New Monster Audio Research Amplifier

[Andre Marc]

That's it! Classic! Best record ever made! Worth millions! A keeper!

Wholly ****! That IS it. Damn, my dad used to spin that constantly. It sounded ridiculously lifelike through Quads.

 

[A.wayne]

I don't know how a reviewer can do an adequate job without having a piece of equipment on hand for some period of time. Often, by the time the reviewer is listening to preamp B, preamp A is long gone (not talking about the reviewer's own reference equipment, but other equipment he (not many she's) has reviewed). That's what drives me bonkers about those compilations of ratings, like Class 'A' etc. qua Stereophile. Some of the reviews, and thus the 'blurbs' taken from them are long out of date, and I suspect that if the piece was brought back into play, it wouldn't show up as well against the [current] competition. Of course, this is the exact opposite of what Marty said in an earlier post about how much equipment has (or has not) really improved.
I think reviewers themselves must 'improve' over time too, no? Their perspective must change after long experience and there is a continued learning curve in listening and evaluating equipment, and that has to play a role too.

IMO, its Because of such why stereophile reviews carry more relevance than the typical opinion tabloid , They actually test the product under review . Having both an objective and subjective review tells a much better picture than someone's opinion

 

[MylesBAstor]

I guess I am looking for something different. I want to trip. I want to connect to the music. For me to listen for frequency response, timbre, etc I would need to put on a white lab coat.

Andre, that's more of a cop out than an answer. I can trip to a car radio listening to all of the above too. What a car radio doesn't do is envelope me in the music, allow me understand the deeper intent, the colors, the tones, the nuances, etc. that the composer intended and give me a rush. After all, that's what you hear at a live concert.

What good is an audio system if a violin doesn't sound like a violin, a drum doesn't sound like a drum, a saxophone doesn't sound like a saxophone, a guitar doesn't sound like a guitar or a vocalist doesn't seem real? If those qualities aren't important, a Bose Wave radio will suffice.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I guess I am looking for something different. I e want to trip. I want to connect to the music. For me to listen for frequency response, timbre, etc I would need to put on a white lab coat.

Andre, Andre, Andre...stop listening to the music and get with the program here, man. The explosive dynamics of mics under a table, recording some dude pounding his heels is the thing...

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Andre, that's more of a cop out than an answer. I can trip to a car radio listening to all of the above too. What a car radio doesn't do is envelope me in the music, allow me understand the deeper intent, the colors, the tones, the nuances, etc. that the composer intended and give me a rush. After all, that's what you hear at a live concert.

What good is an audio system if a violin doesn't sound like a violin, a drum doesn't sound like a drum, a saxophone doesn't sound like a saxophone, a guitar doesn't sound like a guitar or a vocalist doesn't seem real? If those qualities aren't important, a Bose Wave radio will suffice.

Myles if you ever heard a rock band in concert, you heard a pa system, and even if it was a really good one, the mediocre studio recording probably reveals much more nuance, tone, etc. Context, man. We're not talking about a violin concerto.

Tim

 

[jadis]

Andre, that's more of a cop out than an answer. I can trip to a car radio listening to all of the above too. What a car radio doesn't do is envelope me in the music, allow me understand the deeper intent, the colors, the tones, the nuances, etc. that the composer intended and give me a rush. After all, that's what you hear at a live concert.

What good is an audio system if a violin doesn't sound like a violin, a drum doesn't sound like a drum, a saxophone doesn't sound like a saxophone, a guitar doesn't sound like a guitar or a vocalist doesn't seem real? If those qualities aren't important, a Bose Wave radio will suffice.

My feelings exactly, specially the last line. While I have heard this phrase 'listening to the music' and not the 'gears' so many times from audio forums, it seems that if that were so, to listen to plain jane $0.99 - $9.99 mass market record pressings of music you love so much, which more often than not sound even worse in high end systems than boom boxes, then, there is really no point in spending so much time and money to build separates and painstakingly match each audio component. I have been astounded many a times by audio dealers and audio hobbyists as well with incredible sounding money no object recordings like the early direct to discs and half speed remastering jobs and often after such sessions I would tell myself that these records do justice to what I have been doing all along in the upgrade path to my audio gears. It is actually a very fulfilling experience to hear a violin like a violin and to hear your favorite singer sound like themselves. And like Michael Newman's Classical Guitar on Sheffield Lab D2D, that is by far the most realistic guitar tone I have encountered from a record.

 

[microstrip]

Wait, what? How did we get from discussing ARC's latest monster amp to denigrating each other's taste in music?

Anybody been able to hear the 600-series and 750 to compare?

Don,

It seems a negative answer to your second question also answers the first question ...


Until now the only thing I can do is extrapolating from the REF110/150 or REF210/REF250. But it is difficult to imagine something better than the REF610 fitted with KT120s. Unhappily most people will listen to the REF750 using the REF5SE and not the REF40 Anniversary, as the Anniversary is out of production.

