Audio Research VT80SE amp vs Prima Luna EVO 400 or 300
It’s time to get a newer tube amp after years of happy listening to vintage mono tube amps- MFA M-120 to be precise. I will mate the new amp with my upgraded/updated MFA Luminescence preamp and power Sonus Faber Guarneri Homage speakers. The Lumi is deservedly a legend and has a fabulous phono stage, to boot.
I’ve read many reviews and comments about both the ARC and the Prima Luna gear but would greatly appreciate a response from folks who’ve had experience with either one or the other or preferably both.
My musical tastes are quite eclectic, but primarily "classical" and do not include heavy metal, nor much R+R or pop at this stage of my life. I’m partial to what some might call warm, romantic and "euphonic," and from what I know, Audio Research tends to be less "euphonic" than some other tube components. At the same time, I enjoy listening to subtle details that more syrupy components can obscure. Unfortunately, I cannot audition anything prior to purchase, neither in my home nor at a dealer. After much experimentation, I am convinced that SF GH's LOVE tubes!
if plenty of cool features, an excellent website, and value for $ is more important to a user than ultimate sound quality, primaluna offers a lot
otoh, audio research reference series is still superior for most applications when it comes to sound quality (somewhat to significantly superior, depending on speaker matching and system resolution)
primaluna has definitely taken a big bite out of arc’s business on the lower end of the tube amp market (as seen by arc, and as such under renew ownership they are trying to implement more convenience features etc etc), but this is largely a function of high and ever escalating prices of the arc gear - that said, arc’s sound quality remains unimpeachable, and a cut above
no affiliation to either arc or pl - but a current owner of amps from each maker
Oy....I guess I am a bit late here to this discussion, but here goes.
It really seems like a no brainer, the PL-Evo 400 vs the AR-VT80, or 80SE. I would say read the reviews, but I know how some of you feel about that.
While I have not personally owned either of the amps being discussed here, I have owned the AR-Ref 75se, bought as a Ref 75se, not upgraded. Before I bought the Ref 75se, I read all the reviews on the earlier Ref 75. The reviewers gush and gushed about it, so I was intrigued: I bought one. However, before it was shipped to me by the dealer I bought it from, it turned out to be a stolen unit. The dealer informed me, and the sale was canceled.
Never-the-less, I was still intrigued, so I continued my search. Since time had passed, I began seeing reviews of the AR Ref 75se, some by the same reviewers who had spoken so fondly of the 75: They gushed and gushed about how great it was, and how much it was an improvement over the previous 75. Me, I just almost vomited. Yet, as I noted, I obtained the amplifier.
While the 75se was a decent sounding amp, I could not understand what all the hype was about. The 75se had no auto biasing circuit, so every time I turned it off to turn it on again later, I had to rebias it. It never exactly held the bias from turn off to turn on, though while it was on and the bias adjusted, then adjust again an hour later, then adjusted again a hour or so later after that, it usually held the bias as long as it was on. When I say on, I mean sometimes I had it on without turning it off for a week at a time.
But again, what was the big deal? Biasing was a pain in the posterior too, what with that stupid tool: Further, the amp seemed rather flimsy, and while inserting the biasing tool into the biasing holes, I was always afraid I would push the little plastic dials in; and the tool was hard to align with the slits in the little plastic dials. In so many ways, It really was not, except for its physical size and those meters, a particularly impressive amplifier. The VT80/80se at least has auto biasing, but uses the same two KT 150 tubes per side as the 75se to produce 75 watts per channel, so it probably sounds similar to the 75se, abet, easier to bias, or not bias.
Now take the PrimaLuna. All the reviews I have read about it suggest it is an excellent sounding tube amplifier. They say it is definitely a modern sounding amplifier, but still has the flavor sonically of a tube amplifier. They don't gush and gush and gush about it, vomit, vomit, but the reviews are good. Then too, just go to their website and check out all the information they give you; and check out that point to point wiring. Talk about tube amplifiers!
