The Jadis JA200Mk2 review---or slam!

In an ironic way, this will potentially prove a good review for Jadis.

Every month, these magazines feature a half dozen or so components. Rarely does anything happen beyond the company using the review on their website to prove its worth to those already well on the road to considering it for purchase. How often do we discuss the review in forums like Audiogon? In other words, does it pay real dividends? Does it create buzz?

Here we are talking about a review / component / company, with the overwhelming majority of folks standing up to take notice, and defend Jadis. That’s a rare occurrence, and likely an unintended positive outcome few would have predicted. I can’t remember how long it’s been since a more diverse and spirited Jadis discussion came down the road. Quite possibly, Jadis will get their money’s worth and a whole lot more from this review

As I let my subscription go after a multi-decade run, I went out to buy the current review. I canceled Stereophile and TAS as the reviews leave me cold in comparison to earlier days. But at $9.53 after tax for a single copy, it obviously pays to keep the subscription for the annual $12.

To get a more complete picture, I also returned to the previous Jadis JA200 reviews by Dick Olsher (1993) https://www.stereophile.com/content/jadis-ja-200-monoblock-power-amplifier and Jonathan Scull (1994 + follow-up in same year) https://www.stereophile.com/content/jadis-ja-200-monoblock-power-amplifier-jonathan-scull-review Though not a fan of J10 back then, I encourage folks interested in the decline of high-end audio reviewing to do likewise. I bemoaned how things moved backwards back then, and they’ve gone a lot further.

Funny, when these older reviews came out, the $18,900 price tag struck me as ridiculous to the point of obscene. Yet in today’s world of five figure ubiquity for uninspiring components, dare I say $33,900 for these amps almost feels like a value component? How the world has changed... Regarding the output tubes in photos, except for JVS’ system, they feel like the stock photos the magazine all too often employs. Folks have long criticized Stereophile’s lack of review visuals. The magazine declared in the 90s they would put right, yet still have not. That only comes off as more surprising with today’s digital cameras, iPhones, and the like.

I’ve never liked Nordost cabling, but the company’s obviously sold a lot of it. The digital front-end doesn’t present anything untoward to me, and would look to the Wilson Alexias as an interesting partner. Having JC Calmettes personally show up to (suboptimally, 1R OT strapping and all) set up the amplifiers in the system became a point of failure for whatever reason. The previous reviews begin to show how far the product moves forward in the hands of a determined reviewer (or owner). Beyond the Nordost power cords, JVS took to pen and paper using the amplifiers more or less out of the box. I’ll agree to anyone asserting that’s the reviewer’s job, review the product as received. Fair enough. In fact, expected.

Have things reached a point of reviewers offending by not praising a component up one side and down the other? ALL components have flaws, and ALL can find criticism. Perhaps my biggest problems with the high-end audio media rests with reviews failing to deliver honest assessment. Some label such writing advertisement.

Anyway, in no way would I label the JVS review of the Jadis JA200 a SLAM. onhwy61 makes a good case. The review contains liberal use of the highest of superlatives. Any company would lick their chops over coming home with that many gems to run in ad copy. In fact, with all three reviews in front of me, the current comes across as the most positive. I predict the Jadis JA200 finds a place in Class A when the April Stereophile’s Recommended Components appears.

Apart from the review itself, if anyone cares, as one who’s had Jadis products in my system over the past 2 decades:
1. When tube amplification returned to prominence in the late 90s, we heard they didn’t live in the plug and play world, and required actual care and feeding. As I mentioned, while one may not need to emulate Jonathan Scull, Jadis amps demand something of the owner to hear what they can honestly do

2. As much as any, and more than most, Jadis components sonically reflect the tubes one uses in them.

I’ve long claimed their amplifiers sound best running EL34 output tubes, and recommend JJ E34L, specifically. Interestingly enough, Dick Olsher came to the same conclusion with those same E34L besting the big tubes. For those willing to pay for them, vintage Mullards take things up 2 - 3 levels.

