Audio Research Ref 5 preamp

Missioncoonery,

Maybe, but then again, I've found that I get the best deals from people who like to experiment with equipment, which means that the Ref. 3 I buy, will probably have changed hands two or maybe three times. (The Ref. 3 has such a reputation that most people would be willing to try it out for exactly that it has a great reputation. And for some people, it may not be "tubey" enough, as it is a rather neutral sounding preamp. I on the other hand, who have and like solid state equipment, think it sounds more than "tubey" enough, and yet it is extremely quiet, unlike the previous Ref. 1 and 2 preamps from ARC).

Not that it matters too much in the short term, as I am broke right now anyway. But hopefully next year I'll be in a better position to buy one. Although, that assumes that the economy recovers for my industry (construction) in the next year. And here in California, I have virtually no hope that it will recover, due to the incompetents who are in charge of the state government, (and don't even get me started about the federal government).

As an addendum to my previous comments, the Ref 5 now has a little over 200 hours on it and has improved markedly in terms of perceived frequency extension, micro-dynamics and its ability to capture the natural weight and dimension of instruments in space.

Third order harmonic information lingers even longer, further outlining the recorded venue and space around instruments but not in the traditional "tubey" way. It continues to strike me that a lot of the gains over the Ref 3 relate to background silence, quicker transient articulation and a rock solid foundation in the lower octaves, which opened up and clarified huge amounts of lower midrange information I was missing before.

The uppermost octaves nay or may not be measurably more extended, but unquestionably there is far more diversity in terms of tone and textural contrast apparent, such as the multicolor sheen from cymbals or the resonance from stringed instruments. The solid state like character that I referred to in a prior post has abated but what remains is still far more clean, defined and direct sounding than the Ref 3, which in contrast reminds me more of the Ref 2 (which I had at home and did not like (too slow and tubey). In short, the Ref 3 by comparison has noticeable mid-bass overhang and sounds noticeably slower, lacking immediacy, coherence and upper frequency transparency.

Put in perspective, the differences are obvious and well worth the increase in retail price (to me), but impressions may vary from system to system depending on context. In my experience pre-amps are more sensitive to system differences and contexts except speakers, than most other components including amps and front ends, so all this is FWIW. Again, the difference was more dramatic than going from the CD-7 to the CD-8.

Samuel--In short, the Ref 3 by comparison has noticeable mid-bass overhang and sounds noticeably slower, lacking immediacy, coherence and upper frequency transparency.

I concur with Samuel on shortcomings of the Ref3, couldn't have said it better myself. Seems to me like they (ARC) too have realized these and ameliorated them with their new 5--hopefully.

That should make all the Reference 3 owners happy

In case anyone has trouble understanding, my comparative comments were couched in retrospective contrast with a _new model_, not as any glaring pronouncement regarding deficiencies of the Ref 3. Every opinion involves comparison and I thought I was pretty clear about mine.

Just as with any new iteration of a product where there have been improvements made, they highlight where a previous model may have fallen short of accurate either slightly or noticeably in different areas of performance.

Many times these shortcomings are not noticeable until the new model highlights them by displaying better accuracy in specific areas. Could anyone perfectly point out every flaw in an excellent standard TV picture prior to HD coming along? HD quality pointed out cleanly where standard picture TV fell short --HD set a new standard. The same holds true for high-performance audio and in this case the Ref 5 compared to its predecessor the Ref 3.

The Ref 3 is still an exceptional pre-amp and I would likely still own it had I not heard the Ref 5 and been able to afford it. In addition, the Ref 3's second market value accurately represents in my opinion, the difference between the two units performance. So, I see only upside, more choices of high quality products at different price points --and this holds true as new and better products come available in any category. The used Ref 3 buyer is still getting a great deal on a fine pre-amp at a reduced price.

Is this more clear now?