VTL 5.5 vs. Lamm LL2?

I have owned both. The VTL has a bit of an "old school" bloomy tubed sound in the mids and bass. However, the top end is very nicely extended and clear sounding. It is a nice sounding and quite musical preamp. The LL2 Deluxe has been described as "organic" sounding because of its ability to convey timbre and texture resembling live music. The LL2 D also provides clarity, reasonably good bass extension and definition, and a strength that is the absence of any significant weaknesses. Most would say it punches well above it's weight. I have ended up with the LL2 D after trying well over 10 similarly (and above) priced preamps, including the VTL 5.5. Tvad rightly pointed out that you should consider there is a new LL2.1 D model, and to keep that in mind when setting your price for a used LL2 D. However, the only changes were functional and cosmetic, and should not affect the quality of the sound between the two - they should sound the same. Lamm has a very detailed website you should review to learn more. I have no experience with the Audio Research LS26. Good luck.

Kensetsu, I hear you about the absence of balanced inputs and outputs. Prior to owning Lamm gear, I had a variety of McCormack, Ayre, Aesthetix, and other all-balanced equipment. That changed when I purchased a Tom Evans Vibe/Pulse preamp (se only) and then my single-ended Lector CDP. At least in my case, with either the Tom Evans pre into different SS amps, or with the Lamm LL2 D into Lamm monos, there is no noticable noise - only music. I have built my system around the type of sound I enjoy listening to, and the Lamm gear provides me with more musical enjoyment than anything else I have owned. In addition to the balanced issue, the most frequent complaint I read about the LL2 D, is the "hair shirt" operations requiring users to adjust two volume knobs (by hand!!!), instead of using a remote control. That has never been an issue with me since I am inclined to set the volume based on the individual CD I am playing, and also depending on who else is at home and the time of day or night. Once set, I typically listen at the same volume for the whole CD. I think less about gear and more about music that way. Personally, I am on-board with the Lamm philosophy that the music comes first. However, for others, the absence of a volume remote and/or balanced ins/outs would be a deal-breaker.

I have heard about some people using the Placette as you described to add a "remote volume." That would also deal with a gain issue that I didn't elaborate on in my earlier post, since it is discussed on the Lamm website. One of the changes with the newer LL2.1 is the ability to reduce the overall preamp gain via a front panel switch. This was in response to feedback that with higher level sources (CDP's) some found the gain too much and the usable range of the volume control was down near the lower end. Your Placette idea, or an overall gain reducer as made by Endler, would take care of that if it were a problem, although both would put an additional device in the signal path (as I presume the switch on the LL2.1 does). I wish the volume control on the LL2/2.1 were a stepped attenuator as on the more expensive L2 Ref, but instead on the LL2/2.1 they use a high quality potentiometer with steps (or detentions) on the control itself - not a true attenuator with discrete steps. If a true stepped attenuator with discrete steps were used, the volume control range would not be such an issue, although the control could then be designed so the steps would ramp up more slowly as done with the "CD Taper" volume control offered as an option on CAT preamps. Personally, this has never been an issue for me with regards to either finding an appropriate listening volume, or as it may affect the overall quality of the sound - it still sounds better overall than the other preamps I have tried.

Nolitan,
I have owned two Lithos 7 Vibes and a Lithos 6 Vibe and operated them with both the Pulse and with the standard power supplies. They all sounded very nice, although the Pulse PS kicks it up a notch with regards to dynamics and depth. The Vibe is one of three preamps I have tried that I could live with (the others being the LL2 Deluxe and the CAT Ultimate MkII). The Vibe/Pulse offers a very clear and musical presentation for a SS preamp, with the midrange being the strong suit, followed closely by the bass performance. Minor weaknesses were in the high frequencies, which were slightly dark sounding and maybe just a touch "strained" if you really crank it up, and perhaps very slightly lacking in drive compared to some of the better performers such as the CAT. The LL2 D beats it in dynamics, drive, midrange richness and texture, and high frequency purity and extension. The Lithos 7 model is an improvement over the 6, but not night and day, although having the Pulse PS is mandatory if you want the best sound from this preamp. If I were to give up tubes (probably will not) then the Lithos 7 Vibe with Pulse would be a top choice. Although just my opinion, I hope this helps.

Nolitan,
Jtimothya states it very well in his post about the LL2 D. I cannot add much except to say maybe a very small added prominance in the mid-bass adds to the "dark" description some talk about. The effect will be speaker, amp and room dependent. I would also add, everyone has their own listening preferences so you should definitely hear it and make your own conclusions. However, I believe the "risk factor" of trying the LL2 D unheard, would be much lower than most other preamps. There are a zillion reviews of the LL2 out there for additional reading. If you are into neutrality, resolution, clarity, and drive, along with the depth and texture tubes provide, the other preamp to try would be a CAT Ultimate MkII or the newer Renaissance. Both the CAT and the Lamm are quiet and musical, with the CAT having even better bass drive and overall resolution. IMO, the CAT may be subjectively better in an audiophile-neutrality and add-nothing sort of way, and it offers a superior volume control, while I would rate the Lamm to be a subjectively more "friendly" choice in that it sounds good with a wide range of partnering equipment and is a bit kinder to poor recordings - although you hear the flaws, you tend to focus more on the music. You can read about the CAT preamps in the current Stereophile review of the new CAT Renaissance preamp.