Ref10 vs 5SE question

[Harlequin]

Once again I agree up to a point, However I would contend that having made a considerable change to the, as previously advertised and reviewed equipment, then they really should re submit the altered item for re evaluation! ideally by the origional reviewer.

[Harlequin]

My my, tima, Parental? No not really, Patronising with a touch of the Supercilious might be a little closer to the mark, as to your list,

1. You are in essence correct, in that I have no basis for speculation upon any discernible difference, audible, between an Rev1 PCB and Rev2, and is entirely the reason why I refrained from making any such comment upon that point.

If by "(other than noting a change of parts)" you are refering to my comment about Capacitor Gate and the Ref150? ( I presume you are as I made no such claim with regard to the Ref10 ) then I stand by my points made earlier in this and other threads.

Presumably you would be entirely satisfied were your New automobile to be delivered sporting seating of an unknown provenance instead of the Premium quality Connolly Hide, as advertised, and made much of by the manufacturer as an integral design feature.

a) There you go again tima, I read of no such comment being made in that particular review regarding the version of PCB as supplied with that particular sample, In fact the only evidence we are presented with, In the form of an image of a Rev1 PCB ( likely to be early marketing material) would tend to indicate the opposite, however do feel free to make it up as you go along.

b) I would quite agree with your summation of the marked evolution in all areas of presentation from Ref5SE to Ref10, having spent some time evaluating both models within the context of the same system, however as for myself I prefer only to comment upon what I actually do know, In that My own frame of reference has thus far been based upon listening to a unit sporting the Rev1 board, and therefore must accept your considered opinion that the Early units sound identical to current production models, as presumably your evaluations were made with the same methodology as above?

3. Once again we are in broad agreement regarding both the build quality and deserved status of ARC's Reference line, and I am well aware of the company's 'personal' testing methodology having discussed the same with Kal over the change from Teflon to Errrr! unknown 2uf coupling capacitors in the Ref150, In which he assured me that the listening panel preferred the sound of the mystery capacitor to the Teflon componant as widely marketed, which still leaves me somewhat surprised that such a discernible sonic improvment was

A. Not offered up for re-review, to be favourably commented upon, and

B. Made a marketing point in respect to efficacy of the replacment capacitor, as was the case with the origional Teflon model and still remains so on ARC marketing ?

4. I refer the ' honourable gentleman' to an answer I gave earlier to this house.


2.Harsh? Not really, A touch Overweening perhaps.

Jasper.

[MPS]

We all know different materials do sound different, be it a capacitor or circuit board or resistor etc.
However different is just different, better is always somewhat a matter of opinion. All manufacturers reserve right to change or modify their production as they please or are required to do so, fair or not, that's just how it is. One thing we can be sure of, if it is an ARC, it will sound great as it is