Amp/Preamp Asylum

Posted by xxyyzz on November 01, 2006 at 18:58:15

In Reply to: The Absolute Sound (TAS) doesn't like digital amps much posted by sethk@survivormail.com on November 1, 2006 at 11:34:54:

At least one person had the temerity to question J Valin's conclusions about the ARC amp. As that person noted below, it is difficult to assess the validity of some of the opinions provided in TAS:

http://forums.avguide.com/viewtopic.php?p=2826&sid=675b4c88fc770f64871d2fe2f65a4cca#2826

"Let me preface my comments by indicating that I respect the honesty of the TAS reviewers. However, the negative opinions of some reviewers are lacking in a couple of important respects: (1) a failure to indicate the other equipment used in the review and (2) a failure to indicate what actions were taken to determine whether a reviewer’s impression resulted from poor equipment mating (or some significant flaw with the equipment being review).

I’ll pick on Jon Valin’s review of the ARC 300.2. Did he use the ARC Ref 3 in his review? Can he claim that the ARC’s preamp didn’t seem to mate well with its amp? How much break-in time did the amp have before he reviewed it? Did he experiment with alternative equipment mating to determine what the effect on sound would be? Were issues raised with the equipment manufacturer? I appreciate Jon Valin’s opinions, but the devil (and value of opinions) is always in the details. Perhaps the 300.2 is a giant killer with the proper mating, in the same sense that a set amp can sound gloriously musical with a proper set of speakers. Likewise, a solid-state (class a/b) amp can suffer (sonically) from a mating with the wrong cables, for example. TAS has heard of equipment/system synergies?

I raise these issues based on a couple of counterpoints. First, I’ve heard the ARC 150.2 (a smaller version of the 300.2) sound very musical (detailed, warm, full, not lacking in low or high frequencies, compared to the “absolute sound” standard) when mated with an ARC LS 17, Joseph Audio Pearls, Transparent cables, and a Krell disc spinner (in a dealer’s showroom). Second, some of these product manufacturers (ARC and Cary come to mind) have long histories of producing quality products (referring to sound quality, of course). Are the folks who voiced the Ref 3 and the Ref 210 likely to turn out an absolute clunker, as Valin seems to glibly conclude? That concern would certainly give me cause to examine the basis for the seemingly poor performance of the component, and the opinion of the reviewer.

As a reader, I’m left to wonder whether there is an issue with the component, an issue of a rash opinion, or the issue of an audio reviewer trying to balance a grain of sand on the head of a pin. If my statements offend anyone, I apologize. I mean them to be direct *and* respectful."