REF 6 v.s. REF 40

[triode12]

Originally Posted by Harlequin

To state the obvious, ARC designs their power supply circuits around a valve that first and foremost is in current production, dependable and in good supply, an entirely sensible manufacturing consideration, I'm not convinvced that ARC chose that particular valve in order to 'tune' 'voice' etc etc, their equipment around it.

To claim that an power or audio circuit will only reproduce the recorded event optimally when utilizing valves as supplied by the manufacturer is IMHO somewhat blinkered and constraining.

For instance, New manufactured Amplification supplied with Current production Mullard el34 and 12AX7 Vs the same equipment retro fitted out with NOS Mullard Double O XF2 and 1950's Longplate ECC83!

The fact is that the changes are not night and day. i.e. the component was un-bearable to listen to before and with NOS tubes, it is now bearable. They are subtle and not using NOS tubes will not render the component less capable than when it is used with new production tubes. We are splitting hairs wrt to differences at this level of performance.

[elem79]

Originally Posted by triode12

The fact is that the changes are not night and day. i.e. the component was un-bearable to listen to before and with NOS tubes, it is now bearable. They are subtle and not using NOS tubes will not render the component less capable than when it is used with new production tubes. We are splitting hairs wrt to differences at this level of performance.

What a fickle bunch audiophiles are. Enjoy the equipment and more importantly the music, and try not to fixate like the lot of sybarites you all are.

[kngale1]

Originally Posted by elem79

What a fickle bunch audiophiles are. Enjoy the equipment and more importantly the music, and try not to fixate like the lot of sybarites you all are.

If all important is enjoy the equipment and more importantly the music, then why are selling and replacing your Best Sounding ARC Amplifier, GS150? Isn't it good enough to play MUSIC? What's the difference in rolling components or tubes??

[elem79]

Originally Posted by kngale1

If all important is enjoy the equipment and more importantly the music, then why are selling and replacing your Best Sounding ARC Amplifier, GS150? Isn't it good enough to play MUSIC? What's the difference in rolling components or tubes??

This seems to bother you. Isn't the first time you've mentioned it. Not sure what the point of your comment is other then to illicit another fickle yet equally vapid response. lol do you want every one to believe you own a Porsche... Back to your hole goodman or should I say Honda.

[kngale1]

Originally Posted by elem79

This seems to bother you. Isn't the first time you've mentioned it. Not sure what the point of your comment is other then to illicit another fickle yet equally vapid response. lol do you want every one to believe you own a Porsche... Back to your hole goodman or should I say Honda.

He who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones!!!

[tima]

Originally Posted by triode12

The fact is that the changes are not night and day. i.e. the component was un-bearable to listen to before and with NOS tubes, it is now bearable. They are subtle and not using NOS tubes will not render the component less capable than when it is used with new production tubes. We are splitting hairs wrt to differences at this level of performance.

Again triode, you hit the mark.

The ARC Reference gear is among the last candidates one would figure for rolling tubes. Not that it can't be done. Typically in preamps it is output tubes in gain stages that have influential sonic impact.

The 6H30 is single sourced and the now rare DR varietal offers very small differential over stock. If there is any case to be made based on value for this tube it *may* be extended lifespan, but that doesn't hold up well given the cost of the DR vs a stock EH. I've tried DR, EH, and EH cryoed in all the recent ARC Ref gear (xcept the 6) and the sonic differences one may hear as positives for the DR are pretty small - yes they are there but again, small. Considering it takes 8 or 10 in a Ref 10 at $200+ per tube, other opportunities present themselves. I bought several when they were $30ea. and I would not buy them today.

The Ref5 and RefPhono2 were designed with the SED 'Winged C' 6550C. The manufacturer could no longer produce quality in quantity, thus the switch to the 6550WE. It's not as expensive to try alternative 6550s but only because fewer are needed. The 6550 was normally used as a power amp output tube. I can hear small differences -mostly in lower bass tightness -between the WE and the Winged C in a preamp, but the differences are not that great. The differences from the GE6550A are likewise relatively small with more to dislike than like - for my ears. There may be a tad more bass weight with the A but less bass tightness, spaciousness and a flatter soundstage. Imo, the value is questionable. I have sets of these I bought (tested) from Conrad-Johnson for my Premier 12 mono-blocks of many years ago - before they were NOS.

Having tried the various combinations I simply can't see what the fuss is all about, especially in comparison to tube rolling elsewhere. Swapping out 6DJ8/6922/7308 in earlier Conrad-Johnson preamps can have a genuinely significant impact. Changing Chinese 6SN7s for NOS in an Atma-Sphere preamp is recommended. Changing the single 6DJ8 family tube in a Lamm M1.2 has far more obvious positives than those discussed on this thread. (See the sidebar in my review of that amp.)

But as always you pays your money and takes your choices. I'm happy for those having fun tube swapping in their ARC Ref gear. My experience says the notion that doing so is somehow transformative should be taken with a grain of salt. If I wanted to improve my Ref gear, I'd put that money towards a better power cord or perhaps Stillpoints or similar.

[RLF]

Originally Posted by tima

I'm happy for those having fun tube swapping in their ARC Ref gear. My experience says the notion that doing so is somehow transformative should be taken with a grain of salt. If I wanted to improve my Ref gear, I'd put that money towards a better power cord or perhaps Stillpoints or similar.

Great post and info, in my opinion. With my previous preamp, the Reference 5SE, I found that changing power cords had the most impact. Just my 2 cents on this issue.

[cleeds]

Originally Posted by tima

... I'm happy for those having fun tube swapping in their ARC Ref gear. My experience says the notion that doing so is somehow transformative should be taken with a grain of salt ...

+1. The performance of these components is already so high that major improvements don't come easily. And of course there are so many variables involved - including simple personal preference - that absolute pronouncements about the best tube or best component are really suspect from the start.

[Harlequin]

How curious that so much verbiage has been penned of late refuting the possibility that the fidelity of certain ARC componants utilizing an 6550 power regulator may be further enhanced by the substitution of the stock valve with NOS vintage. Some of which is apparently not based upon any hands on personal experience at all, some of which is, and I am more than pleased to recognise personal preference .

Perhaps we all should bear in mind that these are the opinions of, and personal preferences alone, of a number of individuals who have actively participated in said experimentation who have made their own minds up whether to stick or twist.

There is more than a whiff of "How Very Dare You" emanating from some respondents on this topic.

For my part I shall merely offer my own personal opinion, that in order to move closer to the true organic performance of JS Bach's 6 Suites for Solo Violoncello by Pierre Fournier, then It will, for me, require the application of the General Electric 6550A in my Ref10 and Ref250se's ARC equipment.

[cleeds]

Originally Posted by Harlequin

How curious that so much verbiage has been penned of late refuting the possibility that the fidelity of certain ARC componants utilizing an 6550 power regulator may be further enhanced by the substitution of the stock valve with NOS vintage ...

Actually, I don't think anyone here has said that at all. Since there has been "so much verbiage" regarding this, perhaps you could please provide some examples of the refutations so that anyone who's being misunderstood will have a chance to clarify themselves.