Snoober
Dysthymic
I owned components from both of these manufacturers so I just wanted to mention very briefly my impressions. This is a comparison between the Conrad-Johnson MV60SE / ET3SE combo vs the Line Magnetic 216IA. The MV60SE is very similar to the current Classic 60, with the probable exception being the Classic 60 possessing Teflon caps. Although CJ fans will refute this, the Teflon caps don't necessarily always make things better imo (re: ET3 vs ET3SE). I did my listening mostly with Revel Performa F52s.
Please read this with the caveat that are just my personal impressions using my equipment, so I hope I don't offend anybody with regard to his/her own equipment choices.
My main complaint about the CJ gear's sound is that not once did it convince me that I might be listening to a live performer in my room. I am told that this is mitigated by going up the CJ line, but how far up the financial ladder do I have to climb to get there? Ahem, really far, it seems. I think the CJ gear (in my system) had a lower midrange and upper bass leanness that contributed to the failure to substantially anchor voices in the recording. In contradistinction, the little 216IA startles me with its realism regularly. I rolled countless tube combinations but they did little to get things just where I wanted them in the CJ setup.
That said, the CJ combo has superior detail retrieval and excels at placing instruments precisely in space. The soundstage width is huge with CJ. The LM amp cannot match this. What the LM does better is its ability to render soundstage depth. I always thought the CJ system was a little 2-dimensional in its presentation.
For deep bass reproduction the CJ gear just kills the LM. Bass just thunders down to 20Hz and it can be terrifying listening to an orchestra at full tilt. By contrast, the LM has a plumper midbass and less low bass output overall. At just 38wpc I don't think the LM amp holds the musical presentation together too well when things get really loud. The KT120-equipped 60wpc CJ is unflappable.
Tone-wise, the LM is less mellow than the CJ gear though the highs are not too hot. Voices appear at the speaker baffles with LM compared to CJ's mid-hall perspective. I guess this contributes to making the sound more 'palpable' through LM. I always considered the CJ sound very 'cerebral'.
I did have a problem with the CJ lacking in rhythmic drive and pace. Here is where the LM pulled far out ahead. It may be due to the interaction between the Revel woofers and the CJ gear not being ideal. Anyway, if foot-tapping fun is your thing Line Magnetic will probably get you there.
As to build-quality: CJ trumps LM on the external chassis. And foibles? The cheapskate CJ remote compared to a billet of aluminum from LM. Also, the LM is dead silent at the speakers whereas I could hear the 'tube-rush' with the CJ gear. Oh, the CJ 'turn-off' thump at the speakers, I find, is just shameful for a $3500 amp. I have no quibbles with the LM gear.
Um, yeah, I hope this was helpful to anyone shopping at the shallow end of the pool. I will be selling my 216IA soon, however. Why? I want LM SET.
Please read this with the caveat that are just my personal impressions using my equipment, so I hope I don't offend anybody with regard to his/her own equipment choices.
My main complaint about the CJ gear's sound is that not once did it convince me that I might be listening to a live performer in my room. I am told that this is mitigated by going up the CJ line, but how far up the financial ladder do I have to climb to get there? Ahem, really far, it seems. I think the CJ gear (in my system) had a lower midrange and upper bass leanness that contributed to the failure to substantially anchor voices in the recording. In contradistinction, the little 216IA startles me with its realism regularly. I rolled countless tube combinations but they did little to get things just where I wanted them in the CJ setup.
That said, the CJ combo has superior detail retrieval and excels at placing instruments precisely in space. The soundstage width is huge with CJ. The LM amp cannot match this. What the LM does better is its ability to render soundstage depth. I always thought the CJ system was a little 2-dimensional in its presentation.
For deep bass reproduction the CJ gear just kills the LM. Bass just thunders down to 20Hz and it can be terrifying listening to an orchestra at full tilt. By contrast, the LM has a plumper midbass and less low bass output overall. At just 38wpc I don't think the LM amp holds the musical presentation together too well when things get really loud. The KT120-equipped 60wpc CJ is unflappable.
Tone-wise, the LM is less mellow than the CJ gear though the highs are not too hot. Voices appear at the speaker baffles with LM compared to CJ's mid-hall perspective. I guess this contributes to making the sound more 'palpable' through LM. I always considered the CJ sound very 'cerebral'.
I did have a problem with the CJ lacking in rhythmic drive and pace. Here is where the LM pulled far out ahead. It may be due to the interaction between the Revel woofers and the CJ gear not being ideal. Anyway, if foot-tapping fun is your thing Line Magnetic will probably get you there.
As to build-quality: CJ trumps LM on the external chassis. And foibles? The cheapskate CJ remote compared to a billet of aluminum from LM. Also, the LM is dead silent at the speakers whereas I could hear the 'tube-rush' with the CJ gear. Oh, the CJ 'turn-off' thump at the speakers, I find, is just shameful for a $3500 amp. I have no quibbles with the LM gear.
Um, yeah, I hope this was helpful to anyone shopping at the shallow end of the pool. I will be selling my 216IA soon, however. Why? I want LM SET.
Last edited:
