|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
110.54.163.19
Last night I had a chance to compare the ARC REF 75 vs it's ancestor my D79B . My D79B had been recapped in Dec 2018 . The new amps has better detail retrieval from the upper mids until the high frequency . But the midrange is a little lean and a bit electronic for my taste . My old amp the D79B's excels in the midrange specially w/ female singers , w/ a lot of blood , w/ a more impactful bass . Both are very quiet , good low level detail retrieval w/ the bass of the REF 75 a little tighter . Overall I can live w/ both amps , but if the question is if I would sell my vintage amp for the new amp , I think for me no .
Follow Ups:
ARC circuitry has changed a lot over the years. The early amps all had similar circuitry and it was quite complex with multiple push/pull stages and cathode followers meaning lots of tubes. The latest amps have much simpler circuits partly due to newer tubes with lower output impedance so they don't need extra cathode follower tubes.
For a while people were talking about that. Are ARC changes along those lines?
Is the movement mostly for tubes going in the s/s direction, or is there some s/s movement towards tubes as well?
Give some degree of convergence, are there still differences that are unique to tubes?
I seems to me that s/s has perhaps improved in terms of producing less higher order harmonic distortion -- and it seems to me that is bound to improve the sound more that overall THD per se .
However it seems some s/s makers, including high-end, are deliberately leaving some 2nd and/or 3rd order distortion because they believe that this produces a more pleasing result. OTOH, the leading class D makers and a few A/B, (like Benchmark), are aiming for the lowest possible overall harmonic distortion. In this respect it doesn't seem like convergence towards tubes.
Dmitri Shostakovich
that I wondered into a store called personalized audio. Back then George said "use a tube preamp for your SS amp". He later started Melos.
Today my tube preamp and SS amps sound brilliant together and when I switch to a SS preamp, it also sounds great, just a bit different. Neither is objectionable because they are great components. Everybody's mileage may differ.
I have no doubt designers of both tubes and solid state are learning more each year and if the goal is accurate reproduction then the sound of SS and tubes should converge as they become more accurate. I do wonder how close they can come since the devices do act differently and tubes have to deal with output transformers.
I could add that I'm not convinced that flat response and low harmonic and IM distortion describe an amp well so long as the measurements are reasonable. I recall a demo where as these measurements all got worse, the system sound became clearer, more dynamic, better defined, etc. I hesitate to say more real.
....a lot of this stuff has been talked about by well meaning people here since the inception of AA, and all of this assumes perfect speakers.
You can get virtual to instruments in the room, and space, and hall size etc. Over years here we've all seen raves and reports of that. But it's NEVER real. It's just a very nice repro with spooky attributes.
Sit right in front of a well played clarinet, sax, violin, percussion etc. Go ahead and try it sometime. Not many people here have done this. Hear in person the mechanical nature with saxophone keys being pressed. Yes, I know it can come thru on a recording but it's doesn't have a separate space from the air column or the mouthpiece and breath also. Sorry. 6 feet away from a good Sax player can be LOUD and repro'd 'loud' is not real either.
It's very close to real but it's still not the same. Real is real, repro is - "almost a particular thing or quality" or "Virtual is most generally used to describe something as being the same" (Cambridge&dic.com)
just try to enjoy what you have and stop thinking THD, IM, freq. etc. Just let the music take you away and do what it's suppose to. I'm just passing on what I've experienced over many years.
... is rather like reading a novel or watching a movie. It will never be a full substitute for the real thing, BUT, under the right circumstances it can create a "willing suspension of disbelief" in the reader, viewer or listener that allows them to experience the intended effect.
For music, a good recording is helpful as is a quality stereo. However, we've all had experiences where music was played back on a mediocre or even poor quality player yet the moment was still magical. Our mood, who we are with, and all of the particulars of the circumstances affect how we respond to a recording (and a live event for that matter....)
So yes, a really good stereo system can help us get to that magical musical moment, but it will never be a duplicate of the live event. And then, we haven't even brought up the subject of those recordings that were never live but intended to exist only as a recording.
...and 20+ years before that. I was just thumbing through the first eight issues of Absolute Sound from 1973/1974 on, and there was just as much debate about the topic back then.
I like your "just enjoy what you have" wisdom. The best nights are when I can forget about tube brands, capacitors, etc and simply get lost in the music.
We'll never get in from a recording. For one thing, listening venues for live performance vary greatly in terms of SQ plus it also depends on your seat in the auditorium and various other factors.
Personally when I speak of "accuracy" I generally thinking of accuracy to the recording rather than accuracy to live performance.
Dmitri Shostakovich
My Sherwood has something like 1% distortion and my NAD had 0.001% distortion.
HOWEVER! a clarinet sounds like a clarinet on my Sherwood. While a clarinet clearly sounds like a good reproduction of a clarinet on my NAD.
If stereos truly have distortion numbers like 0.x%, then there should be NO difference between stereo A and stereo B. The harmonic argument aside, if a clarinet has a certain harmonic distortion pattern, then that's what I want to hear!
Obviously something else is in play. I'm getting the feeling that distortion numbers are nothing more than selling points.
If stereos truly have distortion numbers like 0.x%, then there should be NO difference between stereo A and stereo B...Obviously something else is in play.
There likely wouldn't be if you listened to uncorrelated sine waves used to derive the metric. There is something else in play. It's easy to get low THD - just dial in boatloads of corrective feedback that takes its toll by creating higher order distortion products under dynamic conditions, i.e. "music" where the ear is most sensitive.
Audio distortion and feedback
Agreed which makes it difficult sometimes to discuss real. Reproduction can be divided into various factors like definition, flat response, etc. and while we all are affected by all of them I believe the ones that convey a sense of reality probably vary from person to person. In my case number 1 is dynamic linearity(not the ability to play loudly only) which is accurate changes in level whether large, medium or small. I know many others place harmonic integrity 1st and I'm sure there are other primary factors for listeners. Then add in how we personally rank second and third factors will vary.
But I do think the system that comes closest to allowing a listener to close their eyes and make believe it's 'real' some times is the most 'accurate'.
Personally I'm big on resolution and transparency, though that's not to say I don't appreciate dynamics and, as mentioned, timbral accuracy.
Dmitri Shostakovich
... Come from my Purifi 1ET400A amp whose THD+noise is .00062%. We may note that the highest distortion spikes are 3rd order HD at 0.00004% followed by 2nd order at 0.00002%. Is it surprising that the lower distortion produces truer timbres?Is 1% distortion from you Sherwood more accurate or just more pleasing? It's been known since the ancient Greeks that low order HD sounds pleasant, but more accurate?
Dmitri Shostakovich
Edits: 01/22/21
I would love to try a setup like the one you're mentioning. But it took 30+ years to find my little corner of audio nirvana. I just can't see starting over again.
I do agree that ultra low distortion SHOULD have proper instrument timber. If a clarinet has timber, then at 0.0000x% distortion that clarinet should sound like it's being played in the room with you. Recording engineering issues aside.
My Sherwood may be more pleasing than accurate. But it's like any other art form. If you like a Claude Monet over the Dutch masters - enjoy!
Even though I like the full bodied sound of a Sherwood, I do rotate a Marantz SS amp with 0.006% distortion in the system. I love hearing things from a different point of view. I'll enjoy anything that sounds good regardless if it's tube, SS, SET, low, high distortion, what ever. Good is good!!!
... Was a Phase Linear 400 that had very low distortion numbers for its time.
That amp was at same time glassy harsh and opaque. Damn! I lived with the thing for 20 years in the believe that I had to be good.
I had a Pass Labs X150.5 for a number of years and, indeed, it sounded great. But contrary to my belief at the time, it was far from the ultimate in transparency or dynamics, (that prize goes to the Purifi amp, IMO).
Dmitri Shostakovich
Yet many think it's the amp.
even modest speakers can reveal subtle improvements upstream.
Vintage New Advents in the garage continue to amaze me as to how much better they sound with improved source and amplification within their limitations.
I lived with the thing for 20 years in the believe that I had to be good.
Glutton for punishment you were. It took me only two years to realize that was the case with a Crown D150 I owned as a teen. The Audire One that followed was decidedly better. Especially after I modified the power supply. :)
Fortunately hi-fi was a low priority especially during the latter years with it, I didn't spend a lot of time listening.
As my listening time increased I finally got a NAD C270. It was a revelation at the time though I've moved on since.
Dmitri Shostakovich
I trust your judgement on this topic. You've been in the game long enough and been through the "it must be good" phase. Yes, we've all been there!
Also you seem to like the same music I'm listening too.
Even though I like my Sherwood, I don't like sappy bloaty sound. The Sherwood is surprisingly crisp and detailed. I do like detail. But not the fatiguing type like my NAD were after 30 minutes you ears start to hurt.
Maybe I'll start looking into this area of audio.