12AX7 drivers sound equally as important as the output tubes. Not sure what the factory currently employs, but in my experience, it’s always new production, and European, at that. Outside of the Chinese (Shuguang + Psvane) triple mica variants, current production falls far behind vintage offerings. Input tubes also need consideration, and I’ll leave it at that

3. I’ve reached the point of not preferring bigger amplifiers. Forget about the heat, space, demands on the home’s electrical system, electric bills, or retubing costs. The increase in parts detracts more than the potentially additional muscle offsets. Of course, some loudspeakers and rooms do need more power...

Having tried a number in my system, the sweet spot for me in the Jadis lineup lies in some of the 2 (Orchestra Reference) and 4 (DA88S + JA80) tube offerings

4. Jadis products do not produce neutral sound. Call it a flaw or whatever. One seeking absolute neutrality or accuracy (whatever that is) would best look elsewhere. Jadis produces a euphonic sound, though not in the pejorative it’s taken on over the year to denote lushness, richness, slowness, bloat, or products that claim "tubelike" virtues because of same.

As folks have said here, for the right person and system, a Jadis can provide as much happiness as anything out there

@daveyf, I think you are showing us that you have not actually heard any of the latest Jadis amps. The new KT150 based versions are far more neutral sounding than any of the amps that came before from Jadis. So, while the latest models may not be as warm as in the past, they are certainly different sounding than even from a few years back."

You’re right. While I’ve been around some of the KT120 offerings, I’ve not yet heard the amplifiers running KT150 output tubes. I’m not much of an ARC fan, but know a guy who moved from 6550 to KT120 to KT150 in his amplifier. Although I certainly still have no interest in that product, the KT150 readily eclipse the other two in it. But I also haven’t ever felt interested in buying a set for myself, either.

@howthefidelity, "I’m sure if I installed EL34s I’d get more midrange with the amp."

Yes, but at the expense of the low-end. Still, those JJ E34L are the tubes I run in mine. Unlike the more expensive amplifiers, JOR uses the Dynaco circuit, with fixed bias, and a completely (more neutral) different sound than its cathode bias big brothers. That said, that circuit with the right EL34 tubes produces some of the most glorious midrange attainable that even the more expensive products cannot touch.

What 12AX7 have you tried so far?

@howsthefidelity, you’re right about the Mullards. Please give the Shuguang (or Psvane) triple mica 12AX7B aka Silver Dragon a go. At $10, you will absolutely not believe their performance. They easily best the Mullards, and compete with the best ever variants. Impossible sounding, I realize...

A journey of building and modding amplifiers completely rewrote my thoughts and beliefs, and I now feel fixed versus cathode bias sits among the top of the factors of how a tube amplifier performs and sounds. Fixed bias sounds a lot tighter, faster, reactive, and neutral. Cathode bias sounds more relaxed, warm, liquid, lush, romantic, and slower. Neither presents a better or worse presentation, it’s why they make vanilla AND chocolate.

If you can handle working around high voltage, you can easily bias the JOR yourself. The effort lies in taking it apart, and (especially) putting it back together. Removing the side panels and bottom plate, simply rest the amp on its side on something like a piece of carpet, with the power transformer sitting on the lower side for obvious reasons. Measure the voltage across the ~5.6R resistor that sits between the output tube’s plate (via the yellow wire) and the output transformer. Adjust the potentiometer to 90 - 120 (Jadis considers 110 best) mV, and you’ve biased the tube. Repeat for the other 3 output tubes, and you’ve biased the amp. There’s an additional step some employ, but as it confuses the heck out of people, and rarely yields anything, let’s disregard it. Beyond this, the figures I just listed leaves the amp biased extraordinarily (and surprisingly at 40% plate dissipation for an EL34’s rated 25 watts, and far colder for your KT90) cold, which Jadis acknowledges. Personally, I bias the amp a lot hotter, though still conservatively, but I won’t say anything further than that for now. Also, I’ve suggested folks consider cutting holes in the bottom plate that line up with the bias resistors and potentiometers, as the ability to bias the JOR without taking it apart would reduce it to something that takes just a couple of minutes.

Officially, the JOR uses 300W at idle.

@kyomi_audio you make some excellent points, and I agree with you.  The JA 200 MK2 should have no issue whatsoever driving the Wilson Alexias.

The Alexia may prove a bit more demanding than the WATT/Puppy and its successor, Sasha.  But I've heard several instances of those loudspeakers driven to more than good effect by the JA 80