![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.19.26.111
In Reply to: RE: REVIEW: Audio Research, Inc. Reference 3 Preamplifier (Tube) posted by rhyno on July 15, 2012 at 07:47:47
HI,
I probably should not comment on your review. I have never heard any of the parts of your system so how can I know anything? But, much of what you have reported bothered me. It does not seem like you are reviewing an Audio Research product. Especially bothersome are the numerous references to SET amps which I never would consider mentioning in the same paragraph with ARC products. This is an apples and oranges comparison.ARC has had a corporate sound that has been consistent ever since the SP-11. The sound has always been fast, resolved, dynamic, and extremely neutral extending from DC to Light. If I did not know your review was of an ARC product, I would have thought it was built by a completely different company. Most of your comments would chase me away from this preamp since I am a long term ARC lover and you are describing a totally different sound.
I'm sorry, but I must completely discount your review and your observations.
Sparky
Edited to correct spelling
Edits: 07/17/12 07/17/12Follow Ups:
here's the thing:
the ARC can be / is dynamic, resolving, fast, neutral etc. but it depends on your POV. my comments are relative to other SOTA preamps, which possess more of those attributes than the ARC does. if you compare the ARC to crappy preamps, your observations stand. if you compare the ARC to the creme de la creme (edge, einstein, ypsilon, SMC VRE, and others i can't recall at present), where i articulate its weaknesses is where it falls short. otherwise, why would they ever need to upgrade, as it'd be perfect, which no audio component is.
what good would it do any reader considering this product to not understand its weaknesses in advance? i'm just articulating them. i know the weaknesses with my boulder, my rockports, my digital (though the esoteric really approaches perfect, as does my buddy's ypsilon), and my cables / power / room. and i just told everyone what the weaknesses are with the ARC.
(which is why the factory can wring incremental improvements out of it)
owners need to understand that, like parents, sometimes their baby is a bit ugly. sorry to break it to you folks, but more objectivity in this hobby would help---both at new release dates (when everyone gushes) and ex-post (when everyone ditches it).
anyone who owned a SET or played with a SET will understand my comments.
HI rhyno,
Sorry, I'm not buying your explanation. ARC is just too good (and different from your characterization) to be considered in the light you present. Either your ears are defective or your system is.
Sparky
as is every single system ever assembled since the first phonograph.
difference is: i'm painfully honest and objective about it. and not some rah rah owner.
even though i own it.
(if you and everyone else haven't heard the Ref3 in your own rigs against other world class products, as i have, well then that says volumes now doesn't it?)
my guess is anyone who comes across this thread years from now will see who's credible in their comments, and who's being little more than an inexperienced troll or a rah rah homer.
I must agree. Having owned many ARC preamps the sound he is describing sounds nothing like the ARC house sound. Especially the comment about dynamics. They tend to be explosive in this regard.
Of course if the tubes are weak or shot it would explain a lot.
I too have to discount this review. It does not jive with my experience or the experience of many others I know that have ARC gear. Nor does it jive with the many reviews I have read about the ARC Reference preamps.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: