Anyone Compared ARC Ref 75SE and 75 With KT150

Veerapaneni ... if Oregonpapa doesn't weigh in soon, PM him. He made the switch and is in love.

FWIW, I upgraded my Ref 150 to the SE. IMO, big time improvement.

I understand that the cost to upgrade the Ref 75 is about $2500 or thereabouts. That's about half the cost of the Ref 150 SE upgrade. Btw, the kit includes a complete retube.

Veerapeneni ... before upgrading my Ref 150 to the SE version, I dropped in KT-150 tubes. There was a definite improvement in sound. Smoother, deeper and tighter bass, just better sounding all around. The SE upgrade effected another quantum level of improvement.

It's difficult to quantify such changes, but FWIW, Kal at ARC said that the KT-150s likely accounted for roughly half the improvements; the balance relating the SE circuitry changes. Who am I to quibble?

Veerapaneni ... your post is a bit cryptic.

Did you actually audition a broken-in Ref 75 SE? And you compared the Ref 75 (non SE w/KT150s) to the Ref 75 SE?? Not sure where the Ref 250 came into the picture.

Did you call Kal as I suggested to get his view on how the Ref 150 SE compares to the GS 150?

Your last post is not what I would have expected to read.

The circuitry in the GS 150 is very similar to the Ref 75 SE and Ref 150 SE. I am confused.

Frank ... you catchin' this??

Veerapeneni ... as others have posted above, both amps must be fully broken in (600 hours) before doing serious critical listening.

Btw, did you ever speak with Kal. He is very familiar with ARC's products and can give a sense of what to expect.

Here's some Ref 150 SE comments. Last night I was listening to some old CDs of John Gardiner conducting the Orchestre Révolutionnaire (Canada) performances of Beethoven symphonies. IMO, the level of sound stage imaging, detail, tonality of sound was noticeably improved. Of course, my comparison is to my system pre SE upgrade/KT-150s and pre DEQX.

I attribute the improvements in large part to the KT-150/SE upgrade. That said, I can't ignore the possibility that my DEQX PreMATE also made a significant contribution as well.

BIF

Happen to agree with Tsushima1.

I read RG's review. I quibble with Tsushima's use of the word "blithering" when describing RG's report. I would rather say blathering.

RG's comments that the internal cooling fans were "noisy'ish" is total hype. I cannot hear the fans from my listening position. IMO, a total non-issue.

And what really blew my mind was RG's comments about the aluminum cover adversely affecting the sound, e.g., increased tube microphonics and so forth ... total nonsense, ... bunk. I took my cover off and could not tell the difference. And btw, I do not screw it down because I check tube bias frequently. Too much of a PITA to get it off.

And finally, after all of RG's "to'ing and fro'ing" about this and that, he casually concludes (paraphrasing) that "yes, while the Ref 150 SE is a benchmark product, it's just one of many fine amps out there."

In his own words, RG writes "[t]hat uncanny combination of musical insight, substance and integrity is what makes the Reference 150 SE another genuine benchmark product. Don’t misunderstand that terminology. "Benchmark" doesn’t mean best. What it means is a product with the overall balance of musical capabilities that the competition needs to match or beat."

To his credit, Marc Mickelson ("MM") posted side bar comments in the RG review about the ARC Ref 75 SE. His bottom comments are consistent with what I think RG's review should have conveyed. MM said the following about the ARC Ref 75 SE, "[i]f you can live with its 75Wpc and balanced inputs (and you have a $10,000 budget), **I don't know of a better amp -- tube or solid state.**" (** = emphasis added.

I still recall reading the Stereophile review (with John Atkinson's bench test results ) of the Ref 150 (not SE). The review was stellar and read that way. FWIW, the Ref 150 (non SE) is still a Class A amp on Stereophile's List of Recommended Components. I imagine it's vaunted status will only be reconfirmed once Stereophile gets around to revisiting the Ref 150 SE.

Look ... some have accused me of being biased (pun) in favor of ARC gear. Ok, ... it's true. I admit to being a fan ... maybe even a groupie, but at the same time, I fully concede that there ARE many other great SS and tube amps on the market that folks should consider.

That said, I really thought RG's review left me with the blasé impression that the Ref 150 SE was "just another" ... ho-hum ... "great amp" on the market. IMO, it's much more than that. I believe that it is an audio classic that will be talked about like the ARC Ref 3 linestage, which I once owned and still think is a great sounding classic piece of kit. Is the Ref 5 SE better? Yes. Is it leagues and worlds and universes apart. No ... I do not think so.

Sorry for the long whiny post. For RG to even mention the old D115 in the same review of the Ref 150 SE was silly and a waste of print space.

Bruce

P.S. -- I also agree with Tsushima's comment that it is unclear whether RG's amp was fully broken in. If not ... his review is totally useless.

P.S.S. Dennis Davis, a TAB editor just posted his review of the Sonus Faber Olympica III Loudspeakers. I note that his associated equipment includes the ARC Ref 150 amp.