Visit to MadFloyd
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
I cannot. There was not a single component in common between these two systems so it is impossible to divine the sonic impact of any particular component.
I do think it would be very interesting to hear an apples-to-apples comparison isolating the sound of Pass Labs amps (reputed to be among the warmer-sounding solid-state amps) versus the sound of CAT amps (reputed to be among the cooler-sounding of the output-transformer tube amps).
I do think it would be very interesting to hear an apples-to-apples comparison isolating the sound of Pass Labs amps (reputed to be among the warmer-sounding solid-state amps) versus the sound of CAT amps (reputed to be among the cooler-sounding of the output-transformer tube amps).
Thanks for the kind comments, Ron. It was a pleasure to meet you and have you over to listen. And that tape... wow. I tried to convince Ron that it was a New England audiophile custom to always leave a tape behind when visiting another audiophile for the first time and seeing how he only had one tape with him... but he wasn't buying it.
I think the CJ was shortchanged during this session. We started with the dartzeel because it was the preamp that was hooked up and the one I prefer for orchestral music. After we listened to Pictures we switched and as already stated, it did not compare. Not sure if it was a lower volume or if I didn't have it warmed enough (?) but the difference shouldn't have been as dramatic. Before we could listen to much more music Ron asked to listen to tape. The interconnects I had were not long enough to reach the CJ so we switched back to the Dartzeel.
I do like both preamps a lot. I wish one was a clear winner but unfortunately for me I find myself preferring one over the other for certain genres.
While I LOVE my system these days, I am not attached to any equipment in such a way that I wouldn't consider something else if it made sense. I do think I am pretty 'set' with the MPros as they are a great all-around speaker - basically chameleons that sound like whatever you feed it. Besides, these are so big and heavy that I really hope I never want anything else. Just recently I damaged a tweeter (totally my fault) and needed to replace it and I panicked, thinking I would have to ship it back across the country to Magico! Fortunately I didn't have to, surgery was done in the field thanks to the bravery of my dealer (Mark Jones) and help from PeterA and Alan Jordan - and of course, Magico. This was done Thursday evening, just a few days before Ron visited...!
Anyways, as previously mentioned, we switched from the Atlas SL (which was really singing in the SME 3012R) to the Opus1 which I yet to hear either on the SME or with the CJ GAT so lately I've been in full GAT/Opus1 mode, dragging out LP after LP... too much fun.
Thanks again for visiting, Ron!
How long did you allow the Gat for warmup? Why didn’t you switch it on and keave it idling while doing the other tests? I find my tube pres keep getting better up to at least one hour.
As to th volume level, was it a big difference because that can totally bias the outcome. When I was reviewing I would match with pink noise to less than a dB because 2or 3db difference is really noticeably changing perceptions.
GAT II warm-up: ask Ian
volume level: I agree completly that slighly different volume levels can yield misleading impressions. I am very well aware of that. I was the one who whipped out a SPL application on the iPhone just to have something to go by. So we all were sensitive to the importance of matching volume.
A 2dB to 3dB difference would be a very obvious difference in volume.
I think our unanimous impression stands as we were focused, among other things, on the apparent "speed" of the sound, not just dynamics and volume, and the CAT II sounded oddly lethargic -- but only on that one (1) classical track.
These were quite casual comparisons. The session was really more about introducing Ron to Ian and to Al and listening to some music. Of course the system left an impression on Ron and it is another data point for the various components. The tape sounded superb. That was a highlight. There was not much to take away between the preamps for me. The Thelma Houston "I Got the Music in Me" track was superb on both preamps. The Opus and Dart was a particularly fun combination on classical music, but really, it all sounded excellent. Did I mention the tape?
Ian is a wonderful host offering his guests excellent special coffees during the day and spirits in the evening, and the setting is an extremely comfortable place to sit, relax, and enjoy music. Lots of fun.
Ian is a wonderful host offering his guests excellent special coffees during the day and spirits in the evening, and the setting is an extremely comfortable place to sit, relax, and enjoy music. Lots of fun.
Great report Ron, it looks like you had full access to the Boston Audiophile Mafia. I've been trying to put together a listening session with Peter, Al and Ian on one of my family trips to the Cape, I'll make it a priority next time!
I'd like to hear Ian's tape at some point. The short video he sent us the other day was quite special!
Sorry it was private. I am sure Ian can produce another, longer one if he wants to share.
Ron,
Hand held iPhones with SPL applications during listening are not reliable enough to be used on comparisons - on the contrary, they are a source of errors. It is known since long that any human unconsciously and unwittingly manipulates sound levels to please his own bias - it is why levels should be established with proper tones and proper instruments and most shootouts are highly misleading.
Unanimity is considered a warning signal when checking for small subjective differences - it is why I appreciate reading contradictory opinions in reports. Just IMHO, YMMV.
One big issue of comparisons is the used methodology - the optimum sound level for one equipment can be different from that of other equipment, due for example to soundstage and timbre. Should we look for the subjective optimum of each or use just one fixed level at the risk of favoring one of them? I must say I am very selfish in these matters - I try to listen to equipment at the levels I usually listen in my room.
Our listening session at Ian's house was far from any rigorous set of comparisons. It was more of a fun gathering to introduce a visitor and to listen to some music. Any impressions of the different cartridges or preamps were casual at best.
I will try to answer some questions:
- The GAT might not have been fully warmed up (I don't remember how long it was on for before we listened to it, but my guess is a half hour). The classical piece in question was the first track we listened to on the GAT. It was entire side of an LP (conclusion of Pictures at an Exhibition) and I think the negative impression was mostly formed at the very end where the GAT didn't seem to sound 'powerful'. The music at this point is complex and slow, but should come across powerful. It is possible that the GAT needs to have music playing through it to truly warm up (my former CAT preamp and current CAT amps are like that). Other than listening to one other track (maybe two?) we ended up switching back to the Dartzeel for the remainder of the session. In hindsight it's unfortunate as I like the GAT a lot and think Ron would have appreciated it more if he got to hear more.
- That said, I do have the impression that the GAT doesn't handle complex music as well as the Dartzeel. I'm still need to test this out as the GAT is still relatively new.
- It is my impression that the GAT has better dynamics than the dartzeel for anything other than complex music. At a listening session a couple days before Ron arrived all listeners formed the impression that the GAT was much more dynamic and lively - more 'real' than the Dartzeel on jazz. It has startled me a number of times (jump factor?) on solo piano in a way that the Dartzeel hasn't.
- The video of tape playback that ack is referring to was very short clip that was used to demonstrate some strange RFI noise I was hearing in one channel. You're not missing anything.
- The GAT might not have been fully warmed up (I don't remember how long it was on for before we listened to it, but my guess is a half hour). The classical piece in question was the first track we listened to on the GAT. It was entire side of an LP (conclusion of Pictures at an Exhibition) and I think the negative impression was mostly formed at the very end where the GAT didn't seem to sound 'powerful'. The music at this point is complex and slow, but should come across powerful. It is possible that the GAT needs to have music playing through it to truly warm up (my former CAT preamp and current CAT amps are like that). Other than listening to one other track (maybe two?) we ended up switching back to the Dartzeel for the remainder of the session. In hindsight it's unfortunate as I like the GAT a lot and think Ron would have appreciated it more if he got to hear more.
- That said, I do have the impression that the GAT doesn't handle complex music as well as the Dartzeel. I'm still need to test this out as the GAT is still relatively new.
- It is my impression that the GAT has better dynamics than the dartzeel for anything other than complex music. At a listening session a couple days before Ron arrived all listeners formed the impression that the GAT was much more dynamic and lively - more 'real' than the Dartzeel on jazz. It has startled me a number of times (jump factor?) on solo piano in a way that the Dartzeel hasn't.
- The video of tape playback that ack is referring to was very short clip that was used to demonstrate some strange RFI noise I was hearing in one channel. You're not missing anything.
Another great report. What a beautiful system!
One comment, those pictures looked a bit dark and blurred.
Or was it on purpose, the guys would look even more friendly..
One comment, those pictures looked a bit dark and blurred.
Or was it on purpose, the guys would look even more friendly..
Another great report. What a beautiful system!
One comment, those pictures looked a bit dark and blurred.
Or was it on purpose, the guys would look even more friendly..
Audiophiles listen with lights dimmed, so that the system sounds better
Dimming the lights often adds noise to the power line. I never dim the lights. I turn them off or use low wattage bulbs. I do not think Ian uses his dimmer either, though I am not certain. The photos were taken during the daytime and the lights added a weird yellow tint to the photos, so I think Ron turned the lights off for the photos. Dimmed lights are not good, IMO.
LOL
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/show...r-Signature%94&p=533207&viewfull=1#post533207
Please don't turn the lights too much
I will try to answer some questions:
- The GAT might not have been fully warmed up (I don't remember how long it was on for before we listened to it, but my guess is a half hour). The classical piece in question was the first track we listened to on the GAT. It was entire side of an LP (conclusion of Pictures at an Exhibition) and I think the negative impression was mostly formed at the very end where the GAT didn't seem to sound 'powerful'. The music at this point is complex and slow, but should come across powerful. It is possible that the GAT needs to have music playing through it to truly warm up (my former CAT preamp and current CAT amps are like that). Other than listening to one other track (maybe two?) we ended up switching back to the Dartzeel for the remainder of the session. In hindsight it's unfortunate as I like the GAT a lot and think Ron would have appreciated it more if he got to hear more.
- That said, I do have the impression that the GAT doesn't handle complex music as well as the Dartzeel. I'm still need to test this out as the GAT is still relatively new.
- It is my impression that the GAT has better dynamics than the dartzeel for anything other than complex music. At a listening session a couple days before Ron arrived all listeners formed the impression that the GAT was much more dynamic and lively - more 'real' than the Dartzeel on jazz. It has startled me a number of times (jump factor?) on solo piano in a way that the Dartzeel hasn't.
- The video of tape playback that ack is referring to was very short clip that was used to demonstrate some strange RFI noise I was hearing in one channel. You're not missing anything.
Can I ask what is meant by "the GAT is still relatively new "? How many hours has the GAT2 been playing until now? Sorry if you already told, but what was the phono stage when using the GAT2?
In my experience the GAT2 handles complex music very well. But needs a real one hour warmup to show its qualities - as most tube equipment, BTW.
Similar threads
