|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Model: | Reference 3 |
Category: | Preamplifier (Tube) |
Suggested Retail Price: | $9900 |
Description: | Hign-end tube preamplifier |
Manufacturer URL: | Audio Research, Inc. |
Model Picture: | View |
Review by rhyno on July 15, 2012 at 07:47:47 IP Address: 69.151.149.134 | Add Your Review for the Reference 3 |
My wife calls me a luddite--someone who only begrudgingly adopts newer technologies. I like to consider myself circumspect, not one for the flavors and fashions of the moment, I choose to commit to things proven through time. And why not? Wasn't it the relentless self-serving promotion that cursed us with digital and nearly killed a clearly superior vinyl format? I've always felt that audiophiles are victims of this promotional phenomenon...that the 'next great doodad' is going to suddenly catapult Sinatra into the room. Folks, it ain't happening; such promotional efforts are designed to sell products, and that's fine if one knows it going in. But, that's not to say that the "latest and greatest" is the cure for all ills, nor is it to say that yesterday's linens smell any less fresh.
That takes me to this review: the Audio Research Reference 3. I believe the unit I bought, 2k hours on tubes, was made in 2006 and reflective both electronically and mechanically of units which were covered in reviews circa 5 years ago. Since then, Audio Research and the reviewing press have moved on to their new puppies, as have numerous owners. But no harm in take one more look at yesterday's darling, which current wags would have you think is chopped liver.
It most certainly is not.
A bit of background on the unit: its large, kinda clunky looking, and with a display that my 85 year old grandma could read from across the room---thankfully it can be switched off via the remote, which is also required to get the best sonics out of the unit (with the display on and mute engaged, the unit makes a high pitched whine; just dim the display or remove mute and this noise goes away). Ergonomically, I'm absolutely thrilled with this unit. It comes up to its sonic peak within an hour as the tubes warm up. Six inputs (plus HT Bypass) are available, with each having provisions for either RCA or balanced---the user simply assigns the type connection for the named input, and the preamp stores in memory. That said, the unit is fully balanced and sounds best when up and downstream are balanced as well. Dual main outputs, along with a home-theatre bypass, send the signal downstream. Additional points of interest: remote controlled volume, source selection, mono, mute, HT bypass, phase and balance (which I find very handy in a less-than-symmetrical room). The volume control is some sort of laddered resistive element (not the lousy mechanical wipers found in potentiometers), with a numerical display of the volume setting to permit easy comparisons, and the steps between the settings (1 to 100) are so slight that one can always find the right volume setting. I couldn't ask for anything else in a remote (its also small, uncluttered and made of plastic--its a classic remote design)
The unit comes with a 20 amp cord, which many folks say sounds just fine, and it does. Its just that when I inserted a TG Audio cord (with 20a IEC), I noticed that the upgraded power cord provided for more space around performers, and a soundstage that seemed to get 2 feet taller. The stock cord was more congested in the midrange in comparison, and did not have the top or bottom end extension as the aftermarket cord. So, for folks wondering where to go if interested in an upgrade, start with the power cord.
One other thing: the tube circuitry requires an amplifier having an input impedance north of 20k ohms; be forewarned, else you'll just be giving up dynamics and bass depth unnecessarily.
Onto further listening impressions:
Let me just come out and give you the 4-1-1: if you like what SET amps do for sonics, you'll like this preamp. If you object to what SET amps fail to do, then you'll find the same objections with this preamp. To elaborate: I once owned a Wavac SET amp which I had mated to Wilson loudspeakers. While it would run out of steam and harden when pushed too hard (something the Ref 3 never did), it still had some defining characteristics which I found similar to those of the Ref 3. Namely, the unit did wonders with digital playback, adding a romantic coloration in the mids / presence region that was inviting, seductive, and (depending on the recording) excessive. An electric guitar would have a bit less bite, while Sinatra sounded like he had one too many rather than his studio best. Its always an enjoyable and musical sound, one which is never going to cause listener fatigue, but lets not kid ourselves and think this is absolute fidelity to the master tape. Its a slightly-enhanced version, but these enhancements make it sound more rich, musical and inviting. But when you think about it, most digital-source systems would be well served to have more richness and more musicality; the ARC, like a SET amp, is a great choice for offsetting the problems endemic in digital-based systems (which typically suffer from being flat and with a tonality biased to the cool side).