I was all into lowest distortion, most every year there was better lower distortions numbers on the new gear coming out. I always liked the sound of the Pioneer gear back in the mid to late 70'sbut their distortion numbers were higher than most gear at the time.
About 20 years ago I found a Douglas Self book and it had schematics for his project gear that was supposed to have very good distortion measurements. I built the preamp in the book and was shocked at how bad it sound. I thought this would be an awesome preamp sound wise but it wasn't.
So I never get caught up in the distortion measurement especially from that ASR forum. They are all into lowest distortion number and don't care if the gear sounds good or not. let your ears be the judge of what to get. Lower distortion measurements doesn't always equal good sound.
That guy on that forum doesn't even listen to the amps he is measuring and then passing judgement just on the measurements. I say just enjoy the music. He bashed the Crown XLS amps and to me the Crown XLS sound really nice. I have both the XLS 1502 and 2502 amps in my main system and awesome sounding in my system. They do need to break in a very long time but sound really nice once they are.
Our VTA amps sound really good and I'm happy with mine. I don't care about the distortion measurement of them, they just sound right. Everyone who has heard my VTA-120 just loves it, they are high end SS owners too! The first comment out of their mouth is "It sounds so real" or "I can listen all day and night to this system". So that says a lot.
Maybe I'll yet get around to it. I would not expect it to sound like my Purifi amp but it might still be very satisfying.
Dmitri Shostakovich
Yep, without mentioning brands to steer off topic. I am "hearing" modern tube amps moving more towards a SS sound. And SS (some not all) moving, ironically, to a more tube sound.
In the end, isn't audio all about making the listener happy. So what's wrong with adding a little second order distortion. It like adding a color filter to pictures so you can bring them back to look more realistic.
NT
You have/had some really impressive ARC over the years. Nice to read the new/vintage comparisons.
Cheers!
Jonesy
"I know just enough to get into trouble. But not enough to get out of it."
Thanks for the nice words jonesy , I've tried the D70MK2 in the past in my system and it's one sweet amp . Musical !
There's just something about tubes.
Cool amps.
But also think I might be able to suffer through it intact.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
I've not listened to the REF 75 SE , it's the version w/ the KT150 . I listened again to the REF 75 last night for the last time before I return it . Made comparison again w/ my D79B's and it is indeed leaner in the midrange and it seems to sound less powerful than my vintage amp . I was playing Muddy Water's Folk Singer LP last night and the old amp seems more robust , probably because of the big power transformer and power supply . But there seems to be more music information and detail coming from the new amp .
Edits: 01/20/21
That seems to hold true these days when you compare old vs. new. Back then it was more about musicality and that meant a fuller sound. Today detail is what everyone is looking for and that requires a leaner sound profile. I never thought that was as important to musical enjoyment but everyone has something they're listening for.
Obviously, it is getting cleaner. Hell tubes in the 70s were a mess. But ARC got great sound quality out of them with the SP-3 preamp and others of that ilk.
With the move to the hybrid and then the tube pres, the sound got cleaner, clearer and probably some of the sonic changes you mention.
A couple friends with ARC, on going newer 4 times in the last 10 years finding nice used units always enjoying the improved clarity and such but he is a Yamaha guy and they have that thin, Natural Sound built into them.
The other one has a recent ARC but missed the bloom of the old units and found a nice SP-8 to enjoy and he is very happy with that one.
I can see the same kind of sound changes happening in their amplifier line as well. It is all good. I could probably live with any of them and be happy.
really?
seems like the tube rolling crowd would kill for some of those tubes-
there were also more factories extant in the 70s than now-
and lastly the design of tubes was solid - very little hysteresis in power tubes...
Happy Listening
at this guys house that sold me my Clearfield speakers. They sound really good, I was just thinking how I wish I had them.Got home with the speakers and hooked them up to my Latino VTA-120. Let everything warm up and started to play the same music as he did. I was shocked that my little VTA-120 sound better to my ears in my system with the same speakers. The mids and soundstage were better with the VTA-120. I didn't feel so bad after that.
You have serious gear! I can just see the watts on the meter start to speed up when those puppies are fired up and running! :) Enjoy!
Edits: 01/20/21
But what of the current REF75SE? It uses different output tubes which is said to improve its bass response.
I've not tried the REF 75SE the one w/ the KT150's
I have to agree about the somewhat "lean" sound of ARC gear in recent times.
Beautiful rig! So nice to be able to enjoy both eras of amps. Congrats.
Beautiful pic!
+1
That is a lot of ARC power per square foot.
Gsquared
Thanks Fantja .
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: