I have a Ref3 available for sale. It's basically brand new. Its a 120V all black. I will sell it for $8500.
106 responses Add your response
I humbly disagree with Oneobgyn regarding tube rolling with the Ref 3. That said, there is only one alternative to the stock 6H30's, which are milspec early '90's Russian 6H30-DR's. My experience is that those tubes do enhance imaging and dimensionality of the sound of the Ref 3; not dramatically perhaps, but noticeably. The 6550 in the power supply is another story altogether. I replaced that with an early 60's Tung Sol solid gray plate 6550 and doing so transformed my whole system. There was an immediate, dramatic improvement almost across the board with every source. Above all, there was a huge improvement in the continuousness and density of the sound (the opposite of grain.) I would call it "liquid", and it is a quality I have not heard in any ARC gear since ARC had to stop using the original, now NOS, Siemens and Phillips tubes back in the '80's. |
I have now a Ref 3 that has just passed the 200 hrs break in mark. The unit is the latest version with new bypass caps and 6550C in PS. Stage opening up nicely with a significan amount of detail, authority, musicality, micro and macro dynamics. I estimate another 150 to 200 hrs to complete breakin process. I have no immediate plans to test NOS 6550 tubes at this time. |
No....I took my unit to an authorized ARC repair man here in the Bay Area ARC shipped both the replacement tube as well as the 4 bypass caps to him. He did the install in less than 1/2 hour. All I did was pay the $60 for the new tube. Both the tube and the caps are rolling line changes and not upgrades to the unit. |
I completely agree. I am not a big fan of the 6550C either. I talked long and hard with the folks at ARC as to why they went back to this tube. Simply put....more bass. The four by pass caps have clearly smoothed out the upper end in my system. Ethann has heard my system and I am reasonably certain he thought it to be good |
I think that the 6550C is not a drop in replacement for the 6L6GC tube. Consequently, you may need to make the other recommended hardware changes in ordr to arrive at an informed conclusion about the relative performance of the tubes in the REF3 See sites below for specs on the two tubes: http://tdsl.duncanamps.com/show.php?des=6L6GC http://tdsl.duncanamps.com/show.php?des=6550C |
I finally put in a 6550C from ARC to compare it with the 6L6GC tube and the 6550WE tube. First I put about 50 hours of burn time on it. All I can say is WOW!!! As in 'WOW, why would anybody want to degrade thier Ref 3 with this tube?" With my present analog setup I usually listen with the volume between 55 and 65, depending on the record. When I really want to crank her up for some electric blues or rock and roll the volume goes up to 75 or even 80 if I want to be wall shaking loud. With the 6550C in place I first put on Muddy Water's acoustic recording, "Folk Singer". I kept turning up the volume until I was at 90 and yet it sounded like I had furniture blankets over the speakers, talk about veiled. Then I put on Rob Wasserman's "Duet" and went right to the duet with Lou Reed. With the volume at 85 it had no impact, muddy, almost impossible to distinguish the two instruments playing. I turned off the pre-amp, let the tubes cool down and dropped the original 6L6GC back in. Put the volume at 70, kept the mute on, dropped the needle back on to the Lou Reed track and sat down. Picked up the remote and unmuted the preamp. Back came the visceral bass, the furniture blankets were off the speakers and all the detail and seperation of instruments were back. Maybe Oneobgyn is mistaken and the bypass caps are necessary in order to improve the sound using the 6550C tube. At this point I would have to hear it in someone elses system before I would chance putting the bypass caps in and trying the 6550C tube again. |
Interesting thread and how misquoted I was. All along I told guidocorona that only the 6L6GC tube would be replaced by the 6550C. I was somewhat surprised because I am not a big fan of the 6550C--however once the tube was swapped and the bypass caps added there was a distinctly deeper bass as well as a much smoother upper end. What to me is the $64 question is what the unit would sound like by swapping the 6550C for a KT88? Here is a look at my system with the Ref3 http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vaslt&1049587927&read&3&4& http://homepage.mac.com/imacdoyou86/PhotoAlbum52.html |
I am using the VTM 200 monblocks, which replaced a Theta Dreadnaught. I felt that I gave up some bass going to the VTM's until I switched to the WE tubes. Even without breaking in the bass improved in both strength and articulation. I put a 6550WE from RAM last night but, I only played one album so can't comment on any difference between it and the 6L6GC yet. Also, I don't expect the Svetlana 6550C tube from ARC until next week. I do have a new 6550C tube that McIntosh uses but, I don't know if it is a Svetlana tube or not. I am hoping a friend of mine will be comming by this weekend to help with some audio comparisons. I like to have a second set of ears when trying something new. |
