Audio Research Reference 5 Linestage Preamplifier
Since the early 1970s, the arrival of a new preamplifier from Audio Research has been an occasion for excitement, and sometime early next week I’ll be getting ARC’s latest thinking on a piece of equipment that, almost literally, sets the tone for the rest of a stereo system.
The fully balanced, zero-feedback, Class A triode Audio Research Reference 5 linestage preamplifier—ARC skipped from Ref 3 to Ref 5 because in the Far East, which is an important market for all high-end audio companies, the number 4 is considered to be bad luck—is a completely new design. Owners of Reference 3s are out of luck; there is no upgrade path.
The Ref 5 departs from previous design practice in many ways. For instance, it is the first Reference Series linestage with circuit boards that are laid out horizontally rather than vertically, presumably to shorten signal paths and reduce noise. In addition, power transformers have been moved off the circuit boards and mounted on the sides of the chassis, presumably to better isolate them (and the rest of the circuit) from noise and vibration. Bandwidth, resolution, dynamic range and scale, the level of noise and grain are all said to have been greatly improved, which, given the high quality of the Ref 3, is saying a good deal.
I will, of course, report on this blog (and later on a separate thread) on the sound quality of the Reference 5, though I think I can make an educated guess about how it’s going to perform based on my experience with the Reference 2 phonostage preamplifier (which also incorporates some of the same design changes as the Ref 5, including horizontal layout of its circuit boards).
Here’s the thing. Since its inception, the Audio Research Corporation has had a single goal: to achieve the lifelike bandwidth, resolution, low noise, and transient response of solid-state without giving up the lifelike air, light, bloom, color, texture, imaging, and soundstaging of tubes. With a couple of exceptions, each generation of gear has taken ARC closer to this goal. Sometimes, the progress made has been subtle; sometimes it has been dramatic. Lately, it has been dramatic. If the Reference 2 phonostage is a bellwether, then I expect the Reference 5 linestage to have truly solid-state-like transient response (and not just in the midband but in the bass and treble), truly solid-state-like extension at the frequency extremes (with power and definition at the bottom and on the top that are unparalleled in an ARC tube circuit), markedly improved resolution of inner detail, markedly lower tube noise and grain, perhaps a darker, smoother overall tonal balance (with slightly less of ARC’s signature—and to me, quite appealingly lifelike—overall brightness and lightness and bloom in the upper mids), better dynamic range and scaling on the forte side (with less of the a tube circuit’s gemütlich softening of peaks during big crescendos with big ensembles), and even better imaging and soundstaging with improved focus, separation, and articulation.
We will see, of course. But these are among the things that have been dramatically improved in the Reference 2, and I kinda doubt that ARC would let its linestage lag behind its phonostage.
Stay tuned. I will report on whether the Ref 5 lives up to expectations as soon as I've broken it in and begun to listen.
Comments
With the resurgence in matched Carts and SUTs and Head Amps from the likes of Kondo, Koetsu and My Sonic Labs, I hope ARC has seen fit to include a 47k input which the PH3 sorely lacked. The momentum of idler decks and Ortofon SPUs matched with Vintage SUTs from the like of Altec and even "almost vintage" SUTs from the likes of Cotter also make for a compelling case to have MM inputs from a business perspective.
In my experience with the Koetsu Jade Platinum along with the matching Koetsu SUT and the My Sonic Lab Ultra Eminent likewise with its matching SUT into my 2 year old and heavily used Lamm LP2, I've found that using the SUTs simply bring out the utmost performance from these cartridges. By that I mean exactly the same tonality as with the Lamm's built in Jensen Trafo but with an expansiveness of projection in all directions that I feel can't be accounted for just by the miniscule increase in gain. The same was true whether I used Kubala Sosna Emotions, Cardas Golden reference or even Townshend Isolda DCT-300 ICs between SUTs and Phonostage. I wish I knew what was going on inside. These new generation SUTs are something to behold.
It was the lack of an MM input that had my BAT VK-P10 Superpack sidelined.
M.D.,
The Reference 2 phonostage (which I assume is what you're asking about) does not use a step-up transformer like the PH3 did, so it does, indeed, have a 47k input (in fact, a variety of input impedances are selectable via remote). The Ref 2 also has sufficient gain (74dB) to handle even the lowest low-output coil.
