Fsarc -Yes, my unit is older. I'm sure yours already has what mine is getting. The reason for the "tweaks" is that I have a few system aberations that Kevin and Brent are making gain allowances for in the Phi circuitry. It will not make mine any "better" than a stock Phi, just will fit my system a little better.
Isn't the sound amazing? Too bad more people don't know about this piece - as soon as it gets a review somewhere, you might be glad yours ONLY took 12 weeks!
Happy listening! |
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. |
Fplanner2000- Was your 2.0 an older unit? I just received mine about 3 weeks ago and can't imagine there is an upgrade already after waiting close to 12 weeks for it to be built. Could you describe the other "tweaks" as well? Thanks for any info you can share. |
My Phi 2.0 is also at VAC, receiving this Volume Control Upgrade plus a few more little "tweaks". The "VCU" is supposed to do exactly what Bhouser says. Hopefully will be back Wed. |
FYI Guido-
The Renaissance/Ren Sig Volume Control Upgrade is being installed on my VAC Ren MK1 as I write this. Though I haven't received the actual bill yet, I was quoted $150 (plus return shipping) by Kevin Hayes.
It is supposed to improve frequency response throughout the range of the control, along with the accuracy and finesse of adjusting the volume level itself.
The VAC guys are heading into 'CES Season', when they get really busy designing new products destined to premier at CES in January. So, Kevin suggested sending my unit in ASAP, or the upgrade could be delayed heavily.
I will report back if it makes a noticeable difference in SQ. |
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. . .] |
As for "nominal" ARC upgrade costs, for the most part, these have been much more expensive than I would classify as nominal. It almost always makes more sense to sell your older ARC unit and buy the later version on the used market. ARC does have excellent customer service though and this is important. But living 3 minutes from the ARC facility does not sway me to let go of the Callisto even if it does look like it would be more at home as part of a nuclear power plant control console rather than in a home audio system rack!
Guidocorona - If you had already purchased the Callisto, you would be so busy enjoying your music that we would not have heard from your for weeks. 8-)
John |
Even for me living in Sydney, Supratek is a risk as Mick won't give demo's to anyone, is a one man show and unfortunately he lives opn the other side of the country 4000 miles away.
I am much like you in picking astablished firms that make sound products and will be around in 5 years time. |
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. |
I am sure these nominal charges for endless upgrades (I am talking bout ARC) is a nice but frustrating option to the US consumer.
Pity the poor sucker that has not bought in the USA.
You would have thought ARC would have got it right the first time, rather than make a change 6 mnths later.
their seems to be two types of designers - one that believes they get it right the first time and those that are in a constant state of change. |
Though I have not owned or listed to the Accuphase units (all that have discussed above) over a long period, whenever I hear them: redbook CDs...don't like it: pre-ocuppied with pace and sounds digital: SACD: much better, a bit romatic but prefer EMM Gear. |
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. |
Is ARC up to a Ref3 v2 all ready. that did not take long for their reference product to be updated :) I find it mildly amusing that several mnths after release it now needs an update. |
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. |
Guidocorona, Just to let you know what David Elrod said to me. I was placing electrical extensions in my house & wanted to know if I surface mounted the plugs on the floor close to the equipment & use a 6 foot cord or should I terminate in the wall & use a 12 foot cord. He said I could use the 6 foot cord. I am guessing the conditioning effects of the cord are accomplished in shorter lengths as well & using an extension cord or extending your electrical cabling from your outlet into a surface mount extension and then using a 6 foot power cord will accomplish the same end.
I am saying this to save you money on spending a lot more for a top of the line custom power cord of longer length. I hope I was clear. I feel like I am rambling. |
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. |
Just got my Phi 2.0. I can't stop smiling.... (plus, it looks great!). Smooth, detailed, wide and deep soundstage (when its in the music), perfect placement of instruments, very involving and musical. Need to tweak my system some (a little too much gain going in) and when that is done, then I'll get to REALLY hear it! These are just first impressions. |
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. |
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. |
Guidocorona,
I have only hearsay on the DP-100/DC-101 combo. I have been told that the Single box units are significantlly better. I have not been so impressed with any Accuphase digital gear in multiple listening sessions. Mind you, none of the listening sessions were ideal, but one was in a friends house. I am a big EMM fan. I just can't get over how great the performance of SACD is w. the EMM setup. Listening right now & it is so very smooth & dynamic. I just can't pick it apart. |
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. |
Guidocorona,
I agree with your assesment based on your definition. In that regard I would also say that the addition or removal of any top shelf preamplifier (top shelf is open to debate) will yield similar results. And to be honest is isn't very easy to diagnose in an A B test comparison. It is more appropriately evaluated via long term listening. The truly toughest test of all.
