funny, I love the ARC 160ms and think they are the best ARC amps in decades and avoid that whitish, SS-like sound from old ARC tubes. Perhaps it was just a poor match with the unnamed speakers you heard them on.
Last edited:
VTL TP-6.5 Signature II Phono Stage Reviewed by Michael Fremer
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
he is very good and the attributes he extracts from his listening can quite accurately be traced impulse many other reviewers
Well, although I respect Roy I do trust my ears more than his writing
i don’t trust his writing at all
But that represents a subjective design choice to use an SUT, rather than a phono stage like the Io which uses only tubes to generate all of its 86dB of gain, or a hybrid phono with a stage of transistor gain.
In other words for someone who wants an all-tube phono stage, switching to an SUT is not an attractive option. But, yes, of course, an SUT obviates the need to generate all of the gain from tubes alone, thus lessening tube noise.
Last edited:
Curious, I have also listened to the 160M's several times and found them excellent sounding. A great match with the Sonus Faber Aida II's.
I have found the 160M's to sound excellent on the occasions I've listened to them with the speakers I've heard them with. I'm kind of surprised however they didn't ever come out with larger versions of these amps as I did attend one demo that used them with albeit very difficult to drive speakers and when pushed hard they did run out of juice but admittedly that was an exceptional case.
George
Speakers were Wilson Audio Sasha DAW. I don't call it a poor match cause AR amps are frequently used with Wilson speakers.
Last edited:
You are right, in general the Wilson speakers are a good match with Audio Research. I have owned the Alexia / REF150 and it really sounded very good. But in this hobby there are no universal rules or sure recipes, rooms and systems are very complex.
Concerning the reviews subject, IMO the weak point in your reasoning is trying to attack reviews and reviewers based in a single case of a friend of yours.
There is a new ARC amp coming out later this year, the Reference 320M, which will double (?) the output of the Ref 160M.
The ARC 160 MONO'S sounded horrible..... really.......your poor friend must have really suffered listening to those "horrible" sounding amps for two whole years.....props to him for enduring....
My "Junior" version of the 160 mono, the REF 80 S, sounds the exact opposite of horrible.....
Cheers.....
I also like the new ARC models .
I heard the 160 M monos / ARC pre amp with Wilson benesch and WADAX
My favourite tube amps at the Munich show .
I actually missed the VTL / Wilson set up altogether in Munich
I heard the 160 M monos / ARC pre amp with Wilson benesch and WADAX
My favourite tube amps at the Munich show .
I actually missed the VTL / Wilson set up altogether in Munich
Thank you for pointing that out. My intention was not attacking to reviews but it went in a different way.
I heard enough amplifiers or enough Audio Researchs to draw conclusions and spent enough time to distinguish a bad match from a terrible sound but that’s not really important.
I don’t argue if Audio Research 160Ms are bad or not. I only brought that up as a clear example of how wrong you can go if you buy based on reviews. Just like the people here I’m sharing my honest opinion without expecting any benefits. I’m behind my words about 160Ms. I might be wrong but I’m not lying. IMHO that is not always true with reviewers.
I’m glad that you are happy with 80S’ performance. I didn’t have a chance to compare but 80S might sound better than 160Ms. IMHO higher, expensive models are not necessarily better.
l liked your post and I can understand people being sceptical of reviewers. My experience has not found reviewers writing with an intent to deceive. It is possible, yes. One difference between casual reviewing as found here and published reviewing is the latter goes through an editor, who in my experience is honest and has his publication at interest -- nothing would kill a publication faster than intentionally publishing falsehoods. Like anything else there are good reviewers and not-so-good reviewers -- it can take time to read multiple reviews from the same person to learn if their writing is believable and suited to your interests.
“it can take time to read multiple reviews from the same person to learn if their writing is believable and suited to your interests”
Is for beginners.
That said my post was also directed to micro. Mtemur would know enough about AR amps and he heard a good friend’s many times over two tears. So the 160 sucks is a valid conclusion for him and Mr. Jazz confirmed that as well. Micro did his best to introduce the noise he does
Last edited:
I had an experience at a dealer in London where they used the Ref 160Ms and the demo was rather poor sounding. The Ref 160s were the most expensive piece in the demo system and when I complained about the sound the dealer actually blamed those amps! I was surprised as there was a rather old Krell SACD standard player and a Ref 3 preamp on small Wilson Benesch speakers. He said something was never right sounding with those amps...so that echoes Mtemur and you regarding this amp.
Most discussions on the audiofora end up being a discussion regarding taste .
People should be thankfull for diversity in audio land
I liked the ARC 160 M in the brief exposure i had , one could argue i have no taste off course , but all these discussions come across as rather simplistic .
If you find something you like buy it/ enjoy it , simple
No instead most of the time on fora is spend in denigrating other products.
Last edited:
Similar threads