Bass in the ARC is not surprising given what it is: it has a big tube power supply (6550c), and thats what it sounds like. Bass depth is considerable, while being overly generous and round. While I sometimes like to listen to dance music with its fat bass, I don't want the preamp to fatten it up further, which the ARC does---but not to the point where the music loses definition in the mids, nor is it so bad that it sounds like a 12 year old set up the subwoofer. Pitch is quite good, but bass (not midrange) definition is lost due to the lingering nature of the bottom octaves. This also has the net effect of slowing down the pace of the music; this grievance was not so great that a drummer listening to the preamp would've barfed, but he also would've thought the timing of most every track was just a fraction slow. I've heard recordings of bands and other preamps where I felt the term "relentless" was appropriate (in a muscular, urgent, and inspiring way); the Ref 3 was not a relentless preamp, and I suspect hard rocking audiophiles (and drummers) would likely be able to find better choices.
Dynamics are quite good and sound as good as I've heard a tube-based power supply provide, but there's no pretending the Ref3 has dynamics to match a great SS preamp. Two other preamps that I've owned, the Edge NL and the Einstein, both had considerably more force and explosiveness than the Ref3, and both relied on different SS topologies: the Edge used batteries, while the Einstein used dual transformers in a SS circuit biased to class A (along with the gain stage occurring before the volume control). While the Ref3 didn't disappoint, it also didn't pin me back in my chair like these other reference preamps could.
Like the Wavac, the Ref3 does wonders with space: extending the boundaries of the soundstage, placing musicians on them in their own space with defined depth and density. I believe this is part of the magic that tubes provide, as I've not heard SS circuits equal tubes when it comes to space. Ultimately I think this is because of the type of noise floor, with a tube-circuit noise floor doing less damage to the signal, while a SS-noise floor can attach itself to the midrange and treble; again, this is just a theory, but tubes do sound different in some very important ways, soundstaging being one of them.
Due to the very low noise floor of the unit, lower than most any tube preamp (with tube power supply) I've come across, dynamics did emerge from a deep dark background. The other benefit of the noise floor is that microdetail retrieval was exceptionally good (that’s the thing about noise floors---every time they get lowered, you get closer to the recorded event). Whether it be pitch fluctuations in the human voice, the ringing decay of an acoustic guitar string, or the cankling of background noise in a live recording, the Ref3 did a wonderful job of putting it into the room, without any false spotlighting or leading edge highlighting. While I've heard more detail from a few preamps, particularly in the upper treble (where cymbals and piano did miss a bit of shimmer and ultimate top end extension), I never had the impression that the Ref 3 was robbing me of anything.
So far in this review, I've covered more about what I don't like, rather than the unit's strengths. Well, its worth knowing what the unit does wrong up front, as what it does right, namely with midrange presence and tonality, is so obviously the defining characteristic of the unit that I consider it self-evident. The listener does not need to tube roll, get fancy footers, or get an aftermarket power cord (though all those things help) in order for midrange tonality to sound natural. And this, dear reader, is where our ears are most well-trained, as this is the frequency area where we've focused our hearing throughout our lives. I dare say I've not heard a preamp in my system, perhaps other than the Herron VTSP-3A, that does a more natural and believable job with the human voice (but the Herron couldn't keep up due to its elevated noise floor and dynamic limitations). If anything, the Ref 3 has a bit more presence and warmth than reality which is pervasive from treble to bass, but just a bit, and again it does so in a manner that invites long listening sessions and enjoyment. But, much like a SET amp, it’s a bit more warmth and glow than reality, and those listeners who are absolute fidelity types would sense this ‘sin of commission’. I doubt many listeners will object, particularly those whose systems revolve around compact discs; analog-based systems with warm front ends might, however.
When taken together, this darling of yesteryear still provides a very musical and satisfying performance, and that doesn’t change with the turning of the calendar. Its connectivity and ergonomics are a delight and will accommodate all but the most complicated of systems, and its flaws are such that they can be forgiven in the context of long listening sessions and a midrange that has a sense of rightness about it which even an untrained ear will agree with. While well off the pace from today's best in areas like dynamics, bass definition, extension and pace, it still does these things well enough to satisfy the most critical of listeners, and can find a home in most reference systems for a lifetime.
