Okay Guys,
Well, I had a chance to do an A/B comparison between the ARC Ref. 3, (which my friend has had in his system for over a year), and the ARC Ref. 5, (which a friend of his lent to him, as he was going to sell it, as the synergy between the Ref. 5 and his system was just not there apparently). My friend's system is pretty neutral, being neither warm sounding or analytical. (It is the best system I have ever heard, and the one I try to emulate with my own system.) I should also point out that he used balanced cables, (Jena Labs Pathfinders), for the inputs, and Nordost Valhalla cables for the speakers.
We listened to various music, from rock (including the new 45 rpm version of Tull's Aqualung, which is fantastic, if you have not heard it yet), to folk, (Kingston Trio), to jazz, (Webster's Soulville), to Classical (various pieces, but mostly violin concertos, which was the majority of what we listened to). We listened to this via his complete Brinkmann analog setup, (EMT cartridge, 10.5 arm and balance table). We did not listen to any digital, (either CD or SACD), as we both prefer the sound of analog.
Well, to be short and sweet, the Ref. 3 is very close to the Ref. 5 to my ears. (My friend agrees, but he felt there was more of a difference than I did, I think. Enough that he is probably going to buy the Ref. 5 from his friend, and sell his Ref. 3.) I could hear that there was a bit deeper and quicker bass response from the Ref. 5. This was fairly noticeable, but it was not a huge difference. I think if we had not done a direct A/B comparison, (i.e. if I had heard it one day and then the other the next day), I might not have picked up on it. That was the biggest difference, IMHO. (And for my friend that was enough in itself, because he feels his system is just slightly bass shy. I disagree, but it's his system, so what do I know?!)
In addition, there were some other minor differences, such as the initial impact of piano keys being just slightly faster on the Ref. 5. I also noticed that there was a bit more ambiance from the Ref. 5, (i.e. room echoes from the concert hall). But IMHO, these were very small differences.
I should also point out that the Ref. 5 does benefit, (albeit very slightly), from being placed upon a inert shelf. My friend has a Gran Prix Monaco shelving system. However, he has only one Carbon Fiber shelf, (the rest are acrylic). When the Ref. 3 was in its usual spot on this carbon fiber shelf, it sounded much closer to the Ref. 5 than when it was on the acrylic shelf and the Ref. 5 was on the carbon fiber shelf. (Yeah, go figure that it would make that much of a difference, huh?! But it did.)
So, if you were to ask me, is it worth the additional cost to upgrade from the Ref. 3 to the Ref. 5?
I would say "No".
My reasoning is that I am broke, and the additional cost is beyond my reach. (The price of a used Ref. 3 is about $5K, and the price of a used Ref. 5 is about $7K, or about 40% more.) The Ref. 3 is a very fine preamp, and much better than its predecessors the Ref. 1 and Ref. 2, and it is within spitting distance of the Ref. 5. I would be very happy to have the Ref. 3 in my system. And, if I were not broke, I would gladly buy my friend's Ref. 3, if, and/or when, he sells it.
But if you ask my friend, he would say "Yes", it is worth it.
His reasoning is that it does indeed make a positive difference, and therefore, it is worth it. And given his system, I can easily see his logic, and would agree with it. Since his friend bought it used here on Audiogon, the cost to upgrade will probably be somewhere between $1,500-$2,000, which while a significant sum of money, does provide for a definite improvement, albeit a small one. And given his incredible system, improvements are inherently small, and truly expensive, so to normally get that much improvement, that sum of money is money well spent.
Anyway, those are my two cents worth, so take from it what you will.
Well, I had a chance to do an A/B comparison between the ARC Ref. 3, (which my friend has had in his system for over a year), and the ARC Ref. 5, (which a friend of his lent to him, as he was going to sell it, as the synergy between the Ref. 5 and his system was just not there apparently). My friend's system is pretty neutral, being neither warm sounding or analytical. (It is the best system I have ever heard, and the one I try to emulate with my own system.) I should also point out that he used balanced cables, (Jena Labs Pathfinders), for the inputs, and Nordost Valhalla cables for the speakers.
We listened to various music, from rock (including the new 45 rpm version of Tull's Aqualung, which is fantastic, if you have not heard it yet), to folk, (Kingston Trio), to jazz, (Webster's Soulville), to Classical (various pieces, but mostly violin concertos, which was the majority of what we listened to). We listened to this via his complete Brinkmann analog setup, (EMT cartridge, 10.5 arm and balance table). We did not listen to any digital, (either CD or SACD), as we both prefer the sound of analog.
Well, to be short and sweet, the Ref. 3 is very close to the Ref. 5 to my ears. (My friend agrees, but he felt there was more of a difference than I did, I think. Enough that he is probably going to buy the Ref. 5 from his friend, and sell his Ref. 3.) I could hear that there was a bit deeper and quicker bass response from the Ref. 5. This was fairly noticeable, but it was not a huge difference. I think if we had not done a direct A/B comparison, (i.e. if I had heard it one day and then the other the next day), I might not have picked up on it. That was the biggest difference, IMHO. (And for my friend that was enough in itself, because he feels his system is just slightly bass shy. I disagree, but it's his system, so what do I know?!)
In addition, there were some other minor differences, such as the initial impact of piano keys being just slightly faster on the Ref. 5. I also noticed that there was a bit more ambiance from the Ref. 5, (i.e. room echoes from the concert hall). But IMHO, these were very small differences.
I should also point out that the Ref. 5 does benefit, (albeit very slightly), from being placed upon a inert shelf. My friend has a Gran Prix Monaco shelving system. However, he has only one Carbon Fiber shelf, (the rest are acrylic). When the Ref. 3 was in its usual spot on this carbon fiber shelf, it sounded much closer to the Ref. 5 than when it was on the acrylic shelf and the Ref. 5 was on the carbon fiber shelf. (Yeah, go figure that it would make that much of a difference, huh?! But it did.)
So, if you were to ask me, is it worth the additional cost to upgrade from the Ref. 3 to the Ref. 5?
I would say "No".
My reasoning is that I am broke, and the additional cost is beyond my reach. (The price of a used Ref. 3 is about $5K, and the price of a used Ref. 5 is about $7K, or about 40% more.) The Ref. 3 is a very fine preamp, and much better than its predecessors the Ref. 1 and Ref. 2, and it is within spitting distance of the Ref. 5. I would be very happy to have the Ref. 3 in my system. And, if I were not broke, I would gladly buy my friend's Ref. 3, if, and/or when, he sells it.
But if you ask my friend, he would say "Yes", it is worth it.
His reasoning is that it does indeed make a positive difference, and therefore, it is worth it. And given his system, I can easily see his logic, and would agree with it. Since his friend bought it used here on Audiogon, the cost to upgrade will probably be somewhere between $1,500-$2,000, which while a significant sum of money, does provide for a definite improvement, albeit a small one. And given his incredible system, improvements are inherently small, and truly expensive, so to normally get that much improvement, that sum of money is money well spent.
Anyway, those are my two cents worth, so take from it what you will.