Audio Research Ref 5 preamp

Hi Patrice,

Simply turn on the ref 5, connect a source and play music, the ref 110 does not have to be on. I have been told that each source input has a break-in period, so I would start with the source input you most often critically listen to.

I am totally enjoying my REF 5 and at 700 hrs, the sound is magical.

All the best,
Ken Klein

hi

could you tell me if we can burn the REF 5 without turning on the REF 110
in order to have the 600 hours on counter and improuve the best sound the REF 5 can do ?

thanks
patrice
France

I too am a happy owner of the Ref 3 preamp, but I also intend to wait for the Ref 7 preamp which will undoubtedly be audibly superior to the not-yet-released Ref 6 preamp. :)

No, I stand corrected. My Tung-sol 6550s were made in Russia. Even so, they sure sound pretty good to my ears.

yeah, I have the American version. I originally bought them for extra tube for a Cayin KT 88 (was using 6550s in place of the 88s). Okay, then I will drop the Tung Sol in the ARC REF 5. Thanks for the helpful response.

Kclone - I assume you mean original US-made Tung Sol 6550s, which run fine in ARC power supplies. I also think they sound better there than current Russian tubes do. The original Tung Sol puts out a bit less power than a 6550A or 6550C (35 watts as opposed to 42, I believe), but I don't think there is much question that they were the best sounding 6550's ever made.

Compared to my old Ref 3 it has tighter bass and plays complex demanding passages more cleanly. I guess I would call it more " precise". To me it was worth it but some might prefer the Ref 3's darker character. - Jim

say I want to tube roll the stock 6550c tube. I have a Tung Sol 6550, is it okay if I drop that in? I just want to make sure because I don't know what 6550c means in comparison to 6550. Also, there hasn't been any post, buzz or reviews on this preamp lately. Any owner impressions to add?

Kurt,

I found about the same thing when I did a direct a/b with the Ref 5 an Ref 3. Nice job......

.
I have no interest in auditioning the Ref5. If I hear it and like it, I won't be able to sleep until I get one. So, I'll save myself the stress and sleep and stick with the Ref3. I'm still thrilled with and in love with the Ref3.
.

Okay Guys,

Well, I had a chance to do an A/B comparison between the ARC Ref. 3, (which my friend has had in his system for over a year), and the ARC Ref. 5, (which a friend of his lent to him, as he was going to sell it, as the synergy between the Ref. 5 and his system was just not there apparently). My friend's system is pretty neutral, being neither warm sounding or analytical. (It is the best system I have ever heard, and the one I try to emulate with my own system.) I should also point out that he used balanced cables, (Jena Labs Pathfinders), for the inputs, and Nordost Valhalla cables for the speakers.

We listened to various music, from rock (including the new 45 rpm version of Tull's Aqualung, which is fantastic, if you have not heard it yet), to folk, (Kingston Trio), to jazz, (Webster's Soulville), to Classical (various pieces, but mostly violin concertos, which was the majority of what we listened to). We listened to this via his complete Brinkmann analog setup, (EMT cartridge, 10.5 arm and balance table). We did not listen to any digital, (either CD or SACD), as we both prefer the sound of analog.

Well, to be short and sweet, the Ref. 3 is very close to the Ref. 5 to my ears. (My friend agrees, but he felt there was more of a difference than I did, I think. Enough that he is probably going to buy the Ref. 5 from his friend, and sell his Ref. 3.) I could hear that there was a bit deeper and quicker bass response from the Ref. 5. This was fairly noticeable, but it was not a huge difference. I think if we had not done a direct A/B comparison, (i.e. if I had heard it one day and then the other the next day), I might not have picked up on it. That was the biggest difference, IMHO. (And for my friend that was enough in itself, because he feels his system is just slightly bass shy. I disagree, but it's his system, so what do I know?!)

In addition, there were some other minor differences, such as the initial impact of piano keys being just slightly faster on the Ref. 5. I also noticed that there was a bit more ambiance from the Ref. 5, (i.e. room echoes from the concert hall). But IMHO, these were very small differences.

I should also point out that the Ref. 5 does benefit, (albeit very slightly), from being placed upon a inert shelf. My friend has a Gran Prix Monaco shelving system. However, he has only one Carbon Fiber shelf, (the rest are acrylic). When the Ref. 3 was in its usual spot on this carbon fiber shelf, it sounded much closer to the Ref. 5 than when it was on the acrylic shelf and the Ref. 5 was on the carbon fiber shelf. (Yeah, go figure that it would make that much of a difference, huh?! But it did.)

