The New Audio Research Reference 6

Wow! It looks to me as if Whole Foods had a load of sour grapes to get rid of.

Taters ... as one of those "aging clientele," I can assure you, I don't need hearing aids. I laughed at your comment though. You're a funny guy ... I appreciate that.

I recently had the pleasure of hearing an ARC SP-3A in a system. It was a lovely sounding piece.

I own an ARC Classic 60 that I use as a spare amp. Its very musical and enjoyable to listen to. I replaced it with the ARC-REF-75. Then I upgraded the tubes to the KT-150's. From there, I sold the REF-75 (kept the KT-150's) and replaced it with the ARC-REF-75se.

I used to own an ARC-SP-6 that I loved. I replaced it with an ARC-SP-14 ... and then replaced the SP-14 with my current ARC-REF-3.

I used to have the ARC CD-3 and went through all of the ARC tubed CD players to my current ARC-CD7se which is a killer of a CD player. The most analog sounding CD player I've heard to date. Although some think the CD-6 excels in this area.

Same thing with the Phono amps. I went though them all. Now I'm using the ARC PH-8.

All of this took years of upgrading to accomplish. With every upgrade, there was a significant improvement in MOST areas. Not one change was a setback in musicality, tonality, staging, dynamics, inner-detail or overall believability. My system just kept getting more emotionally involving over the years.

Had I not gone through the upgrade path with ARC, I'd still be listening to my SP-14 and Classic 60. Yep, they made music ... but not like the current ARC equipment I own. The difference is NIGHT and DAY.

Was the time, effort and money worth it? Hell yes ... I have thousands of records and CD's covering all genres of music .. and I want to get the best out of them. It's what I do. It's who I am.

None of you naysayers have to follow the pathway of upgrades. You can stay musically satisfied with your Fisher tube receiver, your Grado 60 headphones, your $35 Grado cartridge, your original AR turntable, your AR-3 bookshelf speakers,your Elac tape player, your Radio Shack wires and your Elvis 45's. I once thought that was great too. Then I found a pair of modified mono Dynaco III's and a modified Dynaco Pas-3 for sale in the Recycler ... and I haven't looked back since.

Very soon, I will be looking at a REF-6 sitting in the vacant space left by my trusty old, lovely sounding and VERY musical REF-3.

Peace out guys ...

Well put Frank.

.

It looks to me as if Whole Foods had a load of sour grapes to get rid of.

LOL! ..it happens here on the 'Gon every time Audio Research has an upgrade on their reference level products.
.

Oregonpapa,

ARC is banking on guys like you to support them with their continuous upgrades and new products. The only problem is the day will come when the musical chairs will stop.

Twenty years ago at CES, Ralph Karsten asked me what pre-amp I was using with his Atma-Sphere M-60's and old Quad speakers. When I told him an ARC LS-2B MkII, he said "My MP-3 is a lot more transparent". Now, you can say he would of course say that, and you may or may not agree with his assessment. If the MP-3 WAS more transparent than the LS-2B MKII, when was ARC able to surpass the MP-3 with a new pre-amp, and at what price? You would of course be correct in saying that this argument relies on the MP-3 in fact being more transparent than the LS-2B MKII, but for the sake of argument let's do so for the moment.

So, that was twenty years ago. Let's look at the difference between what owning an ARC pre-amp (twenty years ago an LS-2B MKII) and owning an Atma-Sphere pre-amp (MP-3) has involved. The MP-3 is now in Mk.3.3 designation, ARC being not the only company offering improvements to it's products over time. Ralph, however, has incorporated his improvements into the MP-3 as retrofits, not requiring the owner to sell his old pre-amp to get the new. How much has an ARC pre-amp owner had to spend, in comparison to the owner of an MP-3, to keep the sound quality of his pre-amp at a level comparable to the sound of the also improved MP-3? The LS-2B MKII owner may have gone the LS-15, then LS-16, then LS-25, then LS-26 route (ignoring for now the Reference level pre-amps), each time having to sell the old for the new, losing money each time. How much has the ARC owner spent to get from the LS-2B MKII to the LS-26? And after all that money spent, how does the LS-26 sound compared to the LS-2B MKII? ARC would have you believe that each and every new model has made the old sound now mediocre in comparison. After all the model changes, perfection should be just as close as the next new model! How does that LS-26 compare to the MP-3 Mk.3.3? And how much has the owner of the original MP-3 spent for all it's upgrades, to bring it to the current Mk.3.3 status? The answer is certainly far less than the ARC owner has spent to get from the LS-2B MKII to the LS-26. If the same reasoning is used including the Reference 1 & 2 pre-amps (which would require one to feel the MP-3 Mk.3.3 is their equal), this conclusion is even more true.

ARC owners tend to compare new, improved ARC products only to other ARC products, being ARC loyalists. Robert Levi has listened to the ARC Reference 3 side-by-side with the EAR 868, preferring the EAR. Again, you may or may not agree with his assessment. The 868 has not been changed in at least ten years, and is available used for around $3,000-$3,500. An ARC Reference 3 owner may have bought and sold any combination of LS-15, 16, 17, 25, 26, Ref 1, and/or Ref 2 to finally arrive with his current pre-amp, spending far more than $3,500 (or about twice that if an 868 is bought new) to do so. Is the price it costs to move up the ARC pre-amp line justified by the SQ one ends up with after that amount is spent? Or would a pre-amp shopper be better off going straight for a, say, EAR 868? Hey, I'm just askin'!