Jamo C803

[Djxp4609]

Just had my first sit down with the Jamo C803's and I am very impressed. I am a new dealer of Jamo here in Indianapolis and I was a little nervous if this was a good line for us to carry. I wanted to create a sub $3,000.00 2 channel system and I think I got it right. The Marantz PM8003 and SA8003 with the Kimber 4TC and PBJ interconnects. The bass is amazing, good depth and width of the sound field, imaging is good and there is a very pleasent, peppy, active tonal quality. I would recommend the C803 for a very serious listen. At $799.95 for the pair it is the best thing I have heared in a long time.

 

[TjMV3]

Yes they are. I've owned the C803 for well over a year.

An absolutely wonderful, musical speaker and a tremendous value!

Try driving them and feeding them with something even better than those Marantz pieces. You'll be amazed how well they respond to better gear.

Especially McIntosh preamps and amps and Van Alstine preamps and amps.

 

[highfigh]

Just had my first sit down with the Jamo C803's and I am very impressed. I am a new dealer of Jamo here in Indianapolis and I was a little nervous if this was a good line for us to carry. I wanted to create a sub $3,000.00 2 channel system and I think I got it right. The Marantz PM8003 and SA8003 with the Kimber 4TC and PBJ interconnects. The bass is amazing, good depth and width of the sound field, imaging is good and there is a very pleasent, peppy, active tonal quality. I would recommend the C803 for a very serious listen. At $799.95 for the pair it is the best thing I have heared in a long time.

Do a double blind ABX test for the speaker cable and interconnects. You'll probably be able to up-sell on something else.

 

[AJinFLA]

Try driving them and feeding them with something even better than those Marantz pieces. You'll be amazed how well they respond to better gear.
Especially McIntosh preamps and amps and Van Alstine preamps and amps.

Why are McIntosh and Van Alstine "better" than Marantz? In what way?

 

[TjMV3]

Why are McIntosh and Van Alstine "better" than Marantz? In what way?

Because to my ears, they sound much better than the Marantz components. They really take the sound to a new level. Bigger, smoother, more musical, more depth and stronger more coherent bass.

 

[AJinFLA]

Because to my ears, they sound much better than the Marantz components. They really take the sound to a new level.

Fair enough. Now, can you share with us the exact details of how you compared the Mc and AVA to Marantz? Please be specific, same room, speakers, controls, etc? Thanks.

Bigger, smoother, more musical, more depth and stronger more coherent bass.

What does "musical" mean? Like the old movies?
What do you mean by the bass was more "coherent"? I don't understand those terms in an audio/soundwaves context, could you please explain? Thanks.

cheers,

AJ

 

[TjMV3]

Fair enough. Now, can you share with us the exact details of how you compared the Mc and AVA to Marantz? Please be specific, same room, speakers, controls, etc? Thanks.

Same room, same rack, same cables.....same C803 speakers.

We used the Marantz SA8003 with the Marantz PM8003.

The Rega Saturn with the Mac and VA gear.

Then, the SA8003 with the Mac and AVA gear.

Lastly, we put the Rega with the PM8003.

What does "musical" mean? Like the old movies?
What do you mean by the bass was more "coherent"? I don't understand those terms in an audio/soundwaves context, could you please explain? Thanks..

Musical= the melody of the music...of the notes.....the timbre and harmonics of instruments/vocals.

As opposed to some gear that seems to white wash or glare the melody and make it less.....sweet ...less harmonic ...less melodic.

Coherent Bass- The bass line is heard and followed very well through the music.

As opposed to getting muddied...or lost in the presentation of different instruments and vocals. It has a stronger presence and there's no lost in the forest of trees effect.


The difference was club over the head obvious. Not talking subtle, here.

In both the McIntosh (C220 and MC252) and Van Alstine (Ultra Preamp and Fet Valve 500 amp), with the Saturn.......

Better seperation of instrumentation ...more clarity of individual instruments; yet a much better scale and balance of presentation. More delicacy in delicate parts, more kick ...more accentuation in dynamics.

The Mac gear just seemed to flow better than all the other combos. This.....ease of presentation that just sounded so well balanced. So smooth and so easy to listen to for long periods. Sweeter than all the rest.