So, if you were to ask me, is it worth the additional cost to upgrade from the Ref. 3 to the Ref. 5?
I would say "No".
My reasoning is that I am broke, and the additional cost is beyond my reach. (The price of a used Ref. 3 is about $5K, and the price of a used Ref. 5 is about $7K, or about 40% more.) The Ref. 3 is a very fine preamp, and much better than its predecessors the Ref. 1 and Ref. 2, and it is within spitting distance of the Ref. 5. I would be very happy to have the Ref. 3 in my system. And, if I were not broke, I would gladly buy my friend's Ref. 3, if, and/or when, he sells it.

But if you ask my friend, he would say "Yes", it is worth it.
His reasoning is that it does indeed make a positive difference, and therefore, it is worth it. And given his system, I can easily see his logic, and would agree with it. Since his friend bought it used here on Audiogon, the cost to upgrade will probably be somewhere between $1,500-$2,000, which while a significant sum of money, does provide for a definite improvement, albeit a small one. And given his incredible system, improvements are inherently small, and truly expensive, so to normally get that much improvement, that sum of money is money well spent.

Anyway, those are my two cents worth, so take from it what you will.

Better bass, probably?

What sonic differences did "the other two" hear that made them prefer the 6010D over the Ref3/5?

Hi guys,

the comparison was very interesting and was done in a blind text method, the only difference being switching out pre-amps, this was done in my own set-up and I had five other individuals to assist over a four day time period and then we all met on the last day listened again.

We all agree that there are differences between them, after listing we discussed what we heard and did we feel they were substantial, jaw dropping, a nite and day difference, enough to justify the upgrade difference financially?

When we refer to this specific upgrade, we are referring to the out of pocket money currently, what a Ref3 is fetching now on the market along with buying a Ref5 for and doing the comparison as we did.

I believe it will just come down to a personal preference but non of us felt it was.

Looking at what a Ref3 is fetching now a days and then looking at the additional out of pocket money to move to a Ref5 the Ref3 is a real sweet deal, if the cost difference was closer say under $2K then that would assist making it a lot easier to justify, at least for me so if anyone can assist send me a personal message. I will say three out of the five who heard them in my set-up did not feel so and said they would be looking else where possibly the Ref Phono2 instead suggesting better to put your monies there. The other two preferred my MBL 6010D pre so go figure and that's what makes this hobby so interesting.

In the end we all got to have some laughs, share some stories, drink and eat, I got some more music pce names so it was all good.

just to throw some more mud in the water. I decided to purchase a slightly used Ref 3 over a Ref 5 after a head to head comparison in my home system (Ref 210s, Vandersteen 5As, Ref Phono, Oracle turntable, etc.). I was previously using a Ref 2 Mk 1 so the step to a Ref 3 was quite revolutionary (with my latest system). note: the Ref 2 MkI mated really well with my older VT-100 MkII of the same era and has convinced my that importance of system synergy in that context... Perhaps that initial impression was enough to convince me that the Ref 3 was good enough. I did hear a "smoother" top end with the Ref 5 on some recordings, but by and large the differences were not significant enough for me to purchase the Ref 5 at this time. I do want to audition the Ref Phono2 at some time, which many have told me provides a more significant performance jump over the Ref Phono (as compared to a Ref 5 / Ref 3). In the end, it comes down to personal preference as many have said and what value one places on what one hears in their particular system.

I believe Shunyata was being used

I agree with Sdrenslow that the ARC gear sounded good - especially on the Vandys. I am not a fan of the ARC Ref 3 (even with Vandy 5A), but I'm guessing the Ref5 is better since I loved the sound at the show.

Do you know which cables were being used with these ARC systems?

Both set-ups at RMAF 2009 with Ref 5 were fantastic. One with Vandersteen Model 7 and the other with the Wilson Sashas. Both had a complete stack of Audio Research Reference components: CD8, Ref 5, Ref 2 Phono, and Ref 110 amp.

Personally, I was never that motivated to spend time rolling tubes. I did it once with a PH3SE and sure, the Mullard NOS tubes I used did seem to improve things, etc. etc. I spent time analyzing the differences and how to quantify and qualify them in words. To me, tube rolling is an ancillary swirl, as it were. I started wondering if I was actually getting unused NOS tubes, and if they were worth the premium $. It all seemed like time taken away from simply enjoying the music.

AR uses tubes they can easily get. I am inclined to conclude that that's good enough for me. All that said, however, if someone were to take the time to make the comparisons and had a strong recommendation, I would be inclined to listen up and maybe consider for the next tube replacement. I welcome others' points of view and perspective.

Hi Guys,

Very interesting discussion.

I assume the comparisons made till now are based on the original ARC tube configuration. I know that exchange of the ARC tubes by NOS tubes has also a remarkable impact. Has anybody had a chance to compare REF5 and REF3 with "tungsol blackplate" and the 6H30 DR's "diamonds". Next question of course will be what happens if you change the original ARC tubes in the REF5 with the same NOS tubes!

