.

I have not tried the 1.2 lamm mono amps but have generally heard great things. My undestanding that you get a little more presence in vocals than on the 2.2. However, I have also heard that if you truly want to rock out to modern music that some have found it lacks all the punch you might want. The 1.2 and 2.2 are probably 2/3 the same amplifier. The 2.2 is 220 watts but 41 watts in class A. While the 1.2 is 110 watts but all class A.

So I would say try to listen to both but if you listen to a lot of rock than probably the 2.2. It never hurts to have extra power and the 2.2 is so damn good with vocals already.

"The 750s aren't the last word in detail but they are the last word in musicality at loud volumes."

It all depends on what your goals are. Do you want to listen at loud volumes or do you want detail? Personally I like the latter and for detail the ML 2.1 IMO is the last word. I must say as well that they can drive my X-2's to ear bleeding SPL at 18wpc
Thanks for your responses. I had the Rowland 302s driving Eidolon Diamonds and thought they were a very synnergistic match -- in fact somewhat tubey. Unfortunately, I sold the Rowland with intentions of going SET. Prior to my Rowland/Eidolon ownership, I had a pair of WP6s driven by Art Audio Jotas and were just wonderful. The Jotas (with VV32 tubes) produced about 22WPC which certainly didn't have the last word in slam but produced such beautiful mids and decent lows and highs.

I actually now have the Air Tight ATM211 which produce 22WPC. I've had them for a week and initially thought that they were grossly underpowered but are now starting to grow on me. They're wonderful amps but perhaps not the best match for the WP7s.
Are those the Air Tights with the EL 34's? If so, I've always wondered what they'd be like with WP's...
No, these have the huge 211 output tubes, and are SET monoblocks. The ones with EL34s I believe are the ATM2s which have push-pull topology.
While the 7s are efficient at 90dbs, the impedance isn't the easiest of loads from what I recall in Stereophile. It falls to 2-3ohms in part. Would be tough to recommend a SET here.

I think the ML1.1s would work better with 90+ watts.
If I am not mistaken I believe that the WP 7's have an impedance of 93 Db. I do agree however that Vladimir's M 1.2 Reference would probably work better here
I am using a OTL Tenor 75 wi. It is amazing.
The Audio Reseach 610's would be one of the last and only choice I would make as far as tubes go. Pushes the speaker to its limits
I owned the ARC Ref 600 Mk lll (predecessor to the 610), Indeed they were great but the heat given off by 31 tubes per amp (62 in all) was unbearable even after I installed a 3rd dedicated AC for m listening room. I was going to buy the 610's but did an about face and went with the Lamm ML 2.1 at 18 wpc. The best amp I have ever owned and would never change
The 610 are a new beast with less tubes. New architecture allows it to be convectionally cooled but fans are still an option. An amp I chose instead of the 610's was a Dartzeel. Excellent dynamics and musicality. Though its SS its better sound than the tubes without the all the bullshit that tubes give
"Though its SS its better sound than the tubes without the all the bullshit that tubes give"

I respectfully disagree
Oneobgyn, have you heard the Dartzeel?
Many times.

I don't disagree that it is a good amp. I just prefer my Lamm ML 2.1's and that is no disrespect to my friends Jonathan Tinn and Mike Lavigne. It just doesn't rock my sonic boat as do the Lamm.
I may have missed a thread. Have you listened to the 7's with the Dartzeel. If so you have a valid point. My experiences with the 7's were that they needed power to get the bass right. The bass and dynamics of Wilson's speaker is their strong point and without the power I thought they were lifeless. I have not heard the Lamm's with the 7's either so I may be wrong.
I think my Vac Phi 300 is the best amp I have heard. I have heard the Dartzeel. I will say it is the best solid state amp
I have heard. But I think the Phi is much better.

I have heard the Phi 300 on the Wilson 7's. It had total control, despite its average power rating. I have heard it on the MBL 111e's which are pretty hard to drive. I loved the combo. I ever prefered it to the biggest MBl amps. For all the reasons I prefer tube amps.