Too bad you live in Minneapolis, Jafox, because I would like to get together with you for a preamp shootout. I have noted your posts in this thread and elsewhere and they does not correspond to my experience. I auditioned the Callisto, probably almost 5 years ago, in a store alongside the Hovland HP-100. I thought my CAT clearly bested the Hovland and the Aesthetix competed with neither. Of course, it is difficult to make these comparisons as tubes, associated equipment, cables and room/setup all play a part and as we have belabored here, tubes can play a huge part. There is no doubt that I missed smoething in that audition for some reason, as too many people speak of the dimensionality of the Aesthetix, even though there was nothing special going on in that audition with regard to dimensionality and the Aesthetix.
On the other hand, I would agree with you from my experience that day with the Aesthetix that the CAT clearly had better dynamics, bass depth and weight, better clarity and openness in the high frequencies than the Callisto, at least at that time.
I've never heard the CAT Ultimate Mk II and that may account for some of the difference that we hear, but I doubt that it is the full reason. I have heard many CAT's all the way back to the original ca. 1985, and while some sound a little different, they do maintain a similarity that I don't think that Ken Stevens created an entirely diifferent product in transitioning from Ultimate MK I to MK II.
As far as tubes in the CAT are concerned, I did follow Bombaywalla's link to his other thread where he discussed results of his tube rolling in the CAT. It seems that he
did not confirm your position that the Telefunken 12AX7's do not work in the CAT. It seemed to me that he rated the "Tele/Tele" combination second best to the "Amperex 7308/EI 12AX7" combo and he rated the Tele 6922/Mullard 12AX7" combo third. It seemed that the Tele/Tele combo was a little too "sweet" for Bombaywalla, although he found it very seductive and had a hard time turning off the pre in order to go to bed. He also described the Tele/Mullard combo as very sweet and seductive, but a little brighter, with the bass on the weak side. I can confirm this that the Mullard is both a brighter tube and is not as extended or powerful in the bass with the CAT.
In looking through all the responses with regard to the CAT, the main thing that we all agree upon is that the Sovteks are God-awful. To hear a properly set up Aesthetix
would be a treat and I would take on the challenge of trying to demonstrate what the CAT is capable of. When I participated in these sessions before, it is often much more difficult to achieve consensus than I thought it should be, but if I thought, after such an in-home audition, the Aesthetix was either better than the CAT or had qualities that I valued highly, I would admit it in a minute.
Too bad New York City to Minnesota is too far to carry my system on my back.
|
Reading Bart's (POSBWP555) first post of 6/20, wow ... CAT is sweet and musical, almost with any tube that you use. Even with Sovtek 6922, it is not awful. CAT circuit masks how bad that tube sounds, however. With other tubes, CAT will always remain more than listenable. In my opinion, the CAT is particularly excellent with the Tele/Tele combo, giving you sweet musicality AND excellent dynamics, but not dynamic slam like a solid-state powerhouse amp. Deepest bass, sweet, musical midrange, excellent, wide and deep soundstage, excellent dynamics, no upper midrange glare, almost no matter how hard you try to find recordings which are "hot" and it has very detailed highs. It shades a little to smoothness, richness, and musicality, as it is ever so slightly on the warmer side of neutral, possessing both the magic midrange AND the thunderous low end. It is definitely a tubed-based product with extension AND dynamics. Is it perfect? No. Is there anything better? Yes or probably, depending on your particular viewpoint. Are there any tube combo's which would work better? Yes or probably, depending on your tastes and associated equipment and room, etc.
At this point, I like the First Sound probably a little more than the CAT. Neither is perfect and, on a scale where 100 is perfection, neither comes close to my ears.
CAT is not as transparent, nor does it image as well, not having the equivalent resolution or separation of instruments, nor is it as quiet as the F.S., nor is it as dynamic when each is optimized tube-wise, but it does have a sweetness and smoothness, particularly in the mids and upper mids, that the F.S. will never have. The F.S. can be a little too much in the upper mids with the wrong recording. This is very difficult to do on the CAT.
If what I said doesn't hold true for the CAT Ultimate MK II -- remember I have a CAT Ultimate MK I -- then Ken Stevens broke something in doing that upgrade or your associated equipment or cables are the problem. I find it hard to believe that Ken Stevens, in trying to keep his product with the best available, suddenly screwed up to the degree you seem to indicate.
