CAT Preamps vs Amps


I'm a proud owner of a CAT JL2 amplifier. Most of the threads on Audigon say great things about CAT's amps JL 1-3. People laud over the musicality, transparency and dynamics of these amps. However, when it comes to the preamps (Signature and Ultimate versions), it seems like the reviews are a mixed bag. In many cases, some CAT amp owners use other preamps.

Therefore, are the current CAT preamps (Ultimate) as good as their amps in terms of musicality, transparency and
dynamics? Are they on par? If not where do they fall short compared to the amps? What are better matches?
aoliviero

Showing 5 responses by posbwp555

I guess my comments will be somewhat redundant. I have owned the CAT Ultimate MK2 (linestage only) for about a year. I found the CAT with stock sovtek tubes to be awful.
Agressive, edgy and downright uncomfortable to listen to.
Replacing them with Amperex PQ 6922's and 12AX7's was transformational. The PQ's made in Holland are a little more forward than the USA made PQ's but both are MUSICAL.
I spoke with Ken Stevens for about an hour and a half today.
We spoke about many amps and preamps but mostly his in relation to others. He told me that his preamp is amoung the best and the best at it's price point but there were preamps that were as good or better that cost more. He threw out a few familiar names, Aesthetix, Acoustic Research REF3, and a few others that elude me at the moment. He said that without reservation his amps JL2 and JL3 were head and shoulders above anything else. He said that he is marketing his Legend preamp to reclaim the best preamp cost no object product.
I have to agree with John (Jafox) on the sonic qualities of the CAT U2. I am hearing similar strengths and weaknesses to those he describes. I value a liquid, musical, melt in your ear three dimensionality over dynamic slam (it would be nice to have both obviously). I may try the Atmasphere in combo with the CAT U2 in the future to split the difference between their strengths. Bombaywalla,
I haven't read your thread on all the tube rolling combos you have tried in the CAT yet but I'll bet you that the Amperex 12AX7 D getter long plate (circa 1950's at 200 to 300 a pair)will significantly outperform the EI 12ax7. John is also correct about Ken Stevens adamantly rejecting swapping the stock tubes in the CAT U2, so why are you referring to his rejection of the Mullard as a suitable replacement for the stock tubes when we all agree the stock Sovteks are dreadful. Anyway, thanks for doing the tube rolling, these are the kind of experiments that can save us money in a very costly hobby. Bart
Bombay, if you followed Ken Stevens advice you would still be using the stock tubes. Have you considered the cost differential between the stock tubes and Teles or Amperex may be the deciding factor in Ken Stevens tube selection?
The 6922's or 12ax7's have certain output parameters that are the same regardless of the tube manufacturer. That is why they are measured by classification (6922, 12ax7, 12at7, etc.) not by manufacturer. So for you to say that Ken's design was optimized for the Sovtek is absurd. Does it sound optimized to your ears or any other ears on this post with the Sovteks? Bart
Rayhall, I am describing the sound I heard with the CAT U2
in my system with stock tubes. As stated, replacing the stock 6922's and 12AX7's with Amperex was transformational.
I was considering the preamp for my next upgrade but am now looking to the digital front end as the weakest link.
So the preamp wasn't the problem, just the Sovtek 6922's.
The EI 12AX7's are decent but the Amperex are better. Yes the sound was as bad as I described with the stock tubes.

Bart