LP70s v. Classic 60

[bgiliberti]

I'm trying to decide between these 2. The prices are different, but not that different in the scheme of things (on the used market for the LP70s). I've read through what people are saying about the LP70s, and basically, they love it, but there is an issue of tube matching. Not much has been said about the Classic 60. Aside from the looks (matter of opinion), for driving Harbeth 30 (not that demanding), any thoughts on the difference? I have auditioned the Classic 60 at a store, and thought it sounded it quite nice, but maybe a bit thin in the midrange, but with nice crisp highs, very open. My preamp is the Classic SE, which I like a lot. Oh, I didn't like the Classic 60 SE that much -- It thought it sounded rolled off in the highs.

[ronenash]

The LP70s is a better amp which includes better components (Teflon caps and Vishay resistors). Its more comparable to the Classic 60 SE in performance. It also looks better with a very nice case work.
Regarding the Classic 60 SE it should be all but roled off in the highs. It does need a lot of burn it to come to song (500 hours minimum). Because the Classic 60 SE uses teflons as coupling capacitors vs. the Classic SE preamp which uses teflons to bypass polyprop capacitors it takes a very long time to break in.
If you get a used LP70s you will save yourself the long break in time.

[bgiliberti]

Originally Posted by ronenash

The LP70s is a better amp which includes better components (Teflon caps and Vishay resistors). Its more comparable to the Classic 60 SE in performance. It also looks better with a very nice case work.
Regarding the Classic 60 SE it should be all but roled off in the highs. It does need a lot of burn it to come to song (500 hours minimum). Because the Classic 60 SE uses teflons as coupling capacitors vs. the Classic SE preamp which uses teflons to bypass polyprop capacitors it takes a very long time to break in.
If you get a used LP70s you will save yourself the long break in time.

I was surprised about what I call the rolled off highs on the Classic 60 SE also. In reply to my comment about that, the dealer said that the SE floor unit I was listening to had somewhat fewer hours than the reg Classic 60. More interestingly, he said that the reg Classic 60 does sound brighter regardless. He attributed the apparent brightness to the lack of midrange in the reg Classic, which makes it sound brighter. I dunno. The SE just seemed much more laid back and soft. Yes, it just seems wrong, I was so perplexed that I checked the back of the units to make sure they had not been mixed up.

I also listened to the ET250S, a different animal obviously. It blew away both Classics, but its tonal balance was more like the non-teflon Classic. Unfortunately, they did not have an LP70s to audition. I expect it is quite a bit better than the Classic 60 SE, given the price difference. It's possible the Classic SE I listened to was not broken in enough, but i did get the impression it had at least 200 hours. Maybe it had hit the well known Teflon break in back step. My Classic SE preamp nearly drove me insane during break in with the peaks and valleys, but now I love it.

[ronenash]

Ultimately you need to trust your ears just make sure any CJ amp with Teflon caps had enough break in time. Too many people have sold CJ gear that was not broken in enough. I think you need a minimum of 500 hours for the amp to stabilize and start to sound good. At 1000 hours it really comes to song.

[Puma Cat]

Bgilberti,
The amps with the Telfon caps can sound pretty dark and compressed until they start to burn in as Ron has pointed out.

I haven't heard the Classic or Clsssic SE amps yet, but I have an LP70S and it's a wonderful amp....very fast, transparent, clean and neutral.

[bgiliberti]

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

Bgilberti,
The amps with the Telfon caps can sound pretty dark and compressed until they start to burn in as Ron has pointed out.

I haven't heard the Classic or Clsssic SE amps yet, but I have an LP70S and it's a wonderful amp....very fast, transparent, clean and neutral.

I have heard great things about the LP70S, but I'm also wondering about something else, with it and the Classics, and that's power. My MF80 has 80 watts, and it plays plenty loud in my room with with Harbeth 30s, which are pretty efficient. OTOH, I can't say that it sounds "powerful" or authoritative, like some of the more powerful amps I've heard. My concern about moving up to the LPS 70, which I am sure is a better amp than the Classic, is whether, aside from its wonderful voicing, it has enough power to sound, well, "powerful." I know that the issue of whether you can hear "more power" is much debated, as long as you are below clipping. Like, does an LPS70 sound exactly like an LPS 275 at non-earbleed listening levels? Any thoughts on this from PC or anyone?

