Audio Research Ref 5 preamp

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.

Hi guys, this dealer is one of the first original ARC dealers arround, along with ARC caries all kinds of other gear including Jeff Rowland, Boulder, DCS, Esoteric, JM Labs, Sonus Faber and the list goes on. They have all the toys to play with and to compare and as per my thread above that's what I was told. I have not compared in my own set-up as I have already mentioned but what 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, for me it's not.

I'm sure the dealer would have liked a sale especially when I was prepared to buy but being a long time client told me what they did so all I can say is I'll find out down the road but as I mentioned in no hurry now.

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.

I wish I could say that the improvements of the Ref5 are slight versus the Ref3, but IMHO they are not.
The Ref 5 has lower noise and higher resolution, but also handles dynamics in a more musical way.
I have measured the noise and distortion spectrum of the Ref5 and both broadband noise and mains harmonics are really lower than those of the Ref3.

Dev, I share your sentiments and thoughts, and also own a Ref3. I actually prefer the horizontal board layout of the ref5, and in some ways cannot understand why they ever used vertical boards, however with the cover on the preamp, I usually do not dwell on it!
At this level of quality and performance, improvements are going to be slight as you mention. I think they are charging more because they can. I will borrow one to try in my setup sometime, but I am not in a hurry either.

>how the heck can these guys justify charging more then the
>Ref3 list price when it's less work etc.

Just consider that the usd/euro rate is less than .70 today.

I owned a Ref3 and now own a Ref5. It was a mystery for me how ARC could sell the Ref3 for 10000 usd - other preamps in this price did not have the build quality of the Ref3.
Looking at current used prices of the Ref3 at audiogon it is now definitively a true audiophile bargain !

Okay I would like to jump in here and provide my 2 cents.

I'm a happy owner of the Ref3 for many years now and reading replies here some I must say shocked me and suggest I gotta just get this new Ref5 because it's just that much better than my Ref3. I don't know so please don't start getting all defensive because I have not compared as of yet in my set-up but reading I decided to visit my dealer who is a long time ARC dealer on the intentions of actually buying one. This specific dealer is one of the oldest and I have known them for over 20 years now so one would think that they would know.

I was told today there are sonic differences but very slight, one might prefer one over the other depending your system but most defiantly not night and day. I took a peak inside and saw the design layout, how the heck can these guys justify charging more then the Ref3 list price when it's less work etc.

I will get one into my set-up some day to compare but now I'm not in such a hurry!

Interesting. I never noticed any "electronic" artifacts in listening to the Ref3 (or any ARC tubed gear for that matter). I am not sure what you mean by "organic".
OTH, I might be interested in the bass and mid-base especially where I think there may be at times some unwarranted "warmth" in the Ref3. The ref 2 by comparison has what I would call some bloat in mid upper base. I never cared much for the Ref2 Mk1, the Ref was a major improvement.

to answer your question. I believe the Ref-5 has a more organic sound to it that the Ref-3, less electronic.

there 'ya go --- happy listening!

It really doesn't matter to me if they are able to build it for less money. What matters to me is;were they able to make a significant improvement, I think they did. Further refining and improving something great must be quite a task for R&D there is a cost here too. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to make improvement tweeks in my own system and wind up making it worse . My hat's off to them on the Ref-5. The 2k increase in price is well worth the benefit.

Right. ARC is definitely top end and enjoys a healthy pre-owned market also. It seemed to me that the 2K price increase for the Ref5 was probably carefully considered. They would have to establish perception that the unit was indeed superior, but not overprice it. If they chose price same as Ref 3, it might tend to lessen the perception of the Ref3.
Then there are the new ARC owners who no doubt are looking at margins and profit for their investment. A casual look inside the Ref5 might indicate that manufacturing costs are less, i.e., one board instead of multiple, side mounting of other components. To further differentiate they change cosmetics. What is it really worth? Whatever we as listeners are willing to pony up, just like anything else?

Agree.. At their price point, Ref.3 in their days was the one to beat, and I believe even more so their Ref.5 now with the said vast improvements made.

Actually McIntosh goes up too. However it's all about no compromise quality and for the money ARC is right up at the top.

The price of Lafite or Latour goes up. The only one in audio which doesn't devaluate with the years ?
FM Acoustics

same equation for Audio = cars

in the moment you pay it, you loose 30% of the money you put in

Well, of course no one can argue with the merits of R&D. And obviously to stay in business manufacturers must manufacture. I am not clear on where the cost of great sound is going down in the high end audio business, however, considering the increased price of the Ref5.