You know, I am 65 years old, and getting older. I have been playing with tube amplifiers since I was 9 years old when my father bought home a Marantz 8B with a pair of AR3 speakers. I was even partners in an audio store with a buddy of mine and his father for more than 15 years. I have heard so many tube amplifiers, and really, I would bet you in a blind test that many people here could not tell the difference between a HK-Citation Two and a AR-Ref 75se; if they could, they might find that they preferred the sound of the HK, or even an older AR tube amp. You know, this hobby is more about the phycology of boredom and familiarity, then it is about anything else. But getting back to the jist of this discussion.
A brand new PrimaLuna Evo 400 will set you back about 5g and change. A brand new Audio Research VT 80/80se will set you back in the neighborhood of around 10g and change, not withstanding any possible discounts available regarding either amplifier. Again, this is, as I said, a no brainer even if you are considering buying one used.
One last time, go to the PL website and see.
AR-VT80/80se: Two tubes, KT88s, per side for 75 watts a channel output.
PL-Evo 400, four tubes per side , 6L6Gs, 6L6GCs, EL34s, KT66s, KT77, 6550s, KT 88s, KT90s, KT120s and KT150s, per side for 70 watts/channel output.
AR-VT80/80se: Auto Biasing, with fuse protection on each output tube. If tube goes bad, you must physically replace it: Get out the soldering iron, or call AR and let them know its coming. And while you at it, give FedEx/UPS a call too.
PL-Evo 400: Full adaptive auto biasing with constant tube monitoring. If a tube goes bad, aab shuts down the amp and points you toward the bad boy. Just replace it. Thank god because I misplaced my soldering, and my FedEx/UPS account is in arrears because I spent all that money on an amplifier.
Need I go on. I'll say it again, this really is a no brainer. Go to the PL website, that's all you need to do. And if this hobby is as much about boredom and familiarity as I think it is, which amplifier do you think is going to keep you engaged the longest?
Score PrimaLuna Evo 400!
PS: Don't get me wrong I really like AR. I've owned quite a few of their vintage tube amps, and as of now my preamp is the AR LS26. Its is back at Audio Research at the moment though, for some trouble shooting and upgrading.
Inaddition, I've owned countless tube amplifiers from so many different manufactures. I would also suggest, if you're looking for a modern tube amp with all the bells and whistles, you might consider an Ayon Triton 3 Gen 4. I believe it is Gen4.
Anyway, I bought one not more that a year or two ago for about 5 grand. It was a 20g amp new. A ridiculously big, heavy and beautiful amplifier, with 4 KT 150s per side, and huge, gorgeous, shinny transformers. Regulated and controlled everything: auto biasing, high and low voltage supplies, regulated filament (heater) supplies, etc. The amp is a frigen thrill to behold while just turning on and off. It goes through all these checks and biasing tests, clicking on and off sections, low voltage, high voltage, filament voltage, etc., in stage. I miss that amplifier, but I still have access to it. Buddy of mine has it with instructions not to sell. Anyway, like I said, it is a ridiculously big and incredibly heavy, so what I am lusting after right now is the PrimaLuna EVO 400. Pretty much like the Ayon but on a smaller scale. Its going to have to wait, though, because right now I have too many amps and must sell some frist
After burning in the Prima Luna Evo 300 integrated for about 130 hours, out of curiosity, I decided to swap the factory EL34’s with some spare veteran Ruby KT-88’s I keep on hand for my vintage tube amps. Well, much to my delight, the music coming out of my Sonus Faber Guarneri Homage speakers is far more engaging- more dynamic, delineated, "airy" and much less recessed. I did not suspect this dramatic improvement. I’m also going to try different small tubes as many have suggested. Best to all of you.
@passet02. Much too esoteric for me, no matter how good they may be. I’ve had more than my share of "esoteric" audio gear, and am done. But thanks for posting.
@tuberculin Thanks for your contribution. One reason I have the Evo 300 integrated on trial is that the proprietor of the store runs the exact same speakers as mine, only he’s using an Evo 400.
After only 15 hours of break-in I have to say that so far so very, very good. I’ve pretty much decided to go with an integrated and might just sell all my MFA gear. The MFA gear requires a LOT more tubes, for one thing. :) I've got at least another 85 hours of run-in time ahead. Happy so far.
@ rushfan71 has it down. I have the PL DP HP's also and I drive 85 db speakers with ease. It's linearity mates well with the linear impedance of my speakers. By rolling the 12AU7s, as he says, you can have everything you want. The point to point wiring and overall build quality are a big selling point. As best as I can tell the only advantage of the EVO is they are balanced and if your preamp isn't balanced there is not much advantage to the EVO as a power amp.
Most importantly, be sure your speakers mate with the amp in damping and sensitivity, as I am sure you have already done.
Thanks for your suggestion and good cheer. I want to wait until the Evo has at least 100 hours before experimenting with other tubes, but I likely will try either Brimars or Mullards.
@docfletch Thanks. But I’m a confirmed tubeaholic. And after many years of using separates, I'm increasingly inclined to go with an integrated amplifier.
@keeferdog. Thanks. I will say that after a mere 12 hours of run-in time on the Evo 300, my SF Guarnieri Homage’s are sounding mighty nice. :)
Don't hesitate to try different 12AU7 tubes and their variants in the two front center positions on the integrated. They will change the sound characteristics more than any other tube swap.
My advice is, skip the tube amps and go for a Pass Labs class "A" amp!
My pre-amp is an ARC LS 28.
I have had the ARC Ref 75SE and VT 80 in my system, and they were pretty good. However, I noticed that they (the amps) were a little on the bright side. So I decided to try something else. I got out of the tube power amp business and got a pair of Pass XA 60.8's. All I can say is, "Wow!" The tube pre-amp in combination with the class "A" solid state is absolutely fantastic! I play all types of music, from Beastie Boys to Miles Davis to Led Zeppelin. My speakers are Harbeth Monitors 40.2. Everything sounds completely natural and real, almost like being in the studio with some vinyl recordings.
Don't be fooled by the low power ratings on the Pass Labs gear. Most of us don't push more than 10-15 watts during our regular listening anyway. Besides, the power ratings on the Pass gear are fairly underrated; they are much more powerful that the rated specs suggest.
I purchased my Pass amps from Reno HiFi (renohifi.com). They do in-home demo's for all their Pass gear. I recommend contacting them if you're interested. They are really great folks, and they have some incredible deals on demo and used components.
Don't hesitate to try different 12AU7 tubes and their variants in the two front center positions on the integrated. They will change the sound characteristics more than any other tube swap. Although I also changed my power tubes to NOS Mullard EL34 XF2's and was rewarded with a sound with more weight and openess.
After much further research and consideration, I have decided to test drive a Prima Luna Evo 300 integrated. The dealer offers a generous 60-day trial period, which raises my comfort level considerably. The dealer also owns a pair of the same speakers as I do and chooses to use an Evo Integrated to power them. He could use any electronics on the planet.
I will report back. Thanks again for all your contributions.
Thanks very much. I have been a Paragon customer as well, and concur that they are an excellent retailer. I'm pretty much convinced at this point to go with an integrated.
As an addendum to both my previous and original post, the longer I consider the question I posed, the more I’m inclined to modernize both my preamp and amplifier, with reliability in addition to SQ as prime motivators. It may even be, that a modern tube integrated will be my path forward. Thanks again for everyone’s thoughtful contributions. Be well, take care, be safe, and get your vaccinations ASAP.
I'm starting to see where this could go for me. Sell or retire everything in my system except my speakers and TT and start anew. What a wonderful, but crazy hobby! Thanks again, folks.
i would concur to what has been said regarding the ref 75
mine is not an SE version - i have higher efficiency speakers so do not need the extra drive of the kt150’s but in my system with the amp running kt120’s the sound is wonderful...
there is a cleanliness and utter purity to having just a pair of output tubes per side compared to four of them... i feel this has been true all the way back to the VT series where the smaller VT50-60 versions plays cleaner and purer (and for longer) than the larger brethren VT100/Ref110 models with double the output tubes
...of course you need to have speakers that can be driven properly with the available power of the smaller amps to benefit from this
@ps If your preamp doesn't have XLR output you could consider a PL Dialogue Premium HP used instead of the Evo 400 with plenty of money left over to try different 12AU7's in the center position of the amp to dial that sound you and the golden eared wife prefer.
Balanced only. It’s a fully balanced amp, and you might want to give that issue a think. Not sure how it would like single ended outputs adapted to XLR from an unbalanced pre. Evo from what I recall is unbalanced (even with the XLR input options).
To quote: "Lastly, seeing the note about biasing, it’s easy on the 75SE. Child’s play. And gives you one more thing to monitor and kid yourself into thinking you’re a participant ..."
My MFA monos are super-easy to bias. The meter is in front as are the controls. I am very comfortable in tube world. :). But maybe I’m just getting soft in my golden years and am starting to look into "set it and forget it." :)
If I go with PL, as good as the E34’s might be, I’ll likely try KT150. I’ll still feel as if I’m a real participant. :)
You fellow tubeaholics rock.
One other thing, is it absolutely the case that the 75SE must use balanced interconnects? If I keep my Lumi pre I cannot do that.
Ken Kessler thinks the REF 75SE is the best amp they ever made, current lineup included. And he literally compiled/authored the latest book about ARC. So, no, I would not agree with the marketer's notion that the 160S blows away the 150SE or the 75SE. My ears, and my reading, tell me that ARC has moved 1-2 degrees away from their traditional sound to add a bit of what my teenage ears liked. But just a smidge. Then you have flat-out improvements with capacitors, resistors, wiring, etc. I wouldn't have moved to the 160S in my trophy system if I didn't like it more. I'll just say this: if they come out with a 260S, I would trade up and sacrifice the 160S for the new toy. But I will never sell my REF 75SE (or REF40). And good call on the KT150s for OP. My 75 always had them, as has the 160S. But I played around with the EL34s v the KT150s in my PL. In that amp, I preferred the EL34s (they softened some leading edges, which you can understand me liking from my first note). But talk about oranges to apples ... the ARC amps that can accommodate KT150s all benefit from that swap, I believe it's fair to say without controversy.
Lastly, seeing the note about biasing, it's easy on the 75SE. Child's play. And gives you one more thing to monitor and kid yourself into thinking you're a participant ...
@BIF, Thanks, and yes, I have learned that the latest Prima Lunas I’m looking into can use KT-150’s. That’s another reason I am interested in them. That, in addition to ease of biasing, gentle driving of tubes, etc, and down-sizing my system somewhat. My mono amps still sound very good but I’m hoping I can improve SQ and do it with a single, newer amp while keeping my Lumi preamp, which of course can only run unbalanced.
Some of my earlier ARC amps used 2 quads of 6550 SED Winged C tubes. The newer ARC amps use KT-150s. There is no comparison. The KT-150s have reserve power capabilities that are significantly greater than 6550s and KT-88s.
When my Ref 150 was upgraded to the SE version, ARC switched out the stock KT-120s for KT-150s. Major difference, especially in bass. The mids and high ends were really nice too.
Google the tube specs on line.
That said, I think the current line Prima Luna line also use KT-150s. It is worth checking.
@jrw1971 - great comments on the ARC Ref 6SE, Ref 75SE and the new Ref 160S.
I just upgraded my Ref 6 linestage to the SE version. And my Ref CD-8 to the Ref CD-9 SE version. Agree 100% that new ARC gear has a significant break-in period. I'd say 100 hours just to begin to appreciate the gear. Although I have read comments from some who say that it takes 600 hours for complete break-in, ... I am not sure there is a lot of significant incremental improvements after 200 hours.
My reactions and impressions about the Ref 6 SE and Ref CD-9 SE as compared to the Ref 6 and REF CD-8, .... in a word: gobsmacked.
jrw1971, .... I find your comments about the Ref 75SE and Ref 160S interesting. I am sure that ARC and many others would say that the Ref 160S is in another league as compared to its predecessor, the Ref 150 SE. I gather from your posts that the differences between the Ref 75 SE and the Ref 160S are more nuanced. I own the Ref 150 SE and think it is a stunner. The KT-150 tubes and other SE changes pushed the old Ref 150 "into another league" ... IMO. Haven't heard the new Ref 160S or M mono-blocks, so I really have no comments there.
But if the OP finds our collective comments helpful, ... in summary, I can't say enough good things about my ARC gear. I never head Prima Luna gear, but I am sure it is quality stuff. So, ... sorry, ... I can't help you make a judgment between ARC and PL.
