#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
You are absolutely right to try each components with all others in any setup, so also with speakers, cables, sources, ideally speaking. Practically impossible in my case, so I had to choose from what I am able to hear and compare. I heard also (shortly) Phantom with Krell 400E with Cast vs Ref5SE with 400E, speaker Wilson Sasha, source Wadia s7i. Far better synergy here for the Krell Phantom/400E/Cast combo. The sound character I described however especially the notable differences between the pre's of ARC and Krell were also detectable here. My comparison was an indication of the differences between Ref5SE and 202 in mentioned setup, which had to be fine-tuned to make out the best of each component. And your own preferences and your choice of music plays also a major role here. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Where and how were you able to audition these incredible set ups? If within reasonable distance, I may take a day trip to listen...
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Be sure to do a proper break-in for the ARC Ref5SE. The recommendation is at least 600 hours! Although really great out of the box mine start to sound far more open and smoothing out at around 300 hrs. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Bought it used with just over 750 hours on it. So, it was good from the start for me.
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
It was a private setup, so I give the guy a call. Due to changing of his system both his 400E and Phantom were sold, so no change to listen again there.
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
This tends to be the case for most of us. Maybe one of the biggest problem in the hifi-hobby today. Harder than getting the right equipment and the money.
__________________
It Don't Mean a Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
So I think at this level there is no absolute best. It's between Ref5SE and Phantom, just as said before, about preference and synergy. I will be very pleased to hear from you what your comparings are between ARC and Krell. And buy a nice present also for your wife! |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In my system Krell was warmer, more fullbody, higher resolution, more dynamics and controll. ARC was a little bit harsh and had not that focus. When i tested it, I actually was a bit surprised. I thought ARC would be warmer.
__________________
It Don't Mean a Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Power cords can make a big difference, when doing these comparisons. I remember when I got my Krell S-1500 amp, I used the stock cord, because Krell recommended it. It actually sounded really good and really balanced. I tried my reference power cords, and while there were improvements, including focus, it lost that balance and just didn't sound as good to me overall.
For me, the solution was Krell's Vector HC power cord, believe it or not. It improved image focus, while keeping everything balanced. I like the power cord so much, I've put one on my power conditioner and another on my home theater processor. These power cords need a good 300-400 hours of break in though... Dave |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
However, I agree with you. On many recordings, I find ref5se harsh on upper mid to highs. I thought I was going nuts. I had Manley Neo500 which was silky smooth. I thought C2300 and C2500 had very smooth midrange, but lacked detail and rolled off the highs - but NEVER harsh. So, can it be that ARC ref5SE can be harsh on certain recordings? Maybe it's a blasphemy to even criticize ARC, but that has been my experience also. I just attributed that to my DAC and bad recordings. In fact, I am on my 3rd DAC after getting ref5SE, due to this harshness. I thought DACs were the problems. I am still refusing to believe ref5 is the culprit... But, maybe I need to rethink... Last edited by SteveK; 10-14-2013 at 04:24 PM. |
|
|
Audio Aficionado Sponsors | |