BTW, one should live near a power station to make a fair direct comparison of both series

 

[Bill Hart]

Andre, Andre, Andre...stop listening to the music and get with the program here, man. The explosive dynamics of mics under a table, recording some dude pounding his heels is the thing...

Tim

Tim, you'd probably like that record.

 

[Bill Hart]

Wait, what? How did we get from discussing ARC's latest monster amp to denigrating each other's taste in music?

Anybody been able to hear the 600-series and 750 to compare?

We went from 'how can a company like ARC keep creating new ad hyperbole to match the latest and greatest amp' to how one reviews such things. And, in the process, the 'reference records' used to discern the differences. At which point, I injected a tap dance record. Answer to your question: not me.

 

[Bill Hart]

My feelings exactly, specially the last line. While I have heard this phrase 'listening to the music' and not the 'gears' so many times from audio forums, it seems that if that were so, to listen to plain jane $0.99 - $9.99 mass market record pressings of music you love so much, which more often than not sound even worse in high end systems than boom boxes, then, there is really no point in spending so much time and money to build separates and painstakingly match each audio component. I have been astounded many a times by audio dealers and audio hobbyists as well with incredible sounding money no object recordings like the early direct to discs and half speed remastering jobs and often after such sessions I would tell myself that these records do justice to what I have been doing all along in the upgrade path to my audio gears. It is actually a very fulfilling experience to hear a violin like a violin and to hear your favorite singer sound like themselves. And like Michael Newman's Classical Guitar on Sheffield Lab D2D, that is by far the most realistic guitar tone I have encountered from a record.

It's hard to argue that good source material shouldn't be used. But, at the same time, there's so much great music that was not recorded on audiophile records, or the recordings are simply not great but the music is- there's not much you can do about a bad recording, but the challenge for me is to make my system work well on 'average' records too. I went the 'no tone control' route back in 1975 or so with my first ARC preamp-(it had tone controls, but you could take them out of the circuit). Since then, most audiophiles have rejected tone controls and equalizers, with a few exceptions. I wonder if there is a role for a good quality equalizer in this context- for the 'average' records- and one which won't do more harm than good in the process.

 

[JackD201]

It's hard to argue that good source material shouldn't be used. But, at the same time, there's so much great music that was not recorded on audiophile records, or the recordings are simply not great but the music is- there's not much you can do about a bad recording, but the challenge for me is to make my system work well on 'average' records too. I went the 'no tone control' route back in 1975 or so with my first ARC preamp-(it had tone controls, but you could take them out of the circuit). Since then, most audiophiles have rejected tone controls and equalizers, with a few exceptions. I wonder if there is a role for a good quality equalizer in this context- for the 'average' records- and one which won't do more harm than good in the process.

Me too. I work real hard to match a target curve to make sure I've done all I can to be technically right then I intentionally "dumb" the system down to be more forgiving. Fortunately my speakers have attenuators for all tweeters and phase, crossover and gain control for the lowest octaves. I like my midrange flat as possible. No need for EQ!

 

[Andre Marc]

Andre, that's more of a cop out than an answer. I can trip to a car radio listening to all of the above too. What a car radio doesn't do is envelope me in the music, allow me understand the deeper intent, the colors, the tones, the nuances, etc. that the composer intended and give me a rush. After all, that's what you hear at a live concert.

What good is an audio system if a violin doesn't sound like a violin, a drum doesn't sound like a drum, a saxophone doesn't sound like a saxophone, a guitar doesn't sound like a guitar or a vocalist doesn't seem real? If those qualities aren't important, a Bose Wave radio will suffice.

Myles, I totally understand what you are saying. It just sounds clinical to me. But I do understand this type of listening has its place.

 

[Andre Marc]

Andre, Andre, Andre...stop listening to the music and get with the program here, man. The explosive dynamics of mics under a table, recording some dude pounding his heels is the thing...

Tim

I might have lost my Audiophile Badge!!!!

 

[Andre Marc]

It's hard to argue that good source material shouldn't be used. But, at the same time, there's so much great music that was not recorded on audiophile records, or the recordings are simply not great but the music is- there's not much you can do about a bad recording, but the challenge for me is to make my system work well on 'average' records too. I went the 'no tone control' route back in 1975 or so with my first ARC preamp-(it had tone controls, but you could take them out of the circuit). Since then, most audiophiles have rejected tone controls and equalizers, with a few exceptions. I wonder if there is a role for a good quality equalizer in this context- for the 'average' records- and one which won't do more harm than good in the process.

One of the factors here is that AUDIOPHILES..not "regular people" have a hard time agreeing on what a "good" recording is. Is it a classic analog Blue Note? Is it an AIX 96/24? Is it
late 60's Columbia Records? Is it RCA Living Stereo? Is it Sheffield direct to disc? Etc.

I have heard people describe many classic albums as "badly recorded". If one can't get past the "recording", within reason, I really feel sorry for them. I know why I am
in this hobby.