As far as CAT tube rolling is concerned, the CAT SL-1 Signature MK III and above, listen to the stock unit, then chuck the Sovtek 6922's. Replace them with any NOS 6DJ8, 6922 or 7308 that you can find. When you are satisfied, substitute the Telefunken 6922 in V6 and V7. Listen again. Replace the EI 12AX7 with any 12AX7 you would like to try in V8 and V9. Then try the Telefunken 12AX7. Listen again. I think that you will find that the Sovteks a must-replace, despite what Ken Stevens has said. The EI's are decent, but you will be able to find a better tube. After all that testing, if you find a set of tubes which you like better in the CAT than the Tele/Tele combination for what the CAT's strengths are, let me know! Send me an email, but please describe in detail WHY.
|
I am both a CAT SL-1 Ultimate Mk I owner and a First Sound Presence Deluxe Mk II 4.0 owner. I love my CAT, which I have had about 4 years, but I also love my First Sound. The CAT has unbelievably great bass, both deep and powerful, a smooth, sweet, lush midrange and detailed, extended highs. To those who think it is lean or bright, and I have heard some claim this on Audiogon, I just cannot figure it out. I would think it is a job to make the CAT sound bright. That is just not one of its problems, particularly with the right tubes. Although the F.S. sounds different, a little quieter and is a little more transparent, if you are a new CAT owner you can be assured that you are hearing the top echelon of preamps made. You can find different and maybe as good, depending on your taste and what matches your equipment best, but without taking into consideration your taste and the other equipment you have, you have one of the best preamps made without a doubt. |
I, like Gbmcleod, am agog by what people have written about CAT preamps. I find them to be certainly among the best in dynamics, smoothness, liquidity and high frequency detail. They have stunning bass, in both depth and power. In my opinion, the bass is like nothing that I have heard from other preamps and once you have heard it, it is hard to give up.
Where I think that they fall down is in the area of low level noise, which obscures transparency and imaging to a slight degree.
This is why I spend more time listening to my First Sound Mk II 4.0 rather than my CAT Ultimate Mk I, but both are very fine products which, in my opinion, exceed the efforts of the other top brands which I have heard. Admittedly, my evaluations are prejudiced in that many of the brands which I have heard were not tube-rolled and, in my opinion, this can make all the difference between a presentation that is just so-so and one that is outstanding, but only if the preamp "has the goods".
What I have found is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to compare preamps with stock tubes. Despite what the manufacturers say, stock units do not come close to revealing what these units can do when tube-rolled.
If you are evaluating a CAT Mk III or later with stock Sovtek 6922's in V6 and V7 on line, or in phono add V1 and V2 to V6 and V7, you are really doing yourself a disservice. These MUST be replaced. I have tried a number of NOS tubes, but obviously not all, and I do prefer the Telefunken 6922 in the CAT Ultimate Mk I, like Bombaywalla said above. The EI 12AX7's are surprisingly decent sounding tubes in the CAT, but if replaced at V8 and V9 on line and if you use phono, replace the ones at V3 and V4 also, you can eliminate some muddiness in the bass that you didn't know was there until it is gone. Telefunken 12AX7's work well for this purpose.
Nothing that I have heard goes down deeper, giving both bass depth and power, a better lower midrange transition, with smoothness, solidity, liquidity and with dynamics to spare. Highs are sweet and detailed and extended. High frequency decay on the CAT when a cymbal is struck hard is exceptional and with these tubes, there is no brightness or forwardness anywhere.
Yes, the First Sound will stun you with its much lower noise floor. Yes, it will stun you with its "you are there" transparency. The small and well-defined images in the soundstage cannot be achieved on the CAT and the female vocals on the First Sound are truly exceptional in their up-front intimate presentation, but all this again, is only achievable after tube rolling.
Nothing is better than hearing the CAT properly fed go full out on music written for pipe organ. If the rest of your system is full-range, or nearly so, you will rattle the windows like few other preamps are able to do and yet you will hear all the subtlety and delicacy of the small trupets and whistles that pipe organs can also play, presented without any non-musical artifact When all the pipes get going in unison, you might feel that you are in church or that you are taking a tour of the great churches of Europe.
So my answer is an unequivocal no as to whether the CAT is just "very good" or lacks dynamics -micro or macro. Yes, it has been surpassed in some respects, but in overall presentation, it is worthy of very high praise indeed. |
Jafox,
I started rummaging through my tube drawer, because I know that I have a pair of Brimar's, but I think that they might 6922's rather than 12AX7's. Nevertheless, if I have them, I have tried them in the CAT before and am still stuck on the current Telefunken combination. When I find them, whether they are 12AX7 or 6922, I will evaluate them and report back on this thread.
I have noted that some Audiogoners tend to compare tubes across various tube equipment and I think this is a mistake. I find that while one might be able to make certain generalizations about a certain brand of tube, no matter in what piece of equipment it is used, generalizations that any tube is perfect, great or even good in nearly all equipment are a grave mistake. Characteristics which make a particular tube sound so right in one application are often completely absent when that tube is placed in another product. An example of this would be the Telefunken 6922: Rich, dynamic, with a very ripe midrange, great extension at both extremes in a CAT Ultimate, but undynamic, slightly bright and boring in the First Sound. The same could be said of a Siemens 7308: in the CAT, too forward in the midrange, a little thin-sounding and undynamic; in the F.S., exceptional dynamics, great imaging and midrange smoothes out. You really do have to compare tubes in the particular circuit in which they will be used. If you get too hung-up that a particular tube is great or terrible based on some previous experience in another piece of equipment, you may never hear your tube equipment to its best advantage. I have been surprised by this phenomenon several times.
|
