Aesthetix Calypso vs ARC LS25 MK2

Wow, it's great to hear how happy you are with your purchase. Sounds like you will own this for quite a long time.

I have been following this thread and finally thought I'd dive in for a little balance from Judge Judy and other critics. There's just no way someone can go to one place and hear one product and then to another place in a different room and system and have any value to stating the virtues of one product vs. another.

">>"Terminally vapid" Boring, dull, etc.<<
Characteristic of all ARC products."

Oh? All? Would this also include the SP-6, SP-8, SP-10, LS5, PH2, D70, D115, M100, D250, VT130, VT150? I have much experience with these models and I would not characterize any as boring. There is much harmonic richness, ambience, bloom, musicality with these products.

In its time, the SP-10 had no peers and I listened to a ton of products out there hoping to avoid dealing with this 15-tube 2-chassis product; the SP-10 won. Eight years later I followed this with the awesome PH2/LS5/VT130 that is anything but boring. Anyone who would claim such has their brain on the other side of Mars.

The one issue I always had with ARC was their lack of consistency delivered from one product line to the next. The preamps between the SP-10 and LS5 were worse and worse.....way too analytical to me. They weren't boring...they were simply unmusical! But thousands of others felt differently as shown by the sales of the SP-11, SP-15, LS1 and that dreadful LS2. (Sorry Guido, I couldn't help myself.) And shortly after the LS5, the cycle of unmusical preamps started again. Maybe that has changed again with the Ref2 or Ref3?

I have since changed to BAT, Aesthetix and CAT products as I have found them to be more refined in their tonal coherency, frequency extremes and low level resolution compared to the ARC products I owned and the new models available at the time. After hearing other products and my system becoming more and more resolving, I found the ARC presentation to be more and more too fatiguing for me.

The LS25 II was under serious consideration vs. my LS5 but I was not overly impressed. The LS25 was detailed but lacked the LS5's dimensional magic. I stayed with the LS5. It took the BAT 31SE to better the LS5 in key ways, much more foundation and power in the lowest octave, and a far more tonally coherent (not fatiguing) top end. The wonderful thing was that all I had loved about the LS5 was there in the BAT. The BAT had kept the performers at the plane of the speakers and behind. The LS5 brought the performers way out into the room which in time I came to like less and less. Direct comparisons at two dealers and my home showed me it was more than specific system synergy. The BAT 31SE end up being far superior to the line stage I had owned and enjoyed immensely for 7 years.

Two years later, enter the Aesthetix Callisto Signature. It's a very different experience here. Never had I heard a line stage impress me so greatly across the board. I remembered how the 31SE did the bass. The Callisto takes this to another level. And unlike the BAT, the Callisto renders a mulitude of low-level detail in the highest frequencies. The LS5 never came close to this. And the LS25 did not steal the show vs. the LS5 in this regard either. The Callisto and Calypso are very very similar except for one most important attribute: portrayal of space. I am so impressed when I hear the neutrality and resolution of the Calypso at a local audiophile's (Jadem6) home. But a changeover to the Callisto and that awesome 3-dimensionality is there like you hear from a real performance. The stage exceeds far beyond the boundaries, images are not 1-foot wide - they are so lifelike. A return back to the Calypso and that awesome openness is significantly diminshed. This is one area where I would have trouble going for the Calypso. Even with the BAT's soft top end and lower level resolution, it was far more lifelike in its portrayal of the harmonics, decays, images and space and this alone brought on the emotional connection. The LS5 did the same for me but not at well as the BAT or Callisto.

So that's a little bit of personal history that hopefully gives you some things to consider when you compare in your home and at the dealers. It can really be tough to choose from the strengths between some very impressive products out there.

Good luck in your quest here.

John

Perfectionist: You raise some valid points here. Jadem6 (JD) and I have had much discussion about these two Aesthetix pieces. We have directly compared them at three different times at our homes. If you have not already read the reviews he wrote here about each of these models, please do so as it will give you much greater insight than what I can do here.

Any time someone asks for opinions about one product vs. another, almost inevitably one product is going to take a little abuse in the final analysis. What I like about this site is the openness of viewpoints rather than the typical magazine review where the reader is left hanging with never getting his own questions answered as to what the writer genuinely heard.

