Lamm LP2 Deluxe vs. Manley Steelhead

Rvlardon, thanks for the correction.....i mean't 40 ohms not 400 ohms.

i don't think i'm very expert on the loading issue. my first few cartridges seemed happiest at 47k ohms, more top end air and openness.....which i liked. that was when i was using the Aesthetix Io phono stage (which turned out to be have a slightly 'dark' character in contrast to the Lamm). the Lamm has always seemed more detailed and open than the Aesthetix Io even at 40 ohms. if i had the Manley i might be end up someplace else if i played with the adjustments.

I would like do not comment on Lamm/Steelhead sonic qualities but I would like to point out that the “flexibilities” that you pointed out hav a dark side. (Not to mention all those unnecessary in a serious phonocorrector volume controls, mono switchs, needless extra stages and so on…) Yes, it is "cool" to be able to adjust the input C and R but do not forger then you bringing that 0.2 mV signal over all those switches. Many people after thy have found the correct setting take all these switches out. You would need that “flexibility” once in 3-5 years when you get a new cartridge but you will experience the sonic degradations as the result of those “flexibilities” dally.

I suppose there is (some?) degradation, but, honestly, it's hard to see how much there is given the quality of the phono stage. One of the advantages of the Manley is that the loading does, in fact, make a big difference as far as the final sound. You can fine-tune it, as it were.
The tubges I'm using: Siemens E288CC in place of the 6922s; and the gold-pin Tung-Sols inplace of 7044s.
Mike Lavigne does not appear to have RF issues--if you do, I'd be surprised if the Lamm can remain quiet at the lower cartridge output levels.

*** I suppose there is (some?) degradation…

I suppose to you were ably to detect, filter out and interpret those degradation

*** honestly, it's hard to see how much there is given the quality of the phono stage.

What dose it mean? Manley uses low gain tubes and many “toys” inside that forced then to pile-up superfluous amount of active stages. Lamm is two only stages design with a filet inside, that is all that you need to perform the purpose of the RAII correction. This dos not say anything about sound of those units but it at least indicated the initial intentions. Yes, it is nice to have at TT with automatically changing records but…

*** One of the advantages of the Manley is that the loading does, in fact, make a big difference as far as the final sound. You can fine-tune it, as it were.

Yes and no. Those “advantages” are fine sound in the reviews and in the marketing brochures but let look at those “advantages” under the real life. The capacitance loading is fairly funny things. The MC cartages do not really need it. The contemporary MM cartages are not sensitive to capacitance at all. (Actually then need it is as low as possible it means no extra capacitance) Impedance is very different story. However you have all this federal case created just because you need to fine one single resistor value… and forget about it then. Why don’t you fine this value by many other conventional methods and to replaces the default resistor. This little path up to the grid of your first tube is critically important: layout, the type of the resistor, proximity and so on. Those phonostages are not $500 Sony receivers where you comfort is the primary aim. Those multi-thousand dollars phonostages exist not because you are willing to have fun by dialing-in the cartridges loading but to yield a maximum result form you analog insulation. The only one real advantage I can see in the Manley’s loading is ability for the reviews to write this doodles very fast and to move forward to another product.

Rgs,
The Cat

PS: BTW, the discrete values that Manley offers are not narrow enough (from my point of view). However, an average audiophool dose not know how to dial-in the correct input resistance and how to properly damp those MC cartridges. In the best case they run like wounded in the ass antelopes between the voicing their systems by the loading resistor values, “voicing” by the VTA setting, “voicing” by the phonocables, “voicing” by the overhanging and so on. (I’m not kidding: I have seen it a number of times event in context of very expansive installations and in context of people with very high “audio reputation”.) As the result an average audiophool could come up with some kind of more or less “pseudo-balanced all-together sound” but it has nothing to do with a proper cartridge loading. Generally I agree with what Lamm did: The level at which all those “product-type” phonostages perform it is not necessary to arm a “voicing hobbyist” with an extra discrepancy-able-to-induce gismo.

I have to agree with Verybigamp. How often does one really need to tune a cartridge? He's right about the capacitance issue. In the past, a certain capacitance was needed to resonate with the inductance of the coil to extend frequency response. That's not really a problem anymore with the advanced cartridges of today. Especially with the HO MCs.

For a more scientific analysis of loading, see my www.hagtech.com/loading.html white paper. It basically demonstrates why Verybigamp firmly grasps the situation.

Personally, I think reducing load capacitance to a minimum (that includes cables) will bring out the best in your cartridge. Then, at that point you tune with resistance for proper damping (reduce ultrasonic resonance). All of my phono stages were designed with radically low input capacitance. You can hear the difference.