Audio Research Ref 3 Opinions

Audio Research has finally added a Ref 3 page to its site. Please see:
http://www.audioresearch.com/reference3.htm

For those with Ref 2 Mk II's who aren't quite ready to trade up yet, here's a suggestion.

I recently swapped out the stock 5AR4 tube in my Ref 2 Mk II for a Gold Lion, and I was blown away by the changes. It added a kind of "immediacy" to the sound that wasn't quite there before, made it much more involving, almost seductive, like you had to tear yourself away from the music. Gold Lions are hard to find, but other NOS tubes may produce similar results. I'm expecting an RCA Black Plate 6L6GC anyday to replace the preamp's stock Svetlana - hoping for still further improvement.

I'd love to hear my "tweaked' Ref 2 Mk II next to a Ref 3, but that's unlikely any time soon.

Dear Bobaywalla,
It mistifies me that you would blame the ARC Ref.1 for the poor sound of your friend's system. I have gotten excellent performance from my Ref.1 (admittedly with the Reference GNS mod and some vintage ECC88's). It has never sounded less than musical, with wonderful soundstage and excellent bass.

Why, oh why, are we so ready to diss the previous generations of wonderful equipment when the manufacturer sees fit to release a new version? We all know that equipment makers (yes even ARC) are not immune to market pressures to release a new version every couple of years.

Just wait a few months until the honeymoon is over and suddenly the revision 6 or 7Mk.II or whatever is not quite as magical and enchanting as everyone imagined.

Randy

Dear Randy,

I think that I can understand where you are coming from & why you feel the need to defend the ARC Ref 1.
Yes, my conclusion is not totally scientific but it is not out-of-line either.
I own power amps from the very same company that this fellow's power amp was from. That power amp is the flagship unit while mine is 1 below. In fact, knowledge gained from the flagship unit has trickled down to my model of the power amp. So, I know that "house sound" very well. So, when I heard the music in his system, I knew that I the sound I was hearing was NOT characteristic of that power amp & that something else was compromising the sound.
The R645 speakers: they belonged to my friend who accompanied me to this person's house. Thus, my friend knew the sound of these speakers intimately & he told me that those very speakers sounded much better during his ownership than what we were hearing that evening.
That leaves the CD player - Linn Genki & the stock ARC Ref 1. I have no prior experience with the Genki BUT with all the pro reviews I have read & with all the descriptive positive feedback from users I have read, it was reasonable to guess that the Linn Genki had very good sound overall.
Cabling was Groneberg Quattro. I own the Groneberg TS Premium in my system to this present day & I think I know their sound very well too.
By process of elimination it came down to the ARC Ref 1.
BTW, my conclusion jives with many others' as well. Of course, it doesn't jive with each & every person's. This is audio..........how could it!!!!
The friend who accompanied me owns a ARC SP-6A which has been heavily modified by 2 diff. people. It has superb sound by today's standards & will give many $2000-$3000 a solid run for their money. In fact, it far out-does that stock ARC Ref 1 by miles. The comparison is not entirely fair: heavily modified SP-6A vs. stock Ref 1.
For the price tag of the stock Ref 1, I don't think that its sound is worth it. I stand by my conclusion: it's not off-the-cuff & it doesn't mean to diss ARC. It's the way I hear it.
Just FYI: I do not believe that the latest model = the greatest! In fact, I'm more likely to believe the contrary. Read some of my other posts before you accuse me of this!

I have no prior experience with the Genki BUT with all the pro reviews I have read & with all the descriptive positive feedback from users I have read, it was reasonable to guess that the Linn Genki had very good sound overall...By process of elimination it came down to the ARC Ref 1.

Riiiight.

I believe this error in inductive reasoning is known as the "Fallacy of Exclusion." :-)