It's interesting to see this thread have activity again. As reported elsewhere here on A'gon, earlier this year I had a CAT UII on loan for a couple months to compare to the Io/Callisto.
The consensus here is that the Sovteks in the CAT must go and my experience indicated the same. There is too much fatigue and sharp edges with these tubes. And as others have reported, the Tele 12ax7 did not work at all in the CAT line stage nor phono stage. It does not work well in the Callisto either but it is magic in the Io.
For the CAT vs. Aesthetix comparisons, the two line stages use the exact same tube compliment. I had enough of the Mullard 6922/12ax7 sets to keep both line stages warmed up for hours. No doubt about it, the CAT line stage has greater dynamics, more clarity and openness in the very top and indeed has a greater presence and weight in the bottom. All of these were instant and quite impressive. But it only takes one return back to the Callisto to hear the multitude of underlying subleties to know something is very right here. There is structure, body, dimensionality with the Callisto that is lacking with the CAT. And this for me was all it took to hold onto the Aesthetix.
There is that instant boogie factor with the CAT. The dynamic contrasts and frequency extreme coverage just gets your blood flowing. And it is never excessive. This with the JL-3 amps is exciting. But once the piano starts or vocals begin, the CAT UII line stage falls short.
The difference with the phono stages was much more dramatic. There has been so much praise about the CAT phono stage. With the Io (non signature here at the time, but getting completely overhauled now at GNSC to far beyond an Io Sig), the CAT phono stage had no chance. The CAT phono had one-note bass vs. far greater tonal coherency with the Io. It was as if the second octave in the CAT phono had a dip; the Io was portraying string bass notes with phenomenol clarity that were lacking with the CAT phono. This was more evident with the full CAT vs. the Io/Callisto compared to the CAT phono into the Callisto vs. Io/Callisto. I think the CAT line stage's deeper coverage into the bottom octave more clearly shows the lack of coherency in the CAT phono's bass coverage.
Whereas there were clearly some pros/cons of the CAT line stage vs. Callisto, the Io tore up the CAT phono stage in every way. This was the opposite that I would have expected. I can only imagine how the GNSC rebuilt Io will perform.
I have since gotten some Tele 6DJ8 tubes and these in the Io and Callisto are phenomenol. The Mullard 6922 were my ref tube here, but the Tele has now taken this spot. But I find a mix of these two types is the way to go with the Callisto. I would like to hear how they perform in the CAT. I suspect it would be a similar step up. But still, not at all enough to bring on the magic of the Aesthetix. As much as we like to refine the sound with tube rolling, it all starts with a specific design and the CAT as well as the Aesthetix have their fundamental sonic character no matter what tubes we use in them.
For a system that needs some help in the dynamics or resolution departments, the CAT preamp has no peers. But if you are looking for a more spatial presentation, great decays, textures through the vital mid 4-5 octaves, the CAT will most likely not work for you. Perhaps the Legend will address these areas and conquer the opponent. But for now, for me at least, the Io/Callisto reigns above the feline preamp in pure musical enjoyment. And this is with the JL-3s.
John |
Hello Rayhall - I too wish we were closer. It is very exciting and educational to visit other audiophiles' home and try our gear in these other systems. I learned much from two local guys on the issues of PLCs and PCs specifically. The things that seem to be passed around over and over are the preamp and cabling.
I had the CAT UII for 3 months and played with it off and on, before and after the multiple day/night comparative process ... and reported what I heard/learned back to the CAT dealer. And he in turn made further suggestions on things for me to try. I went far beyond simply trying one piece in the system, then switching to another, maybe back again and then coming to a conclusion. The one thing I regret not doing then was to go back to all Sovteks in the Callisto, including those dreadful EL34's in the PS. This would have given me a more accurate comparison test that everyone else out there has most likely heard the Callisto when comparing to its peers.
As a huge fan of the JL-3s, and feeling that the multitude of chassis with the Aesthetix pieces is a major pain in the neck, if there was ever someone who wanted the CAT UII to perform like a GREAT preamp, I was/am that person. And the synergy preachers out there would tell me this would be THE BEST match with the JL-3s. And yes, the CAT's dynamic contrasts, absolutely incredibly resolving top end and bass performance won me over. But when I heard the Callisto do the decays and the leading edge of instrument and human-voice tones to bring on the body of such tones, the CAT lags far behind. The initial great impressions of the UII become a moot issue as the Callisto brings on enjoyment to the listening like no other.
To get another viewpoint on this, I had one of the local guys, Jadem6, come over. If there was ever a super critical listener and system tweaker perfectionist out there, this guy earns the blue ribbon. He too was very impressed with the CAT's strengths. But he dismissed the CAT immediately because it was not even close to the Callisto's spatial abilities. The UII ends up sounding hi-fi-ish compared to the Callisto.
I agree that the CAT preamp differences over the years can not be all that significant. But I can not imagine how you did not hear the Callisto's strengths over the CAT U1. When I first heard the Callisto with the Sovteks, the capability of this product was still clearly evident. The other tubes do take it to a new level as they do with the CAT.
Unlike Bombaywalla, I had no access to Tele 6922/6DJ8 at the time. I only had Amperex 6922 and Mullard 6922. And for both line stages, the Mullard was far more to my liking. Now that I have tried the Tele 6DJ8 as reported, this is my new reference. But contrary to Bombaywalla's report on the Tele 12ax7, I stand by my statement that it did not work well in the CAT nor in the Callisto. In both units the top-end openness was greatly reduced and thus the harmonics and ambience of the mid-range frequencies. And this is an area that I am hyper-critical. I would have loved for the Tele 12ax7 to work here as I have many of these for the Io and a pair for the Callisto or CAT would have been very convenient to use here as well. Here again, a scenario where I would have benefited from the result, the desired outcome did not occur.
It was the UII's weakness in the decays and dimensionality that I was trying to get one way or the other. The Purist Dominus PC helped, like it does with anything else, but it did not rescue the UII here. And the Dominus IC between the DAC and line stage as well as between the tonearm and phono stage, again did not do it. Believe me, I tried! And perhaps the Mullard took away some of the tonal coherency vs. the other tubes in the UII. But it helped this unit significantly in the areas of its weakness ..... but again, not even close to the Callisto.
I can tolerate a reduction in performance at the frequency extremes or in dynamic contrasts and not having the ultimate in low-level resolution. But I need instruments and musicians to convey real space with the tones going on forever and ever. It started for me 23 years ago with the ARC SP-8 and later the SP-10, and I have wanted it ever since. And today, the Aesthetix models do this like no others and they do a very good performance in every other sonic character. The areas which they do not reach the top of their class are easily made up for by the JL-3s and SoundLab A1s.
An interesting comment by another local audiophile who visited me a few months ago - he said he had never heard decays in any system like this before. I never did hear back from him on what line stage he ended up with.
When the Legend is available for me to try, you can be certain that I will be in line to hear this. I have not given up on the CAT preamp yet.
If you ever have a reason to be in Mpls, throw me a note and stop by for a listen.
John |
Ok ok, Ill chime in. Aolivieros last statement was just too tempting to resist. Theres been so much written in this thread that I want to address. So Ill stir up the pot here a bit which I do regularly anyway. 8-)
I have owned the JL-3 Signatures for 8 months now. The first few months I was still using the BAT 31SE line stage. But the last 4+ months I have been using the Aesthetix Callisto Signature. The phono stage for 2+ years has been the Aesthetix Io.
For many months I have wanted to try the CAT preamp in my home system. A couple of times almost panned out but the units were sold before I had a chance. I will still continue to try and find a way to hear either the Ultimate or the upcoming Legend, as either a line stage or preferably a full function preamp.
If there is indeed a house sound with CAT products, adding a CAT preamp with the JL-3s would most likely be too much in one direction for me. Its not a matter of too much of a good thing but perhaps rather too much emphasis by a designer to achieve a set of goals and other areas not getting as much attention. Assembling a system is all about achieving a balance of extension and control at the frequency extremes, low noise floor and low-level resolution, tonal coherency and dynamic contrasts to portrayal of space, decays, harmonic overtones, etc. Has anyone out there heard one product which redefines the state of the art in every one of these categories?
I have no doubt that Strapper211s system sounds phenomenal. But I have no idea what is meant by the CAT preamp being the best match vs. the other preamps he auditioned or owned. A little more detail as to exactly the benefits, or simply tonally or dimensional differences, would be of great value to the reader.
