Parasound Halo JC2

I had a JC-2 for a nearly a month.

I found that, out of the box, the preamp had high resolution, and sounded musical, but it was, for me, too lightweight in the midbass through lower midrange, which resulted in a presentation that was thinner than I liked. Frequency-wise, it had, from what I could discern, extended highs, great midrange, etc.
However, I simply couldn't get past the ethereal nature of its' sound. I prefer a more solid sound, sort of the different between Scotty beaming you up to the Enterprise and the first 5 seconds, where you can see through Cap'n Kirk, and the final 2 seconds where he's fully materialized.
On the checklist: good low-level resolution and dynamics, wide soundstage, depth good, but layering (with this setup not fantastic .....although I suspect the Usher 718s (NOT the BE version!) are no Sound Dynamic RTS-3s in the depth layering department. Overall, I enjoyed the JC-2, but it just didn't make my heart skip a beat, except for one cut on the Magical Mandarin, in a flute solo (cut 5, I think), which was lovely. I hoped it would, so I was disappointed.
In all fairness, my Hurricanes were not behaving well, and they are being repaired. However, the lightness of the sound was evident, and inarguable. One thing the Hurricanes are NOT is lightweight-sounding. Oh, the CD players were the Apollo Rega and Cambridge (also a bit lighweight, so this, no doubt, exacerbated the experience) The resolution was on a par with a First Sound Presence Deluxe Mk II, but the "bloom" just wasn't there, as it was with the First Sound, nor were the dynamics as powerful. Sound didn't blossom as much as I'd hoped -- and man, was I ever hoping it would.
Take this as an impression. I'm sure JV's review on TAS (the reason I bought it), was spot on. I agreed with all his observations, just that he de-emphasized how lightweight it could be. But then, he was using a Walker turntable, which, if anything like the Valid Points, which solidify and focus sound, would hardly demonstrate this problem. With the Cambridge, Valkyrja interconnects, the JC-2, the combination leaned too far in the "white" sound direction. The Hurricanes, bless their hearts, did not disguise that, neither did the Transparent speaker cable or the Usher, that combination being quite the opposite: weighty and solid.
I think Mr. Atkinson said about the same thing in his Stereophile review which you can read online...
Frankly, I'D like to hear someone else's take on it.

Thanks alot GBmcleod your point of view is clear and very interesting

Curio - Based on my experience with the JC-1s in the past - and from what I've heard from others about them as well - they require a **great** deal of break-in. I don't know, but it's possible that this is true of the JC-2 as well. I found it curious that John Atkinson described the preamp as somewhat lean (in a relative sense), yet Jonathan Valin did not. A difference in break-in? Maybe...maybe Valin even had the same unit after Atkinson, when it was more broken in. Who knows. I don't have any experience with the preamp, but just wanted to suggest some things.

It sounds like you would like more feedback from people with experience, and I hope you can get it. One more suggestion: I suspect that there may be only a minute sample of people who have heard the JC-2 and the Pass X1 *in the same system*, never mind driving the JC-1s. You may want to re-phrase your question to get as much feedback about the JC-2 as you can (it sounds like you don't need the feedback about the Pass).

Good luck!

Thanks for your opinion Jfz
I noticed too the different point of view of Valin and Atkinson and as you wrote maybe it could be refferred to the different break in time.
I haven't here the two JC1 yet .. probably they left Canada this morning and so I should have them here within 10 days than I 'll be able to write an opinion about them
They 'll be driven by the Pass X1 and after I 'll consider if the marriage 'll be good enough or if the JC1 'll require another preamp
By now I'm crossing my fingers about the marriage of the JC1s and Thiel2.4 on paper should be perfect .. but with ears .. who knows..

Ok, I've got another opinion for you. The JC-2 is awesome, and that is why I own one!(as well as the JC-1's) It really is the perfect match for the JC-1's. The JC-1's aren't your typical harsh sounding solid state amp and if they err, they err towards sweetness with a touch of warmth/richness. The JC-2 is very high resoloution, and extremely quiet. I can see why people who prefer the added richness and coloration of tube gear would call the JC-2 slightly thin in it's sonic picture. If it is paired with an amp that is somewhat analytical or bright, you will have a somewhat thinner sound. I think that the JC-2 is perfectly accurate, and some people aren't ready for that kind of honesty. Anyway, when paired with the JC-1's the sound is magical. They literally were made for each other. The sound is completely sweet. Don't worry, the JC-1's are going to make your Thiels sound the best they ever have. I do believe that the JC-2 will take them to the next level also. The JC-2 is by far the single biggest improvement that I've ever realized from a component upgrade in my system... Bar none! %30 more low level details, better soundstaging, deeper bass, sweeter harmonics, it's like I turned up everything but the noise. That's as simple as I can put it. It will remain in my system for a long time.

Good luck to you!