Amplifier considerations, PrmaLuna EVO 400 versus ARC Reference 160 S. Is ARC worth it?


Greetings all. I own a pair of PrimaLuna EVO 400’s paired with an a first generation ARC Ref 6 and Ref 3 Phono. This was done because I could not afford a pair of 160 M’s and wanted something to tie me over until I could afford them or another option came along. I have been taking a hard look at the Reference 160 S, However, the performance of the EVO 400 is so damn good. I am not sure I would gain anything. In fact, I would lose a lot of customizability and am not a fan of how the ARC amps are built with mounting the sockets for those big ass kT-150 onto the circuit board.

Here is an overview of how I set up the EVO 400’s. They are set up as Mono-bocks. and retubed with KT-150s. The preamp section are retubed with BLACK SABLE JJ ECC82 / 12AU7. A less colored and cleaner sounding tube over the stock Chinese made one. With this configuration I get a sonic signature that has a bit of bite on the top and tight controlled bass that is snappy and authoritative. Specifications change from 140 watts to 192 watts. The music I listen to is a lot of Classical, Gothic Metal, Rock, Jazz, Blues, Pop, and EDM. A lot of my favorite recording are bass heavy with heavy dynamics. Speaker used are 4 Ohm - 95 db efficient - with a frequency response of 18HZ-30KHZ.

The 160s I am considering is $24K has power rating of 140 watts. It is a cleaner sounding amp that does not have much voicing. Offering a more accurate presentation, with more inner detail. That may prove to have better sysnergy with the ARC gear I already own. Also, the case work and overall appearance of the product is top notch. Hence the interest in it.,

Contrasted to PL what I lose is... some musicality, the EVO 400 has more richness in the mids and vocals are more pronounced and have a greater sense of presence within the listening room. Again, the tube sockets are bolted onto the chassis. They do not use a cooling assist fan. I have the advantage of a Monoblock solution, that is easier to handle weight wise and offers better isolation of the signal between the two channels.

Where the PL Cheaps out, is the finish and the balanced inputs. I am not a fan of the battleship grey paint and hodgepodge just slapped together Chi-Fi look that the components have. Nor do I like the cheap ass balanced connectors they use. There is a big difference in quality between them and the ones on my Ref 6.

Any thoughts or opinions are welcome.

Many thanks for your time and trouble.

walkertm

walkertm

I'm very new to this forum and really don't post anything, mainly read and learn. But after reading your post I felt that maybe I should share my experience as it's a bit similar to your dilemma. I have been into 2 channel music for over 20 years, starting out with a pair of Polk Audio RT55I's and a Pioneer elite A/V receiver in 1999. Moving up the chain over the year's, my most recent amp was an Octave V70 class A Integrated matched with a pair of Sonus Faber Amati's. I've been extremely satisfied the past 2 years, and with a bit of tube rolling thought my system sounded perfect. Now, I have always had an itch for monoblocks...but always said to myself "really, how much better can it get". Finally the itch won and I had to scratch it, by purchasing a pair of ARC 160m's and the 6se preamp. Honestly, I was nervous as heck as I waited for them to arrive, knowing there's no turning back (as I bought them on the used market). I really loved the sweet sound of the Octave Class A, and was scared of losing it for just more powerful amps. I had no way of auditioning the ARC products so was going in blind, other than reading and researching as much as possible. To wrap this up, I received the 160m's and preamp, after spending the day running dedicated 20 amp outlets to each one, all I can say is WOW!!! They sounded so beautiful. I know the ARC gear is in a different league than my mid-level Octave, but I didn't expect such a jump in what I was hearing. So, no regrets here and my personal opinion, I'd go with ARC, I don't think you'll regret it either. 

My Primaluna EVO Power amp has benefited greatly from using Sophia Electric blue "coke bottle" EL34 ST  A-matched tubes in the power tube positions. Strangely, Sophia's 12AU7 tubes are not compatible with PL amps - a fact they mention on their site.. For that matter, most of my vintage 12AU7 tubes do not play well with PL amps or preamps in the driver tube positions. However, PL's branded 12AU7 tube sound pretty good.

The 12AU7 gain tubes on both the pre and power PL amps can be rolled. On the power amp gain tube positions I am using vintage Amperex 12au7 Bugle Boys to great effect.

I am also using Mullard metal base GZ34's in the rectifier tube positions on the EVO 400 pre. These vintage tubes are, of course, pricey but worth it.

@ bolong: Sorry I missed your question. I started with one EVO 400. I used at first the stock tubes and ran the unit in stereo. It was really impressive, especially in the mids and lower highs. Vocal were lush, full, and natural. Nonetheless, the bass slam was not there. I then moved to KT-88, I liked the sound of that too, the bass became tighter and faster. However, the top end did not have the bite I liked. I then moved onto the KT-150 which suited my tastes the best, Tight, fast, clean, with a top and bottom end that had authority, However, I could tell that the grip on the bass response was not as iron clad as it could be. I then saved up and purchased a second EVO 400 and retubed it with another set of KT-150s. That is when the late night to early morning listening sessions started. The change is subtle, but what you get when you run them in mono is better damping and current delivery, On the lowend the PL will make my Legacy Focus SE beg for mercy, These are a boomy speaker and you need an amp that is merciless in its abiltity to control those dual 12-inch woofers, Mids? I did not hear much of change. They are already outstanding in the stock stereo configuration, In upper mids and treble, I hear more sparkle and bite. Overall, running them in mono versus stereo, the EVO 400 become a more accurate versus a syrupy sounding amp. To my ear, the mono configuration brings out what is on the recording to a sharper focus. Has more detail, better delineation of the instruments, and the transients start and stop on a dime. The drawback for me is the top end gained more bite. That is due more to the KT-150 than running them in Mono. If i stuck with an EL34 from Gold Lion or Mullard that may not be the case.  Nonetheless, if you have a good local dealer. I suggest you ask if you can audition a second one at you home and see what you think. Given my tastes, I like the sound of the EVO in mono better than stereo. My speakers love the additional current delivery. That may not be the case for you, and I would hate for you to spend another $5300 on something that you feel did not do much to improve things, Wish you the best. 

Thanks. That was informative. Since my PL stereo setup is augmented with a pair of REL S812's, it may be that a mono setup would be overkill.