Aesthetix Calypso vs ARC LS25 MK2

Tgun5, thanks for your input, very interesting, and I'd like to ask you some questions...

1) Was the LS25 MK1 or MK2? The thread title says MK2, but I own a Mk1.

2) Did you find there was a lengthy break-in period & approximately how long?

3) I have Tungsram 12ax7's here that I will be test driving this weekend.
I was under the impression that only the 12ax7's were the important tubes.
Are the 6922's also critical in your opinion?

Perfectionist: Thanks for the update. It's nice to read your honest experiences between the two products. I too can relate to how difficult it can be to ultimately give the nod to one component vs. another when they each have their own strengths. But if there is anyone out there who has put a ton of effort to get the Calypso to do its best, it's Jadem6 (JD) so contacting him would be worth your time.

Rja: Great to learn of another twin cities audio fan. I hope to get with JD and Art soon to do their fancy power cord shootout.

Tgun5: Your comment on all the Aesthetix dealers that you talked to about the Calypso being 98% of the Callisto is interesting. I think of a 2% or even a 5% or 10% difference in performance improvement as being rather subtle - almost to a point where you need to focus your attention to hear the difference. This is clearly not the case compared to the Callisto. The instant you switch from either model to the other, it is VERY clear why the Callisto costs much more. To claim a 98% performance is being a bit too generous on the Calypso's performance. But that's just my view on these two products.

John

I actually noticed a larger difference when replacing the 6922 with Tungsrams as well as with some other 6922's. The bass became tighter and more extended as well as overall detail becoming better. The version of the ARC was a MK1.

As far as dealers stating the Calypso is 98% of the Callisto; one said that, another said the difference was so close that it was negligible, and a third said he thought the Calypso was close enough to make the price difference a waste of money. I didn't find any of these comments "savvy marketing" as I was prepared to spend the money on which ever was clearly the best. At this point, I have no reason to, for the Calypso leaves you wanting for nothing.

This whole preamp search was time consuming and costly. The Calypso just happened to be the least expensive preamp in the comparison. Each was compared over time using different isolation devices, and without. The Sierra K2 sounded best using symposium rollerblocks on a 1/4" maple shelf. The Calypso was best with just Aurios Pros. We tried each preamp with combinations of 1/4", 2", and 4" maple shelves with combinations of rollerblocks, tiptoes (like products), isoblocks, and Aurios bearings. The Sierra also clearly benefited the most from isolation. Since many isolation combinations simply change the tonal balance, we were careful to use final combinations that enhanced detail retrieval, air, or other non-balance related change. This comparison went on for over two years, so there was plenty of time with each to experiment and fine tune.

Forgot to mention that I use the Calypso with balanced cables from the Esoteric DV50 to the fully differential Denali monoblocks. Everyone agrees that the DV50 sounds better in balanced mode as do the Denali's and the system takes advantage of the fully differental chain. This was not the case when comparing some of the other preamps, The Hovland and Conrad were at a disadvantage being only single-ended. (in this case)