Thanks Doc, this is very useful. . . I am bracing myself for beuty followed by. . . temporary Mud City! |
ObGin and Jafox, not wanting to mortgage the future, it is safe to say that the ARC Ref 3 will be the very best linestage I Have ever ownED! |
Thank you Brian for your clarification. Unfortunately simple and ready access to manufacturer's info is one of my other criteria for selecting a device. I am sure Blowtorch is a fine linestage, yet I fear there won't be any Blotorch in my future. Thanks again, Guido |
Good suggestion. Unfortunately Supratek is tweak heaven. It is a very 'delicate' machine with moderate reliability. It is also made at the antipodes by a one-man company. I want to get out of a new linestage the same 13 years of uninterrupted reliability I have received from my aging ARC LS2 B. Thank you for your input. |
Thank you Matt, Lamm is a single ended design, as such it does not meet one of my reqs. I know Audio Frontiers of Hamilton, Ontario. I never liked its sound. Also the company has had its financial ups/downs.
But I'd be interested in more detailed impressions of ARC Ref 3 vs VAC. What do you like in Ref 3 better than in the VAC? Thanks, Guido |
Thank you Bsal, I would consider Aesthetix were it not for the fact that you really need to love rolling tubes to bring out its potential. Your comment about the VACs great holographic imaging is bang on in my view. That's exactly my experience. |
Thank you John, although my mention of VTL 7.5 and BAT VK51SE was cursory, my auditioning was very detailed and based on a set of my own classic CDs--not test disks containing meaningless sonic fireworks, but albums old and new, representative of the music I typically enjoy.
My criteria had all to do with musicality. After all I have been in the world of music for the last 45 years in one form or another: student, singer/performer, composer and musicologist in my college days, audiophile. The VTL was in fact very musical, strings were truly lovely, but it had the tendency of deemphasizing transients, as such, a Steinway piano ended up sounding like a Bluthner with a blanket thrown on top: that's not of my liking. The problem with musicality of the BAT VK51SE is that. . . I could not hear any of it. Transients were well defined, but the sound was cold, dark, it lacked completely the glow and emotion that I associate with what I deem musical. Paradoxically, I found the Boulder 1010 I auditioned during the same session musically more satisfying than the BAT. On the other hand, I am more than willing to give VTL 7.5 and BAT VK51SE another chance, just in case my memory of them were flawed. |
Thank you Deshapiro, your input is very welcome. Considering your findings on Switchman and Blowtorch and my own musical taste, I consider myself fully forewarned! Here are some further questions for you:
a. What is the input impedance of the Boulder 2060? Ref 3's outputs 600 Ohms which -- as I understand -- needs to be matched with amps with upwards of 20K Ohms input impedance. But the proof remains always only in the pudding!
b. Have you had the opportunity of auditioning/comparing any of the other linestages discussed here (VAC Ren II, VAC Phi, Aesthetix Callisto)? What were the sonic differences with Ref 3?
By the way, it looks like the upgrade to Ref 3 is not terribly extensive: just several tubes and the addition of bypass capacitors. Perhaps OneObGin can tell us how much ARC charges for the upgrade? |
John, you are putting evil thoughts in my perverted audiophilic mind! Now I will have to go and listen to the mighty Callisto as well. That's . . . not nice! |
By the way, the Boulder 1010 is in the same general price vicinity. Once you go to the Boulder 2000 series. . . prices become absolutely stratospheric. |
Thank you Oneobgin, please tell us more about how the Ref 3 and the Phi differ, and how does the Ref 3 excell?
I am also looking forward to your findings on the Lamm. |
Thank you Kw6. Listening to a CJ ACT2 will be an interesting, if somewhat academic exercise. Unfortunately ACT2 does not meet one of my basic reqs: to be a fully balanced design. |
Ellery, 3C contains 2 letters. Shame on you! |
John, I am not quite sure. Currently my amps and linestage rest on a 6 foot long and almost 2 inch thick low bench of solid pitch-pine.
I might have just enough clearance to place a Callisto and its PS side by side, but I would need to stack any two power supplies on top of each other. Is that at all possible/advisable? |
Thank you Brian, the PDF file linked above is not compatible with Adobe Reader 6. I am getting only binary info displayed. Thank you anyway |
FSARC, you are making it darn difficult for me to say no to Phi!
No digital readout? No prob, won't use it anyway.
I won't be using LPs, but I understand that part of the tubes in the phono stage are shared with the linestage, so I'm glad the phono is there. Compatibility down the chain is also very important. My amps have input impedance of 22K ohms, which would cause the Phi to purr along like a Cheshire cat.
