Conrad Johnson ACT2 against Audio Research Ref 3

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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

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 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

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.

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.

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

"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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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??

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

I totally agree.

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

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-)

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?

As a reviewer I'm somewhat reluctant to lay bare my impressions of my own gear in the public forums, so I've kinda been holding back in commenting on the ACT2. Nonetheless, having read Valin's remarks on the ARC Ref 3 I was struck by the similarity of some of his observations to those I made of the ACT2 in my August 1st Soundstage! review. (Of course he is a better writer than I.) This suggests to me both devices share at least a few common virtues. Although I've not heard the REF3, I'll take the TAS review as an accurate account of what was heard, and feel not uncomfortable about making comments within the context of publication.

To give but one example: As Valin wrote of hearing how notes from the REF3 linger in space before those that succeed them, I cashed out a similar hearing with the ACT2 in terms of the absence of smearing across the temporal boundaries of notes. This was in a context almost identical to one he mentioned later in his article - that of a piccolo cutting through an ff orchestral passage and rising above. Likewise we offered similar comments about the realistic quality of strings, woodwinds, and particulary the reproduction of the human voice. I found other comments that, in essence, describe the same characteristics though stated differently.

Whereas the TAS article stuck me as focusing (but not entirely) on nuance, my praise of the ACT2 pointed to its facility in the areas of dynamics and timing. It is the relative character of these attributes that for me - at least in my current stage of audiophilia - most distinquish the great from the near great, and are the most difficult to do very very well consistently across the frequency spectrum. And without commenting on the REF3, it is here that the ACT2 is sublime in refinement.

Dynamics and timing are rudiments of musical performance, and the heart and soul of life-like sound reproduction. Analysis may let us divy them, but they are processed synthetically in the hearing - at least that is my phenomenological take. And when a piece of gear - such as the ACT2 - rightly enables this synthesis it offers "that extant magical whatever that hints at the limbic level that live music is afoot".

The sound of gear from ARC and CJ have had differences for over 25 years, since both companies began offering their wares. And in one sense these differences represent a titanic struggle for your sonic soul, if not your wallet. Yin vs Yang, etc. etc. I do believe the house sound from both companies has grown closer over the years rather than more different while neither has lost their inherent character. When it comes to a purchase we each make our decision. Rather than debate which is "better", I am just happy that we have the choice between fine components such as the REF3 and ACT2.

"What would OneObGin prescribe to palliate our growing anxiety and discomfort, while we wait for the great bird from the North to land on our roofs and deliver our tubed bundle of joy?"

I would recommend reading the book "What To Expect When You Are Expecting"

Guido...I was under the impression that you had the Ref 3 in your system.

Thank you Agaffer, much appreciated. Your observations confirm my own guess about the sonic signature of the ACT 2. As I said. . . I am 'expecting'. A stork may be finally in the process of leaving the frozen Minnesota tundra with an ARC 3 baby bundled under its beak just for me. In the meantime, there exists a rumour that just before Christmas there was a backlog of more than 30 Ref 3s, and dozens of 'expectant' 'fathers ' are succumbing to the most audiophilic of uncontrollable cravings.
What would OneObGin prescribe to palliate our growing anxiety and discomfort, while we wait for the great bird from the North to land on our roofs and deliver our tubed bundle of joy?

I might be able to answer Guidocorona's question. I had a CJ Premier 17LS and explored the Act 2 as a upgrade. I liked the Act 2 and it was certainly a upgrade from the Premier. I felt it increased the detail heard in my system and there was a increase in bass weight but, it did share the same sort of laid back warm sound that the Premier had. I can see how a system with speakers that are a little on the bright side and very revealing would sound good with this preamp. Especially if it is a all digital source system. The "warmth" would make the music more listenable in such a system. However, my speakers are already in the "laid back, warm" camp (Vandersteen 5A) and the ARC Ref. 3 matched much better with them. It really isn't which is better, they are both great preamps. It is what matches best with the rest of your system to acheive the sound you want.

I understand perfectly Oneobgin, after all. . . I am 'pregnant with Ref 3' right now! Yet, as I have never heard the CJ ACT 2, I thought of asking you what the ACT 2's particular 'flavor' is, in your view.

There is nothing I don't like about it. I just like the Ref 3 better. As I said it is a flavor thing and the ARC sonic signature for me is what excites my auditory nerves.

Oneobgin, what don't you like about the CJ Act 2?

"ARC has more detail up front, IMO ARC can be more hi fi sounding.
Overall cj easier to listen to over a wider range of recordings.
let the flames begin:)"

It is not an issue of flames but an understanding of what flavor for each of us rocks our sonic boat.
CJ ACT 2 is indeed a fine preamp. Just not my flavor. The ARC Ref 3 for me and my tastes simply lights up my ears.

I have yet to read the new TAS. Valin is a long time lover of ARC gear. Pity he hasn't reviewed cj gear for some time. would have been interesting to hear his HP junior speak on the two.

Both cj and ARC very successful in their own versions of musical reproduction.

No flaming from me Downunder. Just a pointer to my summary of the just published TAS review of the ARC Ref 3 at:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1123254379&openfrom&138&4#138

Dave b. No issues with noise with cj stuff especially the ACT2. I run 4.5 metre cables btween myj ACT2 and prem350's. I used to have prem16 and prem8a's and while they were't noisy, they required a bit more work on placement etc as hum could be a problem with bad placement.

Henryhk - cj pre amps place the music as a whole first, then detail where relevent.
ARC has more detail up front, IMO ARC can be more hi fi sounding.
Overall cj easier to listen to over a wider range of recordings.
let the flames begin:)

Can someone provide more color (no pun intended) btwn CJ and AR preamps? Not what is better or what u prefer but what are the respective strengths or weaknesses or singular "character" they may have. The single ended vs balanced feedback was most helpful but can someone comment more for the curious?

Thinking of picking up the ACT2 and 140M's with a pair of Watt/Puppy7's..anyone hear of any noise problems or hums with the CJ stuff...I;m used to Krell ultra quiet operation, as in zero background noise!

Ginas,

First off I too would like to invite you to join our group. It has been a real treat to find some local friends who share this wonderful hobby. I feel so lucky to have found people who like to experiment and share the experience. This helps me grow and learn in the hobby.

As to the question (S) at hand, I do not endorse the comments that the SCD-1 is the weak link. This is a fairly ill informed observation and so I would first focus on the earlier topics.

I say this because the engineering that went into the SCD-1 is STILL beyond most any product on the market. In effect the engineers at Sony were given the dream problem to solve. The SCD-1 was the platform from which they launched an entire format. They approached the design with little regard to their typical mass market philosophy. Instead they were challenged to build the best machine Sony was capable of. Because of this, the isolation techniques designed into the SCD-1’s footers remain beyond any product I am aware of. The custom transport remains the standard for the industry and exceeds the more common Phillips and Technese transports. (I just received my parts back after the mod’s I had done. I had the lasers and motors replaced at the same time as preventative maintenance.) The drive mount was replaced; this is the highly machined heavy steel bar from which the parts are mounted. Very impressive, and as with most concepts in the SCD-1; it is highly customized.

Of course, the SCD-1 was not perfect; in fact the only way for Sony to hit any logical price point was to load it full of “off the shelf” common parts, like capacitors, resistors, op-amp and the like. Even with the stock products, they lost a lot of money on the SCD-1 and the little sister 777ES, (The 777ES does not include the extensive and expensive isolation techniques.)

This is where Audiocom-UK comes in. Audiocom-UK is a company that designs custom modifications for components judges by them to be otherwise state of the art and worthy of upgrading. All of there modification packages are custom designed specifically for certain products. The SCD-1 remains their flagship mod package. They continue to push the potential of the SCD-1 higher with redesigned clocks and power regulators along with their original modification package which included Vishay resistors and Black Gate capacitors. (These are the best of each category available. Black Gate is no longer in business, so the stock of capacitors will soon become very low, and never be replaceable with a lesser product.).

Richard Kern (www.audiomod.com) is “the” SCD-1/777ES guru. No one understands this unit more than Richard, and no one has put the hour into advancing the potential from the SCD-1/777ES player. When the EMM Labs Meitner/Phillips combination hit the market and quickly became the standard of SACD playback. Richard had a fellow Oregonian who owner the Meitner combo agree to a shoot out. After hearing this unit Richard went back home and proceeded circuit by circuit to re-think the entire SCD-1/777ES design. He discovered modifying the transport board, along with using the Audio Consulting silver output transformers and the latest Audiocom-UK Superclock 3 and Superclock 3 power supply allowed the SCD-1/777ES performance to not only match, but exceed the Meitner/Phillips combo. Not only is the SCD-1 able to match all the detail and resolution of the Meitner, but it’s far more musical (I assume this is the laidback characteristic of the original unmodified unit coming through) I attribute the musicality to the amazing engineering into isolation and transport design along with the mass incorporated into the machines casing.

Since these findings, Audiocom-UK has come out with it’s second generation of power regulators, which I’m sure exceed the original regulators by a quantified amount or the modification would not have been released. This is the only Audiocom-UK/Audiomod modification I have not had made to my SCD-1. The first mod’s were done in 2001 and I just received the second set a couple weeks ago. The burn in time is over 400 hours for the Black Gate capacitors, so I have another week before I can hear the full benefits, but I can say it’s going to be very special indeed.

So the question at hand is, would I do it again? YES! For the last five years I have had performance in SACD that remained state of the art. But let’s not forget every modification made to the SCD-1 also affected the redbook playback. (Here is where opinion comes in) I believe the redbook playback over the past years has also matched the best available with the exception being possibly the Burmester. Now over the past couple years some excellent SACD and/or CD players have been designed. The Meitner is arguably the top of those designs, with the Remiyo (CD only) being at that same level.

So now my unit is again as state of the art as available with a total investment of one half or more to the “best”. I expect I will remain among the top for the next five years in both SACD and CD. At that point I will make a judgment, but for now…

One reason I decided to again upgrade is I have not seen any truly revolutionary products sense the SCD-1, and therefore what is coming out is basically modified old products, just like my unit. I believe there is a breakthrough coming, somewhere combining Audiocom’s mod’s, dcs up-sampling technology, Burmester and Meitner circuit technologies into a single box. This is coming, but at what cost? In my mind, I’m already there and will be for years to come. Sure for some cost I might better the system I have, but I don’t have that kind of money, and I doubt I’m missing much from the early indications I have heard of my latest mod’s.

So now back to the original question. I would strongly consider comparing either of your short list components to Jafox’s Aesthetix Callisto. If it’s possible to set up a home demo from Audio Perfection and compare this with John’s Callisto (which would be fun to hear) I think you will have a very good idea of what is available. If you can get a loner CJ that would be great, I know there is a guy locally who had the Art, perhaps we could find him unless you already have a line on an Art II.

You can write me an email if you want a full breakdown of modifications available. The advice above to at least get the Superclock 3/ Superclock power supply is a must. The others depend on how far you want to go. Superclock 3 will amaze you…

JD

Ginas: The last time I heard CJ gear was in 1995 when I too was preamp shopping; I ended up with the ARC LS5 II but the CJ Premier 10 was also a most impressive piece. I simply prefered the dynamics of the ARC at the time.

When I see JD (Jadem6) I will let him know of this thread and hopefully he too can throw some insight your way as did Bob Wood.

And yes, it would be cool to have another member of our little audio group. See you next year.

John

I have an SCD-1 with four mods - 3 by Richard Kern and one by VSE (their top level at the time.) I can say absolutely that each mod changed the sound for the better.

Would I have had all 4 or bought another player? At the time of the mods, each step was cheaper than the 'other player.'

Today, if I could have all that money back, I might go in another direction. I have to assume that in the passing years some have made great strides. I'd think about an Esoteric or Ayre or APL modded something. dcs would be too pricey for me, as would Emm. Every time I ship the beast I worry for fear the truck drivers will damage it. It's HEAVY!

Bob Wood
http://www.GreatHomeTheater.com

John,
Thanks for the offer of getting together. I would love to do it in the near future , most likely after new year due to holidays and traveling so I will be keeping your information.

Jadem6, after going thru all the upgrades with the Sony SCD1, is it worth it? If you can do it over again, would you or just simply shop for a new player? Please let me know. Any information you can provide will be very helpful. I have been thinking about the Cary Audio 306 player. Thanks advance for you help....

Lastly, if interested, I like to invite both you over for some fun with the ACT2 when and if ended up with it. Have you heard the ACT2???

Ginas:

A'gon member, Jadem6, has just put his SCD-1 through yet another upgrade so I suspect he can offer much information for you. He and I are in the twin cities metro area. I will see him tonight and finally get a chance to hear these latest changes along with some more listening to the Kubala-Sosna Emotion vs. Purist Dominus cables.

He runs with the Aesthetix Calypso and I have the Callisto Signature. I also have a CAT Ultimate II on loan from a dealer for a month. One thing we have talked about is to borrow a Ref3 and try it in our systems but we have focused a lot of time lately on cables. We and another A'gon member, Artg, stop by at each other's homes regularly toting our gear and cables to compare in all these systems. If you're interested to join in, please let me know.

John