Tracks under comparison:
David Bowie: “Queen Bitch” off Hunky Dory
The Hold Steady: “Citrus” off Boys and Girls in America
The Bird and the Bee: “Polite Dance Song” off Ray Guns are Not Just for the Future
Jack Johnson: “Cupid>Wasting Time” off On and On
Lyle Lovett: “Church” off Joshua Judges Ruth
Product Weakness: | frequency extension, dynamics, PRAT |
Product Strengths: | midrange tone and bloom, low noise floor, musicality |
Amplifier: | Boulder 1060 |
Preamplifier (or None if Integrated): | Herron VTSP-3A, Einstein the Tube, Edge NL |
Sources (CDP/Turntable): | Esoteric P/D02, Modwright 5400 |
Speakers: | Rockport Merak / Sheritan2 |
Cables/Interconnects: | TG Audio, Audioquest |
Music Used (Genre/Selections): | multi |
Other (Power Conditioner etc.): | DIY Jon Risch Signal DU, TG Audio |
Type of Audition/Review: | Product Owner |
Unless ARC decided to make piece that is completely opposite to anything else they ever made, you have unit that is broken. Maybe it just needs new tubes.
I'm a drummer for 50 years and I own all ARC electronics (LS27; Ref 75; DAC 8)playing through Wilson Sophia 3's. I sincerely doubt the Ref3 "slows the pace of music". No way. ARC is fast, detailed,etc. Cary may create a sense of slowing the music, but for sure not any ARC product I've heard. One of many comments in your review that are 180 degrees from the truth as I know it. YMMV.
"Romantic Colorations in the mids" "
Is this a real ARC or a counterfeit from another planet? I've owned a few ARC preamps and none were romantic with colorations in the mids. They were pretty neutral to my ears, as tube preamps go.
"While I sometimes like to listen to dance music with its fat bass, I don't want the preamp to fatten it up further, which the ARC does"
Are you SURE you are reviewing an ARC preamp? I deliberately chose an ARC preamp to mate with my Manley tube amps because the Manley's are inherently a little 'fat' in the bass while the ARC is neutral to lean in this respect.
"Bass depth is considerable, while being overly generous and round."
Whoa! Maybe yours is a defective ARC preamp.
"the Ref 3 has a bit more presence and warmth than reality"
Holy smokes. Are you on crack or just dreaming? The one thing ARC preamps are not, is warm.
"But, much like a SET amp, it's a bit more warmth and glow than reality,"
I'm convinced that you have your review confused for another preamp, or your ARC came from another planet!
Apparently the first ARC reference preamp was described as exactly that...romantic...they said the 2nd one was too to some extent. I have heard the Ref 3 and I have to say that romantic it is not but it is also nowhere nearly as lean sounding as the LS26, for example.
I think your observations are spot on. He either got his review confused with another preamp, has a defective unit or one with worn out tubes, or ..........
Warm or fat or romantic sounding does not describe the Reference 3. The critics of the ARC house sound would call it lean, thin and anemic. Solid state sound with tubes inside for visual effect.
Who knows, but the review does nothing to describe the sound of the Reference 3.
LIBERTY ONCE LOST,
IS LOST FOREVER
-JOHN ADAMS
HI,
I probably should not comment on your review. I have never heard any of the parts of your system so how can I know anything? But, much of what you have reported bothered me. It does not seem like you are reviewing an Audio Research product. Especially bothersome are the numerous references to SET amps which I never would consider mentioning in the same paragraph with ARC products. This is an apples and oranges comparison.ARC has had a corporate sound that has been consistent ever since the SP-11. The sound has always been fast, resolved, dynamic, and extremely neutral extending from DC to Light. If I did not know your review was of an ARC product, I would have thought it was built by a completely different company. Most of your comments would chase me away from this preamp since I am a long term ARC lover and you are describing a totally different sound.
I'm sorry, but I must completely discount your review and your observations.
