 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.99.209.139
I've been reading a few of the two-year-old posts about the "C" upgrade, and am curious what you think now. I apparantly like "mushy tube sound" according to ARC, and am reluctant to have it upgraded because some people have said it's sonics change a bit. Any info?
Thanks,
Matthew
Follow Ups:
Oh, man, I had no idea Ruff passed away. His was one of the upgraded SP-3's I've read about. I'm very sorry to hear it.As far as the upgrade, I agree with all of you. You can have my SP-3-A1, well, never. My only concern is longevity now. There is an absolute tube-audio wizard near me, but he is hanging up his iron soon. I have read (BS?) that the power supply is becoming the weak point in the SP-3.
My main conern is updating the power supply, if required, and any other parts that need it, WITHOUT changing the character of it's sound. Like I said, no less than ARC hisself told me I must like "mushy tube sound" and as far as I'm concerned, the SP-3 is the zenith of that sound, and all of ARC's efforts since have been backwards.
To clarify, my concern is longevity. If I have to build a time machine to get parts to keep it alive forever and sounding the same, I guess I need to get to work.
Thanks much, and any more suggestions and input is VERY welcome.
Matthew
It is not a mushy tube sound but very close to the reproduction of the oriignal. Later electronics have bowed to trying to get digital to do things it can not do and really screwed up sound reproduction. The term neutral is a total misnomer; it is a surgical operation of sound removing all of the feeling and emotion in the music. Design has gone from being done by persons who play and know the sound of instruments to computer crazed, autocad, formula driven engineers who design by the numbers and who think that "sounds like a CD" is the ultimate accolade.
This doesn't come close to answering your question but may shed some light...I have an SP3A that I bought from a friend a couple years ago. He is a an experienced tech that (mostly) rebuilds Dynaco amps, but uses all ARC gear in his home rigs, is very familiar with ARC gear, and has toured the ARC plant. He did some minor upgrades to the SP3A he sold me, put in an ALPS pot and upgraded the RCAs (the ones that get used...) to gold ones. He also bought everything up to spec.
Now, I haven't heard a "stock" SP3A, OR the SP3C, and I suppose I have some sort of bastardized in-between unit. I prefer to think of it as unique... but IT SURE SOUNDS GOOD. I don't want it TOUCHED anymore. I LOVE it and it's PERFECT the way it is.There was an inmate hear, that passed away last year, by the user name Ruffscruff. I believe he had the "C" upgrade done and posted about it. Do a search through the archives under Ruffscruff hear and in tubes to find his results/thoughts. He was a great guy and is missed, and also had a web site where he posted about his ARC equipment. You should find a link to that with some of his posts. This would probably be more useful than my 2 cents worth...
"I always play jazz records backwards, they sound better that way"
-Thomas Edison
Tromatic,The SP3 seems to have a special following and this is embodied in the fact that Audio Research is offering an upgrade 30+ years later that costs as a substantial portion of what the premaplifier did new.
I've never actually heard an SP3 before and then after the current upgrade, so I can;t comment directly, but from my exceperience with other vintage gear suggests a little caution in upgrading Audio Research. ARC has a reputation for upgrading that infuriates some with what is seens as constant expensive changes that claim to substatniatlly improve sound which triggers in the owners a but of pique, "Why did you sell this to me as the best thing ever made and then a year later, make a MKII acalling it the best?". The answer is that ARC does so much constant refinement and re-evaluation in light of experience and new components aand they pass these on in products.
Since 1985 I've been a very happy Audio Research SP8 owner and the SP8 had no less than 7 versions. Mine is still completely original including tubes and it won't be long until I have to replace the caps and tubes, and it's a debate in my mind already whether I will have ACR replace the big orange Spragues with the white Infincaps of the Rev 7 or keep the sound as closely to it's original sound. This is a debate too while I'm preparing to rehabilitate a very original McIntosh MR67 tuner- will "hot-rodding" add something in one place and take away elsewhere? Old McIntosh seems to some with a lot of warnings about pushing it in unintended direction with modern boutique pieces as the overall balance of the original is shoved to one side or another.
My sense with ARC is that they are usually so refined by the time they're sold they are usualy very useful for a long time, upgrades without very careful overall consideration can be dangerous- both convincing but it seems with an unintended penatly elsewhere, but probably the factory upgrade of the SP3 will give it some qualities of the later 12AX7 based SP's- it will bcoem "faster" and posssibly a bit "leaner" or more neutral. And, I say when shifting preamp neutrality- in either direction, be careful what you wish for! A lot of people get very attached to the kind of distortions they like better, like a "warmer" or "tubey" sound. I like the romantic tube sound a lot, but if it's too much sweets in the diet after awhile I tend to return to the enthusiastic clairty and dynamics of later ARC.
As I think the SP8 is the ultimate expression of the SP3/12AX7 line, my suggestion would be: 0ne- try and hear sP3s orignal and C-upgrade as closely to side by side as possible, and in light of the cost of the SP3 upgrade, Two: consider an SP8. SP3s are valued at between $800-1200 now and if the upgrade is what $900?- the total cost of $1700-$2100 provides a lot of alternate choices!