Interesting question. I am happy with my REF210s however maybe there are silver handles on the horizon as one of the upgrades. A little beefier fan/cooling configuration would be a nice upgrade. Circuit boards are already horizontal, so no upgrade there...

Probably around this time replacement of 610T (to match up Ref.5) is already lurking on the horizon somewhere at ARC.. Anybody anything yet? Anyone remembered the time lapse in between release of Ref.3 and 610T? Would be great if ARC could improve their line of Reference amps in similar fashion and magnitude as they did with the pre.

I had the Ref 3 and compared it side by side with the MBL 6010D which I kept and I sold the Ref. When I moved from tube to Spectron power amps, the Ref 3 was not a good match and the MBL was much better. Not a question of the Ref 3 being inferior, but I suspect the impedance made the difference and the MBL was more natural and controlled proving yet again the importance of system synergy in the real world.

While I am very impressed with the 6010, I would like to try the Ref 5, but not with my Spectrons. In the appropriately matched system the Ref preamps are as good as it gets and I am sure the Ref 5 will offer state of the art performance for a 'reasonable' high end price and quality dealer back up. If you like the ARC house sound, which has a definable character, I am not sure I would need to go from a 3 to a 5 as I am sure the changes are incremental.

I bought the Pagode rack some years ago when I still had the Ref3 and CD7. I had an old Target that was solid and had a special decoupled upper shelf for the turntable that I used for the CD7, but I was astonished with difference when I moved the system - everything become more solid and bass become quicker, voices were more defined and articulate, becoming more dramatic. After a few months I returned to the old rack to try another system in the Pagode and it was a big step back - some parts of the music seemed blurred.

Micro, what was the change contributed by the ref5 before you moved to a new rack? I wonder if the rack then should be mated to the the REF5 to further improve it?

Dev, you just wrote it much better than me! But I got a similar improvement in my ARC system CD8 + Ref5 moving it to a Finite Element Pagode Master Reference rack.
This rack is unhappily very expensive, but was one improvement I could hear! Curiously, at that time I also owned a Dartzeel preamp that was much less sensitive to placing.

I would not mind an audition as well. I'll pay shipping both ways and pay 100.00 for letting me listen to the REF 5.

Well Dev, this is a most interesting development indeed. For many of us who have been listening and participating in this thread with the attendant emotional fluctuations, re-evaluated cost/enjoyment ratios and personal reflections on what it all means anyway, now are no doubt quietly and patiently waiting for the latest report. Well, I am anyway :)

I was contacted by someone who saw this thread whom actually in the past bought amps from me and just happens this person bought a Ref5 which I'm told by him is well broken-in and was nice enough to lend to me so it has been in my system since late yesterday, thank you!

I have not had much time to listen as of yet (aprox 3 hours) but here are some of my initial thoughts so far.

I will say that there are differences, what I did notice after listening to a few pcs of music that I'm familiar with is I heard immediately lower floor noise, blacker back ground and we all know what that does, micro and micro-dynamics have improved which is nice, transients seem to be quicker also, midrange difference are more pronounced, with a bottom end I prefer which appears cleaner and lower allowing you hear and feel the actual bass notes specially on stand up bass it's allot better. I also noticed putting your hand over top of the unit which in my set-up is siting between shelves and appears not to throw off as much heat which really wasn't all that much with the Ref3 or an issue any ways but just a note of what I'm noticing. Most likely because of how the layout of tubes are now even though the actual tubes and number of tubes have not changed, just spaced out do to the board configuration being different but I'm sure this will assist in providing a longer life span.

These are my own opinions and in my own set-up.

I will have the pre for the weekend so I will no more, that being said back to listening and I'll report later of my over all findings.

Hi Unoear, no problem, I see your point, thanks for the clarification.

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.

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.

all this ref3/ref5 hoo haa makes me want to trade in my Mac c2300.......for a c500!!!!
whew.
Pepe

Hello David...I do apologize for my meandering prose. I was just going out of my way not to offend anyone that has the ability to obtain any audio products at favorable industry accommodation discount pricing...it tends to make the eventual switching cost proposition very close to cash-flow neutral. A great place to be...if and when you can get it!

After reading this I realize that the Ref3 I have listened to and coveted, over my Cary preamp, is really a piece of audio-crap and anyone who owns one should be embarassed.

To help out those poor souls stuck with such a glaringly inferior piece of gear, I will save you the trouble of throwing it in the trash, and have UPS come pick it up for you. No, you don't even have to box the offending unit up, I will pay someone to do it for you. I know it's magnanomous of me to do it, but I am all about helping out my audiophile brethren.