Sparky
Edited to correct spelling
Edits: 07/17/12 07/17/12
here's the thing:
the ARC can be / is dynamic, resolving, fast, neutral etc. but it depends on your POV. my comments are relative to other SOTA preamps, which possess more of those attributes than the ARC does. if you compare the ARC to crappy preamps, your observations stand. if you compare the ARC to the creme de la creme (edge, einstein, ypsilon, SMC VRE, and others i can't recall at present), where i articulate its weaknesses is where it falls short. otherwise, why would they ever need to upgrade, as it'd be perfect, which no audio component is.
what good would it do any reader considering this product to not understand its weaknesses in advance? i'm just articulating them. i know the weaknesses with my boulder, my rockports, my digital (though the esoteric really approaches perfect, as does my buddy's ypsilon), and my cables / power / room. and i just told everyone what the weaknesses are with the ARC.
(which is why the factory can wring incremental improvements out of it)
owners need to understand that, like parents, sometimes their baby is a bit ugly. sorry to break it to you folks, but more objectivity in this hobby would help---both at new release dates (when everyone gushes) and ex-post (when everyone ditches it).
anyone who owned a SET or played with a SET will understand my comments.
HI rhyno,
Sorry, I'm not buying your explanation. ARC is just too good (and different from your characterization) to be considered in the light you present. Either your ears are defective or your system is.
Sparky
as is every single system ever assembled since the first phonograph.
difference is: i'm painfully honest and objective about it. and not some rah rah owner.
even though i own it.
(if you and everyone else haven't heard the Ref3 in your own rigs against other world class products, as i have, well then that says volumes now doesn't it?)
my guess is anyone who comes across this thread years from now will see who's credible in their comments, and who's being little more than an inexperienced troll or a rah rah homer.
I must agree. Having owned many ARC preamps the sound he is describing sounds nothing like the ARC house sound. Especially the comment about dynamics. They tend to be explosive in this regard.
Of course if the tubes are weak or shot it would explain a lot.
I too have to discount this review. It does not jive with my experience or the experience of many others I know that have ARC gear. Nor does it jive with the many reviews I have read about the ARC Reference preamps.
"cursed us with digital"
'Nuff said.
"Einstein, both had considerably more force and explosiveness than the Ref3, and both relied on different SS topologies: the Edge used batteries, while the Einstein used dual transformers in a SS circuit biased to class A (along with the gain stage occurring before the volume control). "
Hint: The type of topology is buried in the name of the preamp...Einstein "The Tube" preamp. It does have a SS power supply but otherwise it is all tube (and it has a lot of tubes).
You have some serious techinical errors in your "review". I find it hard to believe you actually owned this preamp with this kind of obvious error in your comments.
Its kind of hard to miss all those tubes sticking out of the top.
Jack
given that neither of you have owned it, would you care to tell us all if the einstein has discrete diodes or a one piece bridge rectifier, or is it tube-rectified? (i can tell you, i have photos of the inside to prove it).you should think about knowing something before posting something.
(name one error in my reviews. any of them. ever.)
answer: Einstein has a solid state power supply. i know, i owned it and was inside it with a soldering iron more times than i care to remember.
now, care to tell us all about the gain stage in the einstein or the edge? i can tell you all about those as a former owner, but seeing as how neither of you owned either product, please enlighten us.
Edits: 07/16/12
"you should think about knowing something before posting something."
My aren't we getting snippety.
Whether or not the Einstein has discrete diodes or an integrated bridge rectifier, who cares?? I do know that it DOES NOT have a tube rectifier and that it uses tubes as channel switches rather than putting another contact in the circuit. Other than that I can tell you its fully balanced.
Not to split hairs here, but one of my best friends has this preamp so I have seen and heard and replaced tubes on it.
Now, if you want to call a tube preamp solid state because it has a solid state power supply, be my guest but that is hardly a conventional approach to classification. There are in fact not too many tube preamps that have an all tube power supply.
You said: "but there's no pretending the Ref3 has dynamics to match a great SS preamp. Two other preamps that I've owned, the Edge NL and the Einstein, both had considerably more force and explosiveness than the Ref3, and both relied on different SS topologies: the Edge used batteries, while the Einstein used dual transformers in a SS circuit biased to class A (along with the gain stage occurring before the volume control)"
Now, what you clearly state there is that the Einstein is a SS circuit biased to class A. Do you mention anything about power supply?? Nope. If you meant power supply then you should have stated it explicitly because it sounds like you mean the acutal amplification circuitry.
