Sonic Frontiers Preamps - Cold & thin?

Odd, I know a guy who got rid of his Ref2 for a Line3... He ran mostly arc ref equipment - it looked so strange. Anyway, I do have to admit though: I've heard the Line3 sound bad in a system also. SF doesn't mate well with all electronics. I would guess this is probably where some people are getting these odd reviews from. Jtinn what is your system composed of? I'd like to know what NOT to buy in the future because I love my pre. :)

Don't have SF preamp, but own the SF Power3 amps with CAT Ultimate preamp. What a great combination! Yes, SF products are definitely more neutral than cj or arc stuff, not as sweet or rich sounding. But, taste is a very subjective thing. I have heard arc Ref. line products, they are good, but i am not about to give up SF because I think they can do wonder, especially with my CAT preamp. Good luck hunting guys!!

Hi Kevziek; We once clashed on a thread, but I'm over that, and I hope you are too. I like your thread. I've owned or auditioned (in home) all the SF pre-amps you mention. And I presently use the SF Line 2 in my main system, along with a sweet sounding McCormack DNA2DX amp, and the somewhat warm, forgiving Vand. 3Asig. spkrs. (Levinson front end). In my system, the Line 2 is neutral, timbrally accurate, detailed, and holographic, and it's also musical if you like accurate rather than euphonic. I've read the criticisms of the Line series preamps, and none of them have been my experience. I certainly do not find them cold, thin, sterile etc. in my system, but I do agree that it is a matter of system matching and also preferences. Personally, I've decided that I don't care for the "syrupy rich, tubey sound" that characterizes some (especially) older tube equipment, mainly because it sounds to soft to be real to me (I've played guitars, both acoustic and electric for 40 years, and a steel stringed acoustic guitar does not sound soft). In fact I very much agree with the Stereophile review of this pre-amp. IMO, the SFL-2 is the finest sounding pre-amp SF has made, ie it's a bit "richer" than the Line 2, and somewhat more involving, but the one I auditioned had bad transformer hum, and I returned it. Then the Line series came out. The Line 1 sounds much like the Line 2, but it's a little more aggressive, and I use it in a 2nd system. I tried the Line 3, but in my system it was much too forward with a big, bloomy (un-natural) soundstage. The SFL-1 is an excellent older SF hybrid pre-amp with just one tube, and its sound character can easily be changed with just the change of one tube. I used the SFL-1 for several years. A good friend has an older C-J pre-amp that is much more "tubey" sounding, but I prefer the more neutral sound of the Line 2. I haven't heard recent ARC pre-amps, but from what I've read, they are also trending much more towards neutral than their past products. Cheers. Craig.

I have owned the SFL1, SFL2, and currently have a Line 1. I find the SF products to sound neutral and accurate. I also have a Rogue 66lsr which souds very different. The Rogue is warmer sweeter and richer, but it is softer and less accurate. The SF is much more neutral and revealing. It depends on which flavor you like. I thought the SFL2 was richer than the Line 1 but the Line 1 is faster and more neutral.

I have found all SF products I've auditioned in my system (pre's and power amps) to range from neutral to a bit thin. The electrostatics I have now are probably a contributing factor due to their detail and transparency. But I have not found SF to be lacking at all -- just a different sonic signature. I know this thread is about pre amps, but... those Power 3's certainly don't suck. Certainly not with speakers thar rock yo balls off. They gots big ones. So far as SF's or anything else sounding like "wire with gain" is concerned, please pass me whatever it is you're smoking right now ;-)! Isn't this everyone's dream? Best, Jim.