Sweeter= Pleasant and emotionally griping delivery of melody. I imagine it has something to do with even harmonics or something. Because the passion and emotion of a song's arrangement and singing; just gets you where it counts. The heart and soul.


The Marantz gear sounded like the presentation was squashed down a bit, in comparison. And overall, seemed to compress during very active passages and crescendos. There was some glare. Just didn't deliver in a steady, consistent manner as the Mac and VA gear.

 

[ski2xblack]

Don't look now...

Here come the thread-jacking objectivists. I suppose they are just 'keepin it real', but they sure are contentious buzz-kills.

I would love to duct-tape these guys to a chair and force them to listen to SET powered Klipschorns, a la clockwork orange. The horror!

 

[highfigh]

I will now go on record as saying that there is absolutely nothing a piece of audio equipment can do to change the quality of sound so it's more melodic or harmonic. That has to do with the notes, not the perceived sound. An A minor chord is an A minor chord, whether it's coming through the most amazing system, or a Gramophone.

How much difference is output power existed between the Mac and Marantz?

 

[AJinFLA]

Same room, same rack, same cables.....same C803 speakers.
We used the Marantz SA8003 with the Marantz PM8003.
The Rega Saturn with the Mac and VA gear.
Then, the SA8003 with the Mac and AVA gear.
Lastly, we put the Rega with the PM8003.

Interesting. So you knew which components were playing each time. Did you have any expectations of what each would sound like? How much time passed between each swap? How did you precisely match levels between listening sessions as not have this skew perceptions?

Musical= the melody of the music...of the notes.....the timbre and harmonics of instruments/vocals.
As opposed to some gear that seems to white wash or glare the melody and make it less.....sweet ...less harmonic ...less melodic.
Coherent Bass- The bass line is heard and followed very well through the music.

I see. So you are not just parroting what you have heard other audiophiles say, there is an actual definition that exists in your mind. Cool.

The difference was club over the head obvious. Not talking subtle, here.
In both the McIntosh (C220 and MC252) and Van Alstine (Ultra Preamp and Fet Valve 500 amp), with the Saturn.......
Better seperation of instrumentation ...more clarity of individual instruments; yet a much better scale and balance of presentation. More delicacy in delicate parts, more kick ...more accentuation in dynamics.
The Mac gear just seemed to flow better than all the other combos. This.....ease of presentation that just sounded so well balanced. So smooth and so easy to listen to for long periods. Sweeter than all the rest.
Sweeter= Pleasant and emotionally griping delivery of melody. I imagine it has something to do with even harmonics or something. Because the passion and emotion of a song's arrangement and singing; just gets you where it counts. The heart and soul.
The Marantz gear sounded like the presentation was squashed down a bit, in comparison. And overall, seemed to compress during very active passages and crescendos. There was some glare. Just didn't deliver in a steady, consistent manner as the Mac and VA gear.

Understood. Now, is it possible that differences in playback volume resulted in these effects? Or is it also possible that your expectation biases were at play during the comparison? Are you cognizant of the known time reliability of aural memory? How familiar are you with the well established science of psycho-acoustics? Might any of this simply been your imagination?
If not, do you have any idea how the Mac and AVA may have changed the soundfield to get such audible results? TIA

I would love to duct-tape these guys to a chair

FYI, fantasizing about duct taping men is rather unhealthy. Just saying.
But if fantasizing is your greatest attribute....well

 

[ski2xblack]

AJ, proving to all

that he can't take a joke, while at the same time projecting his homophobia, probably to compensate for his latent homosexuality.

AJ, even if you're secretly teh ghey, that doesn't make you a bad person. Really, most of us don't care. Your confrontational and sanctimonious attitude, however, does make you an a$$, even if the points you are trying to make are based in fact.

 

[TjMV3]

Interesting. So you knew which components were playing each time.

You're getting ahead of yourself and it's primarily my fault. I had to cut my response short because my three year old awoke crying and saying his mouth hurt. So I submitted the post and went to take care of my son.

He bit his tongue in his sleep and he was hurting with it for a while. By the time we got him back to sleep, I was sleepy and had no interest in thinking and posting, any more....lol.

Okay, back to the subject at hand.

No, we didn't know which was which. There was four of us. Three of us did a majority of the listening, while the other guy switched cables and components.

We kept the Mac MC252 amp on the bottom shelf because it weighs a little over 100 lbs. And none of us can get involved in moving an amp of that size around, several times.

The Van Alstine Fet Valve 500 was placed on the floor, on the side of the rack.

The Rega Saturn on the top shelf of the rack and C220 preamp on the second shelf.

The Marantz PM8003 on third shelf. The Rega Saturn and Marantz SA8003 and PM8003 were the only components that needed tio be physically switched in and out. The rest of the components just required cables being switched.


I have a large four panel decorative screen (hardwood frame, completely upolstored in thick fabric and some kind of polyfill). We used that to completely sheild the components, from our view. Only the one guy made all the changes. And we left the room and went on my front porch every time any changes were made.

My buddy ( the one doing all the switching) brought his SPL and he made sure the levels were consistent.

Two of us prefered the Mac gear. The other guy prefered the Van Alstine.

The guy doing all the switching prefered the Mac gear, too. But he knew what was what, so I'm sure that won't account for much, for you.

Over a period of about threem months (when we had the free time), we did the same thing with the Jamo C607, C807 and C809. As we did with the C803.

It's indisputable that to our ears, the Mac combo and Van Alstine combo were a huge improvement in every aspect; over the Marantz combo. And they should be.

That's not me slamming or bashing the Marantz gear. It's nice gear at it's price point. But the differences and improvements are immediately audible with the Mac and VA.

The truth is, I really wanted to like the Marantz gear. Let's face it, it's much less expensive than the Mac and VA gear And my intentions have always been to get the best quality sound, for the least possible cost.

When I first started auditioning Jamo speakers ....IIRC, back in late 2008; I auditioned a lot of different speakers in all different catagories.

I started with the Jamo C607 floorstanders and compared them to a lot of speakers.......Including the Vienna Acoustics Bach Grand, VA Mozart Grand, Polk Audio RTi A9 (and the RTi A7 and RTi A5 ), two Energy speakers (don't recall which floorstanding models they were), Wharfedale Evo 30, some Revel floorstander model and a few others (would have to find my notebook to recall model number).

Yet, I ended up going with the Jamo C607, which are much less expensive than any of those other speakers. Because to my ears, all those other speakers didn't beat the Jamo C607 and didn't deliver the kind of sound I like. From there, I went on to get all the other Jamo speakers I mentioned up above.

I know what I like in sound and my ears tell me all I need to know.

I absolutely respect and believe in the science of audio. But all gear does not sound the same, whether it be speakers.....amps.....pre amps or sources.

There's a lot that are very identical and almost imposible to hear a difference. But there's a lot that absolutely sound different.......better....worse....more melodic and more sterile.

Just like I my ears tell me what the B & W 802 are allo about.

Like I said, this wasn't a slight, vague difference and improvement. It is a veru audible improvement and difference.

Of course you and everyone else can and will believe what you want to believe.

 

[TjMV3]

I will now go on record as saying that there is absolutely nothing a piece of audio equipment can do to change the quality of sound so it's more melodic or harmonic.

I disagree.

While a piece of gear may not make the music more melodic or harmonic.

A well designed, quality powered component or speaker will allow the beauty of melody and harmony to be conveyed. While some gear, some how, white washes it.....glares it out...or simply ruins it.

I've heard way too many pieces of gear do excatly that.

Audio components are not the same as musical instruments. But I've heard plenty of guitars, basses violins and cellos that simply are inferior instruments and do, not excell in melody and harmony.

The best amp I ever had was a 1960's Ampeg Bass amp stack (w/ Ampeg tubed head).

My bass and six string guitar never sounded anywhere near as beautiful and melodic, as they did with that Ampeg stack. No amp has ever come close to that.

Yes, I know. Audio gear is different and not exactly serving the same function. But gear designers do voice their gear to sound the way they want it. And often, my ears hear quite a difference in the beauty and flow of melody and harmony.

 

[highfigh]

I disagree.

While a piece of gear may not make the music more melodic or harmonic.

A well designed, quality powered component or speaker will allow the beauty of melody and harmony to be conveyed. While some gear, some how, white washes it.....glares it out...or simply ruins it.

I've heard way too many pieces of gear do excatly that.

Audio components are not the same as musical instruments. But I've heard plenty of guitars, basses violins and cellos that simply are inferior instruments and do, not excell in melody and harmony.

The best amp I ever had was a 1960's Ampeg Bass amp stack (w/ Ampeg tubed head).

My bass and six string guitar never sounded anywhere near as beautiful and melodic, as they did with that Ampeg stack. No amp has ever come close to that.

Yes, I know. Audio gear is different and not exactly serving the same function. But gear designers do voice their gear to sound the way they want it. And often, my ears hear quite a difference in the beauty and flow of melody and harmony.

C'mon! You know melody and harmony have to do with the notes themselves, not the sound of the notes. The song should stand on its own, regardless of what it's played on, through or reproduced through. You know your favorite songs even when they're playing in an elevator, on Muzak and you may not like the sound, you still like the song. I know what you mean about how your Ampeg made everything sound but it had nothing to do with harmony or melody. I'm the same way about my Tweed Bassman- I worked in a music store and heard all kinds of different amps/speakers that were supposed to be the best out there and I can't think of many that I like more. I have no problem with you liking your old SVT head because it's one of my all-time favorites, too. Driven hard, there's nothing like it. Acoustic, Vox, Marshall and Fender had their followers for bass amps but the SVT is just different.

The right audio system just makes it sound more real and I do know what you mean. I have some recordings with the same amp as mine and the proof in how well they were recorded is in how close they sound to my Bassman. The first time I heard one of them was just bizarre because it was so similar.

What guitars and bass did/do you have?

 

[AJinFLA]

You're getting ahead of yourself and it's primarily my fault. I had to cut my response short because my three year old awoke crying and saying his mouth hurt. So I submitted the post and went to take care of my son.
He bit his tongue in his sleep and he was hurting with it for a while. By the time we got him back to sleep, I was sleepy and had no interest in thinking and posting, any more....lol.

Of course. Sorry to hear about your son, hope he's feeling better.

Okay, back to the subject at hand.
No, we didn't know which was which. There was four of us. Three of us did a majority of the listening, while the other guy switched cables and components.
The Rega Saturn and Marantz SA8003 and PM8003 were the only components that needed tio be physically switched in and out. The rest of the components just required cables being switched.
I have a large four panel decorative screen (hardwood frame, completely upolstored in thick fabric and some kind of polyfill). We used that to completely sheild the components, from our view. Only the one guy made all the changes. And we left the room and went on my front porch every time any changes were made.
My buddy ( the one doing all the switching) brought his SPL and he made sure the levels were consistent.

Ah, so this was a controlled test. A rather fascinating recent development on audiophile websites - how many "believers" have actually done private (unsubstantiated) "blind" tests. Sort of gives weight and legitimacy as to the claim eh? I guess most have caught on to the absurdity of uncontrolled claims, so I expect to see a great many more "I claim this...and did a blind test to bolster my story/belief" type tales.
Not that this has anything to do with your test, just saying.
Anyhow, so, what sort of (music) tracks were used? What level was the playback? Correct me if I'm wrong, but all three amps are solid state (the AVA with a tube line stage), but vary from the Marantz (70 wpc) to the Mac (250wpc), correct?
When you say you buddy "brought his SPL", exactly what "SPL" was used, where was it set up and what type of signal was used? Please take as much time as needed to answer (kids, google, wikipedia, etc.). Thanks.

Two of us prefered the Mac gear. The other guy prefered the Van Alstine.
The guy doing all the switching prefered the Mac gear, too. But he knew what was what, so I'm sure that won't account for much, for you.

It wouldn't, an unfortunate byproduct of my technical and scientific literacy. Glad you understand.

Over a period of about threem months (when we had the free time), we did the same thing with the Jamo C607, C807 and C809. As we did with the C803.

I don't think any sane person disputes that loudspeakers sound quite different, although, yes, if you want to be absolutely certain, blinding is best.

It's indisputable that to our ears, the Mac combo and Van Alstine combo were a huge improvement in every aspect; over the Marantz combo. And they should be.

Why should they be? Because this was expected?

That's not me slamming or bashing the Marantz gear. It's nice gear at it's price point. But the differences and improvements are immediately audible with the Mac and VA. The truth is, I really wanted to like the Marantz gear. Let's face it, it's much less expensive than the Mac and VA gear And my intentions have always been to get the best quality sound, for the least possible cost.

At it's price point? Cost? Expense? So price/cost/expense has a physical effect on the soundfield?

Yet, I ended up going with the Jamo C607, which are much less expensive than any of those other speakers. Because to my ears, all those other speakers didn't beat the Jamo C607 and didn't deliver the kind of sound I like. From there, I went on to get all the other Jamo speakers I mentioned up above.

So as someone who can "hear" the price/brand of equipment, a vertically stacked, largely decorrelated dome over cone on the face of box loudspeaker, like the Jamos, placed in a reverberant room....offers sufficient fidelity?
Ok.

I know what I like in sound and my ears tell me all I need to know.

You may also want to know that the hearing process actually involves the brain, the ears first capturing the sound waves.

I absolutely respect and believe in the science of audio.

This is good to know, as there are more questions in that direction forthcoming.

But all gear does not sound the same, whether it be speakers.....amps.....pre amps or sources.

Would you mind directly quoting (as opposed to implied, interpreted, etc, etc.) someone who says that they do? Thanks.

There's a lot that are very identical and almost imposible to hear a difference. But there's a lot that absolutely sound different.......better....worse....more melodic and more sterile.

And we agree that if these differences are real, then a real blind test will reveal them? (as opposed to say, a fabricated, cyberspace one).

Like I said, this wasn't a slight, vague difference and improvement. It is a veru audible improvement and difference.

Yes, it always is for believers. Odd how after 30+ yrs of similar claims for wires and every form of audiophile belief, there is not one single solitary shred of evidence to support this, in verifiable, documented, peer reviewed (real) blind tests. Strange eh?
Btw, there is a guy named Richard Clark for would give you $10k for what you know you can "hear". Have you considered giving him a call for some easy money? Or are you so wealthy as not even to be tempted?

Of course you and everyone else can and will believe what you want to believe.

Skepticism about extraordinary claims (in cyberspace no less) is a rather unfortunate hindrance due to my education and scientific literacy. My apologies in advance.

cheers,

AJ

 

[AJinFLA]

The best amp I ever had was a 1960's Ampeg Bass amp stack (w/ Ampeg tubed head).
My bass and six string guitar never sounded anywhere near as beautiful and melodic, as they did with that Ampeg stack. No amp has ever come close to that.
Yes, I know. Audio gear is different and not exactly serving the same function. But gear designers do voice their gear to sound the way they want it. And often, my ears hear quite a difference in the beauty and flow of melody and harmony.

A guitar amp is the best you have ever heard? Exactly what is it supposed to sound like? What is the reference to compare against for accuracy and realism?
Is amplified music you favorite?

 

[highfigh]

A guitar amp is the best you have ever heard? Exactly what is it supposed to sound like? What is the reference to compare against for accuracy and realism?
Is amplified music you favorite?

Knowing how amplified instruments actually sounds is just one point of reference. If someone has never heard amplified instruments in person, there's no way for them to know if the system is accurate. Same for acoustic instruments- if someone has only heard amplified instruments, they can't be sure the system is good for acoustic music.

 

[TjMV3]

C'mon! You know melody and harmony have to do with the notes themselves, not the sound of the notes. The song should stand on its own, regardless of what it's played on, through or reproduced through. You know your favorite songs even when they're playing in an elevator, on Muzak and you may not like the sound, you still like the song. ?

I mean, seriously. What in the world does that have to do with what I'm talking about?

When did I say I couldn't identify my favorite songs, when they're being played on crappy radios or crappy gear?

When did I say I like the song less or don't like the song at all, on a crappy radio or crappy gear?

I'll tell you when. Never.

Maybe I'm just not expressing myself correctly or using the right words. Hard to sometimes, when it comes to audio and what our own, individual ears hear.

But all I do know is this......

Well designed components deliver the notes.....the depth of the notes and melody of the notes, beautifully. Deliver that tone .....that emotion of the note and music.