On the issue of lean, this is ultimately defined a bit differently by each of us. When I heard the CAT JL-2 amp vs. the Atmasphere MA1s, I felt the JL-2 was indeed lean! The MA1s were more full and rich in the lower mids. And this I loved. Were they more accurate or less so? Who cares! And yet, the CAT had an awesome dynamic contrast, see through quality and initial attack that impressed me so greatly. But again, was this a more accurate rendition of the real thing? With all the processing of our LPs and CDs through the recording and manufacturing process, how will we ever know what is accurate or neutral to know how the sound was at the day of the recording? We get so wrapped up on the silly terminology when the focus really is whether or not that each component and ultimately the assembled system gets us one step closer to the real event in our own mind.
The strengths described of the CAT amp above are what drew me to purchasing CAT amps. But in the back of my mind, I wanted that fullness and presence in the vocals that was so impressively portrayed by the Atmasphere amps. For me, the Aesthetix products were a perfect match at the system level. As two local (Minneapolis) audiophiles (Jadem6 and Artg) can attest, the combination of the Aesthetix Jupiter models with the JL-3s driving Sound Lab A1s with the Clearaudio Ref TT as source is nothing short of phenomenal.
The Aesthetix products are incredible in the areas of 3-dimensionality. They piano notes and decays beautifully. It only takes one trip upstairs to hit a piano note and take notice that the Aesthetix get it right. So very few line stages or preamps, solid state or tube, do this accurately. And I have no wanting of bass as JD and I have both been overwhelmed with the Callisto handling the low end like no tube preamp either of us has auditioned in our systems. And there is a wonderful openness and extension in the trebles as well that my previous BAT 31SE and ARC LS5 II/III did not even come close to approaching.
I will go out on a limb and predict that the CAT preamps may indeed have a lower noise floor and possibly a greater degree of low-level resolution than the Aesthetix. But I highly doubt the CAT will portray the volume of space and decays anything close to the Aesthetix. And this to me alone is worth the price of admission. Once you hear the piano or a guitarist occupying space on the stage with the Aesthetix, you know something is right. Is having this quality a coloration? If it is, sign me up.
Each of us is chasing a system sound that fits our own set of priorities. The two local audiophiles I mentioned above have very different systems than mine and yet when I have gone to their home, the sound has been so incredible. I hear things there that I do not hear at my home and vice versa. To gain in one area often results in a loss in another. But I would never characterize their systems as being mismatched or too lean or fat, or colored, or whatever. There is no absolute here contrary to the claims by many magazine reviewers.
When I do finally get a chance to try out a CAT preamp here, and if I prefer the Aesthetix models or the upcoming full function Aria preamp, it will not be because my system has a problem elsewhere! For someone to say this is due to a system mismatch or problem is ridiculous. And because I preferred another preamp over the CAT here, and thus disagreed with other posts here, for this to imply my system was mismatched again would be ridiculous.
Its not a matter of one product working in a system or not, or my system having a problem elsewhere but rather how closely the end system result matches what I want from a system. And for those who are convinced that one product is more neutral or transparent, yada yada yada, over another, well thats fine. But theres a lot more going on in the music that many such people never experience until they hear the likes of the Aesthetix Jupiter products. And again, with the CAT amps, this is awesome.
I think anyone who buys one product simply because they already have products by that same company, and they dismiss other competing products is only cheating themselves. There are simply far too many impressive products out there that deserve our time rather than to dismiss solely on the basis of whos the manufacturer.
And if you have not already realized it, I think Ken Stevens has the most impressive amps by quite a stretch. Only time will tell if his preamp captures my attention the same way. But for now, the sound I have is mighty fine.
John |
Strapper: Thanks for the details.
Bombay: Yes, I like to whine a lot. |
One thing I forgot to mention in my novel above was that I first heard the JL-2 with the Blowtorch line stage. This pairing had far far more resolution and dynamic contrasts than I will ever have with the Aesthetix. I suspect for you ultra transparency diehards, you better hurry up and order one of these before it's too late. We had the CAT preamp on for a brief moment but immediately we went back to the Blowtorch as something was so very "right". When I go back there in Dec with the JL-3s, I hope to report on the CAT preamp with this as well.
