SS Pre-amps that can beat an Audio Research sp16

Al, yes I know what you are saying about bandwidth of the Class D amps. Newer Class Ds appear to be pushing the barrier significantly and I have an eye on that perhaps for the future.

When I mention bandwidth, what I am really looking for is better low end extension. Sp 16 has very clean and articulate bass but not as extended as even my old Carver pre-amp, though the sp16 whoops it in most every other way. I think I have read that is one of sp16s limitations. When I listen to say a well recorded pipe organ, I think I can hear this. Otherwise, it leaves little for me to want.

Amps are staying for now. I figure the longer I hold off on newer Class D amps, the better and more affordable good products will become. Besides, my 50+ year old ears do not hear much above 12Khz or so anymore. Not that higher bandwidth for better high end extension might not still be better, but not something that bothers me in practice. The BC amps do most everything that I know I can hear quite well, especially with my big OHM 5 speakers, which are not going anywhere My other smaller speakers in smaller rooms are less challenging to drive to their max.

Tim,

That is consistent with what I read and would expect with BC pre-3 and others. Hard to go wrong there I think.

The latest BEnchmark DAC intrigues me also. From what I read, it might hang well with the BC as a pre-amp as well. THat's why I'm very interested in hearing from anyone familiar with both or either. Others in comparison as well.

Dodge,

sp16 is not noisy at all when tubes are good. SLight hiss in phono with ear to speaker maybe with very low noise tube in phono tube slot 1. More with noisier tubes. ARC sells special lower noise tube for that 1 slot only for a premium. I have replaced all my other tubes completely twice since acquiring a few years back. I am smarter about what to use for phono versus others now, and some off those replacements were probably not fully warranted. THe thing is very quiet for a tube amp when all is well, which is most of the time.

I am quite happy with the phono sound, just not that the phono circuit and tubes are live even when not playing phono. SO phono tubes get worn even when not being played. If I listened mainly to phono, this would be a lesser issue in that I would get more mileage out of the lower noise phono tubes than I do.

Al, I revisited the Sterophile measurements on the sp16. It shows pretty flat and extended frequency response into 100Kohm output impedance, which is what the BC amp input impedance is. Hard to find any fault with that, for sure. When I get some time, I'll see if I can find comparable measurements for some of the other pre-amps I am interested in.

Also reviewed published measurements on OHM Walsh speakers similar to mine in "The Audio Critic" and the BC amps in Stereophile.

BC amps are fairly flat and extended measuring less than 1db down at 20khz into 8 ohms.

The OHM Walsh measurements indicate impedance is well above 8 ohms down to about 300 hz, dipping down to about a 3.8 ohm low at ~40hz, then rises again.

Those paper specs would seem to integrate pretty well and be in synch with the good sound I actually hear with this 3 way combo of ARC, BC, and OHM.

It might not be easy for a SS pre-amp to beat, at least on paper but all I really need is something at minimum in the same league for sure.

10-29-13: Mapman
When I mention bandwidth, what I am really looking for is better low end extension. Sp 16 has very clean and articulate bass but not as extended as even my old Carver pre-amp, though the sp16 whoops it in most every other way.

I have owned 3 ARC preamps, though not the SP16, but I can say that your description of the bass sounds very similar to my experiences with all three of my ARC preamps. They are high definition for sure, lots of detail, but they do lack a bit of musical weight.