Conrad Johnson ACT2 against Audio Research Ref 3

Oneobgin, I ordered my Ref 3 only in December. I am not surprised you thought I already had one in my system. After all I have been ranting about it since August; heard it in several dealerships; flew out to Aris Audio's open house in Salt Lake just to listen to it again in October; parked myself for ungodly number of hours in Babybear's listening room and listened to it there; finally once brought home Babybear's ref 3 to listen on my system, just to make sure that my infatuation for Ref 3 was not a short term hallucination... finally broke down and ordered in December, once all spousal vetoes were lifted. . . and now. . . I am 'expectant!'
Oh yes I was forgetting. . . went back to Babybear's place for his Christmas party and spent 5 more hours till past 3:00 a.m. in his music room in perfect antisocial rapture. How is that for having audiophilia nervosa?

Guidocorona: See, if you came out to Minnesota to personally pick up your prize, you could stop by my home (less than 5 minutes from ARC) and hear it against the Callisto. It would be fun. 8-)

Grant, while no piece of equipment will ever satisfy everyone, several of us truly enjoy the Ref 3. The least I can say is that it is certainly worth a thorough audition. . . or should it be an 'auscultation?'
audition

"I am just happy that we have the choice between fine components such as the REF3 and ACT2."

I totally agree.

Jthimothya, your intriguing words tell me that -- while CJ ACT 2 may not satisfy one of my basic requirements for a fully balanced device -- I should renew my efforts to audition it. Perhaps once my Ref 3 has settled down and is fully broken in, I may contact the local CJ dealer in Austin, and see if he can arrange for a demo at my place for me and my fellow Austin audiofools. The challenge will be to do this while minimizing additional variables, such as ICs changes, that would contaminate the validity of any results.

Guidocorona: We are all very eager to learn how the Ref3 ultimately fits for you. It seems like this wait has been going on for what, 6 months now? Before you rush to bring the CJ home for an audition, I suspect you will be up late many many nights rediscovering your music collection with the Ref3.

I would like to comment on your requirement that the line stage must be a balanced design. I was caught up in this "need" for a long time but I think I ended up with the ARC, then BAT and then Aesthetix products not because they were balanced but because they got me into the music more so than their peers, many of which were not balanced designs. And to be honest with you, I suspect little of it had much to do with their balanced implementation. So far the only balanced product I have heard that severely suffers when NOT run in balanced mode is the Aesthetix Io. Rather than be too focused on what your mind says about what is and what is not balanced, it ultimately comes down to what your heart tells you is more involving.

A 10m RCA-RCA IC from my line stage to the amps works just fine. The CAT amps only have single-ended inputs which initially bothered me, but once I heard music with them, it was a moot issue. And any report that such lengths need to be balanced, at least in the context of my system, is simply not accurate.

John

Jafox,

Regarding:

A 10m RCA-RCA IC from my line stage to the amps works just fine. The CAT amps only have single-ended inputs which initially bothered me, but once I heard music with them, it was a moot issue. And any report that such lengths need to be balanced, at least in the context of my system, is simply not accurate.

Ditto for me, just sub VTL where you typed CAT. My single ended runs have no problems performance wise or noise wise.

I also agree the Aesthetix Io sounds better using the balanced out. In my case, only a one meter run to the Aesthetix Callisto.

C'mon guys.

Now it is getting into a pissing contest

It is as I said before a flavor thing and all of us should be happy with what rocks our sonic boat.

Ref 3 for some. ACT 2 for others and Aesthetix for still others.

Whatever works is OK.

John, I have no intention of swapping the ref 3 out for any other linestage for a long long time. And no, it has not been 6 months. My quest for a linestage has started in 2000 and will finally end only in one or two weeks when the creatures is finally delivered to my doorsteps.
Yet, being the old software test engineer that I am, I know it is in my genes to practice at home what I have done at work for many years, hence my interest in evaluating the ACT 2.

Now about balanced: I have Rowland 7M, which according to Jeff Rowland himself respond best balanced. I have also the X-01 player, which best behaves balanced. Why not optimize the system? I tried the Ref 3 both balanced and single ended on my own system with AQ Sky ICs in and out of it. . . and it does sound a great deal better in fully balanced mode.

The truly interest test will be the insertion of a CJ ACT 2 on my own system, using Sky RCA instead of SKY XLR.

I should add that, when I tried the ARC Ref 3 in single ended mode the test was unplanned. I turned off by mistake the balanced circuit on the remote, and for approx 20 minutes I scratched my head wondering why on earth the system was suddenly sounding so thin.

Perhaps once my Ref 3 has settled down and is fully broken in, I may contact the local CJ dealer in Austin, and see if he can arrange for a demo at my place for me and my fellow Austin audiofools.

A wonderful proposal and I envy the opportunity to be part of that listening session. Of course you are most invited to share observations with us, ideally referenced to specific musical passages so we can play along at home. But all that is down the road. Best wishes as you break-in and enjoy you new linestage.

I wonder if this thread has helped Ginas??

Guidocorona

considering you have all balanced system now I would stay with the REF 3, especially if you like the sound all ready. Going to all balanced or single ended will not end up in better sound, just a different flavour, regardless how we proud audiophiles beat our chest.
I know that all ready having bought the VTL 7.5 and tried all sorts of balanced amps including VTL's own MB750's.
Now after that expensive detour I am going back to cj pre and amp. They drive my 4.5 metre IC's just fine and sound quiet, nice and musical with fine detail and dynamics. The ACT 2 is very detailed, but is very even across the broad audio spectrum so longer term listening is more enjoyable.
The VTL 7.5 was a little weighted in the upper mid range/lower treble - long term that was more difficult to enjoy in my system with my tastes. It also erked me that the VTL 7.5 has a basic design flaw(at least in my opinion) where if you used the VTL 7.5 with any power amp of over 26db, you get huge amounts of tube gain noise. This makes the pre amp incompatible with many amps unless you use endler attenuators to reduce the gain. The ACT 2 on the other hand has the same high gain that the VTL has, yet is quiet with any high or low gain amp.

But then again Martin Colloms of hifi news fame has for a long time used cj ART and now ACT successfully with Krell balanced amps.

Guidocorona - Are you saying that the REF 3 sounds significantly different and better in balanced mode as compared to single-ended mode?

Rgurney, yes the ARC REF 3 sounds extremely different if you defeat the balanced circuit while running true XLR ICs. The sound turned all together noisy, hazy, uninvolving and thin. . . all of a sudden it reminded me of my good old LS2B. When the 'accident' took place at Aris Audio in Salt Lake City last October we were running AQ Sky XLR from a Teac X-01 to the Ref 3, and AQ XLR Chita to a Theta Dreadnaught. A single keystroke on the remote returned the ref 3 to its former glory.

Downunder, the VTL 7.5 did not send me in ectstasy either. Very sweet and 'romantic', but transients were a touch too slow. To give you an idea, all grand pianos sounded like old German Bluthners, or as if grandma had thrown her heaviest quilted blanked on top of the closed lid of her prized 7ft Steinway Hamburg. . . and yes, I have played on a Bluthner several times and do not like the brand. Violins sounded also much tamer than in real life. Once again they sounded 'Bluthnerized' .

JTimothya, I will definitely post detailed listening comments when I have the opportunity to compare the ACT 2 with the REF 3, with detailed references to musical passages and performance issues, in the same slightly anally retentive style that I have already used in my analysis of the ref 3 vs VAC Ren Signature II on my thread at:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1123254379&openmine&Guidocorona&4&5&st0
starting approx the 17th of August 2005. If I recall correctly it was approx post No. 50 or so.

I haven't found that there is a "significant" difference in the Ref 3 in balanced v.s.
single ended mode. What Guidocorona said was that he had the wrong setting for the type of I.C. that he was using. You don't set it for S.E. and then use balanced cables or set it for balanced and then use single ended cables.

Agaffer, quite possibly. If I have the opportunity to test the X-01 to Ref 3 connection with one set of single ended Sky ICs and compare the result with the same balanced IC, I shall do so. Until such time, I will have to go with what my ears have told me this far.

"What Guidocorona said was that he had the wrong setting for the type of I.C. that he was using. You don't set it for S.E. and then use balanced cables or set it for balanced and then use single ended cables."

Guido as much as I am a believer in the Ref 3, Agaffer is right on and absolutely correct in his observation. There should be absolutely no difference in SE vs XLR balanced output on the Ref 3 other than approximately 6 Db of gain

Oneobgin, best thing is to try things out. You can likely perform some tests before I do. Please let us know your results.

Guido

I understand completely what you did with the remote. There is a button that determines SE vs balanced. Your demo was running balanced cables but you hit the SE button which reduced the gain in your system demo. I am not even certain because I haven't tried it with my Ref 3 (but I will) what happens if there are only balanced interconnects and not SE and you hit the SE button on the remote. At the very least you will suffer a 6 Db drop off, but maybe even worse because you had no SE cables.

Bingo Doc. But it could be even worse than that. . . the button likely shuts off one half of the Ref 3's circuit--that is the signal return path. The 6DB signal drop off is but a sideeffect.
I should like to point out that when the event happened, raising the volume on the remote did not correct the degradation of the signal. Furthermore, I was not alone at the time, several other people, including Aris Audio's Scott haver observed the degradation.
On the other hand, it is quite possible that a sound difference might be detectable only on some totally balanced systems.

I disagree. IMO you had a REF 3 using balanced cables and not SE cables. Switching to SE with the remote resulted in faulty signal. I am surprised that you even heard any sound at all

Oneobgyn, Guido -
As you are both owners, see if you can find out (from ARC?) or elsewhere, what the purpose of having that button/circuit change is for. Given that there is an audible degredation of sound, it appears that the REF3 works best in balanced mode rather than in SE mode, or am I mistaken.

"I am surprised that you even heard any sound at all."

I'm not. It comes down to how ARC has implmented the SE input signal. As with the LS5 that started it all with ARC, the design here is a truly balanced implementation. Only ARC has since added SE input and output connections. The question is how do they support SE signals:

1) Is the SE input converted to a balanced signal through a phase-splitter circuit which then runs the signal "balanced" from then on; or 2) Does the SE signal simply run through the "+" phase of the balanced design from input to output? My guess is the former as ARC is a big proponent of the balanced topology. In the former case, the SE/Bal switch would do nothing more than "activate" that phase-splitter stage. In the latter case, the SE/Bal switch would simply ground the input of the "-" phase just like an adaptor would do if using an SE source on a balanced-only connection like the LS5. In both cases, there is a signal on the "+" phase as the ARC products are non-inverting.

And then the output: 1) is the SE output simply the "+" phase; or 2) is there an additional stage that brings the two phases together for a SE output? The benefit here is using both phases throughout but at a cost of adding that final stage to produce an SE output.

In any of these cases, with balanced cables, the sound will come through just fine with the "+" phase and the "-" phase possibly having no signal. But this is no different than when I used an adaptor on the LS5 to run a SE power amp; the "-" phase was simply not being used.

Knowing exactly the implementation here would give the user a better idea as to the benefits, or more likely, the losses, of using the SE inputs or outputs vs. the balanced connections for a more "pure" sound.

John

Excellent points John. I will call Leonard at ARC when I have a minute. I will post his answers here.

Simply put......The deficiency that Guido heard was a human error based on his activating SE and not balanced outputs on the Ref 3. It has nothing to do with a fully balanced system. Having said this however I rest assured that Guido is going to love his Ref 3 as I do.

Just spoke to leonard at ARC:

Ref 3 is a truly differential design. No splitters/inverters are used to simulate balanced operations. Two 6H30 tubes are used for the positive signal, and two for the return signal. If the Ref 3 is switched to SE operation through the remote control, a relay switch is activate which turns off the return signal on the XLR connectors and takes the 6H30 tubes responsible for the return signal out of the active circuit. Leonard suggests that if single ended operations are desired, the user should employ RCA ICs instead of balanced ones. However, he confirms that turning off the balanced signal on XLR, or using RCA connectors will still result in a 'good' sound with a predictable loss of 6DB of gain. This 'good' sound will however be noisier, slightly flat, and pinched, if compared to the sound of Ref 3 in a fully balanced configuration.

One further note, according to Leonard, the 6550C tube employed on Ref 3 is in fact an original SED Wing 6550 manufactured in the St. Petersburg plant, rather than the lesser pseudo-Svetlana equivalent.

Please note that in the previous post I should have been more specific: instead of 'sound' I should have specified 'Ref 3 sound signature'. The reason of course is that the actual sound is a function of all components. As such, we can't make a categorical statement about how best to run the Ref 3--single ended or balanced. It will all depend on the rest of the system.

Guido

Perhaps I am too simple a person here or are you just missing the point?

To me it is very simple. If your system uses balanced interconnects that is the option you select on the remote control and if you are using SE interconnects, this is what you select on the remote. Of course there will be a 6 Db dropoff from XLR to SE.

You seem to be complicating what in my mind is something very simple.

Guido: Thanks for the update. Sounds very much like my scenario 2 on the input except the "-" phase is deactivated rather than simply grounding the input which results in the same .... and scenario 1 on the output. Good to know as both of these are the "purist" approach. Any word on work done here to trickle down to a new LS model?

Yes, I guess it is simple OneObgin. If you run Ref 3 single ended you are utilizing 50% of its output stage. This may not maximize the Ref 3's potential contribution to a system's overall sound, however the rest of a system configuration may very Wele make up for this inherent shortcoming.