OP, ... good luck with whatever you decide. I advise that if you are biased (that's a pun) in favor of ARC, try to pick up the Ref 150 SE or the Ref 75 SE (the Ref 150 SE's little bro), even if pre-owned. Wonderful instruments.
Thanks to DaveyF for weighing in. His description of the Guarnieri Homage speakers is accurate and much better articulated than mine.
At this point, I'm leaning toward Audio Research- there are some obvious and other reasons. @flame, thanks for your suggestion re: the ref75. Oh, good, more homework for me! I rarely change quality components so this is a fun adventure.
My experience has been exactly as yours. I had intended to go ref 160s from my ref 75, but found the sound different - as you say. Better in some ways, but at the same time another step in the direction I experienced going from Ref110 to Ref75 (I still miss the low level late night listening on the ref110 - tubey magic).
Anyway, my thought, that you have helped validate, is perhaps PS should consider a lightly used ref75 for similar money to the VT80? I think if you do you won’t be disappointed and you will always be able to move it on and get good money back.
Interesting thread. I am thinking that since the OP owns the same speakers as I do, that the answer to his question is going to be highly dependent on the rest of his gear-- and his room. While IMO the GH’s can sound warm...they are actually not really a ’warm’ speaker. The GH’s, at least IMHO, are so revealing that if you place ’warm’ sounding gear upstream, along with cabling that enhances that...yes, you will get a very warm presentation. OTOH, if you place more revealing and ’neutral’ gear upstream, and cable for that, then you will get a ’neutral’ sound out of the GH’s. The synergy with the GH’s..and the room/gear, is the decider here. Personally, the amp question is a no-brainer to me...and the answer is the ARC.
@jrw1971"I waffle between my teenage brain seeking punch and sizzle, to a more adult appetite for effortlessness and flow."i can relate, even tho' I'm well into my "golden years." My wallet is a bit too thin for the upper echelon ARC gear but happy for you!
Flame — hard to say. Different rooms and very different speakers. Some time ago when I replaced the 75SE with the 160S, in the same room and system, paired with DAWs, the 160S brought dynamics and “jump factor" to a whole new level. It is dynamic as hell. Spanish Moon from Waiting for Columbus became a thrilling ride; air drumming is an involuntary (if mildly embarrassing) response. The 160S also brought a different sense of clarity/definition. I hesitate to say better, but different. More forward. If you get off on the arresting transparency of a perfect Julie London or Nat Cole recording, or you want to feel the breathiness of Ben Webster, I’ve heard nothing better. But I think in 10-20 years some will still love the 75SE for its ability to remain unnoticed, its naturalness, and its relaxed presentation. In real life, when someone is playing a piano or guitar in your room, they are not trying to impress you with sonic charms. Such is the sound of the 75SE. In fact, it is VERY good in this regard. But a true confession: I waffle between my teenage brain seeking punch and sizzle, to a more adult appetite for effortlessness and flow. For example, at least once a month I seriously consider auditioning a D’Agostino stereo amp in place of the 75SE. The 160S also offers more punch, with a noticeable "charm" in that lovely lower midrange, upper bass region. And good ole’ bass is definitely tighter and more pronounced. Final word on all this: the ARC break-in period is notoriously long, and it’s not malarkey. Make sure you’re listening to a fully broken-in ARC amp, otherwise all bets are off.
I test drove the PL dialogue premium against the Evo 400. There is clear sonic improvement, specifically in the detail and transparency.
How much will close the gap to the ARC gear? Only one way to find out. As a brand, ARC is better. But the PL sounds meaty and ballsy like nothing I've heard before. Euphonic is the perfect word.
It is dead reliable. Every potential pain point in owning tubes is slain. Personally, I prefer detail to warmth...but what I'm stuck with is pretty damn good.
I have the Evo 400 power amp fed by a Don Sachs Model 2. Great combo.
@rushfan, both my golden-eared wife and I are partial to "warm." Hence our fondness for the vintage Sonus Faber GH speakers, although I’d never characterize the sound as "syrupy." @5751That "hum" issue is a concern. I’ve had to deal with that in the past and it can be maddening. Have you tried a cheater plug on the amp power cord?
