It's interesting to note that the implementation/architecture of the REF5 resulted in what has to be a much cheaper raw cost of labor and parts--versus the REF 1,2,3 designs. At one point I had a REF 1 and was very impressed with the layout and realized a significant cost of the ref linestages is attributed to the mechanical design. In looking at the REF 5:
http://www.arcdb.ws/REF5/ARC_REF5_top.jpg
Regarding the REF5 I don't see any obvious details that ARC has built mechanical dampening into the mounting of the main PCB. The older reference linestages utilized three smaller main boards in a vertical orientation, and each mounted on their own frame. Now why would one want to do that? Why mount the PCB's vertical rather than horizontal? Noise and vibration come to mind. Just how different the electrical design is vs the REF3 is something only the holders of the latest schematics can tell, but it's just interesting to see they have raised the price 2K, and reduced build cost, i'm guessing at least by 25% (profit margin anyone?).
I used to have a BAT VK5i, and I was absolutely floored by the mechanical design of that...I've had several ARC linestages, and all of them have very underdamped (read: very basic corners-of-the-board type of mounting) PCB's. On every ARC linestage if I tapped the main board I could hear buzzing and noise vibrations all over the place. The BAT PCB was mounted to a thick plate and resulted in a highly mechanically damped PCB--resonances were moved much higher in frequency. All of the ARC linestages sounded excellent in their respective ways, as did the BAT VK5i. In the realm of overkill audio, perhaps spending significant portions of the design budget to squeaking out the nth degree of vibration control does not pay off. Perhaps they figured this out at ARC. The REF 5 does look awesome, regardless. I love the simplicity of the layout.
Just a silly observation, nothing more. I'm not picking on ARC (I happen to love ARC sound) or stating BAT is superior.
Have a great week.