A difficult decision and I think getting to hear an updated SP3 and compare to later ARC 12AX7 preamps- including the current SP16- might be the only clear way to answer.
The sad part of the story for me is so much of the gear I bought new is now moving onto Vintage Asylum!
Cheers,Bambi B
Thanks much for your reply. I have a place that regularly has more "modern" ARC gear like the 6 and 8 passing through. I'll give them a listen if I can.However, if there was ever a piece of audio gear that fits my auditory receptors like a drug, it's the SP-3. It may not be (well, not!) anything remotely "modern" sounding, and thank God for that.
Keeping it alive so I can pass it to my neices is the worry now! Consensus seems to be keep it far away from ARC and the so-called "upgrade".
BambiB, and my experiences with their LS-3 and LS-8 Line Stages mirror your experiences. In the case of the LS-8, I was able to procure the upgrade kit and do the work myself, thereby taking the mystery out of what was done to improve it. They provided schematics and drawings of the mods so I could evaluate their approach.In this case, there was, indeed, quite a bit of improvement between the LS-8 version I and II. The changes were quite involved and required that certain components be installed and mounted in specific ways. Things I would not have expected, like sound-deadening foam panels, were included as well as a new set of rubber feet. My impressions were that they did their homework on the improvements. BTW, the kit I purchased was intended for distributors outside of the US who would do the updates in those countries.
So, with that as a reference point, I'd expect to hear wonderful things with the upgrade of an old SP3. Still, for your estimates of the total investment, there are quite a few alternatives.
Oh, and on that issue of your gear becoming 'vintage', I'd suggest that, in fact, you were really just ahead of your time in picking the right gear!
BTW, I'm one of those Mac guys that has no problem bringing old tube gear up to date with new components of the original values and thinks its the right way to go. Seems like AR thinks the same way......
Cheers,
David
David,
I think you upgraded your LS8 the best way- take advantage of hundred's of hours of listening by people with critical hearing and, importantly, the technical knowledge of the gear to be able to make effective improvements- they know what change will affect which thing and contribute to an overall improvement. The person at home, no matter how enthusistic, can rarely have this kind of time, money, and expertise to access and experiment with about every Hovland, Solens, Inifinicap piece made, constantly reference the original sound, and determine which component is the optimium contribution to the sound.The overall improvement is the critical aspect for me as something that just makes a huge bass or sweet midrange is likely to upset the aspects of overall balance I sought originally.
Yes, I think I like the SP3 c- upgrade quite a lot, as it is so well worked out, but for me, the improvements that I like are already present in a good Revision 4 to 7 SP8. If a person is going to be putting $2,000 into an SP3, it would be wise to be very sure about the direction of the outcome as well as other possibilities. With careful buying, $2,000 could buy a really nice SP8 at about $1,100 and one of ARC greatest tube amps- a D70 (65W, 6550s) at about $900. The SP8/D70 in combination, especially with electrostatic speakers, is one of the "magic" audio combinations of all time. It won't be long too that $2,000 might buy most of a used LS16 and PH3SE, for those that want the modern, remote control stuff,..
McIntosh: I'm talking to various people regarding my MR67 tuner and have spent three months buying NOS tubes. I';d like to put this is super condition and then spend the next 30 years listening- I think that tuner is unlikely to be surpassed for the way I'd like to use it. As I listen to FM in the office 100 times more than at home, it's likely this MR67 will be the office tuner: Cambridge Audio 640C/McIntosh MR67 > Audio Research L3 > Audio Research D130 > Vanderstenn 2C. The lush, deep MR67 through the neutral and dynamic LS3 and D130 is quite astounding. The solid state stuff is an experiment- after 20+ years of all tube- as I want good sound in the office where I actually listen most, but don't like to run expsensive tube stuff when it's often idling or muted. Still, I'm quite sure the LS3 will turn into the SP8 in the near future and I'll just put Sovteks in the phono spots so as not to burn the original Siemens ECC83s needlessly.
But, it's still a debate with me as to degree changes to the MR67 I'd like- I just don't have a reference to what putting in Solens coupling caps or whatever will do. As I 'm simultaneously completely retubing, will I end with such a different MR67, will I be happy? This project will cost about $900 total in the end and that's a serious tuner investment in time and money. Of course, this is essentially the same debate our friend Tromatic is having over the SP3- how to know if an uopgrade is worth the cost and is it really an upgrade- and my native skepticism and frugality means I'd only do the upgrade if I could hear an example that's been done- and placed in a very similar of the same system.
Cheers,
Bambi B
[ Audio Research: SP8, SP10, D115, LS3, D130 / McIntosh: MX110, MC240, MR67, MR77 ]
and can appreciate that its hard to plan for a specific sonic character you'd *like* to have.When I went through a set of MC-225s and MX-110s, I deliberately listened to them as I replaced each set of interstage coupling caps. This was after I had redone the power supplies, of course, to ensure that that wasn't affecting the results.
