Audio Research Reference 5 Preamp

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

Thanks, Sam. You have provided the first "meaty" assessment of the Ref 5, ignore the spoilsports.

Hi, Samuel ...

As long as you've compared the Ref 3 and the Ref 5 with the same power cords, who cares what cords you used? Same-o, Same-o, no?

Thanks for an excellent review. I was considering upgrading my CD-7 to the CD-8 before reading your review. Instead, I'm opting to upgrade the Ref-3 for the Ref-5 instead.

Pubul57,

An audio buddy of mine tried the Ref 3 and did not like it (in his system). Two of my other friends had both upgraded from Ref 2 to Ref 3.

My friend shared with me his lengthy discussion with ARC regarding the use of the super tube (6H30). He currently uses a pair of BAT VK-75 monoblocks and had some discussion with Viktor at BAT who has been a champion and, I dare to say, an authority on the super tube (6H30). I think through the experience of switching Ref 2 and LS-25 from 6922 to the 6H30, and developing the Ref 3/PH7/LS-26, ARC has been gaining some experience and better understanding of the super tube (6H30) and how to best implement designs based on this tube.

I suspect that Ref 5 was a result of that experience gained. It's nice to see companies continue to push the advancement. But damn, I need to win the lotto just to keep up.

FrankC (still using his trusted GNSC modded LS-25 Mk I)

I've hard "negative" comments about 6H30, many folks thinking that is where ARC went wrong, right after your LS-25MKI. So I wonder if the "improved" implementation of 6H30 is starting to sound as good as the great 6922 preamps, but maybe with some other advantages (whatever they may be) of the 6H30. What you say makes some sense though, it proabably does take time evolve with a tube that was essentially new to the market.