For the record, I reviewed a hell of a lot of preamps (for Positive Feedback no less) and I found that for the most part the best sounding preamps had TUBE power supplies. THe two exceptions that I have heard among the best were the Vacuumstate RTP3D and the Einstein. The Vacuumstate was special because they had their own proprietary "superreg" regulator cirucuit that lowered the noise floor to below that of batteries. My own preamp from that time, the Silvaweld SWC-1000, used a 300B tube as a voltage regulator for 4 Western Electric 417A tubes in a fully balanced, transformer coupled circuit. It was also tube rectified. The Einstein was not better than either the Vacuumstate or the Silvaweld but it is in the same class.
I have also heard the Edge preamp with their NL reference monos driving the Nola Pegasus Extreme. Also a good sound...especially for SS.
" I found that for the most part the best sounding preamps had TUBE power supplies."
Good point. I didn't even like seleniums when they came out back in the day when the lines were cleaner and the rest of the actives were tubes. Hard to beat a 5Y3 and it doesn't stink when it fails...
I got to thinking last night and realized that I haven't done a linear power supply in decades. The very diode characteristics that are a must for switchers are a bane for linears since you want isolation from the out of band, > 120 Hz in this case, conducted garbage not efficient detection of it! But of course I won't be scrounging around for transformers that still have a 5V winding, the tube characteristics that are an asset in preamps can be faked with a few discretes since efficiency is not an issue.
Regards, Rick
.
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
Nice review!
One thing wasn't clear to me when I read your review: do you leave your Ref 3 switched on all the time? I ask partly because of your comments on the bass of this preamp. Recent ARC preamps (well, since the SP-11!) have had pretty well-defined bass, and some of them have been described as over-dry by some valve die-hards.
I find with my Vacuum State RTP3 that the bass definition improved noticeably after it has been on for several hours - and that is why I decided a few months ago to leave it on constantly.
Oh, by the way, Mike K's diversionary tactic was pretty much just that - it is not in the slightest bit relevant to your post, and he attacks all the straw men he can think of referring to vinyl reproduction, most of which are just non-issues to most vinyl listeners. I don't hear much surface noise at all from my records, even though I don't own any kind of record cleaner beyond a carbon-fibre brush, and through my system they sound quite wonderful.
Alex
PS. I'm sure you have read the Stereophile review of the Ref 3, but here is a link for anyone who is interested:
I hope you do hear differences in cables though.
Sorry - was this question addressed to me?
Alex
Indeed my good man!
"I don't hear much surface noise at all from my records,".
Makes me wonder if you do hear all the improvements wrought by magic cables.
You can refuse to answer if you don't like the question.
I don't think that your audiophile bona fides would be affected by that.
Regards.
P.S. Vinyl noise is good noise as you can hear through it I read many years ago.
First of all, I have heard differences between cables, though I'm not a fan of super-expensive cables.I admit that a small fraction of my LPs do have intrusive noise, but for the most part it really does disappear behind the music. The reasons I believe that is particularly true in my system are:
a) My record deck (a Vectored Pink Triangle) is an exceptionally well-designed deck as far as resonance control is concerned, with a Funk Achromat which reduces surface noise relative to the original acrylic platter (which was already quiet);
b) I use a low-distortion, zero-feedback phono preamp (Vacuum State RTP3), which is far less confused by surface ticks and pops than any other I have had in my system.
I listen to CDs as well, but I don't find the noise floor subjectively enormously lower than with my record-playing front end, and more often than not I find LPs more musically satisfying..
Alex
Edits: 07/17/12
The Vacuumstate is a great preamp...I lived with one for a few months when I reviewed it several years ago.
Yes, I know you did - your Positive Feedback review was one of my major motivations to finish the lengthy project of building the VSE preamp!
Alex
congratulations...not such an easy project I would say. I spent many nice evenings listening to music and discussing audio and life with Allen...he is missed.
I still waffle over should I have gotten the ARC REF 3.. or just be happy with my Bryston BP-26.
On of thosse watershed moments in highend audio.
I can say i love my setup. so it boils down to just a what if...
But it still nags me (because the used REF 3 was the first choice, and the Bryston the second..in my fantasy picks anyway..)Bwah hah hah...
