AudioAficionado.org  

Go Back   AudioAficionado.org > Manufacturers Forums > Conrad-Johnson

Conrad-Johnson It just sounds right

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 08-23-2014, 10:38 AM
bgiliberti bgiliberti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tima View Post
.... It will be very interesting if one day they make a hybrid amp.
I believe they have made at least one hybrid amp, the ET250s, which was discontinued only recently. It had a tube input stage, and delivered a nice, mellow sound, but I found it a little lacking in zip and zing. Both the new 2550 and the venerable PR 350 are far better amps IMHO, the former at a much lower price.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-23-2014, 11:13 AM
Vhiner Vhiner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 342
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiot servant View Post
Tim, It's probably fair to say that the struggle to develop a practical business model for media in the new world of internet publishing has been an expensive one. Clearly an early causality has been the variable quality. It's not that there isn't enthusiasm among the new breed of reviewers but truth is it takes time and mentoring to foster good journalism. Without a traditional model to keep it tested and true and to ensure compliance with deeper values we risk losing faith in what is written. In the old days the guild taught the value of truth and brought perspective to the word. That transparency and ethics are the greatest asset any writer can have is only going to become more and more evident going forward. You guys are among the flag bearers that remind us that there's more to a good review than just getting excited. The language of assessment has to extend beyond just saying what's the new best. It needs to discuss in fairness and in depth and use broadly accessible benchmarks and talk in terms of familiar criteria. The language of both context and spirit. The fact that the better writers also tend to also be musically knowledgeable as well as technically aware just probably adds to the challenge. Thanks for your efforts in this.
Graham,

You would have loved my old journalism professor, John B. Bremner, a Brisbane native who left an indelible impression on me and thousands of others.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/31/ob...r-is-dead.html

We could sure use more like him today.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-23-2014, 12:35 PM
turntable's Avatar
turntable turntable is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Downunder in Sydney
Posts: 1,774
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgiliberti View Post
Thank you for the thoughtful review. For me, the money quote was "The MF-2550 SE’s transparency had me paying far more attention to individual leaves on the trees instead of what was going on in the rest of the forest." That is precisely why I opted for the non-SE version -- the SE, with all that Teflon, struck me as "detailed" to the point of distraction. Impressive, but not "musical," to use the cliche. Many would I am sure disagree with this, but for me, it was not about money, but what I liked the listening experience to be. However, I have Teflon caps in my CJ preamp (Classic SE), and that gets me the amazing detail that Teflon delivers, without the need for doubling down on the amp. It does not appear that you listened to the standard model. I think you might have liked it better than the SE, given your comments. RE the 350, which I have only heard a few times, it's a great amp, which seems to do everything well. However, the sound is clearly shaped by the Teflon caps, as with the 2550SE, and as great as it is, I doubt I could live with it either.

Thank you for the review, very informative. One man question is. The cj350sa was a very high gain amp and in my experience just a little to noisy and that noise could be seen as a_bit of edge and that was it biggest fault IMO.

How is the new amp as far as noise for and overall noise floor. It seems that the new amp is a little tighter in the bass, more neutral through the MIDs anspd has that classic ck upper frequency sweetness and extension. I could be reading that wrong?

BTW, as a owner of the ART1, ART3, GAt and 350 twice, the overall impression of the Teflon calls being lean or similar is incorrect. Yes they take an age to break in. But once they do, they sound like or running water. The non Teflon cap versions soud grainy in comparison.

Last edited by turntable; 08-23-2014 at 12:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-23-2014, 02:08 PM
bgiliberti bgiliberti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by turntable View Post
Thank you for the review, very informative. One man question is. The cj350sa was a very high gain amp and in my experience just a little to noisy and that noise could be seen as a_bit of edge and that was it biggest fault IMO.

How is the new amp as far as noise for and overall noise floor. It seems that the new amp is a little tighter in the bass, more neutral through the MIDs anspd has that classic ck upper frequency sweetness and extension. I could be reading that wrong?

BTW, as a owner of the ART1, ART3, GAt and 350 twice, the overall impression of the Teflon calls being lean or similar is incorrect. Yes they take an age to break in. But once they do, they sound like or running water. The non Teflon cap versions soud grainy in comparison.
First, let me preface by saying that while comparisons with the PR350 are interesting and inevitable, the more I have listened to my MF2550 (non-SE), the less I think it should be compared with the PR-350 in important respects. It does have many of the strengths of the 350, particularly the sense of effortless power, pulse, and grace on even the most challenging musical passages, but it's more traditionally CJ voiced, and for that reason, easier to live with (for me!!!). Both are great in their own right with a wonderful sense of open, airy, unconstrained sound. That said, I've never had any issues with the noise floor of the 2550 in my system, the gain seems normal to me. The design is so different from that of the 350, I wouldn't expect the same issues to arise in that regard. I also found that "edge" in the 350 a bit too much for me, but whether it's because of the gain or the Teflon, I can't say. For sure, it's not there in the standard MF2550, which is a very sweet, lush amp, and indeed, more "neutral" in the midrange. I find it highly detailed nonetheless.

The real question for anyone shopping the new amp is whether to spring for the extra 50% for the SE model of the 2550. For sure, doing so is a no-brainer for the ET3 preamp and for my Classic SE pre-amp, where the Teflon caps added major bass and high freq extension, which both of those products sorely lacked in their standard version. But, I don't see any such deficit in that regard in the standard MF2550. BTW, while I agree that the earlier SS CJ amps (eg, the MF2250) could get a little grainy, the MF2550, being a totally different design, is totally grain-free in both of its iterations, with or without the Teflon caps. It's simply a great amp for the money, and maybe that's the best way to look at it, rather than as a piece of exotica, which the rather temperamental (and great) PR-350 most surely was.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-23-2014, 04:31 PM
Vhiner Vhiner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 342
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by turntable View Post
Thank you for the review, very informative. One man question is. The cj350sa was a very high gain amp and in my experience just a little to noisy and that noise could be seen as a_bit of edge and that was it biggest fault IMO. How is the new amp as far as noise for and overall noise floor. It seems that the new amp is a little tighter in the bass, more neutral through the MIDs anspd has that classic ck upper frequency sweetness and extension. I could be reading that wrong? BTW, as a owner of the ART1, ART3, GAt and 350 twice, the overall impression of the Teflon calls being lean or similar is incorrect. Yes they take an age to break in. But once they do, they sound like or running water. The non Teflon cap versions soud grainy in comparison.
Turntable,

With my equipment, I would have to say that I noticed the 2550SE provided a slightly "blacker" background than my PR350. I had no means of making noise floor measurements though.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-23-2014, 05:07 PM
ronenash ronenash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: US-NY
Posts: 1,097
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgiliberti View Post
I believe they have made at least one hybrid amp, the ET250s, which was discontinued only recently. It had a tube input stage, and delivered a nice, mellow sound, but I found it a little lacking in zip and zing. Both the new 2550 and the venerable PR 350 are far better amps IMHO, the former at a much lower price.
In the 90's they also made the Evolution 2000 which was a hybrid model.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-23-2014, 05:14 PM
ronenash ronenash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: US-NY
Posts: 1,097
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by turntable View Post
BTW, as a owner of the ART1, ART3, GAt and 350 twice, the overall impression of the Teflon calls being lean or similar is incorrect. Yes they take an age to break in. But once they do, they sound like or running water. The non Teflon cap versions soud grainy in comparison.
I whole heartedly agree. The Teflon caps surpass anything else I tried and I have tried many different caps in my DIY tube amps including some very costly caps. Two weeks is not enough break in time to get the best out of them although they will be close by two weeks. To get the best Teflon sound a 600-800 hour break in is needed. With tube amps that can take several month. With SS amps that can be left on 24 hours a day playing music that will take about a month of continuous music playing.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-24-2014, 01:04 AM
tima tima is online now
Living La Vida Vinyl
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgiliberti View Post
I believe they have made at least one hybrid amp, the ET250s, which was discontinued only recently. It had a tube input stage, and delivered a nice, mellow sound, but I found it a little lacking in zip and zing. Both the new 2550 and the venerable PR 350 are far better amps IMHO, the former at a much lower price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronenash View Post
In the 90's they also made the Evolution 2000 which was a hybrid model.
Good to know - thanks for the history lesson!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Audioaficionado.org tested by Norton Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:54 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©Copyright 2009-2023 AudioAficionado.org.Privately owned, All Rights Reserved.
Audio Aficionado Sponsors
AudioAficionado Subscriber
AudioAficionado Subscriber
Inspire By Dennis Had
Inspire By Dennis Had
Harmonic Resolution Systems
Harmonic Resolution Systems
Wyred4Sound
Wyred4Sound
Dragonfire Acoustics
Dragonfire Acoustics
GIK Acoustics
GIK Acoustics
Esoteric
Esoteric
AC Infinity
AC Infinity
JL Audio
JL Audio
Add Powr
Add Powr
Accuphase - Soulution
Accuphase - Soulution
Audio by E
Audio by E
Canton
Canton
Bryston
Bryston
WireWorld Cables
WireWorld Cables
Stillpoints
Stillpoints
Bricasti Design
Bricasti Design
Furutech
Furutech
Shunyata Research
Shunyata Research
Legend Audio & Video
Legend Audio & Video