2. analog
  3. 1119995647

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
herman OP
2,263 posts
 
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.
rbes
16 posts
 
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..
herman OP
2,263 posts
 
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.
ellery911
549 posts
 
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.
rbes
16 posts
 
*** 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.
More to discover