I will try to give you a better perspective here on MY take on the Calypso. First of all the good news: tonal coherency, low-level resolution, frequency-extreme coverage - these are all covered impressively well with the Calypso. Where most tube line stages fall short in the bass, this unit does not. So many tube line stages over-emphasize the mids with sacrifice to the frequency extremes; again not here with the Calpyso. The Calypso has a wonderful natural tone that far supasses the line stages in this price range that I have heard; there is not even one tiny hint of fatigue. AND resolution.... this unit brings on so much more detail and clarity from the music, especially in the trebles. In the context of the BAT 31SE and ARC LS5 II & III that I owned, the Calypso far exceeds these models in these areas with the BAT being very similar in the bass. It is remarkable how nearly identical the Calypso is to the Callisto in these areas. From my extensive auditioning of line stages, my gut feeling is that the Calypso has no peers in these areas in its price point.

And now my personal biases enter the critique. Ever since I heard the ARC SP-8 totally annihilate the great Krells, Klynes and Spectrals of 20+ years ago, it forever changed my perspective on what preamps can do to the musicality of the system. Once you hear an instrument occupy space and render decays in piano, sax and voice, it is tough to give it up. All these years, I have been willing to sacrifice low-level resolution, the utmost in bass control and extension, deal with a higher noise floor, etc., if that was what it took to achieve the 3-dimensionality in the performance that brought on the emotional connection. With each upgrade, the SP-10, LS5, 31SE, Callisto, I have managed to achieve all of the magic in this regard that I had before, but also to build on getting improvements in the areas that were lacking before. No matter how refined those other attributes might be from a product under consideration, if I was to lose any of the "magic" that I had worked so hard to achieve up to that point, that product was not going to work for me. This alone is why I have yet to jump up and down in excitement from any solid-state line stage or preamp. I'm simply a bloom and decays fanatic and I have sacrificed the other areas to get these attributes. But what has totally knocked my socks off (and JD's too) is how incredibly well the Callisto literally does it all.

As JD wrote above, and take his advice seriously, do not listen to the Callisto if it truly is out of your price range. If the Calypso brings on a huge smile to your face when you hear how it surpasses its peers, like JD, you will be a proud owner.

Your issue of fairness is a good one. Of course price comes into it. But that was why I brought the BAT 31SE into the discussion. It is in the Calypso's price range on the used mkt. And for me, it brings on the emotional aspect to the performance much more than the Calypso. But with the 31SE I am also fully aware that subtle details are lost from the music, primarily in the percussion that is rendered beautifully with the Calypso. The BAT is definitely more mushy and grainy on the top. But like the Calypso, the BAT was never fatiguing with overly emphasized mids as was the case for the ARC LS5 and less so, the LS25.

It's really tough to let go of the details in the music. But for me it is more difficult to let go of the dimensionality and space. It's a personal decision. Perhaps other links in the system with complimentary strengths can make the loss in either way "doable".

But trying to correct either of these issues with cables will result in only a lot of frustration. The result would no doubt mess up the tonality and potentially bring on fatigue as you tried to make up for lost extension on the top or make the sound more warm and rich with something like Cardas Golden Cross.

It would benefit you greatly to borrow a Calypso or 31SE for the weekend and hear for yourself how they differ to what you already have. You ultimately may want to keep what you have. Or it would give you some insight to check out the CAT Ultimate, First Sound, or others. To lock yourself into just a couple of models makes it tough to find the model that clicks so well to your own set of biases and system matching.

John

Right on Perfectionist. I am eager to hear how it all falls into place for you.

JD: Are you willing to share your new cables with us less fortunate cable owners? 8-) If I bring over the Callisto to hear how it works with your new fancy-pants cables, are you prepared to have the french horn player in your lap? And you thought it was hot in your room now!

Perfectionist: Thanks for the update. It's nice to read your honest experiences between the two products. I too can relate to how difficult it can be to ultimately give the nod to one component vs. another when they each have their own strengths. But if there is anyone out there who has put a ton of effort to get the Calypso to do its best, it's Jadem6 (JD) so contacting him would be worth your time.

Rja: Great to learn of another twin cities audio fan. I hope to get with JD and Art soon to do their fancy power cord shootout.

Tgun5: Your comment on all the Aesthetix dealers that you talked to about the Calypso being 98% of the Callisto is interesting. I think of a 2% or even a 5% or 10% difference in performance improvement as being rather subtle - almost to a point where you need to focus your attention to hear the difference. This is clearly not the case compared to the Callisto. The instant you switch from either model to the other, it is VERY clear why the Callisto costs much more. To claim a 98% performance is being a bit too generous on the Calypso's performance. But that's just my view on these two products.

John

Husk: Keep in mind I don't own the Calypso but rather the Callisto Sig and Io. Check my thread from a few months ago on the tubes I tried with the Callisto here.

It's anybody's guess if what worked so well with the Jupiter models will do the same for the Saturn.

John

Some on Jupiter, the others on Saturn.