Audio Research Corporation Reference 2 Phonostage Preamp
The ARC Reference 2—William Zane Johnson’s statement phonostage and only the second ARC phono preamp to be designated a “Reference” product in this decade—arrived about three weeks ago, replete with new features never before seen on an ARC phonostage. One look at the remote control will tell you how different the Reference 2 is.
The push-button loading for moving coils (including a “Custom” setting that ARC will factory-set to any value you want) is a variation on an old theme (the PH7’s remote allows you to do virtually the same thing). But those Input 1 and Input 2 buttons are new (this is the first preamp from ARC in a long time that makes provisions for more than one arm or turntable). Completely unparalleled is the bottom row of buttons labeled “RIAA,” “Columbia,” and “Decca.” In the better than thirty years I’ve been an ARC fan I am not aware of another Johnson preamp with alternative EQ settings. Although I haven’t yet experimented extensively with these different EQs, I know that ARC spent a lot of time fine-tuning them. At the very least, they give analog-hounds the flexibility that was once only available with the FM Acoustics and the Zanden phonostages.
On the outside the unit looks impressive—it’s larger than the Reference 3 preamp and is the first ARC unit I’ve seen that has a silver chassis and silver handles (although it can also be had in ARC’s traditional two-tone silver and black or all-black).
On the inside it looks more like a Reference 3 than a phonostage, in part because it uses the same tube complement as the Reference 3—four 6H30 dual triodes, and one more 6H30 and one 6550C in the power supply.
Gain is user-selectable—51dB in the low gain setting and 74dB in the high gain setting (using the preamp’s balanced outputs). Not only does this mean that you can use moving-magnet cartridges in addition to moving coils; it also means that you can use very-low-output moving coils (which has not always been the case with previous ARC phonostages). In fact, the Reference 2 is a superb match with the very-low-output (0.17mV) Da Vinci Reference Grandezza cartridge that I currently favor.
Bandwidth is claimed to be very wide—within +/-2dB of RIAA from 10Hz to 60kHz, with 3dB down points at 0.5Hz and above 300kHz. I have no way of confirming or challenging these claims but I can say, on the basis of listening, that this phonostage has the deepest, clearest, most natural bass of any tube phonostage I’ve heard.
It takes at least 200 hours to break in the Reference 2’s capacitors, so prepare yourself for a long wait before it begins to sound its best. However, its best is most assuredly worth waiting for. This is, far and away, the finest phonostage ARC has ever made—and the most realistic tube phonostage I’ve ever heard.
Low-level resolution, transient response, timbre, and transparency to sources are phenomenally lifelike, making this one of those rare analog products that reveals new details (and recasts old ones) on every cut of every record in you entire collection. I am still collating when it comes to the Reference 2—and still a little agog at how superb it sounds—but I can already tell you that this isn’t just a half-step or even a whole-step better than the (excellent) PH7. There is an entire octave of difference between the Reference 2 and its little brother. This is just a superb bit of engineering, and Audio Research has every right to call it a “reference” product.
I will have more to say about the Reference 2--its sound, its EQ settings, now it fares against the competition--on this site and on our Golden Ear Club site in the near future.
Comments
Dear Jonathon
Thx for prelim on new Phono from ARC. Sounds interesting especially the different curves for equalisation. My pKW by MF has different settings also. MF specifies the RIAA eq rolls off at 20hz and IEC at 10hz. You mention RIAA rolling of at 10hz. Which is correct or is it a difference in how u have expressed it
Kind Regards
Andy from Oz
Oz,
ARC's Web simply states that the Ref 2 is "within +/-2dB of RIAA, 10Hz to 60kHz." I'm guessing that MF's mention of "IEC" refers to the so-called "RIAA/IEC curve," which was proposed in 1976 and involved a slight change in the eq of deep bass. It is my understanding that the RIAA/IEC curve wasn't well received by the recording industry and that most folks stuck with the RIAA curve.
Jon
JV:
You do know how to entice, my boy!
I just read your preview of the superb Ikeda tonearm/cartridge lineup on your Japan trip blog. Isamu Ikeda's superb website, especially the discussion and pix of those amazing pick-ups, had me drooling. Now you tempt us with news of a new and likely great reference phonostage from the folks at ARC. Man!!!
And look at the build-quality and exquisite circuit board layout. Who says manufacturing artistry is dead in the good ol' US of A....
Products like these make me think its sometimes worth going into some serious hock to feed our audio desires. Didn't Dante prescribe a specific circle in Hell for the covetous?
Amandela
Amandela77
<< Didn't Dante prescribe a specific circle in Hell for the covetous?>>
Also for the audiophile. Bottom circle, I think.
JV:
The new Arc Ref 2 and the Ref 5 look lovely. I can't wait for the reviews. This peek, plus your yummy preview of the superb-looking Ikeda tonearms and cartridges, makes me think that sometimes it may just be worth going into serious hock to finance our prickly audio bugs.
Didn't Dante reserve a special circle in Hell for the covetous?
Amandela
Amandela77
never owned any ARC but these machines are very tempting to say the least..
even with the very best preamps there always seems to be something missing or forgotten, not with the Ref5 and Ref2 this time. it is my impression that a remote can be implemented with no audiophile losses, hey its 2009. some tend to build like it's still 1978. not ARC.
and pls spare me the 'we left out remote and display because it sounds sooooo much better' bogus.
what luxury to see the impedance on the remote, and to be seen at the display which can be turned off in itself! great thinking. the impedance values are almost perfectly chosen, but personally i would leave out the 0,47 option for a somewhat wider range like 100, 150, 250, 380, 500, 800 and 1K something like that. ( i use MC only) i'm an advocate of impedance loading.
the 20A input sockets are great, but limit any audiophile in trying out different AC cables. just a thought..
and authentic USA made too. you would be surprised at former 'USA made' brands who are made in china nowadays. i could name a few, but don't, it would cause quite a stirr.
ok, i'm saving up for Ref5 and Ref2. keep the reviews coming Jonathan.
the 20A input sockets are great, but limit any audiophile in trying out different AC cables. just a thought..
There are quite a few alternative 20A power cables out there. I am using Nordost Valhallas on my Ref3/610T, but I know that Transparent also makes such cables. I am sure these are not the only two manufacturers offering such cables
Rudolph,
ARC is a pioneer of remote-controllable high-end electronics, and I have heard no sonic degradation from same (although some of the input circuitry ARC used in the now-distant past with its Ref 1 preamp and Ref 1 phonostage could cause overload/signal-clipping issues that have since been rectified). I think, more importantly, that ARC has always had its eye on the most accurate sound--not the most accurate tube sound. It has freely granted the virtues of solid-state and spent the last 30 years trying to amalgamate them with the virtues of tubes. In the Ref 2 (and one expects the Ref 5) it has come closer than ever to achieving this goal.
BTW, the "Custom" slot on the Ref 2 phonostage can apparently be loaded to any value you like, giving you one extra option for your cartridge.
JV
JV,
just recently discovered the AVguide blogs and also sent out my email adress in regard to the GoldenEar club, what a great way to be 'on top' of the very latest experiences. what an exiting opportunity to get so close to one of my fave reviewers. ( the Magico 5 blog is just soooo exiting)
what is interesting about the new ARC preamp combination is that they really combine an extreme audiophile performance with great luxury in use. and do tubes in an sorted out and reliable way with common tubes types too.
There are lots of other very high performance preamps - be it line and/or phono- and some are substantially more expensive too. i have experienced quite some of those including some very exotic. without calling brands or going into details, some exotics have much more 'magic marketing' around them, and when actually compared to much less expensive ones may fail to completely out-perform, or only gradually outperform in one or two parameters.
there are 30 and 50 K preamps outthere that have a fine smooth sound, but when compared to some 3K passive device are questionable opposed to their retail price... so be cautious. some 30K phono preamps do not offer impedance loading, just because the designer doesn't believe in that..
some designers claim that their preamp X had to let go of all features intentionally, be it remote, adjustability, display, and any comfort in general to reach for ultimate transparancy. i really think that with 2009 technology , parts and design companies can come up with all the features and getting superb transparancy.
i have a genuine impression that ARC has just done that. a Yes we Can from the designteam.
it is good as a side marker to state that BAT has gone this road in an earlier stage too, i have really enjoyed many BAT gear, which is as problem free as you can wish for. let's not overlook the VTL and CJ gear which have gone this road too.