I agree with @jjss49 about the sound signatures of both amps.
One thing to consider is the VT80 SE comes with KT150 power tubes, the PL with EL34’s. The PL can also use KT150’s with the flick of a switch. Using KT150 change the PL from romantic to more dynamic with more bass and treble extension. That is my experience with the PL Dialogue Premium HP (basically same as Evo 400 minus the balanced connections). Don’t get me wrong the PL DP HP is dynamic, holographic and has great bass and treble extension, there is just more of it with KT150. The PL will allow you to experiment with several power tubes: EL34 (and it’s equivalents), KT77, KT88, KT120, KT150.
The AR can use KT120 or KT150
Both the AR and the PL feature auto bias for the power tubes.
Maybe the flexibility of having the option to use several different model power tubes is important to you. Maybe point to point wiring instead circuit boards is more important to you, as the PL features. PL also runs the power tubes easier for longer life.
Either way, two great choices. I would consider what the speakers sound signature is and chose the amp that compliments them.
Ex. Accurate with metal dome or diamond tweeters pick the PL. Warmer, slightly rolled off sounding go with the AR.
OP — I went from a Prima Luna HP Dialogue Premium integrated to an ARC 160S amp and REF 6SE preamp. Never regretted that. I concede it’s not a fair comparison to start with, but I still use my PL in another room and I’ve obviously made my own mental comparisons (room differences and associated equipment, again, make it an unfair comparison). Subject to all those caveats: I prefer the ARC house sound. Clear, liquid, bloomy, transparent, just the right dose of fleshiness. Not even remotely syrupy or rolled off. In fact I hesitate to even put those words in the same paragraph as “ARC.” Grip and authority might only be a B+ to a bunch of A+ attributes, but those weren’t high points for the PL, either. When I went from an earlier tube integrated to the PL, the PL seemed awfully neutral for a tube amp. A smidge chilly. Sometimes not the kind of neutral I wanted. Sometimes fantastic. But in a battle between my mood and the amp, my mood always won. So I tried SS for a year (BHK monos with BHK pre — yes, yes, I know they have tubes on the input stage, but that’s not relevant here). Popped the PL back in and remembered that it does create that dimensionality-plus, levitating sound you only get from tubes. Intent on a return to tubes, ARC entered my scene and I was smitten. Fell hard for that sound and added a REF40 / REF75SE / Harbeth 30.2 system in my office. ARC stuff can win over my ears even when they’re in a bad mood. That was 18 months ago, so time may change my views. YMMV.
Obviously, the only true way to tell how they sound is to demo them. in your system. If this can't be done, at least compare what each amp has to offer. The Evo series offers balanced inputs and a remote that lets you switch between triode and ultra- linear operation. The Evo can also serve as a mono block should you decide to upgrade to more power. It also offers auto biasing and "bad tube" indicator circuitry. These are all features that may or may not be important to you but at least are worth considering. Both amps are well built with quality components and neither is likely to disappoint, but again, the real test is how they sound in your system.
I have never had the pleasure of hearing any Prima Luna gear but it looks well made and people really dig it. I have used ARC pre amps for year and love them. I hate to admit that they get even better going up the line. I do think I am content now, but the ARC stuff is good. I know this doeant really help...but I have never had one issue with ARC gear. It seems to be Bullet proof.
I sent my ARC SP 16 and VT 80 SE back to ARC for service. One of my concerns was a hum from the VT 80 SE amp. ARC logged 200 inspection hours on the VT 80 SE and stated that nothing was wrong with either component. ARC acknowledged the hum and stated if I use a balanced preamp the hum would be eliminated. I am able to enjoy my system but when the music is not playing the hum is present. ARC did an excellent job removing scuffs from the faceplates. Also, after the service the SP 16 phono tube rush was significantly decreased. Great sound and set and forget simplicity. Good luck with your search!
@jjss49 Thanks so much for your very helpful response. I greatly appreciate it. The more research I do, I find my head saying ARC, while my heart is whispering Prima Luna. I just learned that I probably will be able to audition the Audio Research amp in my home after all. A couple of hours of serious listening, mating the ARC with my Lumi preamp, should tell me what I need to know.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