Jon
I'm all eyes waiting for your report. I still haven't been to Elliot's store to hear the "5" yet and unfortunately, he doesn't have an analog set-up, so the RefPhono2 is out of the question. Will try to get there this weekend, if DC, (you know him) is back in town.
Mark
I was referring to the new PH5 JV, hoping it has a 47k input suitable (not driven to overload on the input side) for SUTs :)
Hi Mr Valin,
I know you, as am I, are a lover of AR electronics. I was wondering if you could give me your impression of how reference AR front end equipment sounds driving Magico V3 speakers,
and even better if you could shed some light on how this combination would sound compared with Spectral electronics.
Thanks for your input.
Arthur
Arthur,
I haven't heard the V3 with ARC electronics or with Spectral electronics, so I have no opinion on that combination. What I can say is that ARC electronics were and are a wonderful match with Magico Minis, Mini IIs, and M5s. What I can also say is that Alon has demo'd with Spectral electronics on several occasions, so you know he thinks Spectral is a great match with his speakers. (I believe that Robert may also have used Spectral electronics quite successfully with V3s.)
Here's the deal: If you typically listen to smaller-scale music where midband bloom, texture, color, and detail are your chief priorities, ARC is hard to beat. BUT if you typically listen to wider-range music (like big orchestral or big band jazz) that has a lot of energy in the bass and if you want the last word in speed, transparency to sources, and dynamic range top-to-bottom, solid-state like Spectral or Soulution or BAlabo is going to have an edge on ARC or any tube amplfication. Moreover, an amp like the Soulution (I haven't heard the Spectral) has an overall neutrality that is very close to ARC--indeed, ti is the most neutral and transparent amp I've heard. Both ARC and solid-state like Spectral or Soulution or BAlabo are going to sound very lifelike with Magico speakers; it's just that each may sound a bit more like the real thing than the other in certain ways and on certain music. You pays your money and you makes you choices.
Jon
Oh. I misunderstood, M.D. You were thinking of the way the Ref 1's FET input stage could be overloaded by the output of a phonostage or SUT. I think ARC solved that problem with the Ref 3. i certainly haven't experienced clipping with a phonostage of any make with the Ref 3 (and I could regularly clip the Ref 1 and, far more occasionally, the Ref 2).
For the record, the Ref 5's input impedance is rated at 120k Ohms on the balanced inputs and 300k Ohms on the SE inputs. ARC claims the Ref 5 will handle maximum input voltages of 20V RMS on its balanced inputs and 10V RMS on its SE inputs. So I guess the answer to your question is: "No, you cannot directly input the signal of an SUT into a 47k input. But you will certainly have enough headroom when it comes to input voltages."
Is the ARC Ref 3 your current reference preamp. If not what is?
Rumford,
The ARC Ref 3 is, indeed, my current reference tube linestage. (I imagine the Ref 5 will replace it, but...we'll soon see,) In solid-state linestages, I am high on the Soulution 720, the MBL 6010 D, and the BAlabo BC-1 Mk II. I haven't yet heard the Technical Brain TBC-Zero in my system, but it sure sounded swell in Japan.
Jon
BUT if you typically listen to wider-range music (like big orchestral or big band jazz) that has a lot of energy in the bass and if you want the last word in speed, transparency to sources, and dynamic range top-to-bottom, solid-state like Spectral or Soulution or BAlabo is going to have an edge on ARC or any tube amplfication.
Thank you JV, that describes me to the tee.
Well, there is a little demurrer that I should've added. You see I was thinking about the Ref 3/PH7/610T combo. But the new Reference 2 phonostage has closed the gap between solid-state and tubes, IMO, in the very areas I mentioned where solid-state has always had an edge (particularly dynamics and the low end). I haven't heard the Ref 5 yet, but I hope that it'll do the same thing.. So...it may be that the "edge" that I've given solid-state on "big" music played "big" has been considerably reduced. We'll see.
JV,
Did you purchase your ARC Ref 3 or is it still on loan to you from when you did your review of it back in February 2006?
On loan, but going back next week (alas) when I get the Ref 5.
You know it's a little unfair to say that we loan-'em reviewers switch horses all the time when it comes to reference components. Take the Ref 3 as an example. Or the PH7. Or the Walker record player, which has been my reference for almost a decade.
You gave the ARC Reference 3 a glowing review and adopted it as your reference, and ARC let let you keep it for nearly FOUR YEARS free of charge. It does create at least the appearance of impropriety and a conflict of interest.
