ART 108A amp

[AnotherJohnson]

And I love her, the cellist Mischa Maisky and her gave great recordings together...as an example, Beethoven sonatas for cello and pianoforte. Mischa has a lot of power playing the cello...and Martha has her unique way to play with a tremendous sweetness and expression. Listen to then, you might like them as I do.

Happy listen with your restored main system dear AJ!

Happy listen to all!

Yes, I have at least three of recordings with Maisky. Excellent!!

[Big Dog RJ]

Had a few itchy noises coming from the mids & highs panel, on the right channel only... so now what?

Before I changed tubes or did any sort of swapping, I listened closely to the left channel as well, and there were very faint itchy scalp noises, like someone with bad dandruff.

So, I vacuumed both panels on high suction and vopa!
A pretty cute bundle of cat fur!
I reckon this from this little bugger because he's always constantly rubbing against the right channel mostly. Even with both speakers full covered with the supplied cloth covers, that little fella just can't help himself.

Cheers, and all is quiet, no more dandruff symptoms...
RJ

[AnotherJohnson]

Wow!

Glad things are back to normal.

Now I understand more about advertising used gear as coming from a “pet free” home.

[admin]

He knows exactly what he's done!

Joking aside, when I list something for sale, I always put " from a smoke/pet/child free home."

[pfmmx]

Sorry for delayed post. Axpona was pretty fun. Due to some minor family issues, I was only there for one full day. Two days would have been better.

I did talk to Jeff at CJ. He highly recommends the 108a over the ART300. I am currently looking under couch cushions for extra cash. I am about 90% sure I am headed that direction. Will keep you posted. I am definitely not a one percenter. Looking at purchase mid to late summer.

[AnotherJohnson]

II looked at the ART 27A last night. Also ART150.

I’m afraid they’re still heavier than I’d like.

I’m sure they all sound incredible, including the ART 108A.

[admin]

AJ,
If weight is an issue. Have you considered the CAV45s2 or the Classic 62? They come in under 45 lbs each.

As for the 108a,... to have Jeff give a strong recommendation over the ART300's means a lot. Wow, I would love to audition the 108a's.

[AnotherJohnson]

AJ,
If weight is an issue. Have you considered the CAV45s2 or the Classic 62? They come in under 45 lbs each.

As much as folks love their CAV 45 s2s, I am not attracted to it. It takes simplicity and lack of features to a new level that I am unprepared to embrace. It is a low cost option though since it eliminates the need for a preamp.

As for the Classic 62, again, I know that owners love them.

If I could audition one, I might love it too. But I can’t.

As CJ amps go, if I continue with a CJ system, I’ll suffer along with the LP275Ms.

It would be fun to directly compare a Classic 62 to my REF 75 SE.

[AnotherJohnson]

As for the 108a,... to have Jeff give a strong recommendation over the ART300's means a lot. Wow, I would love to audition the 108a's.

This was no surprise to me. Jeff would not have released it at that price point were he not convinced that it sounded more magical than the former flagship ART 300s.

I’d consider it, but only on the second hand market in five years when a pair will probably be available for $20k or less. That $48k price tag, even after discounts and trades, just makes no sense to me. I am already very happy with ARC and my current CJ. The incremental improvement can only be assessed after an audition, and I don’t see one on the horizon. Ralph Spear would have facilitated an in home audition. I miss Spearit Sound.

Ralph would have let me try a Classic 62 at home too.

[admin]

It's hard to argue against the LP275Ms compared to the CAV45s2 and classic 62. That's certainly on another level. But with a weight of nearly 90 lbs, the LP275M is far from a lightweight, figuratively and literally.

I think the CAV45s2 is a very unique unit (for CJ). It's certainly not something I would want to go to in my current setup but I can totally see it in a 2nd system or if I were trying to downsize. Your are correct that it takes simplicity to the next level, but in a way that is what it's trying to accomplish. When considering you are essentially getting a CJ preamp and amp in one package, that price point suddenly become very attractive.

Lots of choice and things to think about.... in the meantime, enjoy the "suffering."

[AnotherJohnson]

It's hard to argue against the LP275Ms compared to the CAV45s2 and classic 62. That's certainly on another level. But with a weight of nearly 90 lbs, the LP275M is far from a lightweight, figuratively and literally.

But they’re already here. To sell them requires packing and moving.

[admin]

Well that settles it, I guess you are just going to have to keep them!

[AnotherJohnson]

If I can come up with a GAT2 or REF 6 SE, the Levinson will go in spite of my affection for it. I’ve been offered enough to make its sale sensible.

[AnotherJohnson]

I came up with a factory sealed warrantied REF 6. I chose the 6 over the 6SE because the 6 is still highly regarded and comes with the metal remote. All the reviews suggest that I will like it.

So the odd comparo is over. I’ve summarized it in that thread.

If I ever go to one system, I can’t rule out GAT2 and ART XXX. I’ve got plenty of gear to fund it if that’s my whim at the time.

