ARC ls26 vs.SF Line-3/se

I would gather the point here is this. If the Line 3SE is
so closely comparable w/ the Ref 3, chances are the LS26
would no be a worthwhile upgrade path. This of course, based
on Radical Steve's experience. I have only auditioned the
Ref 3, but have no experience with the SF. BTW, what is the
approx retail on the Line 3 SE.

If I am to believe you two guys, then there must be alot of hype on the Ref 3. Everything I read and most everyone here who owns one or has auditioned it thinks it is one of the finest sounding preamps made today.

No offense to your Line 3, but many would consider it a dated design and say comparing a Ref 3 to it is like comparing apples or oranges. Upgrades or not, it doesn't change the basic circuit, which, like the Power 3 amps, is nothing special. The designs of the Sonic Frontier pieces were hardly state of the art at their time, and there have been criticisms of poor board layout, where heat caused damage, criticisms of marginal circuit parameters where parts were stressed and then blew out. I knew two audiophiles who had SFL2 and Line 3 preamps where parts failed in both the power supplies and main units. So much for all the quality parts used in them. They obviously did something wrong in their implementation.

Saxo,

Which tube equipment does not have heat related damage? I have seen/heard many ARC VT series power amp failing due to poor tube layout and heat damage, but I will not declare it a poor sounding product though I do prefer SF Power 2/3 over VT-100/200. Same goes for other ARC pre or other tube gears out there.

And what's a dated design? If you can put in plain English what ARC has done that make them so much more advanced, many of us will be delighted to read. Or how SF circuit was dated? I am an EE by training, though my specialty is in semiconductor manufacturing so I feel I am not qualified to make comments on circult layout. I think Spaz is asking a question that related to sound, not design, board layout, circuit paramenters, etc. Good sound is often the execution of fine parts selection and circuit design, does not have to be SOTA to sound superb. Take the venerable Marantz model 9 or McIntosh 275, they were not SOTA back then and far from SOTA now, but why are they so desirable still after 30+ years?

This question has been asked before on Audiogon and many many owners have vouched the reliablity of their SF L2/3. You can't expect a tube gear to perform w/o issue when users start to try out NOS tubes that perform slightly out of the designed operating range, it's like modifying your car engine and call your car unreliable afterward.

So let's stick to the thread and only address the sound part.

"This question has been asked before on Audiogon and many owners have vouched for the reliability of their SF L2/3."
You said it Semi... if this is the point where all the SF L2/3 owners come in to back you on this, consider it done; there are plenty of us who couldn't have said it better than you did. My L3 is remarkably reliable and is now entering its 7th year of outstanding service while supplying phenomenal music to my life on a daily basis, (BTW Semi, your description of its exemplary sonics was 'spot on'). Getting back to that 'sound part' : AR has been a cornerstone of excellent tubed electronics and the latest reviews and overall feedback of their new Ref 3 has been a testament to their prowess. My personal experience with them is outdated, as previous auditions have only included an LS-16 and Ref 1, back in their days. -No one has to say they've had great strides since then and I'm sure the LS-26 is an excellent example of their progress but the L3 is still probably better compared as above, to the Ref 3. (IM Humble O). Good luck and happy Lissn'n.

You don't need to upgrade the line 3 is an outstanding pre I think even if you did upgrade you wouldn't hear that much of a difference.