2. amps-preamps
  3. 1123254379

VAC Ren II, VAC Phi, or ARC Ref 3?

Finally, the two cold solder joints in one of my Rowland 7M amplifiers have been fixed. Just a simple 2 minutes soldering job at home, thanks to a kind live phone consult by Jeff himself. Now the system is back purring like a kitten.
Great say you, but. . . the problem is that now I have fallen totally prey to Upgraditis Furiosa, the most pernicious and 'wife threatening' form of Audiophilia Nervosa.
I listen mostly to classical--lots of chamber, vocal, Early Music, Baroque, Romantic, some large orchestra, lots of cello and other strings--on a system that I have lovingly put together over the last 20 years: EAD T1000, AT&T glass C-core glass wire, EAD D7000 Mk. 3, AudioQuest Quartz RCA, Audio Research LS2B, Gutwire XLR, Jeff Rowland 7M monoblocks, Cardas Golden Ref PCs on 7M, Cardas Golden Ref speakerwires, MagnePan 3A speakers.
The sound is sweet, lush, with a large if slightly unfocused soundstage, sometimes slightly veiled, somewhat soft at the bottom, can sound glorious in the midrange, good if not spectacular at the top. Much better at small ensembles than at full orchestra, where the sound stage can collapse and full strings and brass often display signs of brittleness and two-dimensionality. But, so much for self-criticism. Now what to do?
I intend to migrate towards a fully balanced system, with redbook and SACD capability and a tube linestage. I will start upgrading at the source and linestage points. The source will be an Esoteric X-01 or an upcoming APL NWO-1. But in this thread I'd like to discuss options for a new linestage. My requirements are an open and detailed, sweet sound, accurate with minimal coloration, with very good but not necessarily overwhelming macro-dynamics, an excellent three-dimensional and accurate soundstage, superior microdynamics and subtle nuance. The linestage must sound great out of the box--after breakin of course: not only after going through many cycles of NOS tubes musical chairs. All of this from a company with a stellar track record and reputation in quality, dependability and pre/post sale support. I listened to the VTL 7.5 and found it to be too soft. The BAT VK51SE sounded too dark. Then I listened at length to the VAC Ren II, which seems to embody all of my requirements. I have not heard the VAC Phi as yet, but it is in the running by inference. Nor I have listened to the ARC Ref 3, although I intend to: Ref 3 is in the running by reputation.
Suggestions? Opinions? It's your turn guys and girls!
guidocorona
fsarc
148 posts
 
Great write up Guidocorona! It appaears you have a terrific understanding of the nuances of all three products.

I would have loved to see you get to listen to the Phi in the mix. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before. Is the Phi more similar to the newer Ren II or the older Ren SigII?

Is the Ren SigII competitive with the Ref 3 or was it "no contest" as OB mentions? I find at this level it comes down to personal preference rather than one product being totally superior to another. While I prefer the sound of the Phi over the Emm DCC2 I can't say it's no contest. If I didn't have the Phi I could certainly live with the DCC2 direct.

Also, I'm sure if this would have made ANY difference in what you heard, but are you aware that the Rowland 302 uses the uncoventional pin 3 "hot" on its balanced inputs rather than the more common pin 2 "hot"?

In case I missed it somewhere, was this comparison done at a dealer or friend's house?

Given the great reputation of the ARC Ref II I'm not surprised you were so impressed with the Ref 3.

Best wishes on your final decision.

Frank
guidocorona OP
4,298 posts
 
Frank, the audition took place at a dealer. Unfortunately the Phi had been sold just a few days earlier. It is my understanding that Phi is more related to Ren II. Ren Sig II is an older design, now largely deemphasized. I have heard the Ren II a few times and actually found it to be a soundstage champion, unlike the Ren Sig II, whose soundstage is slightly smaller and two dimensional.
Because Ref 3 is a brand new design and Ren Sig II is an older withdrawn design, my comparison was a little of apples and oranges. It seems to me the newer Ren II does share some of the positive characteristics of Ren Sig: openness, frequency extension, speed. Yet I did not experience with Ren II any stage constriction of the Sig.
To me it was a matter of no-contest-personal-preference in favor of ARC Ref 3 vs the VAC Ren Sig II. Or in other words, I 'prefer' the ARC. In the context of the system I listened to, I would find the Sig difficult to live with in the long run. I do insist however using the subjective term 'prefer'. If Kevin Haze is still manufacturing the Ren Sig II as a custom order, there must be customers who value its sound immensely and likely for good reasons.
The ARC Ref 3 was for me easy to listen to.
I did not know about the 302 hot pin peculiarities. Do you have any idea what problems a pin mismatch may cause?
fsarc
148 posts
 
It would invert the signal polarity. Since it remained constant for both preamps, I'm not sure it would have changed the outcome.

In my system, the Phi definitely has the attributes you admire on the Ren II. There is also no upper glare that I can detect.

It's great you hearing these products firsthand and I appreciate your detailed analysis.

Are you located near NYC?
glai's avatar
glai
446 posts
 
Guidocorona, Thank you for your work, it is an excellent account of the audition. Do u think DCS is competitive with EMM CDSD + DAC2?
guidocorona OP
4,298 posts
 
Frank, I live in Austin (TX), but travel to NYC a few times per year. Do you live in the NYC area? I'd love to hear your phy-based system. I understand Phi has an even larger sound stage than Ren II. I intend to ask the consultant if Rowland's pinout uniqueness had been taken into accountin yesterday's setup.
Thank you Glai for enjoying my scribblings. It has been fun writing them. Unfortunately I have no direct experience with EMM. So I am not in a position of commenting on it. All I can tell you is that the DCS P8I was for my taste was a very good match with the ARC Ref 3. The overall sound yielded by the two units was extended top to bottom, with excellent transients, very good low level detail--although perhaps not the very best I have heard this far--Instruments placement was extremely accurate. . . and the combination had a slight warm glow that made it especially appealing to me. I have the suspicion though that the Teac Esoteric X-01 may have an edge on the DCS P8I in the rendering of detail, transients and perhaps on neutrality.
More to discover