ARC LS-5MKIII or ARC LS-25MKII

I was a happy and proud owner of the LS5 II / III for almost 8 years. It's good to hear my old LS5 III is being enjoyed so much, Steve. Sounds like you have had it modified and retubed. Very cool. And Ken, no need to be envious, get to it and get one for yourself! You should have done this before all the amps and speaker swaps. And after the LS5, the PH2 is even more the impressive phono stage and an absolute steal at recent used prices of $750! I do not know of a better line/phono combination for the $$ than this. And throw in a VT130 and woo hooo, the magic can be breathtaking.
John

Ken,

I have lols of experience with the SP-10, LS5 II and III as well as comparing these to the Ref1 which was quite a disappointment .... you would think such a higher priced model would bring on even greater refinements but it simply was not there.

As I understand from going to the ARC dealer back in 97 to hear my then II vs the newer III, the III was a result of the efforts of the Ref1. But time after time, at the dealer and at another person's house who had the Ref1 and and LS5 III on loan, the LS5 III just had more emotional impact. And it had incredible resolution as did the Ref1.

The II vs III comparison at the dealer made it very clear the II had greater resolution. I remember hearing subtle differences in a singer's tone with the III that were hard to hear with the II. And the III had a more coherent tonal balance while the II tended to bring the upper freqs a little more forward. But the sonic signatures were much the same. This was 97.

In 2001, I contacted a local (Minneapolis) audiophile who was selling his III. I had the II at this time. He brought the III over. We let the units warm up for an hour or so and switched back and forth. The exaggerated sibilance of the II became apparent...almost to a point of an annoyance once the smooth and natural top end of the III had been heard. The II did seem to have a little more extension and definition in the extreme lower frequencies. The mids were virtually identical....that awesome LS5 and SP-10 signature. I ultimatel bought his III and sold my II.

The $1500 that ARC charged for II to III upgrades back in the late 90s I simply could not justify. But today, the price difference tends to be $500 on the used market which I think is a great value. But with II's going for $1700-1800 these days, there is no other value in an ARC line stage that comes close. Don't even bother with the 15, 16, 22 as none of these have the magical ambience and harmonic richness quality of the LS5.

I have since changed to the BAT 31SE which had a whole slew of refinements over the LS5 III. But I will always remember the LS5/PH2 as the greatest value in a preamp that I ever owned.

The other product that you may want to listen to is the BAT VK5i. I never had a chance to A/B this with the LS5 but always wanted to.

John

Ken Ken Ken...Kehut, you're so funny. I'm warning you, if you take an LS5 home, you're gonna smile....until you have to have to pay for it....but you will keep it!

Bluefin: Yes, absolutely system synergy is important here. I think of the LS5 as a front row presentation whereas the 31SE is more middle of the theatre. It's really all what you like and how it balances with other components. Just be careful with Cardas Golden Cross here: it is addicting at first, but it can be too much of a good thing quickly and much detail is lost.

At the time I changed from LS5 III to 31SE, I had the BAT 10 phono, ARC CL150s and Counterpoint NPS400 driving Talon Khorus and/or Maggie 3.5s. The LS5 was not a very good match with the CL150s as the combination made the presentation a bit too forward. The VT130 is much better balanced than the CL150s in this regard. The NPS400 has even great tonal balance than the VT130 but it gives up some of that awesome harmonic richness of the VT130. It really is about fine tuning the system and not too focused on any one link for long.

Comparing the 31SE to the LS5 III at home and at a dealer, in both cases, the 31SE had so much more extension in the lowest octave. And there was an incredible coherency across the entire band with the 31SE.

When I went to the BAT dealer, he demoed a jazz track where we could hear a string bassist slowly going up and down the register...with the 31SE you could hear a few extra notes at the bottom vs with the LS5 III. I was greatly impressed by this. He did another demo of an old jazz track where you could hear tape hiss as background noise. With the 31SE, that band of hiss went fully across the speakers which made it easier to tune out. With the LS5 III, the hiss was very much more localized at the speakers and at a higher level which made it not so easy to tune out. Coherency, smoothness and naturalness are words that come to mind with the 31SE. As for ambience, bloom, 3D, decay, etc., all the great strengths of the LS5, the 31SE sacrificed none of these in either of the 2 systems. I never felt like I was listening to a solid state preamp like the LS2, 15, 22, etc., make me feel.

It's so cool to hear how everyone here is so happy with the sound of their systems.

John

Hey bluefin, thanks for the clarification. Oh yes, I agree with your findings on the 30SE. It is in fact the 30SE that I started with when I traded the LS5 III to another memeber here, Steve.

When I received the 30SE, all of the incredible three dimensionality I had for years with the LS5 III was gone.
And Steve had told me this was an issue with him but he had heard rumors that the 31SE resolved this problem. This was indeed right as I knew I would upgrade to 31SE once I heard the side-by-side comparison of the 30SE vs 31SE at the BAT dealer.

The 30SE indeed has a severe rolloff on the top. Not only does this take away the extention in the upper frequencies, but it also takes away so much of the harmonic richness that models like the LS5 show through so well. But the 31SE resolves this issue very well. So if you ever get a chance, just out of curiosity, take your LS5 to a BAT dealer and have a listen to the two.

John