Now to throw in a new caveat, in my system any movement of the cables at all between equipment requires usually about a week for them to settle in & achieve the most listenable state. Oh, this gets so complicated. I have other friends who have mentioned the same experiences. I would strongly suggest that the Kimber did benefit in some way, but maybe not to its best ability. Also the latest generation of DCS equipment is highly regarded. I am an EMM fan & haven't heard the latest generation of DCS equipment. I have heard most of my previous equipment in multiple systems. Each time liking the overall system & finally deciding on a purchase. This included the EMM gear, Audio Aero, Wilson Watt Puppy 7s, & the VTL 7.5s. Mind you not my 750s, but I used to own the 100s years ago to great enjoyment. I also have heard Kharmas multiple times & found them dynamically limited each time and have heard Accuphase finding it to still sound "digital".
Is the ARC Ref 3 a great product. I am sure it is. I am looking forward to hearing it. I have heard ARC many times & highly recommend it. I ultimately feel the ARC house sound as well as many other top flight products have moved to much more neautral with a slight addition of maybe fullness or body to the sound. I remember loving the ARC Classic 60 on some ML speakers (If I remember right). I still want a Classic 60 sweetness in a second system for the fun of it.
The most fun of this hobby is the search & the reward after the search is over. Whatever you purchase should give you immense pleasure, should be synergistic with your system and keep you happy for a long time. Enjoy. |
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!) |
Guidocorona,
Let me define coloration as anything that changes the signal our sound from the source. This means that if the CD is bright & your preamp is not and you result w. a balanced sound your equipment is still colored.
Uncolored. A bright CD player sounds bright or unchanged after placing a preamp in the path.
Now in terms of your post please allow me to quote you w. some comments;
"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."
I would presume the less warmth going direct means the ARC is "coloring the sound". I would also agree it is a beautiful color that we can call extremely musical & maybe just a musical. But I would submit to you that warmth is a form of color that I myself love in the moderate amounts, but yet feel it is a departure from the sound of hte source - the DCS rig.
"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."
DCS has an edge on clarity to me means that you lost clarity by entering the ARC Ref 3 into the equation. In addition the ARC edge on involvement basically says the same thing.
I submit that any tube preamp and additional interconnect combination will add body, remove slight detail (maybe ever so slight) and possibly allow you to be more involved in the music.
Is it worth the money is a question I had great issues resolving before I took the plunge. Now I am very happy with my decision.
Enjoy all that you do. |
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. |
Guidocorona, Thank you for your work, it is an excellent account of the audition. Do u think DCS is competitive with EMM CDSD + DAC2? |
It would invert the signal polarity. Since it remained constant for both preamps, I'm not sure it would have changed the outcome.
In my system, the Phi definitely has the attributes you admire on the Ren II. There is also no upper glare that I can detect.
It's great you hearing these products firsthand and I appreciate your detailed analysis.
Are you located near NYC? |
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? |
Great write up Guidocorona! It appaears you have a terrific understanding of the nuances of all three products.
I would have loved to see you get to listen to the Phi in the mix. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before. Is the Phi more similar to the newer Ren II or the older Ren SigII?
Is the Ren SigII competitive with the Ref 3 or was it "no contest" as OB mentions? I find at this level it comes down to personal preference rather than one product being totally superior to another. While I prefer the sound of the Phi over the Emm DCC2 I can't say it's no contest. If I didn't have the Phi I could certainly live with the DCC2 direct.
Also, I'm sure if this would have made ANY difference in what you heard, but are you aware that the Rowland 302 uses the uncoventional pin 3 "hot" on its balanced inputs rather than the more common pin 2 "hot"?
In case I missed it somewhere, was this comparison done at a dealer or friend's house?
Given the great reputation of the ARC Ref II I'm not surprised you were so impressed with the Ref 3.
Best wishes on your final decision.
Frank |
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. |
I still maintain, the ARC Ref 3 wins hands down. It is just no contest especially after the addition of the bypass caps and switching the output tube to a 6550C |
Great post & great notes. REad the entire thing. Well worth it. I thank you for your work. Nothing compares to a listening session w. the variables being well notes. Also nothing reveals a preamps sound as well as a comparision of going direct.
I stand by what I said in an earlier post. The beauty of the coloration of tubes is what we are buying. Just how much is the question. As you indicated there was not much distance between the DCS direct or via the ARC. Both were liveable. This mirrors my experience w. my Audio Aero direct vs going via my VTL TL 7.5. Also this demonstrates the difference between a Placette line stage & a great tube linestage. I myself love my coloration of tubes. Now only to choose which color. Today they come in so many shades with any great one being great. It is all a matter of choice. It depends on your system not on what any of us post over here. |
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! |
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. |
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. |
Pscialli - I've had a VAC STD LE for 3 months now and I really like it. It does not have the phono stage, which is not a problem for me at this point since I don't spin vinyl. I really like the VAC sound, and after talking to Kevin H. several times, will be moving up to the Ren Mk2 soon (I hope).
