I own a Ref 3 and concur with TVAD and Newbee. The design goals of Ref 3 -- which has been optimized for balanced operation -- seem to have been to be as even handed across the audible spectrum as possible without particular emphasis to any band. The mids are well developed but not bloomy, the bass is deep but well pitched and never fuzzy, the treble is extended but hardly ever screachy -- or at the opposite glossy. Staging is well defined but not in your face. Harmonic development and decay is clear but not 'new agy'. The effect is of general 'transparency' but not of etched anorexia. The overall sound is 'musical and full bodied' but not syrupy. I have selected it over: BAT VK51SE, VAC Renaissance II, VAC Renaissance Sig, Aesthetics Callisto, ARC Ref 2, ARC LS25 Mk.2, VTL 7.5 Mk.1,and a few other ones. The Ref 3 is neither a stereotypical tube-lover's-delight nor a forensic instrument for the 'clinical' crowd. Rather, because of its relative neutrality, it is very revealing of changes induced by components upstream/downstream and to any changes in ICs, speaker wires, PCs. You can make it 'warmer by switching its SED Winged 6550C in the power supply with a Tungsol 6550, but. . . why bother?! My quest for preamplifying nirvana is logged in some detail at:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1123254379&openmine&zzGuidocorona&4&5#Guidocorona
See in particular my audition findings for mid August 2005.
Rather than seeking something 'different', I now start to wonder what could out-Ref-3 a Ref 3?
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1123254379&openmine&zzGuidocorona&4&5#Guidocorona
See in particular my audition findings for mid August 2005.
Rather than seeking something 'different', I now start to wonder what could out-Ref-3 a Ref 3?