Art, I wanted you to get that Ultimate more than you did as I was dieing to hear it over here. Now I must wait! You should see the floor in here with tubes all over the place. I got a ton of 12AX7, EL34, 6922 and 6SN7 and am swapping all sorts of combinations in the Callisto and Io trying to squeeze out a wee bit more headroom and little less noise. |
Art, I have been waiting to hear back from you and JD as I thought you were going to bring over a bundle of power cords. Fortunately I got my system up and running again last night after tracking down a bad tube in the Io. Still I have a noise issue here I'd like to get way down. I then had to re-bias the A1s that for whatever reason were causing severe distortion at only medium levels. Must have been the crazy fluctuations in the room's humidity lately to cause this. So hurry up and come on over before something else goes out of alignment! |
Bombaywalla: I recently got a batch of Tele 12AX7's and with the help of a tube tester, I was able to match (by output signal strength) several pairs for my Aesthetix gear. I still have several of these left. If your short on a budget but would like to give them a try, I can ship a pair to you. I also have found the EI tubes to be quite impressive as well and they tend to be dead quiet vs. the majority of Tele's...but they don't have quite the Tele midrange magic. I think I also have one remaining pair of Mullard 12AX7 that you could try; I like these a lot due to their dynamics and very good tonal coherency So I could send you 3 pairs for you to try in the CAT. Should not be more than a few $ shipping costs. This way you can try these out before you spend a lot for something that might make a big difference....and then ship them back to me at a later date. Let me know if you're interested.
John |
Thank you Bombaywalla for your response. Let me addres your issues one by one. And yes, I knew my comments would get people's blood boiling.
First of all, as stated before, I have not heard the Tele 6922/6DJ8 tube in the CAT. I have no doubt it would work very well here; every place I have tried the Tele 6DJ8, including the Counterpoint NPS400 amp, there was a marked improvement in tonal coherency. I am 110% sure of one thing: Tele 6922 tubes in the CAT UII are NOT going to rescue this line stage from its weakness in portraying space and decays. This tube was a very nice refinement in the Callisto and Io, but it did not take either of these units to a new level in this sonic area. So if anyone thinks they are going to get the Aesthetix strengths by putting Tele 6922 tubes in the CAT, they are in for quite a disappointment. No tube change is going to do this. The differences here are inherent in the respective designs here.
As I have heard the Callisto vs. the Calypso many many times now, they are so very much the same except in one key area - the issue of dimensionality. And the two designs are quite similar except one key factor - the Callisto has a tube PS. Hint, hint. This could very well be the reason why the UII lags behind the Callisto like the Calypso does in this manner.
Obviously, our experiences on how the Tele 12ax7s worked in the CAT are polar opposites. I like this tube very much, but so far only in the Io. What it does in the CAT UII, Callisto and Manley Ref DAC is consistent - the soundtage and dimensionality are greatly diminished in my system. Perhaps there is "synergy" between the Tele 6922 and 12ax7 in the CAT, but this too sounds more like a leap of faith rather than a reality.
I am not going to get into a pissing match over what tubes are right or wrong in any product. To lecture me that Mullard tubes can not work is nonsense. They might not be the ultimate tube here, but for $100, just one pair in the line stage took the UII into far greater sonic performance. This is the tube I had at the time, and with it, I observed a significant improvement over the Sovtek. If nothing else, it is a wonderful starting point if it is the only available tube at the moment.
That Ken Stevens shared with you that the Mullards were not a got tube here is fine - I accept his opinion here. Let me be frank - he does not want any of us to even change the stock Sovteks. And yet it is a consensus here - until we get rid of them, one has not begun to hear the potential of this product.
As for me hobbling the UII experiment with only Mullards indicates to me that you're getting a little ahead of yourself with coming to judgement here.
"I cannot believe that Ken Stevens, who is absolutely behind the 8-ball on dynamics, timbral accuracy of instruments & voices, attack of instruments, soundstage width & depth, would make a preamp that lacked these qualities."
