GAT1 versus GAT2

[AnotherJohnson]

Before the introduction of the ART88, GATS2 were going for $14k-ish used. I talked to CJ about what to expect going from an ET5 to a GATS2. JF gave me good advice. I stayed with the ET5 because there are other areas of my system that I need to improve to take advantage of a GATS2.

ARC had the same experience.

The performance upgrade of the Ref 160M was clear using the Ref 10 preamp but not with the ref 6. That’s what drove the ref 6 SE upgrade (and also the ref phono 3 se upgrade).

When people don’t hear improvements when they try latest models, it’s often due to weak spots elsewhere in the chain that are obfuscating the improvements.

[Big Dog RJ]

Oh, there are improvements no doubt! But not 40% ...

That's always been my benchmark in performance. I know this is fairly high and in certain cases may seem unfair but if the gear can't reach it, to me these are only marginal. Nothing significant to jump up & down to cost a bloody fortune, especially when over flowing into 6 figures.

A very wise man once told me and showed me:
Most of the improvements that have been developed, and passed along each line are mostly marginal. It's only when there's a different design introduced that things can change dramatically, such as the ART108A's, ART27A and ART88. These are based on Class A circuits, and these designs do exceed high expectations. (That wise chap was my CJ techie)

Price range is always a bummer for us down under. As I've mentioned before, the ART88 and ART108A's are in the range of 110grand just for a pre - power combo, and this is without shipping, cost insurance freight (CIF), plus on top add customs and clearing then it reaches the dealer/importer. So when I enquired again, just last week, that total came to a nice fat round figure of 120grand!

Six plus figures for two pieces or three being monoblocks plus preamp... I won't engage in this kind of spend. Whereas in the US, this figure is only half that or even less.

Same case with the ARC Ref160M's, which I home trialled twice. They were going at 60grand a pair, approx 32grand each. Tried it out with two different ARC Ref preamps, it was certainly nice, drove the CLX's ok but it wasn't my preference.

Class A tube monoblocks deliver something truly unique, it's a grip factor and drive they have on the speakers, and at the same time an effortless sense of unlimited dynamics and transient control, which the Ref160M's didn't quite possess.
Perhaps if I had changed everything to ARC, including the phonostage then maybe an overall improvement, I don't know. I've heard these amps drive other gear, such as the Sonus Faber Aida speakers, which cost close to 6 figures, that was actually really good! So I'm thinking, driving full range stats is a totally different challenge.

Like I've said before, once your system has achieved a certain threshold, that's it! Just sit back and enjoy those finest tunes!
Cheers, RJ

[Big Dog RJ]

Something to note that interested me during the last week. As we were chatting all things about tube gear, he was servicing two sets of monoblocks. One was the Prem12's and the other were the Ayon's, huge beasts, 10 KT150 tubes per monoblock, delivering a whopping 400plus watts. Also has Class A mode switching if desired by the user, which dropps the output to 100watts Class A. Still very powerful.

Anyway, as I was glaring into these circuits with awe... we started chatting about how CJ initially started on their Premier line of preamps. Having used different types of tubes in the legendary Premier 7 dual chassis preamp then introduced the ART preamp as CJ's 20th anniversary reference triode. This preamp used the 6922's. Then move fwds onto the ACT2 and CT5, which used the 6N30P/ 6H30PI tubes. Then fwd to GAT and back to 6922 variants and now the Art88, back to 6922's!

We were wondering whether this was mainly due to supply issues or sonic performance but neither is better than the other, just different. So which ones do you like? Ah! Now that's a personal preference in my mind.

What do y'all think? Was it a supply or manufacture issue or was it sonic performance? The 6922 variants seem to be CJ's standard in all their current preamp series, and this particular tube dates all the way back to the original ART preamp. That's going backwards to more than 20yrs... what was the goal here?

The ART88 is a radical change, such that it's not a dual chassis preamp like the Premier 7 or ART but yet they've managed to set the performance on such a high bar, that it's mind boggling to note that they've come full circle to the 6922. Would like to hear your thoughts.

RJ

[Joe Appierto]

This may never have factored into CJ's thinking but one factor that comes to mind is owner flexibility. For a 6922 you may substitute a 6DJ8/7DJ8/7308 and their European equivalents. What can you substitute for a 6H30? Another 6H30 and that's it. The only variability would be the EB (common) version versus the DR (not common and expensive).

[AnotherJohnson]

This may never have factored into CJ's thinking but one factor that comes to mind is owner flexibility. For a 6922 you may substitute a 6DJ8/7DJ8/7308 and their European equivalents. What can you substitute for a 6H30? Another 6H30 and that's it. The only variability would be the EB (common) version versus the DR (not common and expensive).

I can’t help but wonder if the ARC choice of so many 6H30pis is intentional in order to reduce the fun of tube rollers. CJ is definitely a better playground.