 

[TjMV3]

Of course. Sorry to hear about your son, hope he's feeling better.



Ah, so this was a controlled test. A rather fascinating recent development on audiophile websites - how many "believers" have actually done private (unsubstantiated) "blind" tests. Sort of gives weight and legitimacy as to the claim eh? I guess most have caught on to the absurdity of uncontrolled claims, so I expect to see a great many more "I claim this...and did a blind test to bolster my story/belief" type tales.
Not that this has anything to do with your test, just saying.
Anyhow, so, what sort of (music) tracks were used? What level was the playback? Correct me if I'm wrong, but all three amps are solid state (the AVA with a tube line stage), but vary from the Marantz (70 wpc) to the Mac (250wpc), correct?
When you say you buddy "brought his SPL", exactly what "SPL" was used, where was it set up and what type of signal was used? Please take as much time as needed to answer (kids, google, wikipedia, etc.). Thanks.


It wouldn't, an unfortunate byproduct of my technical and scientific literacy. Glad you understand.


I don't think any sane person disputes that loudspeakers sound quite different, although, yes, if you want to be absolutely certain, blinding is best.

Why should they be? Because this was expected?

At it's price point? Cost? Expense? So price/cost/expense has a physical effect on the soundfield?

So as someone who can "hear" the price/brand of equipment, a vertically stacked, largely decorrelated dome over cone on the face of box loudspeaker, like the Jamos, placed in a reverberant room....offers sufficient fidelity?
Ok.

You may also want to know that the hearing process actually involves the brain, the ears first capturing the sound waves.

This is good to know, as there are more questions in that direction forthcoming.

Would you mind directly quoting (as opposed to implied, interpreted, etc, etc.) someone who says that they do? Thanks.

And we agree that if these differences are real, then a real blind test will reveal them? (as opposed to say, a fabricated, cyberspace one).

Yes, it always is for believers. Odd how after 30+ yrs of similar claims for wires and every form of audiophile belief, there is not one single solitary shred of evidence to support this, in verifiable, documented, peer reviewed (real) blind tests. Strange eh?
Btw, there is a guy named Richard Clark for would give you $10k for what you know you can "hear". Have you considered giving him a call for some easy money? Or are you so wealthy as not even to be tempted?

Skepticism about extraordinary claims (in cyberspace no less) is a rather unfortunate hindrance due to my education and scientific literacy. My apologies in advance.

cheers,

AJ

Oh thank you so much for reminding me, that, the hearing process actually involves the brain; the ears first capturing the sound waves. Stunning revelation


And here I thought you were trying to have a civil discussion. Silly me.


First and foremost. Your biggest mistake is using the term "Audiophile".

A term that I never, ever use to describe myself or my involvement in any aspect of music. Anyone who knows me, knows that.

I love music. Period. The End.

As for cables and wires. I have never, ever subscribed to the cable nonsense. You can search and read all of my posts on here or any other forum. And you won't find one word from me blabbering about and advocating cable jewelry.

For someone so "educated " and with such an unfortunate disposition of technical and scientific literacy; you sure make a lot of uneducated and ignorant swooping assumptions.

Your arrogant condescension betrays you. Ultimately you're not disimilar to the the high and mighty, arrogant and rude Audiophile types you so abor.

It's funny you cling so tightly to all your science and measurements. Yet, as everyone knows. Science has often been and will always make mistakes and proven incorrect, in a lot of aspects. What was once believed to be indisputable scientific proof, gets turned on it's ear. Happens quite often.

I retain my stance, here. Don't take my word for it. Go audition the C803 with the Marantz gear and McIntosh gear. Decide for yourself.

We did. And my ears....our ears told us all we needed to know. All of your condescension and little petty jabs, don't change the fact every one there heard a hugh improvement with the Mac and VA gear.

So I definitely suggest people audition them. Not go right out and buy the gear. Just audition and listen for yourself.

 

[TjMV3]

Jamo C803 with the McIntosh C220 and MC252= Bigger, smoother, more musical, beautifully melodic.......sweeeeeeter.......emotionally gripping.......more depth and stronger more coherent bass.

Yeah, baby!