[Big Dog RJ]

Attn: AJ

Comparing the Classic 62se with ARC Ref75/se, have done so on all three... with my Quads and Maggie's at the time.

The Classic 62se is designed around the KT120's, it makes the best use of these tubes. In terms of power and finesse it's all there! Nothing lacking whatsoever, other than high power output. Compared to the much larger Classic 120/se or the ART amplifiers, the Classic 62se will still hold strong in areas of superb musicality, soundstage depth, presence and all those CJ goodies, except in high power output.

Comparing this with both versions of ARC's Ref75 & SE version, well it's that typical ARC sound. Solid authoritative grip in LF detail, excellent drive in mids & highs. The bass and LF thump are the REF75SE's strongest points. It has everything that the Ref75 has but with slightly more drive factor since the SE version uses KT150's.

I wouldn't say that any of the Ref75's were better than the Classic 62se but their two very different types of tube amplifiers. With CJ it's all about that wonderful open midrange and extended airy highs. The LF detail is very good with a well balanced bass, not too heavy.

ARC is quite the opposite, it has plenty of grunt and omph, will not stress and really opens up the soundstage.
However, I found the REF75SE was very capable of driving the Quad stats (both ESL 2905's and 2912's) effortlessly. It struggled a bit on the Maggie's though or should I say didn't quite sound so effortless.

As for the Classic 62se, it had no issues driving either Maggie's or Quads, and sounded wonderful on the Maggie's but absolutely divine on the Quads. CJ & Quads are like a match made in heaven! Absolutely beautiful sound quality, you could listen for endless hours.

I get that same presentation with CJ & ML stats, very open relaxed atmosphere and one that makes you gell with the performance, not just look at the performance.

Overall, neither one's better than the other, rather it's a personal preference. In the past I've mixed both types of gear in various Maggie setups, combing CJ & ARC between pre & power amp setups. It's been nice to experience different things but I believe both have a better synergy within their own matching gear.

Just my 50cts worth.
Cheers, RJ

[AnotherJohnson]

In the past I've mixed both types of gear in various Maggie setups, combing CJ & ARC between pre & power amp setups. It's been nice to experience different things but I believe both have a better synergy within their own matching gear.

I have made the synergy argument many times myself.

Obviously, there can be exceptions.

For me, having abandoned former lust for stat panels, the whole game is very different. I think we are victims of our speaker choices and our listening styles.

But … the synergy argument was a factor in what I did. I am refining the ARC system. Next stop is REF PHONO 3, probably 3SE.

Since Admin wanted the ET7S2, it was an opportunity to get a better ARC preamp for that system. And I was happy to do this because I already know what the LS28 SE sounds like with the LP275Ms.

I could have decided to sell the LP275Ms and use the Levinson as the second system. I’d planned to do that. But then I was offered enough for the Levinson to make it a no brainer to sell.

The cash from the ET7s2 and 5805 sales was enough to fund the new preamp, as well as about half of the new power upgrades.

If a GAT or GAT2 had presented, it could have been the LP275Ms that got a preamp of their same brand.

Instead the REF 6 presented. So the REF 75 SE was the recipient of another brother.

In the end, if I get to a single system, I’ll have to decide which way to go.

ARC and CJ both seem attentive. Both sound like legitimate competitors. ARC is considerably larger in terms of employees and annual sales. Both have large followings. I’m following both myself.

[AnotherJohnson]

I just found this review of the REF75 SE in Tone (a CJ favorite for reviews too).

https://www.tonepublications.com/review ... amplifier/

It gives a good picture of what that amp does well. They used the REF 6 as their preamp.

Here is Tone’s review of the Classic 62 SE. it was this reviewer’s first foray into the world of tube amps. I suppose they assigned it to him (yet another Johnson) because they consider it an entry level product.

https://conradjohnson.com/wp-content/up ... review.pdf

Of course as we all know, it really doesn’t matter what any gear sounds like to another person. We all like to be assured that our choices are wise … the reassurance of friends and paid reviewers can help if you’re afflicted with uncertainty.

[AnotherJohnson]

Someone else must have thought of this. It has become increasingly obvious to me.

ARC appeals to listeners who want the best tube sound (just like CJ’s customers), but who are attracted to McIntosh style features as well.

The level of sophisticated user interface control is impressive … easier to use because of the extra function compared to CJ. At the same time, easier to use because of the lower level of complexity compared to McIntosh. Also more intuitive and logical to someone like me (compared to McIntosh). And high quality physical feel of a metal remote compared to McIntosh’s chintzy plastic remote that feels like it was a universal remote bought on eBay, $19.99 for a lot of three. ARC appears to have gone this McIntosh direction with a plastic remote on the 6SE, but hopefully they will return to the right path in the next round.

Even the simple idea of having a phono preamp remote with the capability to change cartridge loading on the fly from the listener location is nice. Displaying tube hours since reset is another nicety. Being able to reset volume and source during warm up or muting is nice. Having mute stay on until you’re ready to turn it off (after warm up) is nice. Being able to invert on the fly from the remote is nice. Being able to slave the turn on function for the amp with the preamp’s remote is nice. No clickety clack with remote operation is nice. And then there is the ability to choose between balanced and unbalanced interconnects. Although I agree that in short runs balanced should not be needed, it is nice to have the option. And options again with ARC because there are choices of transformer taps. You don’t have to rewire to see if you like 8 better than 4 ohms. Just move the wires. And no need to invert automatically because their preamps are already non-inverting.

All of this “baggage?”, we might argue, is just overhead that adds cost and does nothing to enhance the sound. We’re happy not to have it. But … since the system sounds so good in direct comparison to its competitor, even with these niceties, and since prices are also similar, the argument rings hollow. In fact, even though the niceties don’t necessarily improve sound, they do improve and simplify the listen experience.

My point in this is not to say that ARC is better than CJ. In fact, I don’t feel this way at all.

Both seem capable of delivering a truly first rate listening experience. They do appeal to different customer bases it seems. For whatever reason, I seem to be attracted to both. In my extensive experience with CJ, and my more limited experience with ARC, CJ has won more comparos at my house. But the current battle seems like a standoff… both are sonically satisfying. I’m at the point where further changes will be driven by either new speakers that react differently, or peripheral issues like footprint, or new advances in approaching live sound as will undoubtedly come. Perhaps with the ART108A they’re already here.

[Big Dog RJ]

Reports just came in from Spore, we had a very lengthy chat... nearly closed on a pair! Couldn't resist, phew!
Then I thought about what the wise man said, anything with more than 4 output tubes per side, you're asking for trouble. Costs in tubes goes up x 4 times, and down unda things are getting ridiculous in price. Even fuel just went up yesterday to over $2 per ltr, so we've got other priorities than amps!

So as it may seem, and based on initial reports; the ART108A's are superior in terms of the absolute sound. Getting that tonal accuracy, along with the right balance in weight, scale and power comes from the Class A bias. If and when the volume is increased, it does so subtly that you don't notice, unless it gets pretty loud. This is similar to what I experience in Class A bias, at the lowest to moderate levels it's all there. Music is reproduced at the finest levels of detail and musicality, there's no real need to blast. Hence, if blasting is required then it kind of shifts gears and goes into overdrive / turbo, where things really take off in speed, power and torque. Again quite effortless but is not necessary to enjoy the absolute sound.

Now compare this to the ART300's, which I've heard extensively; the ART300's are meant for blasting. They can deliver huge dynamic swings, and high contrast patterns with great impact and powerful presence. Can easily reach concert hall levels if required to do so in very large settings. Obviously the speakers must be capable of such high input power and not distort at these high levels.

In summary, it goes to show that the KT150's aren't the latest or greatest at all! Since the ART108A's are using KT88's, these have been around for decades! Way before the KT120 & KT90 came out. Quad, McIntosh, ARC and a host of others used KT88's on their early models, and many still do to this day, apart from the other very popular output tube, the EL34.

Pricing of the ART108A's is such that parts aren't average/standard... these are truly top notch stuff, including trannys, caps, resistors and dedicated power supplies. Basically no compromises in these new Art's and making 160w in Class A bias without going into thermal overload is no easy task. It requires an awful long time to test, along with superior skills and knowledge to perfect. I can certainly imagine so, as was the case with my tech who modded my monoblocks to just 60w of Class A, and it took him nearly two years!

Yes, I would have certainly loved to have had these, it would have been the end game and I'd call it a day. However, after so many SE upgrades, tweaks, and mods towards achieving a slightly higher level in Class A, I've already achieved it. So the wifey asked a few minutes ago, why on earth would you want to spend nearly $AUD 70grand for amplifiers that put out Class A in anycase...? Oh! Because they're CJ's latest & the greatest, and "must have" amps for any discerning audiophile, uh?

My mate did make this statement though, "the ART108A's are the latest & greatest CJ has ever produced!"

So, now one of his sub-dealers is taking the ART300's from him, going to a potential customer, and the first few orders to that market segment will commence end of May, according to him. Seems like the Spore price is much lower than Aus, mainly due to being duty free, and that's always been the case.
I'm not sure if anyone over here is ever going to pay 70grand for a pair of tube monoblocks. In SS I do know quite a few who've spent over 100grand on amplifiers but when it comes to tubes, they're not sure of reliability, no matter which brand. I guess if you're going to dump 100grand plus on amps, you'd want to feel that it's a secure investment!

Anyway, thought I'd post this, just for info and light entertainment!
Cheers, and a big WOOF to the ART108A's!
RJ

[admin]

Interesting. The price of the 108a's is truly up there. Tubes are very expensive now but I wonder how much of an issue it is for a potential buyer who is willing to spend $70k on that amp. Over here in the states is a more "modest" $48k, but still, the air gets thin at these heights. I'm sure the 108a's sound amazing and there are some people for whom "money is no object."