Great to see these companies doing so well and although i never been ARC fan, it may be time for me to send in a check in the near future. ( i find the Ref5 and Ref2 reasonably priced compared to others btw)
pls be aware that certain brands who used to be proudly made in USA, are indeed made in china nowadays. just be cautious >
Hi John,
Is that your current system?
http://photos.lam.ws/gallery/2107056_r4oYn/1/109358115_ASzbr/Large
You are really a Audio Research guy ... :-)
How much did you pay for all of them?
Hi John,
Is that your current system?
http://photos.lam.ws/gallery/2107056_r4oYn/1/109358115_ASzbr/Large
You are really a Audio Research guy ... :-)
How much did you pay for all of them?
Well, I didn't pay anything for them. They're on loan (or were) from ARC.
And no this is not my stereo system at the moment. That picture was taken three years ago. After several permutations, "my" current stereo system looks like this:
Very much appreciated - always great to see an early post of an ARC product to come in an area where I'd like to upgrade, or at least experiment a bit. I think my one observation about this preamp that is a tad cumbersome, or can be for some, are the two gain settings; namely, 51 and 70-something. When experimenting with gain in a Rhea, it was easy to hone in on a specific setting that worked the best. For several Koetsus here, the gain sweet spot is in the 60-65 range. My hope is that having just two fixed points doesn't make this a situation of too little or overload.
I'm getting to the point of considering a shootout between an ARC unit (which this would now be the choice), an I/O (or just a basic Rhea), BAT's VK-P10 (as they always seem to be the electronics in at least one of the rooms I love the sound at the most at RMAF), and perhaps one other. The Boulder 2008 (if I recall the model number) is available locally to borrow, but truth is the price is outside reasonable, so would look to another candidate (or just borrow the Boulder and potentially hate myself for having done so).
Could be a lot of fun!
Thanks for the sneak peak!!!!
Anyone knows why ARC skip the Reference 4 preamp and went for the 5 directly? Just curious...
For the Asian market the number 4 is a synbol for something bad
Only if you consider violent, painful death "bad."
It's too bad ARC doesn't have a way to burn in the capacitors without wasting 200 hours of associated tube life before the unit sounds its best. :(
Don't worry. Those tubes will last 3-5 years before you even need to think about replacing them. Two hundred hours are nothin'. : )
Jon,
From your initial impressions of the ARC Ref Phono 2, what would the fundamental differences be between the IO Eclipse and the Ref Phono 2? The reason why I ask is that I have both the Ref Phono 2 and and IO Signature with two power supplies which I would want to upgrade to the Eclipse model. I've logged 12 hours on the Ref Phono 2 and it just outdistances itself from the Ph7 by a mile. No comparison!! How many hours have you logged onto the Ref Phono 2 Jon?
MSRP?
Love the screen name, Greg. And stay away from rotten apples.
11995 usd is the msrp
Looks like a great piece. Not sure what "it is a full octave better" means. It would have been nice to have a mono switch (not every pre has one), otherwise it has all a vinylphile could want (at least this one). Would be interesting to compare this to the phono section in my Shindo Masseto...even if it sounded "only" as good, there are many handy and desirable features.
Look forward to the formal review. Those M5s are nice; I have heard them and you just can't go wrong with a Magico product.
<<Not sure what "it is a full octave better" means.>>
Just another way of saying it's a lot better. And it is.
Jonathan-
What's the empty stand for in the front center of your system photo?
When might we get some more impressions on the Ref 2 from you?
Best,
Tom
Tom,
If "the stand" you're referring to is the tallish, black, T-shaped object, it isn't a stand. It is a room-tuning device.
As for more impressions of the Ref 2...they will come soon, including thoughts on ARC's three EQ options.
I'm hoping to get the Ref 5 preamp next month and report on the combo.
Jon
Jonathan-
Thanks for the reply. I'm intrigued by the "room tuning device". Can you tell me what it is? I use the Acoustic Art system.
Tom
Anyone looking for multi disk codes should take a hearing to the VAS Citation Sound I, which I have. I had a ARC PH3SE and sold it off for the VAS unit. It is a third of the price of the new ARC unit. Yes, if I had the bucks I would buy the ARC unit, but 12K is steep. I'v seen the AMR writeups but will wait until a review appears and then get a loan unit to do a compare.
stargazer,
The PH3 is not a Reference 2--you have my word on this.
Jon
Their was a discussion going on about the ARC Ref2 Phono until someone posted about the AMR phono stage. Jon, can you, or someone start a thread in the forums and move the AMR posts to there? Being the ARC fan that I am, I'd much rather read about the Bill Johnson design.
