Help ! Addiction to ARC preamps....

[Jerome W]

Hello folks,

Today I received the ultimate burning device for my Ref 2 Phono preamp. A loan from Jeff ( tonepub ).
It converts a high level signal out of the CD player, to a low level RIAA signal and then comes in the Ref 2, so you can play a cd on repeat for 12 hours a day and get very fast to the 500 or 600 hours needed for the Ref 2 to sound "good" ( I'll be on my knees then....).
So I connected an old and unused cd player ( the Cambridge CD6 ) to the Ref 2 and I listened to it through the C1000.
And guess what ? I prefer this sound over my MDA in the C1000 !
There is more involvement, more dynamics, more resolution, and most of all, I find myself more focused on the music.
I will have to perform more tests and try the CD6 in the C1000 but I doubt that the CD6 could be better than the MDA. I'm hearing the effect of the Ref 2 in the C1000 I believe.
If it is what I think, the C1000 will have to leave and will be replaced by a REF 5.
A friend told me once : " McIntosh is for tube amps. Preamps are the ARC domain". He was maybe right.

[cmalak]

Jerome...is there a way for you to home audition the Ref 5 before you pull the trigger on it?

[Jerome W]

Originally Posted by cmalak

Jerome...is there a way for you to home audition the Ref 5 before you pull the trigger on it?

I will ask my dealer Cyril. I believe that he will say yes. He knows that I'm a good customer ! ( well not as good as Serge, but not too far.... )
Yes, that would be the best thing to do.

[PHC1]

Jerome, if you bring the Ref 5 home, it will stay. Just a friendly warning.

[Jerome W]

Originally Posted by PHC1

Jerome, if you bring the Ref 5 home, it will stay. Just a friendly warning.

I believe it too Serge....

[jpgr4blu]

Watch out Jerome:
As one who switched from McIntosh c1000 (tubes) and McIntosh MC2102 amp to ARC Ref 5 and Ref 110, I found the ARC gear to be more neutral and more musical in almost all respects. Mac had more slam and weight in the bottom end but it was less defined than ARC. Unfortunately, Mac's thickness in the low end also exists throughout the range and is an impediment to a truly transparent midrange and mid-upper treble.
ARC's transparency, on the other hand, could come at the expense of less flesh on the bone in the midrange. But now with the Ref 40 and Ref 150, ARC has truly made a major advance in dynamics and midrange palpability.
Oddly enough, I purchased my first ARC pieces (Ref 5 and Ref 110) after I visited my dealer to test the new Mc 2301s which I was sure I wanted to add to my all Mac system. When he played them next to the midlevel ARC gear, I heard details in the music that were almost completely obscured by the Mac setup. NOT audiophile details, but musical details---like I could count 2 backup singers very distinctly rather than the thin chorus I heard through the Macs. I also heard more texture and more vivid musical colors as well as better soundstaging with the ARC gear. I've been on an ARC bender ever since. If you like the Phono 2, wait till you hear the Ref 5 (or 40) and the Ref 150 (or 250s). I bet you will not b able to resist.
Regards,
Randy

[Jerome W]

Originally Posted by jpgr4blu

Watch out Jerome:
As one who switched from McIntosh c1000 (tubes) and McIntosh MC2102 amp to ARC Ref 5 and Ref 110, I found the ARC gear to be more neutral and more musical in almost all respects. Mac had more slam and weight in the bottom end but it was less defined than ARC. Unfortunately, Mac's thickness in the low end also exists throughout the range and is an impediment to a truly transparent midrange and mid-upper treble.
ARC's transparency, on the other hand, could come at the expense of less flesh on the bone in the midrange. But now with the Ref 40 and Ref 150, ARC has truly made a major advance in dynamics and midrange palpability.
Oddly enough, I purchased my first ARC pieces (Ref 5 and Ref 110) after I visited my dealer to test the new Mc 2301s which I was sure I wanted to add to my all Mac system. When he played them next to the midlevel ARC gear, I heard details in the music that were almost completely obscured by the Mac setup. NOT audiophile details, but musical details---like I could count 2 backup singers very distinctly rather than the thin chorus I heard through the Macs. I also heard more texture and more vivid musical colors as well as better soundstaging with the ARC gear. I've been on an ARC bender ever since. If you like the Phono 2, wait till you hear the Ref 5 (or 40) and the Ref 150 (or 250s). I bet you will not b able to resist.
Regards,
Randy

Hello Randy,

Very good post .
It is clear that you compared both brands extensively and you have a precise idea of both sonic signatures. You speak EXACTLY like my dealer who is a big seller of both brands. Especially about the medium.
I love the Mc sound for this flesh on the bone and I'm not after a neutral sound. But, if neutral sounds like what I hear with the Ref 2, then that is exactly the kind of sound I'm after.
Now a combo ARC / Mc for preamp and power amp could best suit my ears than a full ARC set up. I find the 2301's to be extremely natural sounding and I experience zero fatigue with them. I have a friends who listened to the Ref 5 with the 2301's and with ARC tube monoblocks ( I don't remember which ones) and he preferred the 2301's. I'm not sure that ARC power amps will have the same effect on me. My 100.2 sounds good. But after 3 or 4 hours I just want to say : "shut up now !" maybe because it is an SS and not a tube amp, but I never felt this with my Mc SS 501's...
My dealer also told me that the difference in soind between the Ref 40 and the Ref 5 is very subtile.

Thanks a lot for your comments !
Cheers,

[howiebrou]

[Jerome W]

Originally Posted by howiebrou

Come on Howie ! Tell us what you think !

[TMcD]

I have to agree once the Ref5 is there it's there for good!!!