Have you had the opportunity of comparing it to its Ren II smaller brother? Ren II is a pre I already love: huge soundstage, holographic, detailed, sweet, musical yet never syrupy.
Kevin's stellar reputation in service is also a plus.
Oh yes, have you ever tried to roll tubes? Or is it even advisable on the Phi? |
Very intriguing info Bhauser! I have heard three pres with 6H30 this far:
. Bat Vk51SE -- too dark for me. Sound it cold, uninvolving.
. ARC LS25 II -- Unemotional, bland, uninvolving.
. ARC Ref 2 Mk. 2 -- interesting by only half a cigar. Much more dynamic than LS2 II with much larger soundstage. Once I heard it driven by ARC CD3 Mk. 2 and driving Rowland 302. Found it to be bloomy in a funny way with almost a silvery sheen at the top. On the same system a Boulder 1012 was much more convincing.. Another time it was still driven by CD3 Mk. 2, but it was driving ARC VT200 into Magnepan 3.6. Sounded much better, but the huge soundstage was still slightly unfocused.
. Ref 3 -- not heard yet, but I understand some of the 6H30P tubes have been swapped for 6550 in the new revision. Has ARC fallen out of love with 6H30? OneObGin will let us know more as they break in. I need to give this newest baby at least the benefit of doubt.
Could share any info or personal experiences about the sonic differences between Phi and Ren II?
Keep these post coming my friends. This has been wonderful so far! |
Thanks Hifimaniac, what's the waiting time on a new Phi? As I asked Frank, would you be able to offer some comparison with Ren II?
DGAD, Id be very interested in hearing any findings of your 7.5 after you apply NOS tubes. |
Sorry john, but I have taken the liberty of copy/pasting here some of the very insightful comments you just posted on the LS25 vs Calypso thread. They are most useful in the context of this very high end linestage thread:
". . . Two years later, enter the Aesthetix Callisto Signature. It's a very different experience here. Never had I heard a line stage impress me so greatly across the board. I remembered how the 31SE did the bass. The Callisto takes this to another level. And unlike the BAT, the Callisto renders a mulitude of low-level detail in the highest frequencies. The LS5 never came close to this. And the LS25 did not steal the show vs. the LS5 in this regard either. The Callisto and Calypso are very very similar except for one most important attribute: portrayal of space. I am so impressed when I hear the neutrality and resolution of the Calypso at a local audiophile's (Jadem6) home. But a changeover to the Callisto and that awesome 3-dimensionality is there like you hear from a real performance. The stage exceeds far beyond the boundaries, images are not 1-foot wide - they are so lifelike. A return back to the Calypso and that awesome openness is significantly diminshed. This is one area where I would have trouble going for the Calypso. Even with the BAT's soft top end and lower level resolution, it was far more lifelike in its portrayal of the harmonics, decays, images and space and this alone brought on the emotional connection. The LS5 did the same for me but not at well as the BAT or Callisto."
Thank you again John for your patience! |
Thank you all for your comments. Most enlightening! Hifimaniac, I have just sent you a PM. |
Thank you once more Oneobgin for your insight. Will the new Lamm be a fully balanced design or will Vladimir continue his single ended tradition?
By the way, how much does ARC charge for the Ref 3 upgrade?
Jsen, unfortunately I have not heard the Ren Sig.
It is my understanding that it has a marvellous slightly softer sound. According to VAC it is currently largely replaced by the Phi, but is still available to audiophiles who prefer its special musicality. Have you compared it to the Phi and Ren II (non Sig) before purchasing it? |
Good point Jsen. There is a slight price advantage in the Ren Sig over the Phi. Furthermore there are less tubes than in the Phi. The opposite side of the coin is that Kevin deems the Phi 2.0 to be VAC's current preamplification flagship. What to choose? I am starting to think that if the mountain truly refuses to go to poor Mohammed. . . I may just have to go toVAC's shop to listen to them all before deciding. |
Brian, the CTC site has no info about Blotorch I could find. Your web site did not show any info on it I could find either. Are there specs anywhere on the Blotorch? |
Deshapiro, is the Blowtorch a differential balanced design or is it single ended? |
Thank you once again everyone for your input this far. Next week I may be fortunate enough to audition an ARC Ref 3 side-by-side to a Vac Ren II. This will prove to be interesting. I will post my findings to this thread and will include system configuration and musical selections. |
Just an update on some of the system configuration for tomorrows audition:
Front end: Accuphase DP-77, DCS new single box universal player (sorry do not remember its name), ARC CD3 Mk. 2 (not too interested in this player as it has no SACD playback capability).
Preamplification: VAC Ren II, ARC Ref 3 (with original 6H30 type tubes, no new caps), Boulder 1010, also no pre at all.