I really like the detail and layering I get from the LE, and Kevin says the Ren Mk2 is a better choice for me than the Ren Sig for these characteristics. There are also advances made in the Ren Mk2 that are lacking in the Signature and the designs are totally different, From a developmental standpoint, it seems as though the Phi is an evolution from the Ren Mk2, NOT from the Ren Signature, as may have been previously stated elsewhere in this thread.
The only other preamp for comparison in my system was a Thor TA-1000 Mk2. The Thor stickers at around $10K, and in my system had a little better bass tightness and extension, plus a little better overall dynamics than the VAC. It was a noticeable, but not huge difference and I was pretty surprised at how close the VAC actually came to the Thor. In fact, to my ears, the VAC's transparency was a shade better than the Thor's - there seemed to be a little more detail present. I guess it depends upon what you are listening for, etc. Kevin also suggested that the bass and dynamics result was probably partly due to an impedence matching issue between the LE and my DNA-500 amp, which is not present with the Ren Mk2.
In summary, the VAC Std LE is a surprisingly strong performer, (at least the line stage is) from my experience, and the better the system surrounding it, the better it will sound. Paired with my APL 3910 Denon and Whisper speakers, poorly recorded disks still sound like what they are, but well-recorded disks sound between great and incredible! I find myself listening to CD's I haven't heard in years and just grinning....... guess that's what its all about, right?
I know its subjective, but hope this helps. |
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 |
Thank you Brian, the PDF file linked above appears to contain only digital noise. I prefer analog noise :-) Maybe you need a new, quieter computer, since it looks fine here! Brian |
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 |
While I cannot see a day where I'll have the money for something like the Phi 2.0, I can well imagine being at the price point of the VAC Standard LE. Does anyone have experience with this "budget" version of the VAC product? How is its phono stage? |
Deshapiro, is the Blowtorch a differential balanced design or is it single ended? |
A Blowtorch with remote would be like a Ferrari Enzo with automatic :-) Guidocorona: no formal specs published, but some info is in the review by Wayne Donnelly published in Fi and available online here. 113 dB S/N ratio 100 dB crosstalk @ 50 kHz Gain 8 dB single ended, 14 dB balanced 350 kHz open loop bandwidth Spectral analysis 2nd and 3rd order only at less than .01% IM at 3V output Output impedance w/o buffer 1 Kohm Acceptable performance :-) By the way, the optional Vendetta phono stage sports an S/N ratio of merely 85 dB... Brian |
Hi Brian,
I really liked my Blowtorch. My comment was more in the vein of recognizing system synergy. As my taste has evolved, I like the combo of a strong SS amp and a tube preamp. If the Blowtorch came with a remote control, I'd probably still own it :).
David |
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? |
David, I differ with your finding, based upon several years of experience owning a Blowtorch. It has never been hard edged, simply ruthlessly revealing yet musical as it gets. You owned Avalon Osiris speakers when you had the Blowtorch for a few months, as well as either Pass X600s or Krell 750s, not sure what the rest of your system was. I won't dispute what you may have heard, but any edginess cannot be attributed to the Blowtorch. I have heard the Blowtorch vs. IIRC the Switchman, and the differences were apparent, especially in terms of dynamics, imaging and staging, and treble.
Brian |
Hmmm..........I see the price advantage in the Phi 2.0
-Latest circuit design-sonically better than the Ren.Sig II.
-IMO- the Phi blows it away in the looks dept.
-Built-in state of the art phono stage that is a $4000 option for the Ren Sig II.
-I wouldn't worry about the tubes. Kevin said I can leave my 2.0 on 24/7 and get a least two years of tube life.
-Better resale on Phi 2.0 The Ren Sig II is really not in production anymore, but available by special order.
-Price difference is only $2K.
-Now if you come across a used mint Ren Sig II at a substantially lower price then I would agree it is the better value. |
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. |
Hifimaniac- All of the Phi series components use circuit boards. Kevin tells me the 2.0 pre uses a special ceramic material that's not used on any of the other Phi products. Even the tube sockets are directly soldered to the circut board. I'm sure they are well designed.
Guidocorona~ I'm kind of in the same boat as you, I have not been able to do a head to head with the VAC products. I just find the Sig MK II very attractive, and I'll have to hear it before buying anything else. I won't be needing the phone stage, so again the Sig MK II looks attractive to me compared to the Phi 2.0. The Sig MkII has 4 less tubes to worry about. |
Hi Guido, the PHI 2.0 does come with a MC and MM phono section standard on the unit and it is superb. I sold my beloved Vendetta Research and Krell KPE Reference preamps once I heard Kevin's phono stage. Kevin told me he is an analog fan! Also, to my knowledge, the PHI is all point to point soldering, no boards. This is why it takes so long for Kevin to produce it. I could have bought either unit, the Ren. Sig was $17K w/phono, but Kevin told me he felt the PHI was even better in many ways, so I believed him. My additional two cents on the PHI 2.0. |
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? |
