Has anyone heard the Ref 3?


Just curious if anyone has had the opportunity to copare Audio Research's new Ref 3 preamp with the older Ref 1 or Ref 2 or even LS 25 Mk II.
kinsekd
I brought my Ref 3 over to a friends house just one week ago and we did a comparison to his LS 25 MKll. He frequents this forum and I'm sure once he spots this question he will give his opinion about the two.
I have listened to the ARC Ref 3 and compared it to a VAC Renaissance Signature II. To make the story short. .. I am in lust with the Ref 3. You will find my rather detailed findings starting at:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1123254379&openfrom&58&4#58
I'd love for you to post your opinions about the ref 3 as well.
Yes, Agaffer was kind enough to bring his Ref 3 over for a comparison to my LS25 MK II. I was anxious to hear whether all the excitement about the Ref 3 was significant enough for the substantially higher cost. Also, I have not done a head on head preamp comparison before and was curious how noticeable the differences might be.

Here is my system: CD 3 MK II (running balanced), Teres 265 with PH5 (running single ended), the LS25 MK II, and VT 100 MK III into the Vandy 5As. Each piece is on a separate 20 amp star grounded circuit with power conditioning. The room is large with a cathedral ceiling (33 D, 18 W, 13.5 ave. H).

We started with the CD 3 and LS25 MK II listening to a variety of jazz and vocals. The imaging of the system is moderately forward, incredibly detailed with very precise imaging of each artist from left to right, and throws a soundstage which is very high, and frequently well outside of and behind the 5As. The sound is quite uniform and neutral, benefiting from the extremely high coherence of the 5As.

After some acclamation, we switched to the Ref 3, and repeated the same material. It was clear from the outset that the Ref 3 was distinctly different. It has a slightly deeper (but not wider) soundstage, and more noticeably, has much more refined and “rounded” instrumental and voice images. They seem to have more depth and realism, like being a cylinder instead of a plane. The overall presentation was more liquid and musical.

We then switched to the Teres and went through the same process. This time the effect was even more dramatic, and so obvious that I think I could have picked the Ref 3 every time in a blind test. I can’t explain why, however, it might have had something to do with the fact that the CD 3 was using XLR and the PH5 was using RCA. At any rate, my vinyl had never before sounded so incredibly real. We could easily hear instrumental artifacts that were much more articulated and distinct with the Ref 3. I found the overall presentation more natural, musical, and refined.

At this point we just began to enjoy the Ref 3 with a variety of vinyl such as “Genius Loves Company” with Ray Charles, “The Well” with Jennifer Warnes, and “Chester and Lester”, with Chet Atkins and Les Paul. Getting lost in the music was taking precedence over any further comparison.

Later that evening, I went back in alone to listen to the LS25, and confirmed it now seemed a bit disappointing, with a somewhat flatter, less engaging sound. A test like this is a dangerous thing to do, since I was quite happy with my current system and now can’t stop thinking about what is missing.

My conclusion is that the excitement over the Ref 3 is real and ARC has made a significant step in the right direction. Others have reported a similar improvement over the Ref 2s. So, now I need to start saving my pennies.