CAT JL-2 Mk2 vs LAMM M1.2 ... on WP 6 or 7

The CAT JL2 is a better sounding amp than JL1s even though it is less powerful; the JL3s are better still and would be recommended at least with the larger Wilsons.

WOW, tuff choice...Both, are very good in there own right. I also concur with Essentiaalaudio assessment of the JL3's you can't go wrong. A good friend of mine uses the CAT's with his Merlin VSM-MX's and the results are nothing less than spectacular! (although, I perfer My TRL's) But, just to throw in something a little different into the mix. Some of the best sound I've ever heard come out of a Wilson 7 came about by way of a Halcro mono Amp/pre combo. The synergy is unreal! On vinyl, female vocalists WERE in the room, so much so you could actually smell the perfume they were wearing...Another, very good alternative could be the famed Jadis 200's that sound has taken best of sound at the CES shows a couple of times. These opinions are mine and my intent is not to confuse the question at hand, only to offer some other options you may have not considered. Because, after all this is a very personal and subjective decision. Let your own ears be the judge, but try and listen, to as many combos as possible before you spend all that hard earned money.

Brian:

I would not be surprised if the JL-2 exceeds the performance of the standard JL-1 monos, as it has the upgraded circuit board. However, the $50k Limited Edition JL-1 monos are a different story -- the outrageous parts quality and kryptonite output transformers that all that money buys put them in a different league.

You never did get back to me about the differences between the JL-3 standard and signature versions, by the way.

Thanks and best wishes.

As an owner of the JL-3 Signature amps for almost 6 months I am still so very impressed with this product. I have not been able to find anything on a JL-3 non-signature model so perhaps this was a first generation of a JL-2 mono design. With the JL-1 signature, I understood this to be a more beefy output transformer than the standard JL-1 to accommodate more difficult speaker loads. And since I did not expect to own any crazy speaker out there, I was thinking a non-signature JL-3 would have worked for me due to a lower cost. I really like the idea of mono amps and I’m sure the JL-2 would have sufficed, but when I a good deal on the JL-3 signature came my way, the temptation was just too great.

The JL-1 L.E. is the JL-1 Signature with refinements having much to do with the transformer materials that Mr. Stevens spent a lot of R&D time to perfect. I found the information on Arthur Salvatore’s site covering the different JL amplifier versions to be of great value. Mr. Stevens’ letter to Mr. Salvatore discusses the major differences made to achieve the L.E. model.
http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Amplifiers.html

Notice that Mr. Stevens’ response indicates that the technology from the L.E. is now in the JL-2 & JL-3. Who knows all the specifics, but I think it is a fair assessment to say that the additional $20k cost of the L.E. was to pay for the improved transformer R&D and to provide this to a few people willing to pay the price to get this last effort by Mr. Stevens in his JL-1 product. Now with this design effort as part of all new JL series amps, the cost is not so prohibitive.

There seems to be a consensus that the JL-2 is a major sonic improvement by all who heard it vs. the Non-L.E. JL-1. The Soundstage website CAT factory tour article,
http://www.soundstagelive.com/factorytours/cat indicates that the $12k JL-2 replaced the $30k JL-1 Signature monos. How often do we read that a company brings on an improved product at such a drop in price? …… very rarely! … and I commend Mr. Stevens for making such an awesome performing product affordable to so many more audiophiles. It also states that the $30k JL-3 signature replaced the $50k JL-1 L.E. I highly doubt that Mr. Stevens would bring on a new “statement” product that is sonically inferior to his previous “statement” product. And again, it is at a significant price drop.

One post on Audigon that Mr. Stevens contributed to is the following:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1099200096
Mr. Stevens writes about the JL-3 being far more linear than the JL-1 and much more energy storage than the JL-3. Whether or not the JL-1 mentioned here is the L.E. is not relevant to what he talks about in this thread.

There seems to be a lot of focus on the $50k price of the JL-1 L.E. which would indicate this is still THE top JL amp. The text in the above links would indicate that the JL-3 Signature has (for many reasons) indeed has displaced the JL-1 L.E. as the best amplifier released by Mr. Stevens. Of course only a direct shootout between the two models would put such a discussion to bed.

I feel there is often too much focus on the issue of what is “best”. And I would say that for most systems out there, most likely mine included, the JL-2 and the JL-3 signature would essentially be the same most if not nearly all the time. I suspect the big difference would come with very complex and dynamic material.

No matter what CAT you end up with, you are going to need a dedicated line for the amp. These things draw a lot of current when initially powered on!!! When I wrote to Mr. Stevens about power requirements, he was very helpful with ideas on what I needed. He suggested one 30A circuit would suffice for the two JL-3’s provided I waited 5 seconds but not more than 10 seconds (due to the steady state current being drawn by the first amp) before turning on the second amp. I already had 2 circuits available and so I upgraded the wiring to 10GA and put in two 30A breakers. No more flickering lights or tripped breakers…..and no more counting seconds between powering up amps. 8-)

I would personally have a concern with driving Wilson speakers with CAT amps. I found WP 5 speakers to be so very analytical and sterile. They were however incredibly resolving and dynamic, both of which are also major strengths with the CAT amps. And the CAT amps do not at all have a lush warm sound often associated with tube amplifiers. So this combination could almost be too much in the neutral/resolving direction with perhaps a significant loss in decays, volume of space, etc. There is quite a balancing act to achieve all these qualities and I would be cautious here unless the latest WP6 and WP7 speakers have come a long way in the 3-dimensionality dept. since the WP 5. But something like a tube preamp could resolve this issue as well.

John

Hi Schorly,

If it must be music! I have a pre-amp recommendation for you to audition: conrad-johnson ACT2.

Good Luck!