Amplifier: Rowland 302 (selected because it has same input impedance as my JRDG 7M monos: 22K Ohms).
Speakers: yet unspecified.
Cabling: yet unspecified.
Musical selections:
Antonin Dvorak 9th Symphony conducted by Fritz Reiner on RCA Living Stereo dual layer SACD remaster..
Antonin Dvorak Cello Concerto conducted by Munch with Piatigorsky (cello) on RCA Living Stereo dual layer SACD remaster..
Antonin Dvorak: Piano Quintet Op. 81 (H. Nakamura (Pf.), Tokyo String Quartet).
J. S. Bach Flute Sonatas Jean-Pierre Rampal (flute)., Trevor Pinnok (Harpsychord).
J. S. Bach: Goldberg Variations (Glenn Gould, pf). 1981 recording).
J. S. Bach: Works for Lute (Lutz Kirchhol)
J.S. Bach: Bach Suites (Yo Yo Ma).
Claudio Monteverdi: Ballo Delle Ingrate (Camerata San Petronio, Sergio Vartolo. Naxos).
Claudio Monteverdi: Girlande Sacre Ghirlande Profane (Tania D'Althann, etc. . .)
Antonio Vivaldi: Various Cello works (Yo Yo Ma)
If the music selection looks a little idiosyncratic, it's only because. . . it's a little idiosyncratic. I will add catalogue information next week for those CDs I will actually end up using. |
Warning, this is a rather long post!
What you will find below is something in between a bunch of coarse listening notes and an audition report. I am just cleaning my notes and adding a few observations after
my listening session today, which lasted almost 3 hours. The system configuration is listed below. Please note that instead of the VAC Ren II, I listened to the VAC Ren SIG
II, as neither Phi 2.0 nor Ren II were available. Furthermore, my starting listening position was less than perfect; the ports on the rear of the speakers were initially partially hidden by some other
speakers in the rather busy room; the ARC Ref 3 was first not running balanced, although it was using balanced ICs. These initial problems were
corrected progressively during the first 45 minutes of listening.
Please note that neither the complement of PCs, ICs, speaker wires and speakers would have been my first choice. Furthermore, a slight case of tinnitus my be coloring somewhat my findings.
1. DCS P8I single box CD/SACD player.
2. Accuphase DP-77 single box player.
3. Kimber KG4 power chord on DCS and DP-77.
4. Cardas Golden 5C balanced
IC to preamplifier.
5. VAC Renaissance Signature 2.
6. Initially Cardas Hex Link power chord on VAC, then switched to Synergistic Research Designer ref 2 Master coupler with active biasing inactive.
7. Audio research Ref 3 linestage original version; original 6H30 type tubes; no inline update.
8. Stock power chord on Ref 3: other 20 Amp chord not available.
9. cardas cross balanced ICs to amp.
10. Jeff Rowland 302 stereo amp.
11. Kimber Select wire to speakers.
12. Totem Manitoo speakers
Below are my quasi raw observation scribbled down during the audition, only slightly cleaned up. I am detailing each musical selection change and
each equipment change. Redbook should be assumed, unless specified otherwise.
Yo Yo Ma: Vivaldi Cello (Sony)
equipment is still cold. We are starting on ARC Ref 3 with DCS P8I.
No glare but slightly dark. First cut
Cello Double Concerto -- 1st movement (Allegro):
detectable blooming bump on basso continuo. Bass line could be slightly tighter.
2nd movement (Adagio):
excellent sweet mid range. good harmonics.
harpsichord very clear. Still basso continuo on cello slightly bloated.
5th track. slight glassiness digital on upper strings. Confused on tutti forte (F).
track 7: Now system warming up. huge 3D sound stage. good instrument images. Not ultimate resolution on low level, detail (e.g. sound of positif pipe
organ traction could be more in evidence).
Dvorak Cello Concerto -- Munch piatigorsky (remastered SACD RCA Living stereo)
track 1
No glare. Slight congestion in crescendo.
glorious clarinet. very good not perfect sound stage
Sounds from backwall hall and instrument decay can be heard during cello solo silences in 2nd movement.
Slightly boxy perhaps on cello G string? Let's remember this was recorded in 1957.
Very distinct interplay with woodwinds. Can hear each instrument clearly with air around each instrument.
Dvorak 9th Symphony -- Fritz reiner and Chicago Symphony Orch. (RCA SACD Remastered Living Stereo) 2nd movement:
Tape hiss can be heard distinctly. This is a recording artifact.
Initial fanfare is not convincing -- Only moderately dynamic and played too fast compared to Bernstein performance: Also slightly closed in. This is a
performance/recording problem, not equipment problem.
