I'd love to hear about it as well. |
Dgad, it's an interesting theory. Yet I fear. . . correlation does not imply causality. . . but it's safe to gess that they will sound somewhat different. |
Sherod, I am enjoying my Ref 3 immensely, no plans to jump on greener pastures even when I eventually found one . . . simply 0 budget for it. The only minor issue I can see with its tubed power supply is that the 6550C in it runs out of steam after 1200 hours of operation and needs to be replaced perhaps once a year or so. Dgad, you are absolutely correct, while I did have some slight reservations about the original VTL 7.5, the new series is a totally different kettle of fish. My friend PSCIALLI has purchased a 6.5 Mk 2, and it is. . . outlandishly wonderful. I cannot find in it any of the past issues as any of the gentling of transients I heard on the old 7.5. I can only guess that the new 7.5 would be an even more authoritative bigger brother of the 6.5 Mk. 2. If I find an audiophile in Austin (Tx) with the VTL 7.5 mk. 2, I will definitely try to arrange a get together of the local gang to listen to both units on the same system. |
Sounds like a perfect plan DGAD. When you get the new 7.5 Mk.2 and you break it in, please let us all know about the differences you perceive compared to the original model. Guido |
Sherod, unfortunately a direct a/b session may be difficult. I live in Austin (Tx) and Pscialli's system is in Fairfax (Va). Taking my REF 3 along during one of my periodic visits is not feasible. |
For what it's worth, Richard Hardesty's Audio Perfectionist has just published an extensive comparative review of the VTL 7.5 v2, Esthetix Callisto Signature with twin external PS, and the ARC Ref 3. I do not have access to the complete article, but have been told Mr. Hardesty appears to have an overall preference for the Ref 3 over the other two devices. His final comment on the Ref 3 is:
Ive heard preamps that have a little more of this and a little more of that. But none thats as complete, top to bottom, or as satisfying in its presentation of the entire musical picture, weaving each distinctive element of music into a coherent whole. The Ref 3 goes beyond hi-fi; its a 21 st century classic from ARC.
G. |
Bar81, I have heard rumors of a high noise floor on Ref 3, but can not substantiate it. All Ref 3s I have listened to, including my very own are totally dead quiet. I can only guess that some degraded tubes may be the cause of the noisyness on the unit your friend experienced. The device should go back to ARC for servicing. By the way Hardesty seems to indicate that in fact Ref 3 appears quieter than VTL. I also tried Ref 3 with on Art Audio PX-25 monos and Avantgarde horn speakers, and there was still no noise. |
CytoCycle, if the 6550C was running out of steam, a suck out in mid bass is only the beginning of the slow spiral of 'grayness'. Next all highs would go the way of the Dodobird. Mr. Hardesty is certainly controversial. I have read some of his editorial pieces. As far as I know the article in question is an actual review, but I do not have the article in front of me to confirm. He seems to have high overall praise for all three devices discussed. |
PS in ARC 3 is tubed to the best of my Knowledge. There is both an 6H30 and a 6550C at this time in it. |
Thank you Jonas, if the reviewer has truly compared the Ref 3 with the old and original VTL 7.5 v1, the entire conclusions of the article would be invalidated. |
Billbench, your description of the sound of the VTL 7.5 is consistent with my early findings a couple of years ago on a 7.5 version 1. I did find its presentation very tuneful with 'soft' treble and -- to me at least -- slightly deemphasized transient leading edges. I admit I do prefer the presentation of the Ref 3 equipped with 6550C in the power supply, admittedly because of its comparative slight sparkle at the top and slight more authority at the bottom. Did you use a VTL version 1 or 2? I understand the 7.5 V2 is rather similar to the 6.5 V2, which instead I do like very much. |
Hi JC, sorry I am confused, please explain 'better' |