[Jerome W]

Hello Stephen,

I am using SET 300B monoblocks or an Accuphase A65 amp with the GAT.
I love the A65, but I am interested in the LP70S to get a full CJ sound with the GAT.
I use high eff horn speakers and do not need high power but I need both very sweet and opened treble. (Compressions are the TAD 2001).
How is sounding the LP70S in the treble?
Which tubes are you using in your amp?
Many thanks in advance!

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

Bgilberti,
The amps with the Telfon caps can sound pretty dark and compressed until they start to burn in as Ron has pointed out.

I haven't heard the Classic or Clsssic SE amps yet, but I have an LP70S and it's a wonderful amp....very fast, transparent, clean and neutral.

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by Jerome W

Hello Stephen,

I am using SET 300B monoblocks or an Accuphase A65 amp with the GAT.
I love the A65, but I am interested in the LP70S to get a full CJ sound with the GAT.
I use high eff horn speakers and do not need high power but I need both very sweet and opened treble. (Compressions are the TAD 2001).
How is sounding the LP70S in the treble?
Which tubes are you using in your amp?
Many thanks in advance!

Hi Jerome,
I am using Tung-Sol KT120s for power tubes and Ediswan 6922s for the input/driver tubes. The Ediswans really took the to a very nice level.

And, I don't find the amp to be "atonal", whatever that means. Its, in my experience...lovely.

You may remember I had a Premier 350 for about a year or so in the 2012/2013 time-frame and I sold that to Vance (VHiner) as I personally preferred the sound the of LP70S...(I just like tubes).

I should also add that the LP70S was from the same linear pentode series of amps, incl. the LP140M and 275Ms that were C-J's SOTA amps before the current ART monos and SA amps were launched, but as a now-fairly-long-time CJ owner, you probably already know that.

So, a strong and solid recommendation from me.

Cheers,
Stephen

[Dsholl1]

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

Hi Jerome,

I am using Tung-Sol KT120s for power tubes and Ediswan 6922s for the input/driver tubes. The Ediswans really took the to a very nice level.



And, I don't find the amp to be "atonal", whatever that means. Its, in my experience...lovely.



You may remember I had a Premier 350 for about a year or so in the 2012/2013 time-frame and I sold that to Vance (VHiner) as I personally preferred the sound the of LP70S...(I just like tubes).



I should also add that the LP70S was from the same linear pentode series of amps, incl. the LP140M and 275Ms that were C-J's SOTA amps before the current ART monos and SA amps were launched, but as a now-fairly-long-time CJ owner, you probably already know that.



So, a strong and solid recommendation from me.



Cheers,

Stephen

I never used the KT120 in the LP70s. They hadn’t been made when I had that amp. I’m sure your LP70S sounds great with them and would sound completely different to the 6550 version I had. Mine had 6550 tubes and never really enjoyed them they were very white sounding and bleached out low level detail (that’s what I mean by atonal).

The KT120 is a better tube to my ears and I am sure if the LP70s had come with them when I had it, I would still own that amp.

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by Dsholl1

I never used the KT120 in the LP70s. They hadn’t been made when I had that amp. I’m sure your LP70S sounds great with them and would sound completely different to the 6550 version I had. Mine had 6550 tubes and never really enjoyed them they were very white sounding and bleached out low level detail (that’s what I mean by atonal).

The KT120 is a better tube to my ears and I am sure if the LP70s had come with them when I had it, I would still own that amp.

Agree that the KT-120 really works well with this amp. When I contacted C-J about whether it would be okay to use this power amp with the amp, they gave me an enthusiastic YES.

The Ediswan 6992s for the input stage also do very nice things for this amp.