ARC REF 150SE vs REF 160S

This thread is almost 8 months old, but I would like to respond to gpgr4blu's last post.  Gpgr4blu said that: 

I moved from the Ref 150 to Ref 150 with KT 150s which ARC reps told me was almost as good as the Ref 150se. Then I moved up to Ref160 monos. There was a difference between my Ref 150 with KT150s and the Ref 160 monos but it was maybe 15 percent for twice the price. I assume the Ref 160s would be in the range of 10 to 12 percent better than your amp.

Obviously, unless one could do an A/B comparison of the Ref 150SE to the Ref 160 in one's own home on one's own gear, and after break-in, it is difficult to speculate how much better one amp will sound over the other in a shoot-out.  

But FWIW, here's an experience I had with my Ref 150 amp that may have some bearing on gpgr4blu's comment.  Some 5 or 6 years ago, I incrementally tweaked my Ref 150 amp. First, I swapped out the stock KT-120s for 3rd party vendor KT-150s. No question, there was a noticeable incremental improvement in SQ.  Next, I sprung for the SE factory upgrade, which included ARC matched KT-150s. 

If I recall, the SE upgrade included the replacement of a bunch of passives and maybe the power supply caps too.  The SQ improvement was much more than "just incremental," ... it was significant.

So, ... going back to what gpgr4blu posted, I surmise that if I could do the Ref 150SE/Ref 160 shoot-out in my house and on my equipment, even if I stipulate that the Ref 160 sounds better than the Ref 150SE, ... I surmise the difference might be less than the 15% delta reported by gpgr4blu. 

Reason: gpgr4blue compared the Ref 150 w/KT-150 tubes (but not the SE upgrade) to the Ref 160.  Because, IMO, the SE upgrade effected a significant improvement in SQ, I surmise the improved Ref 150SE might nudge a little closer in SQ to the Ref 160. 

IME, at some point in the OJ making process, a hard squeeze only yields a small amount of juice.  

That said, I look forward to reading comments from folks who A/B'ed the Ref 150SE to the Ref 160 under controlled conditions.

BIF   

bifwynne
You could very well be right. My Ref 150 with KT150s was one sweet little brut. I'm sure the Ref150SE was better.
 I maintain that the Ref 150 series amps from ARC are among the best bang for the buck (now used) gear in high end audio. Of course, my comments do not any account for the fact that the monos do have imaging and stereo separation that a stereo amp cannot match -but as for other aspects of sound, there are diminishing returns. That said, I do not regret the purchase of the monos.

Since initiating this discussion I ended up trading in my Ref 150 for a Ref 160S.  It’s a wonderful amp (although I could easily live without the stupid “ghost meters”).  I never did hear a 150SE In my system, but I do agree that each of the steps discussed in this thread brings about only incremental improvement.  The 160S does get the blue ribbon for sound staging, however.  Thanks to everyone who contributed their thoughts!

I'd love to trade up from my REF150SE to a REF160S, but would prefer a less expensive version without the meters.

@jldani2 

Curous if you are still happy with your 160S or have moved up to the 160M MkIIs

I have had the 75SE for a few years and have grown quite attached.  I was able to audition a 150SE for a couple weeks and while the bass was a bit cleaner and punchier, it didn't blow me away.  I also added a Shunyata Hydra Triton that also cleaned up the bass and made it punchier so didn't leave me missing the 150SE.  This make me think I will just be disappointed if I jump to a big money upgrade for the new series.  I don't think I could ever own a 150 or 150SE due to the biasing process.  I love the simplicity of the 75SE and being able to adjust as often as I want to keep them in the sweet spot and make sure I don't have a tube that can no longer stay in bias.  For this reason, I have considered the GS150.  I read somewhere that it is essentially the 150SE with a different design.  Anyone audition one of those or know anyone with one?