|
Audio Research State of the Art Audio Reproduction |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Oracle Delphi, SME V, Lyra Titan i, REF CD7, REF 3, REF PH2SE, VT200mkII, ML CLX 25th |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
That is why Audio Research call their top tier components "Reference". Strange that claim would make it into print.
__________________
Source Esoteric K-01X Preamp Audio Research REF 10 Amplifier D'Agostino Progression monoblocks Speakers Wilson Audio Maxx 3 Cables Transparent Reference Gen 5 Equipment rack and amp stands HRS Power conditioning Transparent Power outlets GTX-D(G) Gold-Plated duplex receptacles dedicated 20 amp lines. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for all the comments so far. My sense is that the recent "Reference" components tend to sound more solid-state-like than the non-Reference units or earlier ARC components that have the more traditional rich, warm sound of tubes. I currently own the Reference 150 and Reference CD9. These units have the best aspects of solid state ("quickness", dynamic range, bass dynamics) without the less good aspects (edgy, harsh, or hot sounding), while still maintaining the sweetness of tubes. I listen mostly to classical music and for me, the acid test is how a component handles massed strings. Tubes still do this the best.
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
The difference between the Ref 3 and Ref 5 is not that big. The difference between the Ref 5 and Ref 5se is much bigger. It is worth getting the SE version.
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Lost Bears:
The difference between the Ref 150 and the Ref 110 is about as big as the difference between the Ref 3 and the Ref 5SE. It is that big. Richer, more palpable images with fuller lower midrange and more defined and deeper bass. It sounds more natural than the Ref 110 which can sound a bit thin at times. The difference between the Ref 150 and Ref 150 SE adds a little bit to the above equation----but not nearly the difference between the Ref 3 and Ref 5SE. That was a sea change and all for the better. This is all IMHO.
__________________
Wilson Alexia V, ARC Ref 160M MkII,Ref 40,Ref Phono2SE, Shunyata Triton3, Typhon, Sigma PCs, ICs & SCs, Spectral SDR4000SV (w MIT IC), Belcanto PL1, Oppo 205, Marantz 2270 (tuner only):AudioDesk and VPI record cleaners, Furutech Demag & Destat; Stillpoint Apertures, TechDas AF 3S Premium with SAT CF9 and Kuzma 4pt 9" arms, Lyra Atlas Lambda SL, Dynavector XV1-t stereo and XV1-s mono carts, Miyajima mono, Shure V15VxMR, |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I had both the REF150 SE and the GS for a while, and other considerations aside, aesthetically the latter looked like an Bentley Continental GT parked next to a Municipal Dump Truck |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Simply copy the entire line in the BB Code edit box and paste it into your post. You can then Preview the post and confirm that the photo appears. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
I ended up buying the Ref 5SE (a used one). Living with it now for just a few days, it's clear that it is easily lives up to all the praise. Within the first 30 seconds of listening to it for the first time, I could hear the depth and 3-dimensionality is a leap beyond the LS27. The midrange has more body and the low-level resolution is astounding. It is very fast and detailed without bring harsh. Massed strings are so sweet sounding. I didn't think it was possible to make this much improvement on the LS27 but the Ref 5SE does it.
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
I have an LS25 mk2 but have not heard the LS27. ARC seems to be working to make their sound more neutral (accurate) - at least for the last few decades - and I agree that could make the newer unit sound thin in a comparison test. Or maybe the newer unit had few hours on it(?)
One bad thing about the newer units: they lost the nice toggle switches... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Audio Aficionado Sponsors | |