What I learned was that, in the MX-110s, each successive replacement of caps - working from the inputs to the final 6U8s - improved the authority of presentation and stabilized the stereo imaging. This last part was the most surprising. It was like having the sonic stage expand further beyond the speakers and gain depth with each successive replacement of caps.
In the power amps, the first stages - out through the phase splitter - had the same effect of improved authority and soungstaging.
I used only Solen and Auricaps in one set of MX-110/MC-225s to minimize that variable, too. The reason for 2 brands had to do with values and voltage ratings available from those companies. Frankly, I doubt any specific cap brand varies that much from what I've described above compared to the old caps that were in these units.
This was the experience that convinced me that updating to contemporary components does, indeed, return the amp's circuits to what they were originally capable of.
Since that experience a few years ago, I've redone a HK Citation II, some MC-30s, an MC-240, 2 C28 preamps, a Citation I preamp, and most recently, a set of MC-75s. All have had the same reaction to recapping. I don't sit through a listening session with each set of caps these days, either. Its become too consistent to hear any differences.
So, your question of, "will it change the sonic character?" is Yes. Will it let the circuits do their job? Yes. Will you like it? It depends on your expectations. Is it worth it? That depends on your pocketbook, I suppose.
I have a sense that you'll like it, given your taste in gear and your ear.
Cheers,
David
A couple of years ago I spoke to ARC about the upgrade as the 3 is 1 of my all time favorite preamps. Their comments to me were that it updates the sound to modern perceptions of what a preamp shoould sound like. When pressed further they sad the result is that it changes the sound "making it better". Well, as the 3 is 1 of my favorites the way it is, I decided that the mod would more likely than not move the units away from what I loved about it so the idea of the mod was taken of the list. The seller of the unit I was looking at during the time picked up a newed ARC, listened for a few weeks and returned it withdrawing the 3 from sale and swearing he'll never be drunk enough to ever part with it.The 3 is based on an excellent, well proven preamp circuit that was the basis for the Marantz 7 and the McIntosh C22 but improved on and easily the best of the design. I've always maintained that if Saul had decided to issue a 7C MKII, it more then likley would have been the 3 but better looking.
Hi, Brian:Yes, basically, there is very little difference in the circuit designs of the Marantz 7, McIntosh C-22 and of course, the C-11 preamplifiers.
I do not know if you are very familiar with it, but in the 1/81 issue of Audio Amateur, there appeared an interesting article by Walt Jung which concerned updating the original design of the Marantz 7 tube preamplifier. I actually modified one of my Marantz 7's with the majority of Jung's recommendations at that time, including the circuit for a regulated filament supply and B+ source.
The improvement was staggering to say the least. But, considering what I did to my preamp, in lieu of today's nutsy prices, it really more or less destroyed the resale value of that preamp.
I cannot speak with personal knowledge about the ARC SP-3 or many of its versions, but I do know that ARC was famous for constantly "improving" on all of their preamps, some only a matter of months after launching products in that market. Such was the nature of the company.
That was back in the seventies, for goodness sakes and I see that nothing has changed, procedurally.
Of all "post-Marantz and McIntosh vintage tube designs", I personally like my old C-J PV2a, updated with new caps. There is nothing particularly exotic in there, either, and yet, the unit sounds terrific to me.
As they say in audio these days: "Oh, well!"
:-)
Richard Links
Berkeley, CA
My SP3-A1 was repaired (ARC rebuilt the PS to original specifications) one month before they offered the SP3-C "upgrade". My unit came back with a letter describing the mod and with a special price of $500, as I had just spent $400 to repair the old design. I called ARC and they told me the reason for the "upgrade" was that the can caps of the original design were unavailable and the new power supply board used different, more available parts. ARC also said that the sound would change towards sounding like one of their newer units. I have owned a SP9 and thought the SP3 was a better preamp in all respects. I don't want my SP3 to sound sterile and cold like a newer ARC design!I have an SP3 and an SP6 and prefer them to the newer ARC designs by a wide margin. I don't think the SP3-C mod is a worthwhile investment. If a person wants a newer sounding ARC preamp they should just buy an SP9 or the better sounding SP8. The SP9 will be cheaper, the SP8 will sound better and both would be cheaper than buying a used SP3 and then spending the $1000 to "upgrade" it through ARC.
--
Al GSilence is Golden
Duct Tape is Silver
Matt
I have upgraded three of them in the last 5 years for people but I dont change the circuit context..The sp3 is predicated on the old vintage preamps with 12ax7s and the upgrade that ARC does dries it up in the worst way because the last one I did had the upgrade done by ARC and the guy was PISS_D..
I basically put in k40 pios in the innerstages and stealth power supply diodes and premium WW resistors in the power supply along with poly shunt filters of the 10uf range..I did a whole host of other things but the guy was so pleased and he did get audio research to refund some of the money he paid to them somehow.
I think there may be a post on here about it and I also had gone thru the phono stage and dropped the hiss even more at full out.
If you like the vintage character and the NO BS tube sound,dont do the ARC upgrade.I have an sp6b and that thing is nowhere near as good as the sp3.
Maybe ARC want's to hide the evidence they hit their peak 30 years ago.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
