Musings on the arc ls-17
- Thread starter mep
- Start date
Possibly so, but they should not have removed it in the first place!
I don't think this "sound" or coldness was limited to just ARC. This was an industry wide practice and a period in high-end audio where many high-end audio tube designers made a wrong turn. It seems that many designers in their attempt to reduce the "tubey" coloration of their products, resorted to an artificially enhancing the upper mids/lower treble regions resulting in a hyperdetailiing.You know ther reaction. For the first hour, you're saying wow listen to this, listen to that; after and hour, you're then saying, boy do I have a splitting headache
I've often felt that the resurgence of interest in SET tube amps was a reaction to this hyperdetailing (as well as the introduction of the first gen of really bright and hard sounding digital product).
In their attempts to achieve greater "resolution" many designers achieved this quality through artificial means and lost along the way, the concept of musicality. Thankfully, we've in the last couple of years, returned to our roots and turned the corner. Through the use of better parts, power supplies, etc., designer now achieve "real" resolution without sacrificing musicality.
The first piece of tube gear I ever bought for myself was an ARC LS-16. I knew nothing about tubes at this point so I had to ask for some help from tube head friends for tubes to roll with. It was really just lean. When bugle boys can't help you there's gotta be something wrong somewhere.
The Ref 3 is anything but lean, not voluptuous, not buxom, hmmmm, maybe athletic would be a good analogy perhaps?
The Ref 3 is anything but lean, not voluptuous, not buxom, hmmmm, maybe athletic would be a good analogy perhaps?
Jack-the *problem* with tube rollling in the LS-17 is that it uses the 6H30 super tube and there just isn't much choice there. Would you like Russian 6H30 tubes or other Russian 6H30 tubes to use? The LS-17 is no tube roller's dream line stage. Dick Olsher would have a heart attack. Your description of the REF 3 is interesting.
I think the better analog might be that the CP stuff is "fat" sounding and the LS17 is normal weight. I've owned both. I like the CP a lot but over the long haul I prefer ARC gear. But I like the mep knows what he likes and that is all that matters!
It's very new (I first saw it at CES this year). I'm fortunate enough to have one (and a PH-8) in for review.
Please send it to me when you are finished. We can do one of those second reviewer opinion deals...also send the PH-8.
I hate to say this for a number of reasons, but I bought another LS17 preamp. First of all, I have been buying so much gear lately that I can’t afford the LS27 I think I want right now. Also, I wanted to give the LS17 another fair shake in my system to see if I feel the same way about it now that I did the last time. I felt it should mate better with the ARC VS115 than how I used it previously and maybe I hadn’t heard it at its best.
The LS17 showed up last night. I bought it from the original owner and it was sold to me as a 9/10 and it is a 9/10. I even got the damn ARC screwdriver which I never have received in the past from any used ARC product I have bought. Hell, the ARC VS115 I bought a few weeks ago didn’t come with the bias tool and I had to order it from ARC.
My initial impression last night was that it still sounded like a SS preamp just like I did the first time I heard it. In fact, I started eyeballing my Krell KBL and wishing I could do an instant swap. I can say at the end of my listening session last night that I thought my vinyl was sounding like it had more life to it like it did back in the day when I had my SA-2/SA-5.1 combo. The big exception is that my current combo of the Krell KPE Reference phono stage feeding into the LS17 is much lower in noise than the SA-2/SA5.1 combo. I believe it more neutral and it has less technicolor as well. However, it’s not as quiet as the Krell KPE Reference feeding into the Krell KBL.
I need to spend some time with the new setup before I can offer any definitive judgments on where I stand with the LS17. The LS17 needs to prove to me that it is a better preamp than the KBL. The KBL is much older, but maybe more advanced in some ways. Krell had enough foresight when they designed the KBL to not label the inputs in the old traditional way. The KBL was designed so that it could be used with another KBL in true dual mono fashion. You just take off the top and flip some switches and you now have a totally balanced dual mono four box preamp. I would love to hear that setup. The KPA Reference phono preamp was designed the same way. You could buy one and use it as a standalone phono preamp or buy two and use them as dual mono as well. I bet that is a pretty sweet setup even though it would take up lots of shelf space with a combined total of 8 boxes.
The LS17 showed up last night. I bought it from the original owner and it was sold to me as a 9/10 and it is a 9/10. I even got the damn ARC screwdriver which I never have received in the past from any used ARC product I have bought. Hell, the ARC VS115 I bought a few weeks ago didn’t come with the bias tool and I had to order it from ARC.
My initial impression last night was that it still sounded like a SS preamp just like I did the first time I heard it. In fact, I started eyeballing my Krell KBL and wishing I could do an instant swap. I can say at the end of my listening session last night that I thought my vinyl was sounding like it had more life to it like it did back in the day when I had my SA-2/SA-5.1 combo. The big exception is that my current combo of the Krell KPE Reference phono stage feeding into the LS17 is much lower in noise than the SA-2/SA5.1 combo. I believe it more neutral and it has less technicolor as well. However, it’s not as quiet as the Krell KPE Reference feeding into the Krell KBL.
I need to spend some time with the new setup before I can offer any definitive judgments on where I stand with the LS17. The LS17 needs to prove to me that it is a better preamp than the KBL. The KBL is much older, but maybe more advanced in some ways. Krell had enough foresight when they designed the KBL to not label the inputs in the old traditional way. The KBL was designed so that it could be used with another KBL in true dual mono fashion. You just take off the top and flip some switches and you now have a totally balanced dual mono four box preamp. I would love to hear that setup. The KPA Reference phono preamp was designed the same way. You could buy one and use it as a standalone phono preamp or buy two and use them as dual mono as well. I bet that is a pretty sweet setup even though it would take up lots of shelf space with a combined total of 8 boxes.
Last edited:
mep- I don't mean to be presumptuous, because I'm new here (not that you should be presumptuous if you're old here), but your latest post reminds me of a joke. A guy sees an offer in the window of a travel agency: TRIP TO EUROPE $29.95. It is too good to be true, of course, but he goes in, pays the money, and gets hit over the head with a club. The next thing he knows, he wakes up in the middle of the Atlantic ocean in a row boat with another guy. He says to the guy: "I can't believe I fell for that. I hope when we get there, at least they'll fly us back home." The other guy says: "They didn't last year."
Whart-I get your point-trust me. However, it was worth the ‘gamble’ for a number of reasons. Since I bought the LS17 from the original owner in 9/10 condition with the original box, packing material, owner’s manual, and remote, I know I can turn around and sell this and pretty much get my money back if I decide I’m on a row boat with my head bashed in. Second, I did want to see if the preamp sounds different driving an ARC tube amp and it does.
There is no doubt in my mind that the sound of ARC tube gear is way more neutral sounding than the ARC gear of yesteryear. In fact, I would be willing to bet someone else’s money that if I could switch back and forth between the Krell KBL/KSA-250 combo and the ARC LS17/VS115 combo that some double blinded listeners who had their ears boxed would pick the ARC combo as SS and the Krell as tube.
People that are addicted to the sound of old tube gear are in for a shock if they listen to the newer ARC gear in balanced mode. I hate to say it’s a night and day difference, but it’s a night and day difference. That doesn’t mean that they would all prefer to come out of the darkness and into the light though. Some people prefer to bathe in warm syrup while loose bass surrounds them. And based on comments that Myles has made, it sounds like CJ has had a similar transition to the sound of their gear meaning it is far more neutral now than it was years ago.
For those people who wonder if the design of audio gear really has improved over the years, the answer is yes.
There is no doubt in my mind that the sound of ARC tube gear is way more neutral sounding than the ARC gear of yesteryear. In fact, I would be willing to bet someone else’s money that if I could switch back and forth between the Krell KBL/KSA-250 combo and the ARC LS17/VS115 combo that some double blinded listeners who had their ears boxed would pick the ARC combo as SS and the Krell as tube.
People that are addicted to the sound of old tube gear are in for a shock if they listen to the newer ARC gear in balanced mode. I hate to say it’s a night and day difference, but it’s a night and day difference. That doesn’t mean that they would all prefer to come out of the darkness and into the light though. Some people prefer to bathe in warm syrup while loose bass surrounds them. And based on comments that Myles has made, it sounds like CJ has had a similar transition to the sound of their gear meaning it is far more neutral now than it was years ago.
For those people who wonder if the design of audio gear really has improved over the years, the answer is yes.
Similar threads
