Anyone Compared ARC Ref 75SE and 75 With KT150

I have the 75 with KT150's at the moment. I will be taking it to my dealers in a couple of weeks, hopefully for an A/B comparison with his demo 75SE. I will report back when I have been.

In answer to Oregonpapa's post, I have had no problems with stability in the 150's I bought myself, no need for rebiasing to date. Incidentally, our local distributor is willing to make the SE upgrade without including the tubes, which he will keep for spares. It makes it a better deal.

Here's an excellent review on the REF-150se with a sidebar on the REF-75se.

http://www.theaudiobeat.com/blog/audio_research_reference_150_se.htm

Far from excellent I have to say, RG expending way too much article time blithering on about comparisons with a circa1980's D110, I feel that ARC would have been much better served enguaging the services of a reviewer more conversant with their recent Reference line amplification, most pertinently the Non SE Ref150!

Yet again we are not privy to the amount of burn in time on the clock, which as we are all too well aware may have significant impact upon performance at any given point, up to and beyond several hundreds of hours run time, thereby rendering RG's considerations on performance almost impossible to contextualise.

Happen to agree with Tsushima1.

I read RG's review. I quibble with Tsushima's use of the word "blithering" when describing RG's report. I would rather say blathering.

RG's comments that the internal cooling fans were "noisy'ish" is total hype. I cannot hear the fans from my listening position. IMO, a total non-issue.

And what really blew my mind was RG's comments about the aluminum cover adversely affecting the sound, e.g., increased tube microphonics and so forth ... total nonsense, ... bunk. I took my cover off and could not tell the difference. And btw, I do not screw it down because I check tube bias frequently. Too much of a PITA to get it off.

And finally, after all of RG's "to'ing and fro'ing" about this and that, he casually concludes (paraphrasing) that "yes, while the Ref 150 SE is a benchmark product, it's just one of many fine amps out there."

In his own words, RG writes "[t]hat uncanny combination of musical insight, substance and integrity is what makes the Reference 150 SE another genuine benchmark product. Don’t misunderstand that terminology. "Benchmark" doesn’t mean best. What it means is a product with the overall balance of musical capabilities that the competition needs to match or beat."

To his credit, Marc Mickelson ("MM") posted side bar comments in the RG review about the ARC Ref 75 SE. His bottom comments are consistent with what I think RG's review should have conveyed. MM said the following about the ARC Ref 75 SE, "[i]f you can live with its 75Wpc and balanced inputs (and you have a $10,000 budget), **I don't know of a better amp -- tube or solid state.**" (** = emphasis added.

I still recall reading the Stereophile review (with John Atkinson's bench test results ) of the Ref 150 (not SE). The review was stellar and read that way. FWIW, the Ref 150 (non SE) is still a Class A amp on Stereophile's List of Recommended Components. I imagine it's vaunted status will only be reconfirmed once Stereophile gets around to revisiting the Ref 150 SE.

Look ... some have accused me of being biased (pun) in favor of ARC gear. Ok, ... it's true. I admit to being a fan ... maybe even a groupie, but at the same time, I fully concede that there ARE many other great SS and tube amps on the market that folks should consider.

That said, I really thought RG's review left me with the blasé impression that the Ref 150 SE was "just another" ... ho-hum ... "great amp" on the market. IMO, it's much more than that. I believe that it is an audio classic that will be talked about like the ARC Ref 3 linestage, which I once owned and still think is a great sounding classic piece of kit. Is the Ref 5 SE better? Yes. Is it leagues and worlds and universes apart. No ... I do not think so.

Sorry for the long whiny post. For RG to even mention the old D115 in the same review of the Ref 150 SE was silly and a waste of print space.

Bruce

P.S. -- I also agree with Tsushima's comment that it is unclear whether RG's amp was fully broken in. If not ... his review is totally useless.

P.S.S. Dennis Davis, a TAB editor just posted his review of the Sonus Faber Olympica III Loudspeakers. I note that his associated equipment includes the ARC Ref 150 amp.

Well, I guess that one man's "excellent" is another man's "blither." No big deal really. What I liked about the piece was the sidebar info on the REF-75se. I thought the OP would find it interesting. Now ... I'm gonna go fix myself a martini ... and warm up my amp.

Happy listening guys ...