CAT vs BAT vs ARC vs Lamm

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
I'm 3 of 4 but sadly I can't say they were all in the same class so comparisons would be unfair. I've had an ARC LS16 which I liked but even with amperex tubes I found a bit lean and lacking in over all gain. I still own a BAT VK-31 SE with all the goodies which I think is ergonomically great, very quiet, does not call attention to itself but needs to be partnered with big solid state lest the lower octaves lose impact. I own two Lamms the LL2 deluxe which I wish had a remote and finer steps between volume notches. It too does not call attention to itself has more solid bass transients and unlike the BAT can be tube rolled to your hearts content. Currently I have Mullard CV491s and Mullard e88ccs. What would likely go up against the CAT being in the same price bracket is my L2 Reference. This is the best preamp I have ever owned. If it were a projector it would be 1080p vs the VK-31 and LL2's 720i. Like I said however these are not it's natural competitors so the comparison really isn't fair.

The only time I ever heard a CAT preamp was in the Hansen, CAT, Koetsu display at CES 08. I have no idea what the CAT pre brings to the table by itself. I can say however that despite the bad room, the display was still a very good sounding one. I guess that at the very least one might say the CAT did not screw anything up. It left me with enough of an impression that should I ever look for another preamp, it could very well be on a very short list of pres to audition.
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
Jack, What other preamps would be on your short list?
I think if I was going to replace my CAT I would have a very hard time getting anything much better. The new CAT Renaissance would be on my short list along with the Legend, but I cannot think of anything else except maybe the ARC anniversary edition.
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
The LL1 Signature is definitely at the top of my list now. If I had the opportunity for home audition? Wow. The ones I would like to test drive are Ayon's Polaris II w/ Polaris Regenerator, Conrad Johnson's ART 3, and the CATs as mentioned. Lower on the list would be the Exemplar XP-2 which I had heard and was impressed with especially for the dollar and maybe the Kondo M-1000 Mk2 just to see why Kondo fans are the most rabid.

The solid state preamp that has piqued my curiosity if by form factor alone is the MBL Der Vorverstarker. Talk about a unit that can induce sight bias! ;)
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
The LL1 Signature is definitely at the top of my list now. If I had the opportunity for home audition? Wow. The ones I would like to test drive are Ayon's Polaris II w/ Polaris Regenerator, Conrad Johnson's ART 3, and the CATs as mentioned. Lower on the list would be the Exemplar XP-2 which I had heard and was impressed with especially for the dollar and maybe the Kondo M-1000 Mk2 just to see why Kondo fans are the most rabid.

The solid state preamp that has piqued my curiosity if by form factor alone is the MBL Der Vorverstarker. Talk about a unit that can induce sight bias! ;)


The GAT is far better than the ART. The only people who I would imagine liking the ART Series 3 are those who want a classic, colored tube sound (and I did til I got the GAT). If one values, neutrality, extension, low level resolution, imaging, etc., the GAT really puts the ART to shame. And I was one who thought the ACT 2 Series 1 was a step back and kept my ART Series 3 and sold the ACT.
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
First I've even heard of the GAT Myles I thought you had an ART 2. The local dealer has not been very active. I will look into it.

GAT, CAT and BAT. Gotta love it!
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
First I've even heard of the GAT Myles I thought you had an ART 2. The local dealer has not been very active. I will look into it.

GAT, CAT and BAT. Gotta love it!

The GAT was released what a year ago (?). It superceded the ART Series 3 and is a one box as opposed to two box unit (obviously not dual mono if that's important to someone). And only one 6922/channel; the GAT uses a mosfet instead of cathode follower effectively lowering the output impedance by around a factor of 5.
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
Making it less cable dependent and thus able to be situated farther from the power amps as is the general preference of our market sector? Sounds good. I've got a 10m run from pre to amps.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Making it less cable dependent and thus able to be situated farther from the power amps as is the general preference of our market sector? Sounds good. I've got a 10m run from pre to amps.

Yes, that is one advantage. I also think it decreases the noise floor, increases resolution and the frequency extremes. And I don't think those who are allergic to the sound of ss devices will hear it in the GAT.
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
Myles, Have you had a chance to listen to a CAT? If so, what are your thoughts of CATvsGAT?
I have not had the pleasure of hearing the GAT, but I heard and ART and while I liked it, it did seem to have that familiar CJ sound, which is to my ears like a
sort of dryish coloration.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Myles, Have you had a chance to listen to a CAT? If so, what are your thoughts of CATvsGAT?
I have not had the pleasure of hearing the GAT, but I heard and ART and while I liked it, it did seem to have that familiar CJ sound, which is to my ears like a
sort of dryish coloration.

No I haven't heard the latest gen of CAT preamps though have always liked Ken's amps and preamps.

Do you know what gen of ART your heard? I, II or III? Not quite sure about the dryish coloration, but maybe that was a series I. That's about 13 or so years old now :(

What other gear was around the ART when you heard it?
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
Hi Myles, The ART I heard was a Gen 1. Have not heard the later generations. At the time, I heard it at a friends house; he was using a SOTA with SME V and a Koetsu (don't remember which one) along with CJ Prem 8 monoblocks. The speakers were Dunlavy 1V A's. Cannot remember what else, but was pretty good overall sound. At the time, well still today as well, I was pretty impressed with the Dunlavy's and the Prem 8's.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Hi Myles, The ART I heard was a Gen 1. Have not heard the later generations. At the time, I heard it at a friends house; he was using a SOTA with SME V and a Koetsu (don't remember which one) along with CJ Prem 8 monoblocks. The speakers were Dunlavy 1V A's. Cannot remember what else, but was pretty good overall sound. At the time, well still today as well, I was pretty impressed with the Dunlavy's and the Prem 8's.

