Hovland HP-100 vs. CAT SL1 Ultimate: Feedback


The Hovland HP-100 and CAT Ultimate are similarly priced, full-functioned, w. phono MC section pre-amps. How do their respective performances differ?

Any problems?
Any other full-featured, w MC phono pre's to suggest (Limit: $6500 retail)?
I favor tubed pre's. Remote not important. Need tape/record loop.

Looking for direct, controlled comparisons. Long time use with both units (but not necessarily at the same time) may also prove helpful. Feedback please.
kalan
Swampwalker and Gregm: Thank you for your tips. My Cary dealer asked the main tech guy at Cary (Kirk) about reducing the SLAM-100's input sensitivity. He said he could increase negative feedback but does not recommend it. Also, a resistor at the input would screw up the amps' sound, apparently. Cary does not recommend modifying the SLAM-100's.
Finally heard a Hovland HP-100 in my system. It mates impedance- and gain wise quite well with the Cary SLAM-100 pwr amps, but it just sounded congealed and colored to me. I am sure it does not sound this way in most systems. It may just reveal other mismatches in my system, for all I know.

Since hearing the CAT some weeks ago, I've sought out other pre-amps: Lamm LL2, First Sound Presence Deluxe 4.0, and my AI M3A was always on hand. The Hovland and FS overlapped in my system for two days. The First Sound sounds quite a bit better than the Hovland in my system in every regard: speed, truthful tonal balance, inner detail, dynamics, etc. The Hovland also could not deliver the bass extension or impact of the CAT, the Lamm LL2, the AI M3A, or the First Sound. The HP-100's somewhat lacking bass showing may be the result of a poor synergy elsewhere in my system. Don't know. I loved the look and feel of the HP-100. It does not have clunky outboard power supplies that you have to route stiff cords to and place some where near the main pre-amp unit like so many other pre's.

To my ear in my system, the First Sound is a revelatory experience; it's so life-like that it takes one aback. Gone are many elements of electronic music play back that I had accepted as givens: circular sheen around female vocalists when amplitude increases, confused haze when cymbals crash, obvious dynamic compression, etc. The FS makes sense of the music instead of just presenting a clean signal. It is very clean, but it's also eminently musically meaningful. It does not roll the highs off at all. Details are there in abundance; it just doesn't scream at you to reveal them.
I have a lesser model of the First Sound (Mk II), but I agree very much with Kalan's description of its sonic strengths. I don't have enough experience with the other preamps under discussion to comment on them.