What is Audio Researches best preamp period

Hi Tom, good to hear you're still enjoying the LS5. It is indeed a unit that we hold onto for a long time as it takes a serious expenditure to get the next level of refinements in a line stage.

Just for clarification here, I don't think I ever felt the LS2 was bright....not any more so than the typical "in your face, way out into the room" presentation of much of the ARC line. Tonally the LS2 was fine when I heard it. But simply, it was hands down the most unmusical line stage I had auditioned up to that time (1995) when I bought the LS5II. Coming off the SP-10, with all of it's little problems, the LS2 was on the opposite end of the field in terms of enjoying the music; the ambient information was all but gone. And I never understood the sillyness of putting XLR connections on a product that was single-ended. The extra input and output stages to accomplish pseudo-balanced signals only gets in the way of the music.

John

OK so I guess wc65mustang IS a dealer?!

I, too, would be interested in more, on topic, opinions of ARC gear.

jaFox:

Did you audition the LS2B MKI or MKII version?
Also, replacing the stock 6922 in the LS2B MKII with better Mullard or Amperex tubes made a significant change for the better in terms of naturalness (ie less mechanical) musicality, etc.

GMorris: I heard the LS2 vs. the LS5 at an ARC dealer in SaltLakeCity. This was right after a weekend home trial of the SonicFrontiers SFL-2 over that year's Memorial Day weekend. I remember this time well as I was having a most difficult time finding a musical replacement of the SP-10 that I sold before I found a replacement. That was not very bright!

I quickly found the SFL-2 to not be musical at all so I went back to SLC to borrow the LS2. Afterall, both of these got the highly coveted Stereophile Class A rating. Well the LS2 was the same lack of musicality as the SFL-2. This was near the end of the LS2's production and the LS5 had already gone to a MK II status, so I gotta believe the LS2 I heard at the dealer was also a MK II. But I can't be sure.

The LS5 was also Class A rated but it was so far ahead of the SFL-2 and LS2, how they could be grouped together was beyond me. And the LS3 was also Class A rated. From that event forward, I realized how worthless these ratings had become.

The LS5II I got had 10 Sovtek 6922 tubes. I soon replaced these with the batch of RAM low-noise tubes I had been using with the SP-10. There was clearly an improvement, but not really all that significant. And even today, as I swap out Mullard, Siemens, Telefunken and Amperex tubes in my Aesthetix gear, these all have a more refined sound over the Sovtek, but the Aesthetix with the Sovtek tubes, as was the case of the LS5 with Sovtek tubes, sound pretty darn good. I gotta believe that no matter what you do with the one tube in the LS2, you are pretty much against the wall on performance. This unit needs a whole more help in the 3-dimensionality dept. than simply a tube swap.

John

JaFox:

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.

Our divergent opinions again underscore how the perception of a component’s performance is dependent on the associated equipment and personal preference. The LS2B MKII mated well with the ARC D115MKII and also the VT100 MKII. My speakers at the time were the MG 3A followed by the MG 3.5s. The ribbon tweeters would have ruthlessly revealed any perceived brightness. Admittedly, LP piano recordings could sound mechanical (e.g. too pronounced leading edge) if the VTA was not properly adjusted. I agree that the LS5 MKII is a better preamp than the LS2B MKII (greater transparency, more natural and richer tonal balance, etc). However, the LS2B MKII is a much better performer than you have suggested. I maintain that in the right system it can be very satisfying and musical.

Having said all of that, I still prefer the LS25 MKI with NOS 6922 to both the LS2B and the LS5 MKII