Lamm 2L Reference vs CJ GAT


Just wondering if anybody has a chance to compare the two pre.
I have L2 Reference.I am using it with Lamm LP2 and Lamm M2.2 . Lately I am a bit annoying with the lack of remote control. So I have been playing with the idea of changing the preamp. Also, I could use an extra input more than one direct and 2 line inputs on Lamm. I can't find any information on CJ input impedance to see if it might match LP2 3500 ohm output impedance. Pre to power should not be a problem, impedance wise.
I already ruled out ARC Ref5, heard the 40th Anniversary Pre but I prefer something with slightly more tubey sound rather than ARC neutral, somewhat leaner sound. My local dealer should have one to try soon but will be awhile before it is burned in properly.
suteetat
Is CJ shrinking? It's funny how limited the Conrad Johnson preamp lineup is. There is the GAT (just 250 units CJ says), the ET3 & ET5 (with just 1 tube in these?), and the Classic.
It looks like a company planning to shut down.
Preamps I thought were their mainstay and there's not much there.
Actually, there is also an ET2. So that's GAT, ET5, ET3, ET2...i think Classic is now replaced? Four preamps is a pretty good line up. though in this economy, hard to say anyone is unshrinkable.
I have not been able to demo the CJ GAT. I did audition the CJ Act 2 Series 2 and it is the best pre IMO.
Hi Jafant,

I owned the ACT 2 Series 1, and i will say, the GAT crushed it. not close. The GAT is way more extended, has superior micro and macro dynamics...and extension. Which means the super treble comes out where you never even heard it before...but it also sounds so easy/natural on your ears, you realize the ACT 2 was "wrong".

Plus, the midrange magic is back in a way the aCT 2 does not quite deliver...at least not in comparison. And the noise floor is so low, the decay is remarkable. when you hear clapton, you can hear the voice in the back of his throat, and you can hear his throat roughness...as opposed to just the words and his breath. its crazy.

And it is more natural sounding...in a way i did not fully appreciate the ACT 2 was lacking...until i heard it in my own system. Crazy...
Jafant, I agree with you about the ACT 2.2. Mine seems to keep sounding better and better as it ages.

Lloydelee21, I "think" I agree with you too (about the ACT 1). I say think because while I never heard the original ACT 1, I did have a CT-5 which reviewers and CJ themselves said was so close to the original ACT, and at a much lower price, they had to completely redo the ACT into a series 2. CJ has said that pretty much the only thing the ACT 1 and 2 have in common is the faceplate. Probable why sending them the 1 to upgrade to series 2 cost 5000 dollars.

So, based on what I have actually owned, the ACT 2.2 was a huge upgrade over the CT-5, so I would assume over the original ACT also.

I love CJ preamps. Besides the ACT 2.2, I have an ART 2 and ART 3 in my other 2 systems. I've given some thought to replacing the ACT 2.2 with the GAT but the ACT is so nice. Then I think about swapping one of the ART's but then there is something very special about them too. One day I hope to be able to demo a GAT and see for myself what it's all about but I'm completely happy now so, the push isn't there.

Anyway, we all have our individual tastes. Some will prefer a 6h30 based pre (ACT), some the 6922 (ART), and some the GAT (6922/mosfet). Viva la difference.