Mark
Sunday,
Will do.
Jon
DC, who until late last year, worked for Martin-Logan, is a personal friend. Thanks for the help on this thread.
Mark
yeah lets keep this tread about 'Proudly Made in the USA.'
ARC can expect my check on Ref5 / Ref2.
Normal
0
7.8 pt
0
2
false
false
false
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
What’s going on here, do I smell narrow minded, self centred protectionism here … we had Bush for the past 8 years and most of us regret what he has done. Let’s not repeat the whole thing here again.
I am a big ARC fan too, but I would also love to see how does the Ref 2 compare to others phono stage. Why can’t we tolerate some comparison here? Are we afraid? Of course not, let every one has their own voice, as long as it is relevant to the Ref2, and comparison to the Ref2 is relevant in my opinion.
I actually want to ask Jon how would the Ref compare to the Audia FL phono, but with the current censorship, I can’t even ask that question or post anything relevant to the comparison (like data or photo on the Audio FL phono), otherwise people will kick me off is this thread …
I am sure the majority of the ARC fans are mature and open minded people and doesn’t offended easily by some comparisons to other great phono stages.
The last thing I want is people to have the impression that all ARC fans are arrogant red heads, narrow mind and self centred. This really does ARC no good at all.
Kuran,
I can't tell you how the Audia FL phonostage compares to the ARC Reference 2 anymore than I can tell you how the AMR PH-77 compares to the Reference 2, since I haven't heard either yet. (BTW, the post about the AMR wasn't erased; it was simply moved to a separate thread in the Forum section at www.avguide.com/forums/amr-ph-77. When and if I get some listening time with the PH-77, I will add to this thread or give the AMR a blog of its own.) What I can tell you--in fact, the whole reason for this blog--is how the Reference 2 sounds. I can also tell you how it compares to other phonostage preamps I have heard in my system or repeatedly in the systems of friends, such as the ARC PH7, the Lamm LP2, the Aesthetix Io and Rhea, the Zanden 1200 Mk II, the Ayre P5-X, the Audio Space Reference Two, the MBL 6010D, the Audio Tekne TEA-2000, the Soulution 740, the Sutherland Hubble, and, soon, the Technical Brain and BA-Labo.
JV
Jon,
If the blog is solely about how does it sound, I am sorry I was mistaken. I though the blog was about the whole Ref 2, which includes comments and impression on matters like built and parts quality (that’s one of the reason that you posts the photos I guess), feature, usability and of course sound.
Thanks for the clarification … and I am sure the ARC Ref 2 will the best phono stage you have ever heard :-)
I'm sorry to disappoint you, Kuran, but, yeah, sound quality does come first with me (and everyone else who works for TAS). And, yeah, I can't comment on a product I've never heard (and you've never heard, apparently). Keep looking at the pictures and studying those spec sheets, though. I'm sure they'll tell you all you need to know. : )
glad the bush period is over indeed.. i'm actually from Europe but eager to support all things made in USA, made in Germany or made in Zwitserland. because of political, but mostly because of quality reasons. it's a free country, so feel free to speak out. ive said it again, be aware that some former 'proudly Made in USA' brands are actually made in far east now...
the ARC REF2 may indeed be one of the very best phonostages around, Made in USA.
( i love chinese food btw )
For the record, the AMR is made in "the far East," not that that means anything. I love Chinese food, too. And a goodly amount of Chinese audio gear, especially the Audio Space stuff.
C'mon Jon, tell us about the Ref2!
Keep your shirt on, Sunday! I'm working on it.
I'm getting the schpilkies!
Hey Mark,
Mine was shipped today and I should have it early next week. You are welcome to come and listen anytime.
Don't take your shirt off....please
You don't wanna see my magnificent body?
No , its just that the stripper pole in the soundroom won't hold you.
What analog front end will you be using?
