…and since it is in LL line I presume that it might be right along with LL2 Preamp – not particularly interesting preamp. In other words it is most likely the “positively expected” and “might be interesting” continuation of the L1 and L2 line.

As I understand the LL1 is one stage buffer with paralleled output tubes and all this costs $43K.

Again, I do not object the price but I question what is given for the price. 

http://www.lammindustries.com/PRODUCTS/LL1spec.html

http://www.lammindustries.com/PRODUCTS/LL1descr.html

The 17dB gain with Rated Output Voltage of 1V RMS? Am I missing anything?

Anyhow, a conventional PS with regulated filaments (very strange), no phase –switch, just 3 inputs (probably only one is “direct”), capacitor-coupled tube gain stage with 200R output impedance, no remote control, no phonostage… I do not know but I do not see a lot of send in all of it, but I also had a cold shoulder to LL1 ancestor - the LL2.

I hope Lamm is still working on L3 –the next preamp in the L1, L2 line. I hope it will have at least half dozen inputs, no idiotic tape loop, have a few options for RIAA inputs, have phase inversion options and the most important to have the distinctive X-factor impact to sound (unique phase processing) that L1/L2 had. I do not know how LL1 sound as if it employs any X-factor capacity but purely exploiting-wise it did not appear to me like anything that makes sense.  I hope it has transparent enough sound, but under some circumstance a $5 worth op-amp has transparent enough sound… Considering the most of the line-level preamps do not use gain I wonder in which direction the LL1 leads.

Thos manufacturers spray the trims for their models: Reference, Signature, Statement and etc… This one is Signature. I did not hear preamp it but from what I see in description it appears to me that it is a strange Signature…

A site visitor sent me a link to Oneobgyn playback at Audiogone as Oneobgyn uses Lamm LL1.

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr_memb.pl?vaslt&1049587927&memb&zzOneobgyn

Whatever Oneobgyn was expressing at Audiogone about LL1 was not useful but rather diagnosable, not to mention that he acts as a dealer.

Another visitor pointed out that Oneobgyn has own forum, where I just registered and proposed him to express not his typical ecstatic empty idiocy but to express some sings of lucid thinking about LL1. I had a number of specific questions that I was interested and that proposed him to answer.  The guy deleted my post and banned from his site.  I think it was a “huge” lost for me. I guess the real lost was on him as he lost the only opportunity for himself to learn and to understand something about the Lamm LL1 sound.

Yes, it is a bit ridicules to have 4 boxes – a clearly money-raising project. Probably Lamm need to make it 2 chassis init with box #5 is to store manuals and box #6 to store the tube replacements. Talking about tube – one gain state with 4 paralleled Russian 6H30? I an not a huge fun to tube paralleling but Russian tubes that are notoriously difficult to match and to keep matched is shell be truly fun to maintain.

Lamm LL1 at CES 2010

4 parallel tubes with 200R output impedance and 4 inputs. Looks like cathode biased and capacitor coupled. The TKD stepped pots that I would question for best results and circuit board mount.  I do not know …

Looking on the back of the unit I do not truly under what Lamm did with outputs and why he devised into on two section – it a monoblock! So, a unit has 5 outputs, which is OK. For 5 outputs it shall have less then 200R output impedance but I guess it can ran a lot of current from those 200R. What kind people would need multiple out from preamps? Probably the people who run multi-amping, right? Was the ML3 made with objective of multi-amping? Yeh, you wish!

Anyhow, I do not like this preamp and I think it was just Lamm’s collection attempt from the people who uses his L2. If the LL1 has the positive quality of L1/L2 presentation is most like will not be known as a few people I know who owns the LL1 now are idiots and it is not clear how serious will be the future LL1 users. This LL1 vs. L1/L2 preservation of the X-factor that I described before is the only interesting factor to me in LL1. I do not see in LL1 any phase correction element but it might be very settled and not obvious to an ignorant observer.

Anyhow, I think the LL1 is proxy preams while Lamm will make the true needed a statement, preamp. The statement would have optimized stages, wit, on-board phonostage, 6-7 inputs, and sub 50R out impedance…  I wonder who would do it first – Lamm make his next full-function preamp or Guy Hummel would come up with his own RIAA add-in?
The Cat

I did not read it yet.

http://www.theaudiobeat.com/equipment/lamm_ll1_signature.htm

Romy the Cat wrote:

... to show to a thinking reader that the preamp was “reviewed” by an imbecile.  The idiocy of thoughts in the article is too obvious ... The Cat

It is amassing how a guy can so much talk and to say nothing. According him Lamm invented PS and Class A operation…

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/preamplifiers/854-lamm-ll1-signature-stereo-tube-preamplifier.html?showall=1

The review is idiotic but I wonder- why a gay with old BAT VK3 or VK5 was given to review LL1? BAT preamps are so far from Lamms that this JJ is obviously uninformed and not qualified. I would like at least a heavy L2 user to play with LL1….

The entire reviews praise LL1 for low amount of distortion with not feedback. JJ said: “Each one (driving stage) is a low impedance (800 ohms) dual triode, so basically here, you have eight triodes driving the signal.” OK, I wonder how eight triodes can be in driving sit if the unit is balanced. If all 4 tube are paralleled then what drives the other half of balanced circuit? Am I an  idiot or that JJ is an idiot?

Stitch wrote:

I listened to those some time ago. It was a full Lamm combo with ML3 + LP2 paired with Wilson Alexandria. This Doc from the WBF Forum never missed a second to tell the world how super this combination is. Above the holy grail. I found an owner with same Set Up and listened extensively to. Well, this Doc is an idiot. A typical example that those guys swear that only enough big bucks will create a top sonic result....The M1.2R is a MUCH better match for this speaker, but, it is too cheap....The ML3 can drive the Alexandria but it is far away from a good, effortless reproduction combination and based on that I will be careful with my opinion about the LL1. I think, from what I heard, the LL1 is a good sounding preamp, but the price for 4 boxes with a lot of air inside is steep. When they read 95dB or something similar they all think, great, I can use tubes with that speaker. No one from these "experienced" morons waste any time what the signal will meet the X-over parts first .... and some are a black hole.... I listened to preamps which are more expensive and much more worse from a correct tone but my impression is, a LL2 with better parts (Poti, caps, connectors) can do the same.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Briefly: a spatial expander is a mechanism of artificially creates spacious more sound. A spatial expander does not generate more realistic sound, but more pleasant sound. The spatial effects are accomplished by mixing into each channel an inverted crossfeed signal from the opposite channel to vary the presence of the mono signal. The effect widens the soundstage, create a separation between the instruments, “inverts” tones by injecting into them a small particulates of own out-of-phaseiness and has some other subjectively pleasing effects. The tradeoff is reduced focus and loss of bass, because bass signals tend to be monaural. So, if you add to the spatial expander’s characteristics the L1-L2 this dally degrading transients capacity and dally incising dynamic compression due to the faulty designed powers supply (unless you are wiling to change the tubes in there weekly and I suggest above) then you have a have very clear depicture of the L1/L2. A couple days ago when I was contemplation it I had a conversation withy a guy that I know to whom I shared my views about the spatial expander and Lamm SS preamps. After listing me he said proposed that in such case the L1/L2 should perform better and be more transparent in bass region if it switched in mono. He, owning the L1 and L2 did report that it was his observation in past that mono music sounds better on Lamm’s preamp. It was very promising.  Today the same guy went to a listening room of another person who has cruelly L1 with mono switch bult-in and they made an experiment playing music and flipping the mono switch. The reported that bass become much better in mono setting… the way how it should be in case the spatial expander was used. Well, it looks like the secret of the X-factor is resolved.  Unquestionably it was very good Lamm’s intention with L1 and L2 but unfortunately it was not implemented at the level of the serious listeners might demand. I wonder if would be possible to replicate that X factor  (sponsored by the spatial expander effect) only at the more demanding level? Rgs, Romy the Cat

Probably that's the background to go for a 2 x mono Preamp 

Stitch wrote:

Probably that's the background to go for a 2 x mono Preamp