Audio Research Reference 5 Preamp

Thanks for the clarification, Unoear. I did not mention the power cord because I don't believe it is relevant to the results I obtained. Were I comparing both units with stock power cords I believe the comparative results would stand unchanged.

Also, I never discuss our products on this or any other forum unless I am correcting erroneous information or responding directly to unfounded criticism, which is rare. Otherwise, I prefer to share general audio opinion and information like anyone else here.

I find it amusing that someone could call themselves jujubee and be afforded endless latitude to submit reviews and wax poetic on what might be their uncle Elmer's DIY tone-arm, while anyone with a disclosed affiliation gets questioned and denigrated.

Samuel,

Please do not be disuaded from posting your experiences and opinions. Out of the 35 posts currently, yours was probably the only one that was helpful in addressing the OPs question.

People should always take any free opinion FWIW, but at least it gives them a reference point in trying to improve upon their own system. I have acquired gear which I would not be aware of without detailed assessments from other's personal experience.

Rob

What doe ARC know now that they did not know then to make the Ref 5 a marked improvement of the Ref 3? Is it improved capacitors and resistors or power supplies? A totally different circuit design that was not conceivable then? I would have thought that there best thinking would have gone into the product five years ago, what has changed? Is there really a new state-of-the-art in preamp design, or have the fundamentals been in place for a long time already in terms of circuit design and improvements will come when there are truly better passive parts available. I'm not sure what has changed in five years.

Samuel
I concur with Rob. Thanks for the review, very helpful.

Carey

Samual, I think your posts have been very professional. Thanks.
Terry