Lamm 2L Reference vs CJ GAT

"A deal breaker for me with the CJ, is all their preamps invert polarity."

It was a deal "maker" for me. Their ART and ACT 2.2 only have "one" gain stage and invert, I would assume the same for the GAT. Don't see any drawback, do see a benefit. Everytime you do something to the signal (like add a gain stage) you mess with it. Maybe it's audible, maybe not but I like the idea of "less is more". Like Joe said, just reverse + and - on the speaker cables. If you need to worry about things, rumor is that a great number of recordings are out of phase to begin with.

Remotes: non-issue if done right.

Hi Suteetat,

we've both posted on AVGuide regarding CJ GAT which i also am researching carefully.

I feel pretty sure about going for the GAT...i have been a CJ fan for well over 12 years, and owned 3 pieces in that time...amp and 2 pres...current is ACT2.

Spoke with dealer of Zanden, Wavac, Shindo...and astoundingly relative to these 3 reference pres (which he sells)...he said to go with GAT (and he does NOT sell it!)

That said a lot to me...seems he felt it was the right blend of natural tonality, with detail/extension, and neutrality/linearity of the spectrum.

Meanwhile, what specifically were your impressions of ARC Ref 40 vs Ref 5? i have heard Ref 3, Ref 5...so you observations/comparisons are greatly welcome! (if it helps, i also know CJ ACT, Evo 202, Evo 2 reasonably well.)

thanks!!!

Hi Lloyd,
I had ARC Ref3 in my system for about a year. Heard Ref5 a few times and have 2 friends that have Ref 40. Basically Ref 5 was a tad better than Ref 3. Ref 40 is quite a bit better but in the wrong direction for me. I am not a fan of thick, syrupy, bronze coloration, nice big fat midrange with less extension at both end of spectrum, I do like a bit more warmth and full body sound that tube equipments give in comparison to solid state. I find Ref 5 well extended, excellent detail but left me a bit cold. Ref 40 is more full bodied,smooth, but still a bit on the lean side. Almost like it traded some of the tube virtue for extension,speed, detail and neutrality. In comparison, Lamm is a bit less opened but has the kind of midrange that I like, very full body but not at the sacrifice of detail with good speed, sweet midrange and excellent tonal density but in no way, syrupy.
From sonic standpoint, I have nothing to complain and would gladly settle for it. I never implied that I would trade remote control capability for sound quality as Syntax seemed to suggest. I suppose JV's blog regarding GAT got me interested since it sounded like GAT did not sacrifice as much of the tube's virtue as ARC in order to gain extension, detail, dynamic range or bass capability. Anyhow, my 2nd phono stage will arrive in a couple of months and I will run out of inputs on Lamm. So once my dealer has GAT in, I would definitely give it a listen and see if it might be a good replacement for Lamm.

Hi Suteetat,

Thanks!!! That is very helpful. I too am looking forward to hearing the GAT...and will post my findings if I do.

Look forward to reading your post when you have heard GAT...thanks!

Hi Suteetat,

Any luck with CJ GAT?