I am waiting for the bypass caps to arrive to have them installed in my Ref 3, as well as the Svetlana 6550C to replace the 6L6GC. In the meantime, for my amps I have found that the 6550WE was a better replacement for the 6550C that ARC uses. Anybody try these in their pre amp? While waiting for the 6550C from ARC I plan to put one in to see if I can perceive any difference. |
Hmm, terrible sin indeed this rolling update. $60 of parts, field installable. What's this world coming to. . . and the sin is spreading like wildfire. . . I have just heard that VAC is introducing a quiet rolling update of its own to its Ren II preamp. . . a brand new volume control. Terrible, terrible, I tell you. . . there is no more Religion no more! "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned" ""What have you done my son?" "I have committed the sin of rolling update, father. . ." "And how often, my son?" "Well Father, you see, I was doing things to this preamp, and it was all real innocent at first, you know. . . we was only kidding around. . . and then we kind of started looking under its grille. . . and you know, I had just looked at these sites of CD modders like APL and ModWright, . . . like they show them big rolling mods all new all the time. . . . and like I just couldn't help weselves, I just had to roll my update. . . like right then and there!" "My son, my son, you have been keeping bad company! You should only associate with those 'good' people, like Accuphase, who never roll anything at the public before their quinquennial plan has run its course. . . You will write a long letter of contrition to all your customers tonight. . . and you will make my own rolling update free! Now get out and sin no more!!!!" |
Hi Doc! yes, you can go back to the 6L6GC even after installing the bypass caps. These mods are not related to each other. Matter of fact, the caps are the ones that provides some improvement that can be measured but probably not heard (or barely). The (reportedly) audible or really sonic improvement is the tube xchange. The ByCaps are installed facing the 4 big yellow caps on the opposite board. If it were already installed, it could be easily seen from outside. Now, where exactly are mounted...is only for ARC to know and for us others to wonder... ;-) I won't do the upgrade, at least for a while. Maybe (just maybe) I'll try the tube, but not before I need new 6h30's (520 hours in abt 6 months..). I've decided to enjoy what I have for what I bought it. Or else, the race is endless...and time is not. brgds marcelo |
Ok, I talked to ARC just now. All is clear to me and confirms what Oneobgin said all along. 1) Tube swapping> only the one 6L6GC is swapped in favour of a 6550C (Svetlana made). Not the 6H30 on the output section but the rectifier on the power supply. 2) The addition of 4 bypass caps is also part of this "rolling update". The tube swapping can be done by ourselves provided we get the right tube brand (Svetlana). I don't know how much of an improvement this may result, but spending a few $ on a tube is not a lot to find out ourselves. brgds, marcelo |
Well, this gets curiouser and curiouser! The Toronto dealer for ARC told me she prefers the old 6H30 sound to the updated 6550C sound, which implies addmitting the existance of the update. Furthermore Oneobgin has just paid $59 + shipping to ARC to supply 4 6550C tubes and related bypass caps. He had the update performed by his California dealer. If anyone speakes to Leonard at ARC tomorrow please post here. Just make sure you do not call it an upgrade but a 'rolling update', which is the term used by ARC. There is no version change on Ref 3 at all. |
Well I was wrong again. The tubes being swapped out are the 6H30 after all. OneObgin has posted more info m on his vertual system thread. Cost appears to be $59 for parts only, plus any transportation. OneObgin confirms improved bass and treble behavior after the update. Please see the few posts relating to this subject starting at:: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vaslt&1049587927&openfrom&162&4#162 |
Has OneObGin confirmed that this is factory made? I checked ARC and the ARCDB (better source than ARC itself) and there is no mention about it. BTW, the 6550C & 6550EH are Power Triodes, used by ARC on their power amps, the 6H30 & 6922 are preamp ("small signal" as per ARC) tubes...I wonder if we are talking nonsense here... I´ll check with Leonard and hear what's going on. brgds and thanks Marcelo |
Marcelo, this is apparently a change done on all new Ref 3 units leaving the factory now. Tubes are the 6550C and replace the 6H30 on the output stage. Leonard at ARC should be able to tell you more. OneObGin had his unit updated and raves about the change, but has not supplied us with a great amount of details. I have no idea how much ARC charge for an update post facto'. |
Guido, I have not heard about the xchange tubes! What´s all about? 6550 seems a step backwards from the 6H30P? WHo's doing/offering the upgrade? AR? I'm checking right away. Also, you mention that you had to raise the volume to 7. You mean 70 right? That´s about the max. I could do before the Theta arrived. Now I think 60 would be the max. SPL I could handle through the 700cx and the MLs. brgds, marcelo |
Marcelo, 'bingo' on all counts! Detailed, open and certainly rich define the Ref 3 for me as well. And yes, gain seems a little low: with DCS P8I, REF 3, Rowland 302, Totem Manitoo, to get good sound pressure I had to raise the volume to 7. This may not be a problem though. If I recall correctly my Rowland 7M monoblock amps have a couple different gain settings. Are you still using the Ref 3 with its original 6H30 tubes, or have you sent your unit to get the 6550C tubes and the bypass caps? Sonic differences? Lastly, for me the 'fat lady has not sung yet!' I did A/B Ref 3 with the VAC Ren Signature II , however the real comparison will be against the much newer Ren II and Phi 2.0. Still lots of fun to go through! |
Hi all, Hi Guido! I missed this post, sorry! Well, I've lived with the REF3 now for a while, and can only confirm what I initially sensed, it is a great linestage, detailed, open and rich. If I were to find a weak point, it would only be the input gain (yes, I know I mentioned it before, but it didn´t stopped bugging me). This is not related to its performance though, more likely to my own tastes as user. I don´t like to increase the volume well above 50 to have some significant SPL out of the Martin Logans. So, I decided that I needed to use high output phono preamp and also add a high output DAC in between my CDP and the Ref3. Well, I bought a phono pre with enough output to drive the power amps (Aesthetix Rhea) if it only had volume control. Gain is an incredible 75 dbs! And, for the CDP I bought at first a Krell Stealth DAC, but this one didn´t really had the fire, so today arrived a Theta Probasic IIIa that a fellow A´goner sold to me last sunday and it did the trick. Now I really feel like the Ref3 sings! What else can I say? That I think it will be hard for me to get a better rig for my system. I´m really really pleased with it. brgds, Marcelo |
All, just yesterday I spent three hours comparing the ARC Ref 3 with the VAC Ren Sig II. Front end was supplied by the new DCS P8I single box player and by the Accuphase DP-77. Ref 3 was stunning and had no obvious problems driving the relatively low input impedance (22K Ohms) of the Rowland 302. Amazingly DCS P8I was also extremely good when driving the amp directly. You will find my rather detailed findings at: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1123254379&openfrom&58&4#58 See you all there. Your opinions welcome! |
Ok guys: you bring up some valid arguments! Jafox: I'm 100% sure of the power amp in that the technology of the flagship line has (so far) trickled down to my model # of power amps. I know this 'cuz the person I bought my amps from upgraded to the flagship line. I conversed w/ him after he had the amps for a while. 2ndly, I've chatted w/ Odyssey Audio on this matter: I was told the same thing. Hence I'm inclined to believe it. Yes, I, too, did not like the sound of his stock Linn Sondek LP12 thru the PH3. Clean sound but same sort of flat/2-D sound as thru the CDP. OK, I admit, it could have been the room. Maybe I'll get to hear this ARC Ref 1 again. Suffice it to say that this time around it was not my cup-of-tea. |
Bombaywalla, Hopefully you will get a chance to hear some of the products, that you did not like in your friend's system, in the context of another system.....perhaps your own. Claiming that because you heard one power amp from a company, you know the house sound of that company, is not realistic. Many companies, ARC included, have a way of abruptly changing from one classic sound to another that is nothing remotely close only to come full circle and return to what they had a decade before. And the idea that a top-of-the-line model's "technology" trickles down to the lesser costly models is something we hope to be the case, but again, I have seen this not be the case several times. Several models in a line can ultimately not sound at all similar. You said the sound was mediocre but you never detailed what made you come to this conclusion. Could it simply have been the room? And because you know the Groneberg cable sound so well, you have eliminated this? Huh? Time and time again, I have found the IC between line and amp to be the most critical. With ARC gear, a couple of my favorite cable lines, SilverAudio and HarmonicTech just did not work well from line to amp but were excellent tonearm and speaker cabling. The NBS or Cardas Golden Cross were much preferred in this link. But elsewhere, I liked the SilverAudio IC over the Cardas. What an IC sounds like from DAC to line or phono stage to line, is not necessarily what it sounds like from line to amp. So no, the "sound" of the cable can not simply be known; it is greatly influenced by the components it connects. Concerning the Ref1, I was a long time (8+ years) owner of the LS5 which I preferred over the Ref1 because of the LS5's more "warmth" and "bloomy" sound. This difference was subtle but I liked the LS5. The Ref1 was clearly more resolving and tonally coherent. In the overall scheme of things, they were nearly identical. And neither of these products can be blamed for being the cause of a mediocre sounding system unless there was something severely wrong elsewhere. As GMorris states, it might not be someone's type of sound, but a poor product it is not. And what do you mean the modified SP-6 out distanced the stock Ref1? Did you actually compare these two products in the same system? Or are you judging the sound of each in the context of two different systems? And what was the difference? ... tonality, noise, resolution, frequency extreme extension? Blanket statements of this is "better" than that have no value without further details to the differences. And if the comparison was not in the same system, preferably right there at the same time, it is silly to claim anything about one product against the other. I have owned several components in the system you described and the one product I would question is the PH3. This is the most fatiguing phono stage I have heard in a long time. It sounds nice at the start but quickly had me eager to try any number of other such products. The PH2 destroyed the overrated PH3 by significant margins in lower noise and neutrality to just name two. The Ref1 deserves more than the PH3 and for that matter, the 17D (which I also owned at one time). One thing I have learned many times is to NEVER judge a product in too critical of a manner unless I can take it home and try it out in my system for at least a few days to hear how it compares to what I already own and to the sound for which I am familiar. Rather than look for a single scapegoat for mediocre sound, I would suggest it could easily have more to do with a poorly configured and setup system, than the fault(s) of any one element in the system. It is like someone getting a copy of Stereophile, buying all "Class A" rated components and claiming they have a musical system. It's just not that simple. In fact you're more likely to find musical success to do this at the "Class B" level. John |
I have no prior experience with the Genki BUT with all the pro reviews I have read & with all the descriptive positive feedback from users I have read, it was reasonable to guess that the Linn Genki had very good sound overall...By process of elimination it came down to the ARC Ref 1. Riiiight. I believe this error in inductive reasoning is known as the "Fallacy of Exclusion." :-) |
Dear Randy, I think that I can understand where you are coming from & why you feel the need to defend the ARC Ref 1. Yes, my conclusion is not totally scientific but it is not out-of-line either. I own power amps from the very same company that this fellow's power amp was from. That power amp is the flagship unit while mine is 1 below. In fact, knowledge gained from the flagship unit has trickled down to my model of the power amp. So, I know that "house sound" very well. So, when I heard the music in his system, I knew that I the sound I was hearing was NOT characteristic of that power amp & that something else was compromising the sound. The R645 speakers: they belonged to my friend who accompanied me to this person's house. Thus, my friend knew the sound of these speakers intimately & he told me that those very speakers sounded much better during his ownership than what we were hearing that evening. That leaves the CD player - Linn Genki & the stock ARC Ref 1. I have no prior experience with the Genki BUT with all the pro reviews I have read & with all the descriptive positive feedback from users I have read, it was reasonable to guess that the Linn Genki had very good sound overall. Cabling was Groneberg Quattro. I own the Groneberg TS Premium in my system to this present day & I think I know their sound very well too. By process of elimination it came down to the ARC Ref 1. BTW, my conclusion jives with many others' as well. Of course, it doesn't jive with each & every person's. This is audio..........how could it!!!! The friend who accompanied me owns a ARC SP-6A which has been heavily modified by 2 diff. people. It has superb sound by today's standards & will give many $2000-$3000 a solid run for their money. In fact, it far out-does that stock ARC Ref 1 by miles. The comparison is not entirely fair: heavily modified SP-6A vs. stock Ref 1. For the price tag of the stock Ref 1, I don't think that its sound is worth it. I stand by my conclusion: it's not off-the-cuff & it doesn't mean to diss ARC. It's the way I hear it. Just FYI: I do not believe that the latest model = the greatest! In fact, I'm more likely to believe the contrary. Read some of my other posts before you accuse me of this! |
Dear Bobaywalla, It mistifies me that you would blame the ARC Ref.1 for the poor sound of your friend's system. I have gotten excellent performance from my Ref.1 (admittedly with the Reference GNS mod and some vintage ECC88's). It has never sounded less than musical, with wonderful soundstage and excellent bass. Why, oh why, are we so ready to diss the previous generations of wonderful equipment when the manufacturer sees fit to release a new version? We all know that equipment makers (yes even ARC) are not immune to market pressures to release a new version every couple of years. Just wait a few months until the honeymoon is over and suddenly the revision 6 or 7Mk.II or whatever is not quite as magical and enchanting as everyone imagined. Randy |