Jena Labs Symphony is the best I've found with my BAT gear. |
01-10-07: Brianmgrarcom
Heck I give you credit for still having them same gear over 2 years later! LOL Brian, I was thinking the same thing. It's not easy staying that focused and disciplined on AudiogoN, you are to be congratulated Jim. There has to be some sort of award I would think. 'AudiogoN Merit of Discipline' maybe....... John |
Jim, nothing to be ashamed of, I wish I had your discipline. Many times I've found out that better isn't better after all.....it's just different.
FWIW, I would be surprised if you found the VAC Renaissance MK II superior. I had one and wasn't overly impressed. I guess it could have been system synergy though. You might notice a bit more air in the high's, but you'll lose the dynamic drive in the bass. This might be what you're after though, only you know. |
I guess there could have been some sonic problems on my VAC Ren mk II, but I also had a VAC Avatar Super, and I would say the overall house sound was the same. Very refined and polite, lots of air were the positives. I think the VAC's were the best high's I've heard from tubed products. Plenty of detail and air, but no sign of grain. Overall I preferred the BAT VK-51SE over the VAC and a CJ Premier 16LS mk II. The CJ and the VAC sounded a bit more 'tubey' with a warmer midrange, and if this is your cup 'o tea, they might be for you.
To date the BAT VK-51SE is still the best preamp I've heard in my home. It was much more dynamic, powerful and lively than the CJ or the VAC. The soundstage is also much larger with the BAT. I've also heard a VK-5i, like yours, and again, the VK-51SE is more dynamic and powerful, but the VK-5i is a bit sweeter in the mid's. IMHO, the VK-5i has the midrange glory of the CJ and the VAC. Of these three, I would say the CJ has the best midrange, the VAC the best highs, and the BAT the best bass. I also still think your BAT would have a bigger soundstage as well.
I sold the VK-51SE for economic reasons, to date, I still haven't heard a better preamp. I've heard preamps that better it in certain areas, but not as a whole.
That being said, I do hope to hear a ARC Ref 3 someday, as I've heard many great things about this preamp. |
Well Jim, from what I've read from you in the past, I think you would prefer your VK-5i. It is warmer than the VK-51SE. BAT in general is more dynamic and powerful than the CJ's and VAC's, I think the answer lies in the bigger power supplies. That said, the VK-51SE uses the 6H30 'Super-tube', which may or may not be super, depending on your cup 'o tea. There is no doubt that the 6H30 tube is more dynamic, powerful and just sounds larger than the 6922's, however, it's not for everyone. If you do not like the newer CJ's that use the 6H30, you may not like the newer BAT's that use them either. The older 6922 tube does have a sweeter midrange. The CJ Premier 16LS mk II I had was a 6922 based preamp, it was second from the top of the line (Art 2) and listed for around $8500 new. I didn't notice it making a racket when the volume was adjusted though.
The VK-51SE had better dynamics and bass than any preamp I've heard, period. Not just better than any tube preamp, but better than Krell, Levinson, Classe, Threshold or any SS contender. The VK-51SE midrange is definitely tubed, and best all SS preamps I've heard in this regard, but I have heard warmer, sweeter mid's in tubed preamps. However, the other tubed units don't have the rhythmic drive and power that I love from the BAT. The BAT is also the soundstage king. One thing that may interest you about BAT is that your VK-5i has 5881 tubes in the power supplies. BAT got away from tubes in the power supplies with the 50SE and then the 51SE. Well BAT is just releasing it's new preamps, VK-32SE, VK-52SE/Rex, the difference? Tubes are now back in the power supply.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmm.........
One current preamp that sounds like it may fit your budget and sonics, and fill your remote flexibility requirements is an Aesthetix Calypso. Have you considered this model? I would love to hear one, as it has garnered unbelieveable reviews from Stereophile and TAS. On top of that I've heard it's the real deal from those whose ears I trust. I have never heard anything negative about it's sonics. The only complaints are that it can be tough on tubes and tube rolling is not easy. At $4500 list price it probably cannot be beat for sound and flexibility. Many say that you have to spend twice the price to better it.
John |
No, I only had the 51SE with a BAT VK-600SE amp, so synergy could have had something to do with it. Though I had a pair of Clayton M-100 monblocks when I had my VK-31SE, and thought the BAT family sound was still there.
Yes, you could say from 1999-2007 BAT had taken the tubes out of their power supplies, now, as of 2007, they are going back to tubes in the power supply. They showed the new models at the CES, and my dealer tells me they should be shipping shortly.
Well component sysnergy is an issue with any item, including the VAC preamp you were talking about trying. FWIW, the Calypso is much less $$$ than the VAC, so I thought it worth mentioning. I'll have to re-read the whole article, as I must have missed Mikey's synergy complaint. The only compliant I saw from Mikey was in regards to the manual, summed up in his conclusion:
"Conclusion
Was I impressed by Jim White's Aesthetix Saturn Calypso? Damn straight I was. Used with far more expensive gear, it held its own and then some, and had one of the best-balanced sounds of any audio component I've come across at any price. At $4500 it's no budget product, but it's a high-performance component in every sense of the term, and something you can stick in the face of any cynic who thinks high-end audio has become a ripoff. Whatever the Calypso's sonic shortcomings might be, they're so well hidden that you'll discover them only by changing out the Calypso for whatever might prove to be better. My biggest complaint was the manual's virtually blank specifications page. The purchaser of a high-performance audio product deserves better documentation.
The Aesthetix Saturn Calypso was one of the most enjoyable, musically satisfying preamplifiers I have had the pleasure of reviewing. Your $4500 buys you a beautifully built, smartly designed, crisply functioning, versatile, and, most important, sonically brilliant preamplifier. I could live with it happily ever after. You could spend a great deal more and get more for your money, but you're just as likely to get less—that's how good the Saturn Calypso is. "
Sounds like it would be worth a trip to investigate anyway. Even if just to see if the remote's flexibility suits your needs.
So, if I understand this right, you are very happy with the sound of the VK-5i, but are just looking for more flexibility with the remote, is this correct? If so, I'll stick by my reco of the Calypso, or, if you have the dough, you may be interested in one of the newer BAT's with the tubes back in the power supply again. The least expensive new model with more remote flexibility than your VK-5i is the VK-32SE which has a list price of $7995 w/ remote. |
The dealer that you were speaking with that claimed Aesthetix owners don't keep their gear long, , did he happen to sell Aesthetix equipment? If he does, then his words may carry some weight, if not then his words are meaningless. FWIW, my dealer carries ARC, BAT, VAC and Aesthetix. He seems to push the BAT and the ARC the most. He says that Aesthetix is very musical, and some folks like it for that, but it is not as quiet as the BAT/ARC gear. However, the BAT/ARC gear has the 6H30 tube that you don't seem overly fond of. I'm sure the ARC/BAT gear is quieter, more dynamic and powerful sounding than the Calypso. The Calypso may be more musical and cost less though.
From your take on the CJ CT6, it may well be that the 6H30 tube is not for you. The only knock I've heard on the Calypso is that it can be hard on tubes. It only uses 4 tubes in an all tube gain stage, with high output (29db gain?). I've heard from those who love it say it sounds best with stock tubes. It can eat up some expensive NOS tubes. Sounds similar to the reputation that the Audible Illusions M3A garnered years ago. Wonderful sounding preamp at a bargain price, but tube maintenance issues. Even the top dollar units don't have it all though.
I do wonder why the Aesthetix Calypso at $4,500 comes stock with a full function remote, while a Aesthetix Callisto Signature at $11,000 comes with no remote at all......seems strange.
John |
I went with the Callisto simply because it has far more tubes. These Minnesota winters can be quite brutal so having a space heater helps much. And with me having to stand next to the Callisto to stay warm, there's no need for a remote.
Jafox
LOL John, but what about the heat in the summer time? Do you have to sit around in your skivies to listen? :) That was a rhetorical question BTW, I don't think I want an answer to that. Jim, I know that a lot of high end tube gear (Hovland, CAT, etc) doesn't come with a remote, unfortunately, I've become accustomed to one. I lived w/o a remote until 2000, now I don't think I can anymore. It's not just the volume control either, but I like being able to adjust polarity and balance from my listening seat. Not to mention the ability to mute when interrupted (happens more than I'd like at my home.....kids). I also usuually mute the output when the LP side is done, saves maybe two 'pops' at the end of the record until I can get up and get to the 'table. I'm not getting any younger you know.....just ask my wife. :) John |
01-18-07: Dave_b
Not having a remote or an active linestage is stupid in today's world. I have to second John's response here. Nothing personal Dave_b, but that statement is kind of...well....stupid. Everyone has different tastes and styles, what I like isn't for everyone, but I understand that. What if someone stated that using solid state electronics is stupid in today's world? You would certainly be offended and try to defend your choice of SS gear, wouldn't you? You liking SS, my liking a remote and an active line stage are simply decisions that we made. That doesn't mean that others who chose differently are wrong. If I like rum raisin ice cream, and someone else prefers chocolate cake, I'm not right, and they're not wrong. How hard is that to understand? I know some who prefer passive linestages, they usually sound great with tube amps. I know some who prefer the sound of a unit with no remote, I can't say they are wrong, or stupid. Just because I'm too lazy to get off my fat ass to adjust polarity, balance and gain, doesn't mean that they are stupid. It just means that I'm lazy. :) |
Just out of curiousity Dave_b, have you tried say a Placette passive with a tube amp? Or ar you simply judging the passive's performance with a solid state amp?
I ask because system synergy is everything. I'm glad you are happy with your system now, it's a wonderful thing, being happy. I also prefer an active preamp with remote. However, I would never insinuate that those who choose differently from me are stupid. I would be a fool to do so. I've heard SET amps sound glorious, even though they are not my choice. I've heard passive controls sound incredible with the right source and amp. I've heard silver cables sound fantasitic in some systems, no small feat, I haven't heard this until the last couple of years.
I've also heard active preamps w/ or w/o remotes sound bad.
So what's the point of calling names? TALKING LOUDER or throwing insults doesn't make you more right. It may show a lack of experience on your end, but that's all.
John |