Oh...I see now. This was a setup.
Do you really think that I gave the Audio Research Reference 3 a glowing review to make sure that I could keep it on long-term loan? Why would I do that when I could borrow or buy (for pennies on the dollar and eventually resell for quarters on the dollar) anything out there? Why would I not "move on" to something better? Moreover, why would buying it for a price and on terms that no civilian could ever come remotely close to getting (and possibly reselling it down the line for a handsome profit) somehow--you tell me how--make things "appear" to be more "ethical."
I simply said it creates the APPEARANCE of an impropriety and conflict of interest. I think it goes straight to the heart of your credibility.
By the way, did you purchase your Walker Proscenium turntable or has that been on loan to you for nearly a DECADE.
These "conflict of interest" type comments pop up all the time and have no importance to me.
What you do when there is an actual conflict of interest, or a potential conflict of interest is DISCLOSE it so the decision makers can factor this in when making up their minds. If there was an outright PROHIBITION on transactions where there was an actual or potential conflict of interest, commerce would grind to a halt.
The types of conflicts you are talking about here don't even make sense and your premise is even hard to grasp. You are saying that a reviewer gives a product a good review so that the manufacturer will let him keep it around for several years even though the reviewer actually believes that it is inferior to other products out there? How does that make sense when almost ANY manufacturer would allow a long term loan, including manufacturers of products that the reviewer believes are superior?
I have long known that long term loans to reviewers happen and, frankly, I'm glad they do. Reviewers need a reference, and many reviewers can't afford to buy the products they review. Having a stable system to switch discrete components in and out of is essential.
A more logical argument to me is that a magazine would tend to prefer the products of its advertisers, or would at least try to give bad reviews to products of its advertisers. I haven't seen this be the case with TAS for the many years I have been reading it, and anyway (1) any potential conflicts are right there in the magazine for you to see (count the advertising pages if that makes you happy) and (2) unless you want to limit your reading to Consumer Reports, you have to deal with this issue in pretty much every field (wine magazines, travel magazines, etc.).
If these perceived conflicts invalidate the reviews for you, then that's your issue to deal with. They don't invalidate the reviews for me. Bottom line is that several TAS reviewers have consistently heard and described exactly my independent experience with different brands/models of equipment over the years, and that's a large part of why I read the magazine. That's the standard by which I judge the reviews - not some standard that automatically invalidates the reviews because of some hypothetical conflict of interest.
Thank you, Jwalters, for this post.
Mr. Valin:
As far as I can see, the Reference 3 also had its transformers on the side panels. If so, is the only change in the Reference 5 the horizontal board? The tube complement seems to be the same. Perhaps the number of power capacitors is larger, so greater energy. In terms of bass response, don't understand why they are still using coupling capacitors, output transformers are much better at this.
Regards,
R. Aker
I am told there have been many changes in passive parts and in the circuit itself, though you are correct that the tube complement has remained the same. I just looked inside "my" Ref 3 and you're right--the transformers are mounted on the sides!
When I get the Ref 5 on Monday, I will take a picture of its interior and post it on this blog.
At first, I was puzzled. Why no reviews of the Ref 5 anywhere yet? Now I understand. The thing takes an eternity to break in. I think I plugged mine a day or two before you received yours if I understand the note above. There should be a warning on the box that says "don't even think about listening to this thing for critical listening before 100 hours of use". Actually, it does come with a warning that says it takes 600 hours to break-in. I laughed when I first read it. Not anymore. I've got 110 hours on it and the bass is still not quite stable- it drifts in and out; one moment its "there", and then "oops, not yet". Very exasperating. But since bass is usually the last thing that comes in, I'll just keep on listening'. Still, it's trying my patience. What about you? How far along the path are you and do you have a sense yet of when you might be able to chime in about its sound?
Leave it running with a CD player on repeat through it. Also cycle the unit on and off regularly. Charging and discharging the capacitors helps break in the unit as much as running signal through it.
I would be interested in an answer to that too.
I have 280 hours on mine. I can't necessarily isolate the cause of the changes in my system's sound to the Ref 5 because I have other things breaking in simultaneously, but a few days ago there was almost no bass at all - it was obvious and laughable, really - but now the bass has come back, much better than before. Who knows what tomorrow holds...
I would be interested in an answer to that too.
