Audio Research Ref 3 Opinions

Kyoto:

I traded my Ref 2 Mk II (which I still think is an awesome product that I would be proud to own) for the Ref 3 several weeks ago. I had the chance to a/b them for about two hours in my home on my system using an sacd front end before I wrote the check. I thought that the Ref 3 was quieter, had greater dynamic range, and was more transparent. Also, in comparison, the Ref 2, while throwing a huge soundstage, sounded a little as if it had been processed through a phase shifter. The 3 did not have as big a soundstage, but now that I have racked up about 130 hours on the unit, that is coming along. Regarding the noise floor and dynamics, the Ref 3 was superior to the point that I had difficulty setting the two pre-amps at the same perceived volume. The difference was not unlike the blackness between notes on good sacd compared to redbook. Also, the 3 is not quite as warm and bloomy, but is tighter in the bass and cleaner top to bottom.

Although this sounds a little bit like the ARC promo, it is really my own thoughts developed primarily during the a/b session. Hope this was helpful to you. You really cannot go wrong with either pre-amp; both are great.

ROM

Guido:

Yesterday, the tube hours counter read in the 130s; my rig is off right now.

I did the a/b comparisons using the stock cords on both units.

The Ref 3 comes with a hefty cord with a 20 amp IEC. I plan to eventually try out some commercial cords (probably Shunyata, others), as well as homemades made from twisted solid core wire shielded with tin foil. The sound is good enough that I have not felt compelled to mess with it yet.

I think you are really going to like the Ref 3. To my ears it does not cast a soundstage via the phasey sound you mentioned at all; it is gone. Rather, the sound is extremely focused, clean, and transparent. The soundstage you get is more like what is on the recording, but not necessarily as "spread out" as on the Ref 2 (at least not at this stage of break-in). The Ref 3 is really quite different sounding than the 2 but is still "beautiful" and natural, as opposed to cold and mechanical.

To perhaps help you put my comments in context, my current system is:

Sony XA-777es
ARC Ref 3
ARC VT-100 mk iii
Vandy 5A
Audioquest Anaconda ICs

I'm sure I'll get around to messing with my digital front end eventually. I wish that we would see some more killer SACD players, as I have invested a fair amount in SACD software and generally like what I hear.

Best regards.

ROM

Guido:

I did not find sheen or glare to be a problem with the 2. I do not really recall a difference in the two preamps in this regard. Again, there is a family resemblance to the sound between the 2 and 3, so this is something you will need to check out for yourself.

I would be interested to hear the opinions of others who have tried the 3 with top flight sacd front ends.