You are not paying attention to what I have written in this thread at all!!!!! In the context of dynamic contrasts and initial attack of notes, I have repeatedly stated the UII line stage outperforms the Callisto by a significant margin. And this is very evident with the JL-3s. From my amp listeneing sessions, no amp can touch the JL-3s in this regard. And we are driving some very resolving speakers here: SoundLab A1s. So nobody needs to lecture me about dynamics or transient speed. It is why I bought the JL-3s and it is what I immediately noticed was the UII strength.
I have been very kind to simply state that the Io was far beyond the UII's phono stage. And this was why I did not put anywhere near the effort between these two as I did with the line stages. As stated before, I threw everything at the UII but Tele 6922s and the kitchen sink to bring on the magic and it just did not happen. I suspect very few people would have done so much with this unit as I did.
"The CAT *should* have performed terribly w/ Mullard tubes & it did, as you stated!"
And again - you were not paying attention. I never said it performed terribly. I stated the UII's strengths over the Aesthetix. And I then followed through where the Aesthetix excels over the CAT, i.e., harmonic textures, layering, decays, ambience, etc., etc. Rather than you scold me for my incompetence and/or lack of responsibility for sharing my experiences here with the Mullard tubes, I suggest you get on down to your Aesthetix Io/Callisto dealer, and take a box of Mullard, Tele and Brimar tubes, and hear for yourself the areas where the UII falls behind. Oh, and so there will be no bias on lack of dynamic contrats from the audition, maybe you can also borrow a pair of JL-3s.
As for the issues of soundstage, decays, body of the instruments, etc., even the CAT amps lose out to some of the competition here.....the Atmasphere amps driving the SoundLabs bring on a most incredible performance in these key areas over the CAT. And this was observed with a direct comparison between the amps. When I heard this at the dealer, I remember telling him I wanted both amps in one. And the same holds true with the UII and Aesthetix. But this is not possible so the best I can do is pick one from each side of the fence. And to me, the Aesthetix/JL-3 pairing is incredible. Everyone who has heard this with the A1s, has said the same.
Perhaps the UII and the Atmasphere amps would be the flip side of this success. But a CAT/CAT setup is just too much into the neutral zone for me. Other people love it and I respect that. I just need a little more direction into the dimensional zone.
"You do not see the inconsistency of this??"
Not at all, and maybe you won't either once you pay more attention to what I have written all along. There is no perfect product in the CAT nor Atmasphere nor Aesthetix nor whatever camp. The key is to assemble a system in such a way that brings on the strengths of certain pieces that stand out and try to improve on that component's weaknesses through other changes in the system. And this is what I have done.
The post by Bart(Poswbp555) where he spoke with Ken Stevens is interesting. This ought to be very exciting when the Legend comes along. But the full function preamp by Michael Elliot is also much on my mind. We all benefit when these very talented engineers continue to improve on their past great achievements.
I think I have shared all that I can here to convey the pros/cons of the products under evaluation. For me to continue here will only result in rehashing the same information through and through. And as exhibited by Bombaywalla, my instincts were correct - people get upset when their reference product is put under a microscope.
John |
Bombaywalla - The reason my response came off as defensive was because I made an effort here to convey my observations; these descibed the strengths and weaknesses of the two preamps under test. Never did I refer to either as terrible. That (dis)hono[u]rable title belongs to a few other preamps that I have auditioned over the years and noted here on A'gon.
I do indeed take a manufacturer's or an audiophile's suggestion for a starting point to use a specific cable, tube, matching component, etc. But the road to refinement on a per-system basis is only possible if we experiment with other options, and some of these will likely be contrary to the initial suggestion/advice we got. The Mullard tube is a classic example here. It did not work for you - but it worked for me ... if nothing else, as a significant improvement over the stock tube used to "voice" the product.
Another factor is that my tests were with the UII and yours with a Mk III. Besides our very different systems, could the difference in the CAT preamp models be a factor for our opposing conclusions with the Mullard 6922? .... very possible. And the same for the Tele 12ax7? .... again, very possible. Can you imagine that one brand of 12ax7 might lock in for the CAT line stage and another lock in for the CAT phono stage? ... And swapping these two could be a worse result that what we had with the stock tubes? This is exactly the case between the Io and Callisto for both the 6922 and 12ax7. Afterall, they were designed by the same engineer and also voiced with Sovtek tubes. And yet when other tubes are tried, the two components react very differently to the same 12ax7 or same 6922. Even Mr. Spock would be perplexed by such a outcome.