 

[Bill Hart]

One of the factors here is that AUDIOPHILES..not "regular people" have a hard time agreeing on what a "good" recording is. Is it a classic analog Blue Note? Is it an AIX 96/24? Is it
late 60's Columbia Records? Is it RCA Living Stereo? Is it Sheffield direct to disc? Etc.

I have heard people describe many classic albums as "badly recorded". If one can't get past the "recording", within reason, I really feel sorry for them. I know why I am
in this hobby.

Andre- I didn't mean to be that specific; I'd lump a whole lot of stuff into the category of good recordings, and not just D2D or audiophile pressings. I would include some of the standard issue stuff from Columbia (Between the Lines; B,S & T 2d album) and Warner Bros (the two America records; Moondance) as 'good' even though they were standard pressings back in their day. Along with alot of the older RCA, Mercury, Lyrita, Decca, London, EMI etc. that have audiophile credentials. Soundtracks, like The Mission, The Emerald Forest, Ghost and Mrs. Muir, etc. Many from the HP list were not 'audiophile' records as such until they were given the recognition for sonics that they were due.
But, I'm in your camp, mon ami. There's lot's of music out there, and unfortunately, not all of it is well recorded. As long as it isn't bright and harsh, I play it. I had a recent experience with some Nina Simone records, the one, which is actually a mono record, sounds great, but her blues record, a reissued Dynagroove, sounds thin and bright.

 

[dafos]

Regarding tone controls, that's one taboo that I've subconciously questioned but have kept it at that level since the use of tone contols, particularly on the electronics side, is an accepted Audiophile NO NO. I'd be the first to object to tampering with above average to great recordings, but really, what further harm can we inflict on a really crappy recording by trying to correct severe frequency anomalies thru equalization?

 

[Bill Hart]

Regarding tone controls, that's one taboo that I've subconciously questioned but have kept it at that level since the use of tone contols, particularly on the electronics side, is an accepted Audiophile NO NO. I'd be the first to object to tampering with above average to great recordings, but really, what further harm can we inflict on a really crappy recording by trying to correct severe frequency anomalies thru equalization?

Exactly. I would imagine a serious quality equalizer costs some bread, and then you add the additional cost of cables, so it is a side road that I usually bypass, thinking if I'm going to spend real money, I'd rather put it into the main components to increase the overall performance of the system at its best. But, given the comments about playing less than stellar sounding records-and there's alot of music that I like that runs the gamut- the value of a good equalizer is becoming more apparent to me.

 

[Bill Hart]

One of the factors here is that AUDIOPHILES..not "regular people" have a hard time agreeing on what a "good" recording is. Is it a classic analog Blue Note? Is it an AIX 96/24? Is it
late 60's Columbia Records? Is it RCA Living Stereo? Is it Sheffield direct to disc? Etc.

I have heard people describe many classic albums as "badly recorded". If one can't get past the "recording", within reason, I really feel sorry for them. I know why I am
in this hobby.

Andre- for what it's worth, 'bad' recordings that I still listen to- Layla, Blind Faith, Led Zep I, to name a few.

 

[Andre Marc]

Andre- I didn't mean to be that specific; I'd lump a whole lot of stuff into the category of good recordings, and not just D2D or audiophile pressings. I would include some of the standard issue stuff from Columbia (Between the Lines; B,S & T 2d album) and Warner Bros (the two America records; Moondance) as 'good' even though they were standard pressings back in their day. Along with alot of the older RCA, Mercury, Lyrita, Decca, London, EMI etc. that have audiophile credentials. Soundtracks, like The Mission, The Emerald Forest, Ghost and Mrs. Muir, etc. Many from the HP list were not 'audiophile' records as such until they were given the recognition for sonics that they were due.
But, I'm in your camp, mon ami. There's lot's of music out there, and unfortunately, not all of it is well recorded. As long as it isn't bright and harsh, I play it. I had a recent experience with some Nina Simone records, the one, which is actually a mono record, sounds great, but her blues record, a reissued Dynagroove, sounds thin and bright.

I know you are a music guy..I guess I get irked when a bit of snobbishness creeps in. At audios shows I hear the same dozen records..Jennifer Warnes, Nils Lofgren (PLEASE no more!), etc,

You know what rooms were PACKED at Newport and CES??? The ones playing off the shelf, non audiophile sanctioned albums. Rock N Roll puts asses in the seats. The Music Hall room was standing
room only playing the Black Keys.

 

[Bill Hart]

I know you are a music guy..I guess I get irked when a bit of snobbishness creeps in. At audios shows I hear the same dozen records..Jennifer Warnes, Nils Lofgren (PLEASE no more!), etc,

You know what rooms were PACKED at Newport and CES??? The ones playing off the shelf, non audiophile sanctioned albums. Rock N Roll puts asses in the seats. The Music Hall room was standing
room only playing the Black Keys.

Although you have to admit, they really went out of their way on El Camino to make it sound horrible