I've now got several hundred hours on the Ref 2. The other phono section I'm most familiar with (as its been my reference for years) is the Aesthetix IO Signature, which I sent back to the factory many months ago suggesting it was too noisy, and they did something magical to it making it very quiet. I'm also somewhat familiar with the AR PH7, the Zanden, various incarnations of the wonderful Lyra Connoisseur. A couple years ago I helped Roy Gregory set up and run his demonstration of the the effects of various parameters of phono playback at the RMAF, one of which was the Zanden's curves. The system included the same VPI/Lyra front end I use (some of which I brought to the show), and I holed up in that room for many hours listening to the Zanden and its curves. The folks at Audio Research have been working on the Ref 2 curves since that time. Even leaving aside the curves, the Ref 2 is a huge step up from the Io or PH7. There are a few super phono sections out there that, all other things being equal, are a much closer match, but no one, including Jonathan, is going to get them in house at the same time for a true comparison. All other things are not equal, however, and for my two cents, the equalization curves are indispensable. Again, for my two cents, the user friendly nature of the Ref 2 remote makes using the curves so much easier than the Zanden, that it has hit a home run. I've only scratched the surface of the curves, but I am bowled over by the Columbia curve especially. I'm still organizing my thoughts on the changes the curve brings to my huge vintage collection of jazz records. The changes range from subtle to extreme. The best analogy I can make is to video--the Ref 2 is like moving up to a well burnt in Kuro Elite monitor. With its combination of equalization curves, user friendly interface and knock-out sound, I can't imagine going back.
Dennis,
Great post!
BTW, I also had an Aesthetix Io Signature (many years ago, now), and I could not solve the noise/RFI problem. (I'd be interested to know how Jim accomplished this in your case.) Just as off-putting was the "fuse problem." Every two or three times I turned on the power supplies, I blew a fuse in one or more of them (there were four supplies altogether). It got to the point that I just didn't even bother to put the cages back on the supplies and kept a pile of fuses on the floor beside them.
It wasn't that the Io Sig sounded "bad," BTW. It was just a pain in the ass to use. Plus the RFI was so dreadful (in my admittedly "worst-case" digs) that I always had to listen with one or more AM/FM stations playing in the background (and sometimes in the foreground). In other words, it was an impossible situation for me (or I was presenting the Aesthetix with an impossible situation for it). Too bad. It sounded truly wonderful when I could turn it on and the RFI was low enough that I could listen to the music I was playing. (I should note, again, that the units i am talking about date back six years. I am told that the Io has been greatly improved since then, so don't take my experience as typical of current production units.)
The Reference 2 is orders of magnitude lower in noise than the Io Sig I tested. It is also audibly lower in noise than the PH7 and other all-tube phonostages (which is to say, phonostages without a step-up transformer) I've heard. In addition, it is more immune to RF than other all-tube phonostage I've used, including the PH7. Perhaps as a result, it is audibly higher in resolution than the other all-tube phonostages I've heard and fully competitive in this regard with the finest solid-state phonostages I've heard.
I could give you a zillion examples of its way with low-level detail. But, for fun, let's take the case of the dog in the night on "Temptation" from Holly Cole's superb (and superbly recorded) Tom Waits' tribute album of the same name. There are several doggish sounds on this cut. The first is a dog bark near the start of the song, so startlingly realistic that a couple of listener's have actually wondered aloud whether my pooch Gussie was standing outside the listening room door. However, that first bark is pretty realistic through the PH7 or the TEA-2000 or the Soulution 720, too. There is, however, a second "bark"--well, not so much a bark as a kind of plaintive warble or groan--that comes a bit later in the song (after the lines “Dutch pink and Italian blue”) and is very much lower in level and that rather quickly seems to disappear into instrumental sounds that are roughly the same pitch. Once again, I've heard this with the other preamps, but not so distinctly. What I haven't heard--or haven't previously recognized--is a third doggish warble that is very brief and very, very, very low in level that comes after the first two and right before the third refrain (“I can’t resist”). The Ref 2 not only gets it; it lets you see more obviously that the use of these doggish barks and groans is a bit of audio wit—that they are not just part of the mix but part of the message of a song that is about "being in heat."
What this phonostage does to the Holly Cole mix it does in spades to every kind of music. You simply hear more that you haven't heard, and at the same time (and perhaps more importantly) understand more about the music or the mix that you haven’t previously understood. And the Ref 2 does both of these things without sacrificing the bloom, air, and density of tone color and texture that are the very reasons you bought a tube phonostage in the first place.
I can also say--and have already said--that the Ref 2’s bass is deeper in extension, clearer in articulation, and more focused and powerful (and not just in the midbass) than any all-tube phonostage I've yet heard. This is the private, fenced grounds of solid-state, and while I'm not sure that the Ref 2 is fully the equal of a great solid-state phonostage in definition and impact, it sure is closer to solid-state in this respect than any tube unit I've heard.
Finally, the Reference 2 combines an unusually high level of realism with an unusually gorgeous reproduction of tone color. It is better than nice when things sound both lifelike and beautiful at the same time. Here they consistently do (given a quality recording, of course).
As for EQ settings...I'm still contemplating this question. My problem with EQ varietals in general is a variation on my problem with any kind of EQ—to wit, changing EQ can end up sounding "better" on some discs even though it is demonstrably inaccurate. I can think of plenty of products (speakers, for instance) that fatten up the upper bass or suck out the upper midrange and round off the treble and, as a result, sound consistently more "beautiful" in a forgiving sense than products that are more accurate and less uniformly forgiving. For fun, I've tried the Decca curve with records I know were mastered to the RIAA curve and, in several cases, the sound is arguably as good if not more attractive in some ways (and in other ways, not) with the "wrong" EQ as it is with the right one.
What worries me is that there is no end to taking this "sounds good to me" road. And this worry is compounded by my genuine uncertainty about the EQ that various recording companies were actually using at any given point in time. On 78s and mono LPs from the very early 50s it appears that Columbia and Decca were using their own EQ curves (which the ARC gives you access to). But there is a good deal of evidence that Columbia never used anything but the RIAA curve on its stereo recordings and on its mono recordings after 1955 or thereabouts. Ditto for stereo-era Deccas. And yet we are being encouraged—by ARC, Zanden, FM Acoustics, AMR, etc., and by certain audio writers, including some on this very mag—to think otherwise. Until I’m absolutely sure about which EQ curve “rightly” goes with which generation of recording and label (and I’m studying the problem), I consider the EQ settings on the Ref 2 (and on all the other preamps which offer label-specific EQ settings) as “fixed” tone controls that may compliment some discs (as noted) but that aren’t necessarily "right" for anything but monos from the early 50s. (I am more than willing, however, to be persuaded that these different EQ settings correctly apply to later generations of LPs on specific labels, if someone can come up with the indisputable truth about this much disputed matter.)
Jon
It would be nice, if someone from Lake Wobegon would chime in on this subject of EQ. Alternately, how about HW, from VPI? Does he visit this forum?
I've got the same misgivings re EQ curves, and I am worried that many manufacturers are jumping on this purely for marketing reasons. There is compelling evidence that these are just tone controls for stereo records.
It would be nice to have a Ref-2 'lite', ie without the all the extra EQ curves. It would be cheaper and likely sound even better. Oh well, dream on ...
up until now i was pretty shure about sending my check to ARC, after Dennis and JV report their findings again in such depth and pleasant read i'm beyond convinced.
as concerning the Io Aesthetix phono, there have been more reports on RFI and noise in EU too. as a evolutionary tube designer one can't rely and build upon designs from 90's, concerning 2009 RFI and noise. reading about the latest ARC Ref series it is quite some achievement! i have no doubt that ARC will enjoy very healthy sales before end of 2009.
Jon,
Considering the RFI noise that the Aesthetix IO brought to certain systems(including mine I might add) was this problem ever rectified with the IO Eclipse ? How would you now compare the sound of the ARC REF Phono 2 to the Io Eclipse?
tomcat,
I don't know if the problem has been rectified with the new Io Eclipse. I haven't heard it in my system. I believe Pearson has the unit in his system and plans to report on it--exactly when, I'm not sure. There was some talk about getting the Eclipse to me, as well, but that hasn't happened. So...I can't compare the Eclipse to the Reference 2.
Jon
Yo Sunday,
The eagle has landed. Just unboxed it and plugged it in,
FYI
Again Elliot, what analog front end will you be using?
Mark
As to the IO Sig, I never blew a fuse in 6 years, so I guess I was lucky. I wonder if it was Jon's unit or something about the electrical service (Although I did hear reports of other experiencing problems I never had). I have a pretty stiff service of dedicated lines into the music room, which is itself quite close to the electrical service into the house and main circuit board, so all told some pretty short runs. I'm also lucky to be relatively RFI free. Which leads me to Jonathan's guess that the Ref 2s RFI immunity is responsible for the remarkable prowess in resolution. I agree with the observation about increased reolution. It's a little like switching out a Lyra Skala for a Titan, but even more of the same. As I never have experienced any real RFI problem in my home of 22 years, and was quite literally bowled over by the increase in resolution, the low level detail and the layering of instruments, there is clearly something more than improved RFI rejection going on here. Where I part from Jon is in his thoughts about equalization curves. I'll be interested to pick your brain, Jon, in Denver at RMAF if not sooner, on your belief that Columbia used nothing but standard RIAA for its stereo recordings or mono after 1955. While none of us was there (well, I was in first grade, a little early for this hobby), and the evidence is largely antidotal, what I have read and heard is that the recording studios did what they pleased and used their own variations well after 1955. Since the recording companies had agreed to use RIAA, they didn't exactly advertise their practices. I've spent a lot of time listening to Columbias (to the neglect so far of the Decca curve button!), because of my jazz collection. I'm convinced that Columbia did not come clean in 1955 and the the alternate curve is not a sweeting or tone control. Monos on the green, purple, burgandy and 6 eye labels invariably sound right to me with the new curve. Some things are subtle, others not. Try Thomas Schippers Conducts Opera Overtures on Columbia MS 6238. This one is not subtle. I can't believe the relatively shrill sounding string tone of the RIAA curve is correct after hearing it with the Columbia curve.
Dennis Davis Hi-Fi+
dennis,
I didn't mean to imply that the sole reason for the Ref 2's higher resolution was a reduction in its susceptiblity to RFI (although it is less susceptible to RFI). I thought I said that the Ref 2 was lower in all kinds of noise than other all-tube phonostages I'm familiar with, including the quite noisy Io and the much quieter PH7. And that this overall reduction in noise and distortion was, possibly, a reason for the dramatic increase in resolution. If I didn't state this clearly, I am now. (BTW, you must've been very lucky indeed never to blow fuses in the Io Sig's power supplies. I know plenty o' other folks who had the exact same experience that I did. And we all use dedicated lines, too. As for RFI...if you don't have it, swell. I do, and it was a nightmare with the Io Sig--a worst-case scenario, actually.)
As for the RIAA issue, all of the evidence that I've seen (thus far) suggests that Columbia standardized on RIAA in the mid-1950s. Just because ARC's "Columbia curve" makes the string sections of problem Columbias sound less "shrill" doesn't mean that these records are being improperly equalized via the RIAA curve; it may simply mean that poor mikes, poor engineering, or poor mastering are being compensated for by a slightly steeper roll-off in the upper-mids and treble and by more boost in the bass below 150Hz. Many (not all, by any means) Columbia orchestral recordings (a sizable percentage of the early Szell/Clevelands, for instance, and many early Bernstein/NYPs) were infamous for having dry, sometimes piercing string tone. In the case of the Szells, the reason for it may have had nothing to do with EQ curves and everything to do with Szell, who reputedly listened to test pressings of his performances through AR speakers that he had parked on the floor under a piece of furniture. Because of the location of Szell's speakers, the bass always seemed too heavy to him and he insisted that Columbia engineers dial it back--thus the thin low end and excess treble on many early Cleveland discs. (At least, that's how the story goes.) Many of the early Bernstein/NYP performances were simply recorded in a notoriously bright and glassy venue (Manhattan Center) with a zillion mikes.
Do me a favor: Instead of using a problem disc with shrill treble, try any of the Bruno Walter Brahms symphonies or his Mozart Overtures LP with the ARC's RIAA curve and then with the ARC's Columbia curve, and see if there is a marked improvement with the latter. These LPs do not have bright treble or particularly weak bass, and they are early enough recordings to make good test cases. You should also try any of Craft boxes (Schoenberg, Stravinsky, or Webern), which are closely miked but nonetheless tremendously well-recorded. For monos, give a listen to any of the blue label Columbias in the American Music Series. Some of these--like the Lou Harrison Suite for Cello and Harp, for instance, on Columbia ML 4491--are as good as Columbia LPs get, mono or stereo. Or give a listen to the great String Quartet by Ruth Crawford Seeger on MS 6142 (or ML 6142, for that matter), which was released in '60.
I'd like to know what you think.
Jon
Dear MArk,
None
Eliot,
Why so enigmatic? I thought you were a VPI dealer.
Jon
I am but we havent done any analog in a very long time. I can order for the one client a year I have that's interested but its not an economic force for us.
I gave away my LP's ( all 6k of them) quite a while ago.
E
Well...uh...then why did you get an ARC Reference 2 phonostage and invite Mark to come listen?
Someday, I hope to get to Cinci..............Sigh!
I was wondering that myself, since the last time I was in Elliot's store, there was no analog rig. I did tell a few people that the RefPhono2 was on the way, so I'll have to now tell them that I was mistaken.
That being said, I am still interested in hearing the Ref5 after it's broken in.
Mark
Well, to be fair, perhaps Elliot is planning to loan the unit out to the apparently small handful of analog diehards who are also good customers of his. If he doesn't have a big analog base (and he doesn't), then this would be a perfectly sensible thing to do: Make the unit available to those few who are interested, like you, Mark. At least he has it on hand, for those interested.
Jon:
Did ya send it back? Have you given up?
Mark
Mark,
Send it back? Heavens, no! It's terrific. My only reservation has to do with the applicability of the EQ curves--and I have the same reservation about all the phonostages that offer alternative EQ settings, not just the ARC. But since the Decca and Columbia curves don't affect the Ref 2's excellence as a good ol' RIAA phonostage (and are, by consensus, correct for mono LPs up to the mid-50s, of which I have quite a number), it's really a minor reservation.
Jon
The silence is brutal!
After considerable listening i've come to the conclusion that the ARC Reference 2 is not just the most realistic all-tube phonostage I've heard; it is the most lifelike phonostage I've heard, period. It not only has the beauty of timbre and texture, the low-level detail, the dimensionality, the breadth of stage and image that I expect from a tube unit; it has the superb transient speed, the low end extension and power, the treble extension and power, and the low noise floor that I expect from a solid-state unit. If this is an augur of what's to come with the Reference 5 linestage....well, i can hardly wait. The Reference 2 is proof positive that ARC--after years of improvements along these lines--has finally succeeded in melding tube and transistor virtues in almost full measures. It is really quite an achievement.
On the functional side, let me also say that the Ref 2 seems to sound best with 47k loading (regardless of cartridge), is just as good through its RCA outputs as it is through its balanced outputs, and mates up superbly well with very-high-quality solid-state units, like Soulution or BAlabo. In other words this is a phonostage for all applications, not just a companion piece for other ARC products.
Jon:
How about moving this blog to the forums? It's buried here and not getting much action.
Mark
Does anybody know what the Signal to Noise Ration is for this Reference 2 phono ?
Under its specs, these figures are published but does anybody know how to translate this into a simple S/N Ratio number ?
NOISE: 0.22uV equivalent input noise (High Gain) (65dB below 0.1mV 1kHz input).
I'm interested to hear if anyone is comparing a high qualilty LP playback system including the Reference 2 to a Phase 4 or higher United Home Audio Reel to Reel playback of The Tape Project Tapes because my next project is to either go with the Phase 4 Deck setup over getting the Reference 2 and just keep my Pass Labs Xono phonostage with my VPI Reference Scoutmaster/Dynavector XV1S setup. Any comments or am I making the wrong decision?
Hmm.. I am not sure if this is worth comparing. Do you have many LPs? The Tape Project catalog lists about 20 titles all in all. Even if the sound quality is much better, would you want to invest in a reel to reel player and new media to listen to the same 20 recordings over and over again - and this assuming you like all their titles? I am sure they will come out with more stuff eventually, but to be honest, I can only see this as a nice extra to have if you already own state-of-the-art equipment and have money burning your pockets.
Fwiw, I think the Arc Ref 2 is way way better than the Xono.
I just borrowed a REF Phono Two for five days last week and I have to say it blew my socks off! I've been using a Hovland HP-100 for the last six years and always considered it to be a fine piece of equipment (I still do) but the REF Phono 2 took my rig to a brand new level. The biggest thing that I noticed was the absolute authority with which it drove the mid-bass and lower bass. It was iron-fisted, controlled, deep, taunt, and had what I call GRUNT; but it never sounded anything less than beautiful, sweet, and lovely when the music demanded that. I also heard much further into the music, and heard many details that I had missed on a number of albums before. In short, it was fantastic in every way. Extremely quiet too and that is something you can always notice immediately with my 1988 KHorns. I have never heard my KHorns sound so strong, so authoritative, and beautiful all at the same time.... I'm saving up for a Ref Phono now... Let's all hope that all the positive views and reviews don't drive up the retail price!
Post new comment