After fanfare stage opens up to enormous proportions on English Horn solo. Glorious is the word.
The top end is perhaps just slightly rolled off. Yet greatly musical
Dvorak Piano Quintet Op. 81: H. Nakamura (Pf.), Tokyo String Quartet:
1st movement.
Very liquid. Slightly dark. Breathing sounds.
Slight glare on fortissimo (ff) upper strings.
2nd movement.
Great 3D sound stage, atmosphere instrument images and presence.
Giant image of the viola.
Very controlled piano, liquid.
Some breathing sounds from the players.
Piano is glorious.
Still perceive Slight muddiness in the bass background.
Discovered at this point that I was not sitting in the sweet spot. Moved chair forward 14 inches and left by 8 inches. Consultant also moved some
speakers that were sitting 13 inches behind the port of the Manitus. All of a sudden residual problems were largely fixed.
Returned to 1st movement of quintet:
Bloating on cello has largely disappeared. Cello lower C and G strings are now tight. Great image with a dark sense of the 'wood'.
Returning to 2nd movement.
More detail, Cleaner/grander cello. Greater imaging.
Even more real piano than before.
Can hear still a very Slight upper glare.
Background bass line much better, not yet perfect. Still slightest bump in mid bass.
Change of preamp. Now using VAC Renaissance Signature II.
Cardas hex link 5C power chord
Dvorak quintet Op. 81 1st movement.
Sound is more open than on Ref 3, but also more 'surfacy'.
Sound stage is a little narrower and somewhat two-dymensional compared to Ref 3. Definitely less sound stage depth.
There may be a little more detail in the treble and a slightly tighter bass, at the cost of a fairly leaner midrange. Sound is slightly more 'in your face'
Does Ref 3 sound a little more musical? Or is VAC more 'realistic?'
Changed power chord for VAC to Synergistic Research Designer ref 2 Master coupler. It's own active biasing has not been plugged in.
There is more definition. Still I may like ARC better for musicality, imaging, overall emotional impact of treble, mid, bass.
Quintet 2nd movement.
Very open reasonably good staging and imaging.
Breathing sounds, slightly better than ARC. Slightly tighter bass line?
Lighter/leaner sound than ARC.
Good harmonics on piano sostenuto arpeggios.
Less sense of spatiality than ARC.
Dvorak Cello Concerto: Munch and Piatigorsky.
1st movement:
More tape hiss sound than in ARC: This simply means VAC is slightly more revealing than ARC.
More forward treble than in ARC.
I hear definite congestion in the treble register strings on crescendo.
More glare in trumpet fortissimo (ff).
More surfacy, two dimensional.
Less air around instruments.
I hear some glassiness and congestion, especially on 'tuttis'.
Bass slightly tighter than ARC Ref 3.
not yet convinced of Ren Sig II.
Back to ARC Ref 3 with its own stock power chord. Ref 3 uses 20 Amp IEC: Synergistic Res chord is 15 Amps and can't be used.
Still on Dvorak Cello Concerto.
Definitely more dimensionality than VAC
Sounds more like an orchestra in a real concert hall with a stage made from wood, rather than a lot of instruments suspended in mid air like on VAC.
At this point the consultant discovers that Ref 3 had been running 'single ended' on the XLR connector all this time. Changed to real balanced signal.
Listened again to fragments of Dvorak's Cello concerto 1st and 2nd movements:
I hear even more music.
Even greater sense of the stage
Back to Dvorak Piano quintet 1st and 2nd movements.
truly great stage, air.
Sounds perhaps just slightly dark for some taste, but enormously musical.
Has overall more depth than VAC Ren Sig II. Not talking only about sound stage or location of the instruments. Talking also about the sense of
richness of the instruments extending from the high treble down to the bass register, now without obvious mid-bass bloating. The midrange is well. . .
glorious.
Seems instruments have a story to tell, Instruments more like people?
Removing Preamplifier from the system. Now running DCS directly into the Rowland 302. Volume controlled on DCS attenuator.
Slightly lighter sound than with ARC Ref 3.
Still truly gorgeous. Lots of 3D stage.
Still extremely liquid.
May be not as warm as with ARC Ref 3. Still beautiful.
No great congestion even in FF.
Dvorak Quintet 2nd movement:
Stage almost as great as with ARC.
Touch less player's breathing than on ARC after optimization?
Touch less body in mid strings.
Greater sense of completeness, 3D, imaging than on VAC Ren Sig II
Perhaps slightly less involving, than with ARC Ref 3, but would live with it happily.
Still sounds right.
Incredibly clean. ARC has an edge on involvement. Pure DCS has an edge on clarity.
Piano arpeggios with lots of overtones.
Dvorak Cello Concerto: Munch and Piatigorsky first movement:
Again lighter sound. Slightly glassy on full upper strings.
Falls apart a little more on FF.
Tends to be better on soft passages than in tutti.
Soft passages with plenty of air.
Delicate cello sound but not earthy. A little childlike cello. Or perhaps sounding more ethereal, like a Baroque cello style.
Still I get the impression that DCS P8I driving the Rowland 302 directly is perfectly valid and wonderful in its own way. I have the feeling this may very
well be preferable for Jazz ensembles and New Age music, were absolute speed and nimbleness are a must.
We disconnect now the DCS P8I and connect Accuphase DP-77. I am told there is no direct-to-amp capability, so we insert ARC Ref 3 in the system.
Powerchord on Accuphase is Synergistic PC same as used on VAC Ren Sig II.
ARC Ref 3 is still on own stock power chord.
Still on Dvorak Cello Concerto 1st and 2nd movement:
Definitely audibly glassier than DCS in tutti fortissimo (FF). More colored 'digital' sound than DCS: I can hear it on violins, brass, flutes.
No denying: great air around instruments. Not really harsh, yet it reminds me of a clearly digital sound 'of old'.
back to Piano quintet one last time for a couple of minutes:
Perhaps airier than DCS, lighter. Yet it sounds like instruments have less 'personality'. Perhaps sound disembodied. Midrange is leaner than DCS.
Very well defined leaner bass. Overall less character, but still with that slight digital coloration.
Conclusions?
I was surprised: I found a lot of coherence on Ref 3 with phenomenal imaging and musicality where I was expecting a trace of the silvery gray diffuse
sound stage of the older Ref 2 Mk. 2. Furthermore, ARC Ref 3 was likely hindered by its own 20 Amp stock power chord, rather than being helped by a more upscale PC which could be used
on VAC only.
I was not surprised by the relatively slight imaging shortcomings of the VAC Ren Sig II, as this seemed to be a frequent finding on Audiogon for this now almost discontinued model. On the
other hand, I was not prepared by Ren Sig II's relative upper glare, at least on the system I auditioned and was expecting a richer sound signature.
We should consider though that, even though we were not employing a stock power chord on VAC, the Synergistics Research was deployed with its active shield turned off, and the Cardas chord on Ren Sig II was not Cardas's current highest grade.
The DCS P8I was truly delightful. Rich and eloquent when coupled with the ARC Ref 3, which suited best my musical and sound taste, and was my very
favorite configuration during this session. but even more nimble and airy on its own, likely perfect for more contemporary musical selections.
The Accuphase DP-77 sounded very pleasing in so many ways, but still is to my ears an immature sounding product, in an absolutely spectacular
mechanical package. The box can be only rivaled in outer build quality by the Esoteric X-01, which I know well and love dearly, but did not have the opportunity to listen
directly in this setting.
The quest continues: prior to a final decision, I still look forward to A/B ARC Ref 3 against the newer VAC Ren II. I am already familiar with Ren II: its staging and imaging prowess are second to none. I am hoping to comparing directly its musicality, extension, midrange, sweetness, staging and imaging with that of ARC Ref 3. My hope is to be able to listen to both these through my favorite Shuniata Anaconda power chords, both linestages driven by a Teac Esoteric X-01, which still remains my favorite player, and with which I am most familiar.
Finally, would my preference have been different today, if both ARC Ref 3 and Vac Ren Sig II had been connected to AC through Shunyata Anaconda Alpha? And would the updated Ref 3 sporting 6550C tubes and bypass caps further sway me towards this linestage, or would the update have an opposite effect on me?
I am now looking forward to the gang's comments! |
Dgad, I dare say that the only device I heard yesterday which I can even faintly accuse of addeing a 'coloration' was the Accuphase DP-77, if we call coloration a type of unrealistic sound we will not find in live instruments. VAC Ren Sig II, ARC Ref 3, DCS P8I going solo, all sounded different, yet real in their own special way. Even what I call 'glare'' may not be perceived as such by someone else, or even by myself with a different style of music.
Oneobgin, I will call Leonard at ARC next week and will pick his brain about the benefits of the new Ref 3 inline update. Up to now I am still unclear about what the update actually does to the sound. Yet, I do concur that between the two linestages I listened to yesterday, ARC Ref 3 was my preferred one. Running with P8I directly into the Rowland 302 sounded very different, yet it was a close second. |
Frank, the audition took place at a dealer. Unfortunately the Phi had been sold just a few days earlier. It is my understanding that Phi is more related to Ren II. Ren Sig II is an older design, now largely deemphasized. I have heard the Ren II a few times and actually found it to be a soundstage champion, unlike the Ren Sig II, whose soundstage is slightly smaller and two dimensional.
Because Ref 3 is a brand new design and Ren Sig II is an older withdrawn design, my comparison was a little of apples and oranges. It seems to me the newer Ren II does share some of the positive characteristics of Ren Sig: openness, frequency extension, speed. Yet I did not experience with Ren II any stage constriction of the Sig.
To me it was a matter of no-contest-personal-preference in favor of ARC Ref 3 vs the VAC Ren Sig II. Or in other words, I 'prefer' the ARC. In the context of the system I listened to, I would find the Sig difficult to live with in the long run. I do insist however using the subjective term 'prefer'. If Kevin Haze is still manufacturing the Ren Sig II as a custom order, there must be customers who value its sound immensely and likely for good reasons.
The ARC Ref 3 was for me easy to listen to.
I did not know about the 302 hot pin peculiarities. Do you have any idea what problems a pin mismatch may cause? |
Frank, I live in Austin (TX), but travel to NYC a few times per year. Do you live in the NYC area? I'd love to hear your phy-based system. I understand Phi has an even larger sound stage than Ren II. I intend to ask the consultant if Rowland's pinout uniqueness had been taken into accountin yesterday's setup.
Thank you Glai for enjoying my scribblings. It has been fun writing them. Unfortunately I have no direct experience with EMM. So I am not in a position of commenting on it. All I can tell you is that the DCS P8I was for my taste was a very good match with the ARC Ref 3. The overall sound yielded by the two units was extended top to bottom, with excellent transients, very good low level detail--although perhaps not the very best I have heard this far--Instruments placement was extremely accurate. . . and the combination had a slight warm glow that made it especially appealing to me. I have the suspicion though that the Teac Esoteric X-01 may have an edge on the DCS P8I in the rendering of detail, transients and perhaps on neutrality. |
Dgad, concerning coloration, you make a good point. Yes, strictly speaking any alteration of the source signal may be deemed a coloration, and is often referred to as such.
Yet, 'any' is far too open ended a word, thus the term coloration starts assuming a meaning which is far too broad for its own good or its own usefulness.
That is why, I prefer to restrict the term 'coloration' to denote only a type of usually subtle sonic distortion, which, while not necessarily jarring per se, or even displeasing, nevertheless yields an instrumental timbre which cannot be typically heard from live instruments. Hence in all fairness, the only device which, in my view, added a just slightly 'artificial' coloration, among the four tested during the session, was the Accuphase DP-77. Or should we call this a 'discoloration'? It sounded to me as if instrumental voices were generated by an extremely high quality FM music synthesizer.
Now concerning DCS detail with and without the ARC Ref 3 in the loop. This was in fact very difficult to decide. While in about 70% of places there was perhaps the slightest increase of low level detail when Ref 3 was not in the loop, in the remainder I could hear slightly more detail with the ARC Ref 3 in the system, such as more distinct breathing from the players.. Let us also consider that the DCS P8I was assisted by the Kimber KG4 power chord , while the ARC Ref 3 was at a disadvantage, being powered through its stock power chord. . . or was it? (chuckles!) |
Just a small update on my auditioning plans. I am currently waiting with bated breath for the Austin weather to become more reasonable so that I will be able to keep the system turned on without the danger of poaching. Probably another three weeks or so. Then, in early October I hope to borrow a Ref 3 for several days, compare it directly with a VAC Ren II as an example of current VAC house sound, draw conclusions and finally reach closure. I may not be able to audition Phi directly, so I may need to make some guesstimates about Phi based on Ren II vs Ref 3. |
The problem with a hiss on early Ref 3 linestages has been noted by some others. No hiss was detectable on the unit I auditioned. I suggest you get in touch with Leonard at ARC. It is quite possible that the new bypass caps may get rid of the hiss. |
You are right DGAD, it is in fact terribly difficult to choose equipment in a single A/B test. I do not trust the process completely myself. As you read, there was to start with an unevenness of power chords. Everything was moving every few minutes by necessity. The room was full of obstacles that were playing havoc with sound. We may even have had some phase problems for all we know.
That is why I am so terribly anal about this business and intend to do some more A/B listening before I make a final decision. If possible at all I will also borrow some equipment for auditioning on my own system.
In the end I will have to live with whatever decision I make for a significant amount of time. . . as I'd like to stay married (chuckles!), so I have to make absolutely sure I will truly enjoy my choice for the LOOOONG run.