I came within the
item for sale/ money not here until next week sort of thing and the money which was supposed to be here and was 'delayed' (so the company could still make $ on interest holding it as long as legally allowed)
So i missed the local REF3 on sale.. (damn damn damn)
Anyway, after HEARING the Bryston BP-26, and thinking over paying for changing tubes on the REF3.. and loving to leave stuff on 24/7.. that part helped to swing for the Bryston. (plus the 20 year warranty on my 'last' ever preamp)
I would have had to buy the REF3 unheard... That also might have made a difference.
Edits: 07/16/12
Every one has his own preferences with the medium he made his experience with (Vinyl, Digital. Tuner, Reel To Reel...).
The review is helpful for those who want to read something about it and that is what counts.
I think older products deserve current reviews from time to time, to remind us how good they are (and I don't necessarily mean vintage stuff).
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
Nice review, thanks!
Nice review.
Vinyl is clearly superior? To what? 78 rpm shellac records?
Vinyl is fine if you like:
a medium that degrades every time it is played
the rice krispies effects inherent therein
a carrier that easily warps and is subject to skipping.
Vinyl is fine if you like spending money on:
record cleaning machines, fluids, brushes, static killing devices,
alignment tools and devices, stylus force gauges, replacement belts,
record sleeves (inner and outer), and replacement styli.
But maybe the best thing about vinyl is that, if you don't like the
sound your rig produces, well, a new phono preamp or cartridge can
change the sound substantially!
And you can spend more for a new tonearm or cartridge than you can on
a BMW 3-series car!
Yes, vinyl is clearly superior. A clearly superior method of extracting
funds from believers.
But I do like that AR preamp, though.
Well said.
Just saying. Why get your panties all in a bunch over it?
You do not need to BUY the damn thing!
(I almost bought one for myself two years ago. it was a tossup between the Ref 3 and a Bryston. Only because the Ref 3 i wanted fell through (local) did i just jump forthe Brysston.
I STILL wonder if i should have gone for a REF 3)
Vinyl snobs like to think that their prefered medium is clearly superior
to others. Well, it isn't. It's just different, and it's a lot more
fiddly (and expensive) than digital. I try not to let these people
get their opinion across unchallenged.
And, if you had read to the end of my post, you would have seen that I
said I like the preamp. Bit expensive, though.
So what we ALL know folks who think either vinyl is gods gift or that it is a PITA. So what?
Getting into the guys face over it when it is just a side comment really is not nice.
Just like dolts who rush into any discussion about cable to proclaim anyone who thinks cable can sound different are nuts.. They are just being boorish.
So, next time you read some guy loving WHATEVER, give use all a break, and let it slide.
Just like my telling you off is boorish too. But SOMEBODY needed to say it.It is like some dude saying his wife is the most beautiful woman.. And YOU rush up and tell to his face she is ugly as hell.. (just because YOU think he needs to know the truth?)
Edits: 07/16/12
I think it was more in the nature of a snide comment than a side comment.
This shows your lack of intelligence.
> > This shows your lack of intelligence.
Actually, most of what he said is true, but it just doesn't bother some people.
Records do wear with each play (but it is a slow process with good equipment and proper care when playing).
Records do have a S/N ratio that is considerably worse than digital and are subject to clicks and pops (but the S/N ratio seems adequate for many listeners and cleaning can often help with clicks & pops).
Records do need care and attention to detail that requires a lot more attention than digital (but that doesn't bother a lot of users and some even enjoy the ritual).
Records can warp -- or even come that way (but with care in storage & use, the problem doesn't seem to bother the avid users).
As for the needed accessories, sure there are a lot of them, (but CDs have certainly had their share of extra gadgets show up on the market over the years).
And, sound differences between phono components do tend to be more dramatic. (Part of that is due to the mechanical motion to electrical signal conversion required, part due to the 40 dB swing of the RIAA curve and signal boost needed, but then vinyl adherents enjoy their search for what best suits their taste.)
In short, the issue doesn't lie with the "facts" but rather differing interpretations of them. Each side wastes a lot of time trying to debate opinions -- that's always a lost cause. ;-)
.
I love my vintage Audio Research SP8. It was the last Audio Research preamp that sounded sweet in the mids. Slow? Boomy bass? Limited dynamics? From the SP10 on, all Audio Research preamps have had the best bass, the most explosive dynamics, and the most extended high frequencies of any tube preamp. I agree, the "reviewer" either made the entire thing up, OR he is deaf!!!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: