SET Asylum: REVIEW: Welbourne Labs Laurel II Amplifier (Tube) by Randy Bey

I want to start by saying that my system has it's limitations, and that is why I bought the Laurel amps.

I have old Klipschorn speakers, vintage 1979, and I'm the original owner. I parted with an equally old Sony integrated amp a couple years back and bought a NAD C512 solid state receiver.

I was very happy with the NAD. So happy, that I bought the matching NAD C520 CD player. All was well in Whosville for a while, until that nasty audiophile virus struck.

I began to hear about something called SET, and specifically about how SET and horn speakers were a match made in heaven.

I made a short dalliance with tube amps in the way of a Decware Zen amp, but sent it back after 30 days for a full refund. I chiefly had two complaints and they soured me about tubes. First, it just wasn't strong enough. Secondly, there was a lot of hum, easily audible at the listening position.

These two spooks haunted me until the Laurels arrived. The first concern, that tube amps (and particularly SET) wouldn't be powerful enough was immediately banished upon plugging the Laurels into my system. While the Laurel's won't get loud enough to cause dain bramage, they managed to crank out the tunes at concert levels just fine.

But the other spook? Well, the Laurels had a hum. Perhaps some of you are already nodding your head, but it turns out that I had that infamous spook, the ground loop. Why didn't the NAD show it while both the Zen and the Laurels did? I don't know; why is there air? To make a long story short I fixed the ground loop and the hum vanished.

Now I could sit down and do some serious listening. I was worried that the difference between the NAD and the Laurels would be minor; I was worried that my ears weren't golden enough. I thought it would take days to differentiate between their sounds.

Boy, was I wrong.

I still had to use the NAD receiver as a preamp for the Laurels. Using the stereo that way meant that I had to listen to a track. Turn off the stereo. Unplug the speaker cables. Unplug the preamp cables. Switch both to the NAD amp. Turn on the stereo, listen again. Reverse and repeat.

The first track I spun nailed the lid shut. I was convinced. There was no part of the Laurel's play that failed to delight. Again, the NAD is a good component. Really good. It's just that the Laurels are better.

Where the NAD sounded thin, and steely, the Laurels sounded full and clear. Where the NAD soundstage swept to the left and right, the Laurels went left, right, up and down.

The sounds of the double bass were dynamic, and focused. Not only could you hear the fingers on the strings with the Laurels, you could hear the windings on the strings too.

The NAD held it's own with punch, rhythm and pace. It's feisty power supply held up to drum solos with impunity. The Laurels, without a doubt, did the same. And with only 8 watts.

My pet peeve for a long time with my stereo was sibilence. Female vocals sounded brash, a bit tinny, some white noise thrown in around the edges. I was worried that the tweeter diaphrams were going out in my 20 year old speakers.

The Laurels fixed that. The female voice never sounded so sweet. I could hear the dimensions of the room where the singers were recorded with the Laurels by the imformation in the sibilence alone.

All in all, there was improvement in almost every arena -- resolution, atmosphere, transparency, focus, rhythm and pace.

The short answer is that the NAD SS sounded two dimensional and tinny, the Laurels, three dimensional and technicolor.

I would heartily recommend that anyone out there with horn speakers strongly consider going SET. Everyone was right; it is a match made in heaven.

REVIEW: Welbourne Labs Laurel II Amplifier (Tube) Review by Randy Bey at Audio Asylum