By the way, have you or anyone else had any experience with the Accuphase flagship player--the DP-100/DC-101 combo? Larry Diaz at High End Palace swears by it. But I have the concern that given its age, and the still digital nature of the sound on the newer DP-77, it may suffer from some of the same artificial coloration or relative lack of body. |
Thank you DGAD, If single box Accuphase players are supposedly better than the big combo, I am not terribly optimistic about DP-100/DC-101 performance. As discussed in my findings, the much newer single-box DP-77 was digitally colored, and I did not judge it to be a mature product. just for fun I started a thread last night called:
"Accuphase DP-100 DC-101 Sleeping Giant Or Dinosaur" at:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ddgtl&1124591449&openmine&zzGuidocorona&4&5#Guidocorona
If anyone has had any experience with the Accuphase megacombo, or has any opinions about it, please post there. |
It looks like I was in error regarding the ARC Ref 3 rolling update. According to Marcelosinicola--who has spoken to ARC--The change does not effect the four 6H30 output tubes--as I erroneously thought--but the single 6L6GC in the power supply is replaced with a pin-compatible 6550C. The 4 additional bypass capacitors are instead confirmed. |
Fplanner, that's exciting. Please keep us posted about sonic changes during breakin of your new Phi.
In the meantime, does anyone know the length of the stock powerchord that ARC supplies with the Ref 3? And the same info for VAC Ren II and Phi 2.0? On any linestage i get I will need 10 to 12 feet of PC. |
Thank you DGAD for the suggestion. At least initially I am planning to use stock PCs on the new linestage That's why I am hoping to avoid an extension chord or powerbar. |
What, VAC now indulging in mass crypto-rolling-updates just sneaked in without proper approvals for the unforgivable deviation from the quinquennial product cycle plan? You mean ARC is not the only company guilty of such unrestrained outrages?
And this only because they clearly state in the literature that they reserve the right to modify any specs without notice to me? I am speechless! (Chuckles!)
FPLANNER and Bhauser, please let us know about all sonic changes when your machines return from Kevin's electronic health spa. |
Even more amusing is that both Ref 3 and VAC Ren II are receiving rolling updates simultaneously.
ARC Ref 3 on bypass caps and a single power supply tube, while VAC Ren II is getting a new volume control.
Nneither products are changing versions because their manufacturers deem correctly that such minor engineering changes (EC) do not warrant a formal version number change.
In the software industry we call this a 'build, and we do not necessarily change product version every time we deliver a new build to a customer.
It actually bespeaks the fair mindedness of these companies, that feel so loyal to their current customer base to inform them that updates are available, and are more than delighted to apply these to earlier units for very nominal charges.
On the other hand, it is also more than fair for some Audiophiles to prefer dealing with other manufacturers who are said never to apply an EC to an existing model if their very lives depended on it, as essentially Arturo at Axiss informed me in so many words about Accuphase products, which are apparently kept in their original V1 state until they are withdrawn, several years after their introduction.
Isn't freedom of choice marvellous?
Of course, you may think that some other companies never change version, just because they are not telling you. . . yet looking under the hood apparently you may be sometimes surprised.
I'll stick to ARC, VAC, JRDG and the likes. Yet, thank you for sharing your valid concern. |
I understand your concern perfectly DownUnder, dealing with a company at the globe's antipodes is not my cup of tea either. That's exactly one of the reasons why I have not included Supratech in my quest for my ultimate linestage. |
John, in spite of the fact that I have to limit my listening to no more than 90 minutes per night because my JRDG 7M amps seem to be winning the nightly battle with 7 tons worth of air conditioning units, I have in fact been busy enjoying my music immensely, even through my venerable LS2B.
Just yesterday I made a portentous discovery, that is only after 7 years of living in this house: I can power my system through 3 different and virtually dedicated electrical circuits: 1 for the left amp, 1 for the right amp, and 1 for player and linestage. In addition linestage and CD are connected to different outlets. This is made possible by my 12 ft long Cardas Golden Ref PCs (which I have owned for 'only' 5 years) on the monoblocks and the stock 10 ft long PC on the LS2B. As a result the system has magically gained in liquidity, transparency, imaging, stage, while losing a perceptable amount of residual grunge. All of this at absolutely no cost. Truly tremendous WAF! Where has my brain been all these years?