Perhaps it is like the wine business and consumption in the U.S. in which there are now plenty of pretty darn good and improved wines to be had at reasonable prices, however the cost of Lafitte, Latour have gone to the stratosphere.

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

LOL, I hear ya! I guess will find that out after it comes out. Hey it may already be on the drawing board.

One can only wonder what shortcomings the Ref5 has that the Ref6 will ameliorate.

Having had many preamps in this category over the last 10 years to include VTL 7.5 mk1, cj ACT-2, cj Art mk-2, ARC Ref-3 twice,and Mcintosh c-500. I believe the Ref_5 tops them all by quite a margin. The first thing I noticed with the Ref 5 Is more information and greater transparency in a very relaxing musical fashion. I found the Ref 3 to be just a tad bit mechanical which is why you see the cj preamp in my history. The top end extension of the REF-5 is so clean and pristine but never fatiguing. I hear so much more information with the ref-5 and don't find myself straining to hear little bits of information in the background. Therefore my listening session is more relaxed. Everything is openly illuminated. Soundstaging and imaging are remarkable, so much depth and expansiveness. This is the kind of gear that causes you pull out old music and hear what you've been missing. A very exciting and fun piece. I think they finally got it right this time.

I would love to do a shoot out between the REF 5 and the best VAC preamp

In my case, a comparison of my old Ref3 to an FMA 245 about one a half years ago. Fairly similar conclusion then, thus my concurring with Sam's statement. I'd probably also add, in that comparison, the Ref3's extension at the frequency extremes (ie.high and low), felt to be lacking by quite a fair bit too. Still a fine pre-amp though, and should be a good snatch at around 4k now?

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?

That should make all the Reference 3 owners happy

Samuel--In short, the Ref 3 by comparison has noticeable mid-bass overhang and sounds noticeably slower, lacking immediacy, coherence and upper frequency transparency.

I concur with Samuel on shortcomings of the Ref3, couldn't have said it better myself. Seems to me like they (ARC) too have realized these and ameliorated them with their new 5--hopefully.

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.

Missioncoonery,

Maybe, but then again, I've found that I get the best deals from people who like to experiment with equipment, which means that the Ref. 3 I buy, will probably have changed hands two or maybe three times. (The Ref. 3 has such a reputation that most people would be willing to try it out for exactly that it has a great reputation. And for some people, it may not be "tubey" enough, as it is a rather neutral sounding preamp. I on the other hand, who have and like solid state equipment, think it sounds more than "tubey" enough, and yet it is extremely quiet, unlike the previous Ref. 1 and 2 preamps from ARC).

Not that it matters too much in the short term, as I am broke right now anyway. But hopefully next year I'll be in a better position to buy one. Although, that assumes that the economy recovers for my industry (construction) in the next year. And here in California, I have virtually no hope that it will recover, due to the incompetents who are in charge of the state government, (and don't even get me started about the federal government).

Thanks for the link Kurt. Grant did a very good job indeed of describing his impressions of the differences between the Ref 3 and the Ref 5. I agree with you that the Ref 3 is very good. Keep in touch, because if I do decide to upgrade to the Ref 5, I'll have one on the market for sale.

Kurt_tank... You maybe too late on that one..most who do the merry-go-round with ARC gear have already stepped up and dumped the 3..

Here is a link to the thread that was referenced above, by Rgurney.

Samuel's Thoughts on the Ref. 3 vs. Ref. 5

It seemed very informative actually.

I too am interested in the discussion, but for the opposite reason. I am very impressed with the Ref. 3, (a friend has one), and I am considering swapping out my preamp for that one. I am hoping that all the Ref. 3 owners will start flooding the market with their used Ref. 3's, in order to buy the new Ref. 5, (that way I can pick up a Ref. 3 cheap.)

FYI, I would think long and hard before giving up the Ref. 3. It is the best preamp ARC has made in a long time, IMHO. (It impresses me quite a bit, whereas the Ref. 1 and 2 were merely very good preamps, and did not impress me in nearly the same way. FYI, my friend with the Ref. 3 upgraded from the Ref. 2, (and from the Ref. 1 before that).

On 7/6/09, Samuel gave a nice assessment of his early experience with the REF 5, comparing it with the REF 3. Do a search here.