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
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.
dgad
782 posts
 
Guidocorona,

Let me define coloration as anything that changes the signal our sound from the source. This means that if the CD is bright & your preamp is not and you result w. a balanced sound your equipment is still colored.

Uncolored. A bright CD player sounds bright or unchanged after placing a preamp in the path.

Now in terms of your post please allow me to quote you w. some comments;

"Removing Preamplifier from the system. Now running DCS directly into the Rowland 302. Volume controlled on DCS attenuator.
Slightly lighter sound than with ARC Ref 3.
Still truly gorgeous. Lots of 3D stage.
Still extremely liquid.
May be not as warm as with ARC Ref 3. Still beautiful.
No great congestion even in FF."

I would presume the less warmth going direct means the ARC is "coloring the sound". I would also agree it is a beautiful color that we can call extremely musical & maybe just a musical. But I would submit to you that warmth is a form of color that I myself love in the moderate amounts, but yet feel it is a departure from the sound of hte source - the DCS rig.

"Dvorak Quintet 2nd movement:
Stage almost as great as with ARC.
Touch less player's breathing than on ARC after optimization?
Touch less body in mid strings.
Greater sense of completeness, 3D, imaging than on VAC Ren Sig II
Perhaps slightly less involving, than with ARC Ref 3, but would live with it happily.
Still sounds right.
Incredibly clean. ARC has an edge on involvement. Pure DCS has an edge on clarity.
Piano arpeggios with lots of overtones."

DCS has an edge on clarity to me means that you lost clarity by entering the ARC Ref 3 into the equation. In addition the ARC edge on involvement basically says the same thing.

I submit that any tube preamp and additional interconnect combination will add body, remove slight detail (maybe ever so slight) and possibly allow you to be more involved in the music.

Is it worth the money is a question I had great issues resolving before I took the plunge. Now I am very happy with my decision.

Enjoy all that you do.
More to discover