Now I can't wait to retire the 'venerable one' and replace it with one of the amazing linestages in the race. The end of October is still my target. Ren Sig II has ridden itself out of the race. Phi, Ren II and Ref 3 are tied in a brawl, and the mighty Callisto is garbed as a 'dark horse'! My goodness I think I have DAC! I am losing it where are my meds where are my meds where are my meds. . . ! [fading screams off stage. . . only Piatigorsky's divine Stradivari cello can still be heard playing the haunting 2nd movement of Antonin Dvorak's cello concerto [RCA Living Stereo SACD remaster] in the sweltering Austin (TX) night. . .] |
One more update on my continuing saga. Linestage decision time has come. After months of pondering I have selected the ARC Ref 3 over VAC Ren II or Phi. Given my listening preference for classical chamber music, I have reasons to believe that the Ref 3's just slightly lush sound may be slightly more of my liking than the VAC family's admittedly greater nimbleness, and broader treble extension.
For WAF considerations that may become apparent -- at least to some married audiophiles -- in the next sentence, I have postponed order of the Ref 3 by a few weeks.
I have finally replaced my venerable EAD T-1000 and DSP-7000 Mk. 3 digital combo with the long coveted Teac Esoteric X-01. I received the unit only two days ago and am currently breaking it in. Even the unbroken X-01 already appears to justify fully my falling for it last year in NYC. I expect the unadorned elegant beuty of its sound to complement nicely the relative richness of the Ref 3. |
Thank you guys for the kind words, what I was hearing last night from the X-01 into the LS2B after 35 hrs of break-in was already rather incredible.
Sounds like I have already changed also the linestage: much larger soundstage, low level info, compatibility with congested passages, emotion in the performance is finally reaching my ears, bass line in 'continuo' melody can be heard instead of only guessed at. . . . and it's starting to sound even lush. . . or was I the one getting 'lush' after half a glass of Merlot?
note that not only my old and trusted LS2B is still in the system, but it is still connected to the X-01 through an almost 20 year old AudioQuest Quartz RCA IC. Just can't wait to listen to the system again tonight approx at the 55 hrs break-in mark.
JAFOX, one of the probs with LS2B is that it takes the creature 4 full days to warm up each time it is turned on and the tube enabled. Mine has now been humming for several weeks. While I do not pretend it to rival better/newer gear, it is never the less sounding quite enjoyable.
Fplanner, I have not heard the APL 3910 so I cannot comment on it. I only had the opportunity to listen to the APL 1000 and found it to be graceful and quite charming, with an intimate presentation which reminded me of some of the best features of my EAD combo.
Yet, I may be comparing apples and oranges. . . It would be quite interesting if someone could post a detail A/B first hand analysis of X-01 vs APL 3910.
Oneobgin, I can't wait to order the Ref 3 and insert it in the system. . . just need to postpone the process a few more weeks for WAF consideration. In the meantime I will break in X-01 thoroughly and make my system ready for the Ref 3's arrival/insertion. |
I used to be able to edit my post. . . but the capability has disappeared from this thread. . . oh well!
Just wanted to add that I have been always using the LS2B with its stock captive power chord, and currently the X-01 is still powered by its own stock chord. My EAD T-1000 DSP-7000 digital combo have always been powered only by the stock PCs which were originally delivered with my JRDG 7M monoblocks. . . very non denominational PCs. |
Fplanner, I have indeed heard an X-01 with Shunyata Anaconda VX and another with Epiphany and several other much less successful chords. . . quite amazing! My original post on X-01 describes my experience with this player and the Anaconda VX. See:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ddgtl&1090867688&openfrom&3&4#3
I am also interested in hearing the new Anaconda helix VX. Elrod and a few others will also be on my eventual test list. Furthermore, X-01 works best in fully balanced mode and I am still using a venrable AudioQuest Quartz RCA. But all of these fancier tests will commence only after the creature is fully broken in, or I won't be able to tell who is doing what to whom. . . and why. . . and how well.
Yes, I do follow the APL forum regularly. Alex Peychev's original plan was to modify an Esoteric UX-1, universal brother of X-01, but with half the complement of Burr Brown 1704 DACs. I am not sure about the status of this particular project. |
OK my merry gang of doubters out there, it is truly happening. . . I have finally broken down for Christmas. . . and while ranting and foaming at the mouth under the spell and spasms of a full blown ceasure of Audiophilia Newrvosa, hands like claws reaching uncontrollably for the credit card, I have ordered my very own Arc Ref 3 in stunningly elegant black livery! I expect delivery of this hefty valvular marvel sometimes during the first half of January '06. |
JAFOX, I did perform a little due diligence before passing my order. It is being aledged that ARC is NOT in the process of announcing a new version of the Ref 3 at CES. Yet an Mk. 2 or whatever is eventually inevitable, and I am looking forward to my new baby being bested. |
WC65Mustang, I am sure Mitch makes fabulous devices. I will consider listening to one when the brand meets my requirements. |
Sure Mustang. . . . . and so will most other active brands eventually improve. . . . but that is neither here nor there. Enjoy your rig! |
