Lamm ML1.1 & ML 2.1

They just weren't my cup of tea however, having said this it is apparent to me (saddly so) that the future of sound reproduction lies in the digital domain such as this

Ain't that the TRUTH. It really will be all computer(chip)based within another decade(IMHO)but, us audiophools will keep analog around till the end....

Steve,
I dont see you with a low power Amp.
As I recall, you like the bass.
I am going to try a Pass X 350.5 or the 600.5
Ken

Ken, I really just love wonderful music, my happiest point in my journey, musically was with a simple system.

Cardinal X-1
APL 3910
Modified Klipsch Cornwall

My new speakers are far better, as is the latest apl, now, I am hoping for "musical magic" from the Lamm ML2's. My interconnects/power conditioner/pre-amp are world class.

I will also keep my 120 watters to rock out.

I will have my new custom horns (104 DB)next month

I so believe I will be smilin

My ML2's showed up yesterday and work just fine with my 95db Reimer Tetons. I pretty much agree with Oneobgyn on these amps as they are really special. 711smilin I look foward to your feedback on the Epiphany's. I listened for several hours last night and thought I would share some impressions and comparisons with the ML1's. I have had the ML1's in my system for several years and really had trouble imagining there could be much improvement. The first thing I noticed with the ML2's was that they did have a similar sonic signature as the ML1's. The ML1's do very well with dynamics and bass and I was surprised that the ML2's were just as dynamic sounding with only 18 watts. The one area which the ML2's exceeded the ML1's was in the low frequencies where they seem to resolve more low level detail. The area where the ML2's really stand out is in the midrange where I find it extremely engaging and more palpable. Sonic textures are very natural sounding. The ML1 on the other hand is also very transparent and has a very neutral midrange. The ML2's I would say are slightly on the warm side of neutral but in a good way. Both amps have an extended top end with the ML2 being slightly sweeter on top. Overall they do sound more alike than not but the nod goes to the ML2's for their resolving power and palpability. The difference in sound between them is most likely a result of the push pull vs single ended topology's. I suspect that each amp is at the top for its type. For the majority of speakers out there the ML1's are really hard to beat. If you have speakers with higher effeciency though the ML2's may be the best you can get.

"If you have speakers with higher effeciency though the ML2's may be the best you can get."

I absolutely agree. IMO these are hands down the finest amp I have ever owned. The mid range and high end for my ears is as good as it gets. I would be surprised if I ever buy another amp. This is audio nirvana.

Dmailer...now you must take my advice and do some experimenting with the 12AX7 tube on each amp. I didn't know what I was missing until I managed to get NOS circa 1965 Telefunken with rib plates as well as NOS circa 1957 Mullard with long plate and square getter halo. This will take these amps to a completely different level