I think that if we evaluate a tube's performance, or anything else such as a cable, with a specific product, all of our conclusions about that specific tube or cable are relative to the one product under test....and in the context of that system. We can not judge the performance of that tube or cable onto another product until we repeat the test process for the product.
What I was trying to do with the resources available to me, was to max out the CAT UII and max out the Io/Callisto and in the final analysis, the results for each was very impressive. But through so many changes to each, tubes and cabling, a "house" sound for each became very evident...and the design engineers' priority in a resultant sound for each became evident. We can tweak and refine a product to get it to be a little more to our liking, but if we still find something lacking, we must continue our quest to find a more suitable product; expecting a $1200 pair of golden tubes to save the day is not realistic.
Btw, I did a lot of playing of 6922/12ax7/12au7 with the JL-3s. With Mullards and Teles here, the JL-3's performance took quite a step forward - hardly a surprise. And this was long before I ever had the UII here. I have paid a lot more money for a component change and gotten less improvement than I have with some of these $200-300 tube "upgrades".
I don't mean to get so philosophical here, but so many people here, as shown by the multitude of "best of" threads on A'gon, are obsessed with what is best.....and there is no such thing.
Bart - I get the DAC and Io back from GNSC tomorrow. Once I burn these in for a couple weeks, then try out a matched octet of Brimar 12ax7's for the Io's first stage, the pair in the Callisto and pair in the DAC, I will be ready to borrow some Stealth cables. Hopefully the JL-3s will return very soon too. I am very excited to try the Steath products. I will keep you posted on this.
John |
Rayhall - Just tonight I finally had a chance to try Brimar 12ax7 vs. Tele and Mullard in the Callisto and 4 different stages of the Io. There was a consistency of the Brimar that I have to believe would be true for the CAT. Wish you could have heard this....it was very impressive. I have 4 pairs of these to play with.
The Brimar has a most incredible bass foundation that the other tubes can not begin to approach. This was true in the Callisto and each of the Io's 4 stages. This might be a perfect fit for the Ultimate II phono stage's upper bass valley. The Brimar also had more energy on the very top. How it portrays the metalic percussion pieces is really beautiful. This is more natural vs. the ringing of the Mullard or lack of fine detail of the Tele.
The Tele indicated more midrange presence and bloom but some of this is due to its lack of bass energy and less resolving top end. This can be addictive but the Brimar is more coherent....whether this is a good or preferred thing or not.
The Brimar's bass and treble detail displaced my long standing Mullard 12ax7 reference in the Callisto. There was no noise issue here. Just enough more bass weight and clarity on the top.
As much as I liked the Brimar it had a little too much tube noise for the Io's first stages. This could be an issue in the CAT phono stage. I then tried the Brimars in what looks like the Io's phase splitter stage, the Tele's midrange bloom was so powerful and addicting over the Brimar; but I loved the Brimar's frequency extreme strengths here. The bass with the Brimar added much of the boogie factor but it also caused the images to be a bit distant in this position. I felt that it was not a good fit in these first stages.
I then tried the Brimar in the next (RIAA stage) and it performed well vs the Tele. It was a tradeoff of the midrange fullness of the Tele vs the Brimar's freq. extremes. The Brimar's higher noise issue was just faintly noticeable over the Tele with the volume high and no music from the speakers. A return to the Tele, and the Tele was beautiful; these tubes are so magical in the Io. How they portray voice and piano is so nice. But I hated to lose the Brimar's strengths in this stage. There was one more stage in the Io and here the Brimar fit perfectly. That last chance to get the Brimar's strengths and here they outweighed the little bit of loss of midrange fullness.
As you can see, I liked the Brimar a lot. The frequency extremes are its strengths. But then again, this is the case for the CAT so it might not be an ideal fit....too much of a good thing. So it might be an easy decision to stay with what you already have. With the Aesthetix, it was really close and only the phenomenol midrange of the Tele with the Io made for the final results in 3 of the 4 stages. But the brimar is a tube to give serious consideration.
John |
"Hey security, who let this solid state man in here?" |