I have 280 hours on mine. I can't necessarily isolate the cause of the changes in my system's sound to the Ref 5 because I have other things breaking in simultaneously, but a few days ago there was almost no bass at all - it was obvious and laughable, really - but now the bass has come back, much better than before. Who knows what tomorrow holds...
I would be interested in an answer to that too.
I have 280 hours on mine. I can't necessarily isolate the cause of the changes in my system's sound to the Ref 5 because I have other things breaking in simultaneously, but a few days ago there was almost no bass at all - it was obvious and laughable, really - but now the bass has come back, much better than before. Who knows what tomorrow holds...
Those last three posts remind me of the movie Groundhog Day ;)
Yep. Something is messed up with this forum. Others have had similar issues. It would be helpful if someone could fix this.
After you post, go to the forum home page and this won't happen.
And if you get a crazy message when you try to post that says that certain "emails" were not able to be sent, after which you are thrown to an odd looking screen, do not hit "refresh" or it will submit your post again.
There's a bug all right, but its easy to deal with. If you think you've posted, don't do anything else. Open a new window, go to the forum, and see if your comment is posted. If it is, you do not need to do anything else.
C'mon Jon, how does it sound?
From everyone's comments so far who have a Ref5 it seems that it has been taking quite a while for the bass to open up. Perhaps JV is waiting for the same on his.
Uh...no. Good guess, though. I've just been too damn busy writing previously assigned reviews, entertaining manufacturers, and editing the magazine to do a lot of listening to the Ref 5.
However, I did try it out at some length last night and...well, I had been using the superb $60k BAlabo BC-1 Mk-II linestage preamp and decided to slip the Ref 5 in in its stead. What shocked me was how much like the BC-1 the Ref 5 sounded (save for a bit more bloom and air and midband presence). For the better part of four decades, WZJ and ARC have been trying to get tubes to do the things that transistors do better, without giving up the things that tubes do better. As I said about the Reference 2 phonostage, here (again) they have succeeded more completely than ever before. Even on a relatively brief acquaintance, this is clearly a great, groundbreaking (for tubes) linestage preamplifier (and I haven't even heard it yet with the 610Ts, which simply run too hot to use in summer weather).
Do they make you schvitz? lol
How about updating the phono stage?
It goes beyond schvitzing, like a sauna in hell.
Oy vey is mir!
JV
How many hours so far on your Ref5? Do you have issues with your bass opening up.
one,
ARC broke the Ref 5 in for me for about 200 hours.
Jon
Well then you are one lucky guy! Break-in has been hell on wheels. More so than for any ARC product I can recall although I'm told their CD player takes a long time as well. With 160 hours on mine, I wouldn't dare comment on its sound at this point but perhaps by 200, it will be far enough along to by relatively stable day to day sonically. ARC notes it takes 600 hours to break-in. But Jon, please don't wait that long to review it as we'd love to hear something by, say, Christmas? (heh,heh,heh).
375 hours on mine. Not out of the woods yet.
Not out of the woods in what way? What are you or are you not hearing
I wrote a reply that did not post due to some issues with this forum. I'm not going to rewrite the whole thing, so this is going to be brief and not all that descriptive.
Woods = "bass-drifting woods"
The most obvious break in issue with the Ref 5 has been the bass. Out of the box the bass was quite good - articulate, dynamic and tuneful with correct timbre. As of about 75 hours, the bass was extremely recessed - not at all correct in the mix - and had lost almost all of its punch and timbre. I have experienced this with other tube equipment over the years but never to this extent. At a bit more than 200 hours, things changed dramatically and suddenly - the bass came back and was better than before in every respect. But at 375 hours it is still drifting, by which I mean that it is still either less or more in the overall mix, and less or more detailed and articulate, depending on the day, although it is fluctuating in a narrower and narrower band as time goes on.
I concur completely. I am only at 240 hours and am still in the waiting/grieving process as far as the bass. The rest of the spectrum is just wonderful. The bass is simply "now you hear it, now you don't", but the fluctuations are decreasing with time. One wonders, if the bass is yet to fully come in, is there more to be heard in the rest of the range even though it seems to be "there". This is a frightening but delightful thought, since the rest of the range is so damn impressive and clearly superior to the Ref 3.
So that's it! This thread is dead?
Well, my follow-up is pretty disheartening. I think a milestone of sorts occurred at 320 hours. The bass finally started to stabilize and settle in. Then at 410 hours, 1 channel shut down due to a blown driver tube. I'm miserable, but at least I'm back up and running with a replacement tube. I now expect complete break-in to occur sometime before Christmas :-)
I guess these things happen. But my iPod is looking better and better all the time.
I suspect the reason that the thread is at an impasse is because it really does take along time to break-in the Ref 5. If ARC recommends 600 hours, I don't think many folks will want to weigh in much before that with their sonic impressions. I'm sure Jon will fill us in when he's ready.
Thanks for your update. I'll keep watching.
Mark
Right out of the box, the Ref 5 is already a good improvement over the Ref 3. This will sound cliche, but for the very first time in 30 years of building my audio system, I actually got goosebumps listening to a music playback. Now for the long road of running this thing in...
Hi Marty,
I have both Ref units and am blown away by how good they are. The Ref 5 really "came on" for me around 400 hours. However, I've had this (one channel shut down) happen twice to the Ref 5, the latest being this morning. I ended up replacing all tubes and everything was fine the first time. Which exact tube did you replace? Are you speaking of the 6H30 adjacent to the 6550?
cheers,
Joe
I have had the Ref 5 for about two months now. I have heard all the same break in issues with the bass that others have been describing. It was just starting to sound like it was setttling in and the bass was fleshing out. Just last night the right channel shut down. I replaced the V1 - V4 tubes with older tubes (2200 hrs) from my old Ref 3. I hooked it back up and everything worked for about five minutes and the right channel shut down again. Something seems amiss. I guess it will need to go to the test bench. Anyone else have any similar issues? Any input would be greatly appreciated.
I have been a fan of Audio Research for a long time as well. My dad had an SP6 preamp that he gave me and I used it for a long time and a few years ago replaced it with the Ref 3. A few months ago I got the Ref 8 CD player and love the synnergy. I feel that Audio Research works well with Pass Labs equipment as well (I use the X250.5 amp and Xono phonostage). I think my next move will be considering the Ref 2 phonostage. My question is how does the Ref 2 phonostage compare with the old Ph7 phonostage and with my Xono phonostage?
I believe there is a separate blog for the REF 2, as well as thread or 2 under amps & pre-amps.
You can speed up any amp break-in by putting it on and off in cycles.
as an example you can listen for couple of days and shut off completely for a day.
really it does work, and only after one week of this repeated 'cycle' I guarantee you will smiling ;-)
Jon,
About 2 months have come and gone and no word from you yet on the Ref 5. Wuz up? You have been uncharacteristically quiet!
Marty
Now at 170 hours, and this preamp is sublime . Adding Symposium rollerblocks underneath made an audible difference despite being on a dedicated audio platform. The ref 3 was good, but the ref 5 is a significant improvement. Highly recomended !
Twinstar,
There's not a user I know on any blog that has felt comfortable assessing the Ref 5 before it has 400 hours on it. So be patient. Whatever you think of it now, it will almost surely get better. What concerns me however, is the overwhelming deafening silence on this unit as far as any thorough assessment by any major reviewer including Jon, at 4months after its release. It's not alarming, but it certainly is curious. Could it be that the bloom is off the rose and that perhaps a part of it's performance is merely just mortal after all? Might there be some aspect of the Ref 3 that was perhaps a bit better than the Ref 5 which may explain the general reluctance of reviewers to chime with unequivocal proclamations and coronations? Hmmm.......
This thread needs to be moved to the forum, where it will get a lot more action. Being buried on page 6 sure isn't helping.
dear all,
The REF3 can be easily improved significantely by putting NOS tubes like Tung-sol black plate and 6H30-DR tubes. This is a major step forward (and relatively cheap). See discussion on audiogon. What will be interesting to see whether the quality of the tubes are still the limiting factor in the original ARC set-up. ARC has a policy of supplying 'better grade' current production tubes which are different from NOS tubes (no judgement). Comparison 'tuned' REF3 vs REF5/'tuned REF5 will be a nice discovery tour!
cheers,
piet
Has anyone heard of new AR Reference amps being introduced to replace the Ref 210 or 110
within the next 3 months?
Dear Sir:
Audioresearch replace the infinicaps as a coupling capacitors in their circuits for a new different one. Are this a new version of this caps or it is a different brand?
we look forward to hear from you soon,
eric ramos
Post new comment