New tube amp for ML Prodigy CAT, VTL, ARC????

I have a very different take on the CAT vs. ARC than Bozo. But then again, that is no surprise as I have not had much in common with anybody with orange hair. 8-)

It's very difficult if not downright impossible to make any blanket statement about the sound of ARC preamps or amps as there has been no consistency or evolving refinements to an existing "house" sound here. I owned the Classic 60 and Classic 150s and these were very non-romantic. These amps can often sound analytical, forward, and in fact downright fatiguing....even in the context of an all-ARC setup. The ARC VT130 was a different beast altogether with incredibly full and rich midrange to die for. The bass was lacking the ultimate extension and control and the top end was not as resolving of low-level information, but this amp was incredibly musical. When I heard it compared to the VT100, the VT100 was much more tonally coherent but lacked the musical involvement for me. And fortunately, the VT100 did not have the "faults" of the Classic series. I would think that the VT200 which is essentially a bigger brother to the VT100 would have nearly identical sonics to the VT100. The VT130 (along with the VT150s) was indeed a more tubey sounding amp with its portrayal of dimensionality that it predecessors and successors simply did not have.

I have since gone through Counterpoint NPS400 (awesome amp) and Wolcott monos to now owning a pair of CAT JL-3 Signature amps. The CAT amps are NOT IN ANY WAY a romantic sounding tube amp. Their strengths include dynamic contrasts like few other amps (ss or tube) can do and they handle the leading edge of the notes with clarity and speed like few other amps as well. But tonally, they are rather flat in that they do not portray a fuller-than-life midrange (upper or lower) to bring on a "warmth".

The CAT amps are an awesome match with the Sounlab speakers as the resolution of each shows the capability of the other.

John

Jafox,

Have you heard the older CAT JL1 mono's (esp. the signature version)? Ken Stevens has reportedly said the newer models are better but those were supposedly incredible. What are the differences.

Does anyone know if the Atma-sphere MA-1 MKII.3 OTL's would drive these speakers?

Jjwa,
I would love to go the route of Nagra but am afraid they wouldn't drive the Prodigy's with only 50 watts.

Thanks for the comments so far

Chris

Chris,

I have not heard the JL-1's but yes, they have gotten much praise from the beginning. A pair of these sold several months ago here for around $8k. You don't see them here too often. But the JL-2 is often for sale here at this price and I have yet to read that anyone prefered the older JL-1 monos to this stereo amp. So it comes down to picking your poison.

As for the Atmasphere MA1 amps, I heard these last year driving Soundlab U1s and this was mightily impressive. These were the higher efficient U1s which the amps had no difficulty driving at all. Are the ML Prodigy's a similar load as the SL's?

John

Unless s/thing has changed, the Prodigys are much more difficult than the new Soundlabs. So an OTL may run into unnecessary trouble driving them -- i.e. not perform at its intended best. This would be a shame as the "best" with Atma is indeed excellent.
But, I spose Atma themselves would know better than me.

John (Jafox): you tell it like it is - the JL1s will drive them very well, but the improvements in the JL2 make it preferable in most cases. Thanks for bringing your JL3 Signatures down to play on the U-1s, it was quite an experience. Would have liked to put the JL2 in, but as you know we didn't have time. Next month will be even more interesting, with the additional tweaks installed.

Chris (Cmo): you shoulda been there!

Brian