Personally think the problem was with the Dunlavys. They never floated my boat; some were thin and bright, others like the Sovereigns, were, well, let's just say we nicknamed them dumpsters. And for those who hollar about room Rx, the Sovereign were for their time (remember this was 10 or 15 years ago, in a room specially treated by Art Noxon of ASC). Never could figure out where the magic lie with Dunlavys.

Really, even a gen 1 ART doesn't fit your description. There were other issues with the early ART though at the time it was a real breakthrough for CJ. As time went on, they extended the quality at both ends of the spectrum, dynamics, transparency and resolution. But it always to my ears, the ART was the closest to the sound of the old Premier 3 with updated circuits and parts. In other words, the ART recaptured more of the that renowned cj midrange than some of their preamps between the 3 and ART. In fact, some IMHO may not like the GAT because it is a far more neutral preamp - though don't mistake that for thin or bright. (caveat also: all the cj preamps/amps equipped with Teflon caps need 300 hrs under their belt (some even think more) to begin to sound right. Within the first 100 hrs, the units sound very compressed, closed in, dark, etc. With a little patience, things begin to open up and bloom.
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Hi

That is the first time I have heard someone describing the sound of Dunleavy as "thin and dry" .. Thin ? A Dunleavy speaker ...? A speaker designed by John Dunleavy !!!?? Thin? I beg to vigorously differ.. If the system had a CJ Premier 8 .. The sound would be ANYTHING but thin .. as for the top end of the Soverign ..It was never SOTA but .. thin.. ?? With that exceptional and standard setting mid-bass ?
Back to your Preamp discussion but I think this needed to be addressed ..
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Hi

That is the first time I have heard someone describing the sound of Dunleavy as "thin and dry" .. Thin ? A Dunleavy speaker ...? A speaker designed by John Dunleavy !!!?? Thin? I beg to vigorously differ.. If the system had a CJ Premier 8 .. The sound would be ANYTHING but thin .. as for the top end of the Soverign ..It was never SOTA but .. thin.. ?? With that exceptional and standard setting mid-bass ?
Back to your Preamp discussion but I think this needed to be addressed ..

As I said Frantz, depended on the model. To my ears, each model had a different sound. And yes, thin and bright. And overdamped. Even the Sovereigns had an edge to them that at times could peel paint off the wall. But they had far more low frequency extension.

BTW, I think the Premier 4/8/8A also had an upper mid edge due in part to the use of ferromagnetic leads (whose only positive feature is allowing the caps to be picked up off the assembly line) on the polystyrene caps. Later cj amps solved this issue IMHO.
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Hi

Not the place on the merits or lack of Dunleavy speakers... I will repeat that the use of "thin" to describe the sound of his design is to me very unique... I know we are given to hyperboles in the audiophile world but ... thin?

Same about "peeling the paints off the wall" Not SOTA highs but bearable .. Your characterization of these speakers strike me as very unusual I would call it unique.

Off the thread ... Back to preamps ..
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
Myles, I have to agree with Frantz, I did not get the impression that whenever I heard the Dunlavy's that they were 'thin'. My friends system seemed to me to be quite able to plumb the depths if needed and was able to throw a very decent soundstage, at least IMHO. When i speak of a 'dryish' coloration, what I am referring to is the system didn't seem to portray particularly well the harmonics of instruments, if they were in the recording. Most likely this can be traced to either the electronics not allowing that information to pass to the speakers, or the speakers not being able to reproduce that accurately( or both). Of course, it is always possible that the Dunlavy's tweeters weren't up to the task, but I had heard this with various CJ based systems before.
I guess it is also possible that the electronics hadn't had enough time under their belt, I cannot remember how long we had the system cooking that night. BTW, my friend sold his CJ gear and the Dunlavy's and now he owns Dartzeel and Kharma's...I'm not so sure that he is getting a huge increase in his systems ability for the money he now has in it.
He seems to also listen a lot less now.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Myles, I have to agree with Frantz, I did not get the impression that whenever I heard the Dunlavy's that they were 'thin'. My friends system seemed to me to be quite able to plumb the depths if needed and was able to throw a very decent soundstage, at least IMHO. When i speak of a 'dryish' coloration, what I am referring to is the system didn't seem to portray particularly well the harmonics of instruments, if they were in the recording. Most likely this can be traced to either the electronics not allowing that information to pass to the speakers, or the speakers not being able to reproduce that accurately( or both). Of course, it is always possible that the Dunlavy's tweeters weren't up to the task, but I had heard this with various CJ based systems before.
I guess it is also possible that the electronics hadn't had enough time under their belt, I cannot remember how long we had the system cooking that night. BTW, my friend sold his CJ gear and the Dunlavy's and now he owns Dartzeel and Kharma's...I'm not so sure that he is getting a huge increase in his systems ability for the money he now has in it.
He seems to also listen a lot less now.

Well a system can be thin and certainly have adequate bass eg. the mids aren't up to the task.

Harmonics, well I've never heard that as a cj problem. Thin can certainly be an observed effect of lack of harmonic content in the critical midrange. For me, two of the biggest contributions from extended low frequencies are a musical foundation and sense of space.

Too bad about the latter :( Listening less can be directly correlated to lack of pleasure.
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
Myles, I agree a system can have adequate bass and still sound thin. However, I didn't get the impression that day that this system sounded at all thin. I guess it's possible that the Dunlavy 4a's could sound thin, but in the many occasions that i heard these speakers I never heard them sound that way.
One of the things that I have noticed with my friends current system is that it is more 'neutral' than his old system, to my ears it now lacks 'warmth'. IMHO though 'warmth' is a coloration, I find that I generally much prefer to listen to a 'warmer' system than to a 'neutral' yet less involving system.
Which is why i suspect my friends listens so much less now.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing