As an addendum to my previous comments, the Ref 5 now has a little over 200 hours on it and has improved markedly in terms of perceived frequency extension, micro-dynamics and its ability to capture the natural weight and dimension of instruments in space.
Third order harmonic information lingers even longer, further outlining the recorded venue and space around instruments but not in the traditional "tubey" way. It continues to strike me that a lot of the gains over the Ref 3 relate to background silence, quicker transient articulation and a rock solid foundation in the lower octaves, which opened up and clarified huge amounts of lower midrange information I was missing before.
The uppermost octaves nay or may not be measurably more extended, but unquestionably there is far more diversity in terms of tone and textural contrast apparent, such as the multicolor sheen from cymbals or the resonance from stringed instruments. The solid state like character that I referred to in a prior post has abated but what remains is still far more clean, defined and direct sounding than the Ref 3, which in contrast reminds me more of the Ref 2 (which I had at home and did not like (too slow and tubey). In short, the Ref 3 by comparison has noticeable mid-bass overhang and sounds noticeably slower, lacking immediacy, coherence and upper frequency transparency.
Put in perspective, the differences are obvious and well worth the increase in retail price (to me), but impressions may vary from system to system depending on context. In my experience pre-amps are more sensitive to system differences and contexts except speakers, than most other components including amps and front ends, so all this is FWIW. Again, the difference was more dramatic than going from the CD-7 to the CD-8.
|
In case anyone has trouble understanding, my comparative comments were couched in retrospective contrast with a _new model_, not as any glaring pronouncement regarding deficiencies of the Ref 3. Every opinion involves comparison and I thought I was pretty clear about mine.
Just as with any new iteration of a product where there have been improvements made, they highlight where a previous model may have fallen short of accurate either slightly or noticeably in different areas of performance.
Many times these shortcomings are not noticeable until the new model highlights them by displaying better accuracy in specific areas. Could anyone perfectly point out every flaw in an excellent standard TV picture prior to HD coming along? HD quality pointed out cleanly where standard picture TV fell short --HD set a new standard. The same holds true for high-performance audio and in this case the Ref 5 compared to its predecessor the Ref 3.
The Ref 3 is still an exceptional pre-amp and I would likely still own it had I not heard the Ref 5 and been able to afford it. In addition, the Ref 3's second market value accurately represents in my opinion, the difference between the two units performance. So, I see only upside, more choices of high quality products at different price points --and this holds true as new and better products come available in any category. The used Ref 3 buyer is still getting a great deal on a fine pre-amp at a reduced price.
Is this more clear now?
|
The moment any great high end manufacturer ceases to do R&D and make improvements to their products as significant as the Ref 5 they might as well hang it up.
In case anyone hasn't noticed amidst of all the hand wringing over economic circumstances there have been some very cool advances in almost every product category and the cost of great sound is still going down--in some cases dramatically. If manufacturers sat on their hands and did not reinvest in making the best possible products there would be more worthy issues to sit and complain about
|
Obviously there will always be a spectrum of opinion on new models versus what they are replacing. For those pleased with the Ref 3's performance there is little reason to waste time or money considering an upgrade. Who knows, the differences are so striking between the two models that maybe some might prefer the softer and more languid presentation of the 3.
I am taken by surprise however that _anyone_ could ascribe their differences as minor or inconsequential in any top system context. It would be interesting to know more about the system and circumstances of that opinion, but it came as second hand so there's no way to qualify it.
In 25 years of system building and evaluating hundreds of components I've never heard a larger difference between successive models of any component, let alone pre-amps. By comparison, the CD-7 to CD-8 upgrade was minor --though that was a pleasing and worthwhile upgrade. As I stated earlier,in my experience the difference is much closer to the difference one should expect upgrading to more powerful, refined twice-the-price amps in a system with slightly inefficient speakers.
|
Dev,
It's great you have a close friend/dealer whom you trust to give advice and there's no reason to think of his opinion as anything but genuine. Knowing some of the circumstances and context for that opinion would be enlightening but no one expects you to share all of that. It's just fwiw.
>>>"I will say that I have found in this hobby is that some seem to have to justify their owning and it's a personality thing,"<<<
Ok, there's no need to belittle anyone's opinion that differs with your dealer.
Everyone has a right to share a first hand opinion here based on experience without you questioning whether it is based on ego or purchase justification.
Using the "My dealer told me..." reasoning makes sense as an excuse to defer or delay your own trial of any product, no quibbles there.
However, using his comments as evidence that anyone who experienced it differently is over-stating their experience or has some furtive motive for doing so is whacked.
Like I said, good for you. Within whatever context your dealer tested the pre-amp in I am sure he was entirely truthful and reported his impressions accurately.
I've said and written this many times. People using different systems, different rooms, various ancillaries and frame of reference can come to different conclusions about a piece of gear and BOTH can be spot on accurate. Or am I over-stating that subjective reality?
The fact that your dealer told you the differences were minor should in NO WAY have you inferring that mine or anyone else's reported experience is not genuinely derived. My system context was explained from soup to nuts as were my impressions and full context. I took care to make sure my comments were accurate and carefully qualified.
Having you drop in with a "dealer friend" who disagrees is no problem and is in fact interesting to know( if there were more context). However, the misplaced bard about people posting positive experiences or reviews of the Ref 5 because they are justifying purchases or on some ego trip is crap.
If you believe that is true in this case, bring more than "a dealer told me..." as your evidence that someone else is being disingenuous.
|
I don't know where this "I'm being attacked" idea comes from. I have absolutely no problem with any different point of view or impression and I stated that upfront. Disagreements are common and understandable (systems, references, rooms, listeners all being different etc..). That you or your dealer have a different opinion is of _no consequence_ to me other than a point of mild curiosity.
You can share all the anecdotal info you want here. No one, including me is questioning your motives, your hearing, your honesty or your right to share whatever opinion you see fit. Nothing I wrote came close to "attacking" anything you shared.
I had a problem with the pointed inference you made that anyone who was impressed at the magnitude of difference and yes, improvement between the 3 and the 5 in their system must be protecting some kind of ego/financial expenditure. The fact that you or your dealer have differing opinion does not mean others are wrong or steeped in egotism.
<<<"I can see you are one of those types I mentioned by your response"<<<
And you see no problem with writing that? Based on what? A few posts on an internet forum? You've actually classified me into a "type"? Wow, I have six years of psych schooling and 15 years of field experience and I have NO idea what "type" of person you are from anything written here. Nor would I ever attempt to "class" anyone.
I think it is ok for people to disagree on the merits or value of any product without resorting to undermining the opinion, motivation or character of others. Since you admitted that you believe I am "that type" of person, this makes a clear point all by itself, however you want to spin it.
I owned and enjoyed the Ref 3. I evaluated and was extremely impressed by the Ref 5, enough to purchase it and share a rare opinion on a forum. You can disagree and so can your dealer. Keep the the inferences about others character or motivations to a minimum and we can go back to our regularly scheduled programming. See you at the med window ... :o) |
Dev,
No power trip, just my surprised response to being psychologically classified by "Type" on an audio chat forum. That was a first. This has absolutely nothing to do with your disagreement over a subjective opinion of mine.
My last comment was no dig against you. Just trying to bring some light into your characterizations of my motives for sharing what you believe is an overly positive opinion. I did try to highlight my intention for shared levity with a :o). Maybe you missed that. "See you at the med window" meant I was already there....
I have posted a total of one, that's right, one review here in 10 years of fairly regular participation on these and other forums. I did not turn my reply into a formal review nor did I bother to put it in any "review" section to get more views. I simply _responded_ to someone I know who was asking for first hand comparative impressions--something I rarely if ever do. No one yet had, so I obliged. Silly me.
So far, responses include accusations of collusion, your classification of me as the "type" that would be swayed by ego justifications and finally unoear with the economical breakdown of pricing and cost differences being a determining factor. On the one hand unoear is right and so are you, there are a great many factors that play into one persons opinion...but none of these are over-riding factors in most anyone's impressions.
For me, regardless of cost the upgrade was substantial or I would NEVER have bothered to respond and share my opinion. No, I did not pay $8k for the upgrade so feel free to take that into account.
Do I think the upgrade is worth $8k? There are so many factors that play into that equation no one can make that call except the buyer. Based on the large sum of money involved an evaluation in your own home is of course---mandatory.
The Ref 3 is a great pre-amp and had I not heard the 5 I would still be enjoying the 3. By any measure, in _my system_ the differences between the two were obvious and repeatable in the areas I mentioned. These were not audiophile tweaky differences, they were demonstrable. And no, my shared impressions were not grossly altered by ego, insider or psychological variables. I was simply answering Baby Bear's question in a straightforward way.
Obviously and in all cases, ymmv. |
Hi Tvad,
just as I mentioned earlier:
"In my experience pre-amps are more sensitive to system differences and contexts except speakers, than most other components including amps and front ends, so all this is FWIW."
That said, the Lamm L2 Ref and L1 for that matter are amazing pre-amps and it is no surprise that someone might prefer them to the Ref 3. The 5 is enough better than the 3 that I think it would be closer and may come down to system contexts.
For instance, I borrowed a Luxman CD/SACD player while I had the Ref 3 and literally could not use it because the gain mismatch (CD output was too low). With all the input/output sensitivity issues between pre and amp, then CD and pre the variables are paramount ahead of design and raw performance differences. That is why trying everything in one's own system is so important.
Vladimir makes great products across the board, can't go wrong there. |
Unoear,
I appreciate your sensitivity in explaining the economics. That was some pretty nice dancing! :o)
Actually, I did go a couple grand out of pocket and I sent the 3 in for new tubes and a thorough check up before selling it--another $500, So, add that to my wife-altered budget and it was a tidy little sum to buy the new model.
Also, I was careful to qualify my statements as to Ref 3 to 5 value given my unique circumstances and stated:
"Put in perspective, the differences are obvious and ___well worth the increase in retail price (to me)___, but impressions may vary from system to system depending on context.
My only sensitivity here was having motives questioned or some inference that my comments were protecting an "ego" related purchase. If Dev says that comment was not directed at my mini-review I'll accept that fwiw. |