If you happen to have that aweful Ref Phono stage (there's now a much better Ref 2) I will take that off your hands as well.

Don't feel sorry for me, I know the gear sucks, I just have one of those hard-to-embarass personalities, and would love to help you out.

Hi Dev, I was responding to the near incomprehensible (at least to me) prose from Unoear.

I am in agreement that one would need to hear the unit in one's own set up to justify the expense, at any level.

Happy listening!

Hi David_coppell, no that is not what I wrote so lets not get mislead, I clearly wrote;

"I would still want to hear one within my set-up to see if it justifies even that amount though."

So in other words, if Dev were able to a get good price he could be more disposed to pick one up? LOL....

Dev,
Since you prefer the Ref 3 to the Mbl 6010D, why not sell the latter (for a
lot more than the former) and get a Ref 5? I've actually been considering the MBL for quite some time; it's lack of a mono switch is distressing to me. I had a
disappointing experience with the Ref 3 which I attribute to the usual problem of dealing with the impedances of 2 amps (I have a bi-amped system) that ARC
has always had. Even though I'm in the 'safe zone' of about 33K (according to
Ohm's Law), there is a reason that ARC amps all have very high input impedances....150K-300K. I know this is getting somewhat off topic, but I
wonder if you can tell me the sonic differences between the Ref 3 and 6010D? Or, perhaps e-mail me privately. Thanks.

Hi Bvdiman, really like your set ups and enjoy reading your threads, only wish you were close enough to be able come and listen, no one around me has such and I'm sure sounds marvelous.

Regarding the Ref3 and Ref5, please if you or anyone can do so send me a personal message because I would be more than pleased to intertain such, I would still want to hear one within my set-up to see if it justifies even that amount though.

Samual I just want to let you know I think you have a marvelous system also and enjoy reading your thoughts but when others like my self provide info. you shouldn't take it so personally as I was not addressing you directly but for what ever the reason it went that way but hopefully finished and we can move on.

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 Dev,
I think you should be able to get some discount on the new Ref5. And that the final trade up figure amounting to additional $4-5K against a Ref3 is realistically fairer.

While I was at the dealers my intentions being directed at listening to the Ref5 and purchasing but I did get to hear the new New Jeff Rowland Criterion pre, besides the stunning eye candy look it seemed to offer more sonic difference.

I also own the MBL 6010D pre. which is a really nice pre but I still prefer the Ref3 over all mainly due to the 3D images, stage presence, and just over all more realistic to me.

Samuel if you read my thread carefully you will read that I said I enjoyed reading your review and you do not see me arguing regarding your findings, these are your opinions which are okay. I have not demoed in my own system so I can't provide as of yet a comparison but will eventually and was sharing my initial findings which obviously by reading your threads did not like. You seem to be on some type of power trip along with sarcasm or something, for what ever reason you seem to have the need to say "I have six years of psych schooling and 15 years of field experience" doesn't impress me at all and then you say "See you at the med window ... :o)" Samuel now I know why we are always short of them, you are the guy always in line.

Guys I want you to know that no where did I suggest I did not like the Ref5 but just providing info. of my recent experience.

Lets put it this way I'm looking for a new pre right now, the Ref3 is going for how much even though I own one still but have to sell it or trade-in and the Ref5 being aprox. a 8K upgrade, is the difference worth it.

IMHO It appears that both Dev and Samuel may be measuring their expected value calculations from the point of view regarding the bias of their cost of purchasing the Ref 5. If the lower actual relative buying opportunities for the new user/purchaser of the ARC preamplifier is wildly variable between these two gentlemen, it could have the possibility of accentuating the potential cost/benefit perceptions of the potential gains of the Ref 5 over the Ref 3. If that price is marketly different, the purchasing entry point along or within the marketing channel could and would most likely affect that bias of measuring utility.

Gentlemen, am I going to have to bring a REF5 home for a weekend to audition and settle this thing once and for all?
:)

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)

Samuel,

I can see you are one of those types I mentioned by your response above, take it easy. I never attacked anyone's opinion and enjoyed reading your review but provided another version in which you seem to have a problem with and that tells me allot.

As I mentioned when I get arround to it I'll get one and have a listen within my own set-up but I'm in no hurry now. Just to let you know I had a listen with the Ref5 in a system that I have heard a few times prior and this time arround it didn't have my jaw dropping saying, wow! this pre has just changed everything I gotta have it. I referred to the dealer saying, is it just me but I don't notice much of a difference from when the Ref3 was hooked-up and that's when the comment came about.

I would rather wait and hear it within my own set-up to hear if there really is all that much of a difference as a couple of you point out to justify the cash upgrade difference but others are also allowed to provide info. right without being attacked.