VTL TP-6.5 Signature II Phono Stage Reviewed by Michael Fremer

[KeithR]

For example they praised Audio Research 160M mono block amplifiers when it came out. A friend bought 160Ms new, together with the preamp. He used them for almost two years and I listened them many times. I can not forget how terrible they sound every time I listen. I don’t expect much from Audio Research amps but old Audio Research amps have a relatively ok sound. On the other hand 160Ms sound horrible.

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.

 

[bonzo75]

Quite reasonable to hear you say that. That is different from being an acolyte, the object of whose affection cannot misstep. I respect Fremer for supporting analog vinyl. And he can write clear descriptions and expository explanations of how things work. But his values are not mine.

he is very good and the attributes he extracts from his listening can quite accurately be traced impulse many other reviewers

 

[bonzo75]

Well, although I respect Roy I do trust my ears more than his writing

i don’t trust his writing at all

 

[Ron Resnick]

There’s really no excuse for a tube phono stage to be noisy. It’s so easy to add a SUT in front of a QUALITY tube MM stage (my emphasis) and have full gain for a LOMC with no noise. I use a 1:10 in front of my D3a/5687 phono and there is no audible hiss or hum whatsoever.

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.

 

[microstrip]

(...) For example they praised Audio Research 160M mono block amplifiers when it came out. A friend bought 160Ms new, together with the preamp. He used them for almost two years and I listened them many times. I can not forget how terrible they sound every time I listen. I don’t expect much from Audio Research amps but old Audio Research amps have a relatively ok sound. On the other hand 160Ms sound horrible.

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.

 

[gadawg58]

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

 

[mtemur]

funny, I love the ARC 160ms and think they are the best ARC amps in decades and avoid that whitish, SS-like sound from tubes. Perhaps it was just a poor match with the unnamed speakers you heard them on.

Speakers were Wilson Audio Sasha DAW. I don't call it a poor match cause AR amps are frequently used with Wilson speakers.

 

[microstrip]

Speakers were Wilson Audio Sasha DAW. I don't call it a poor match cause AR amps are frequently used with Wilson speakers.

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.

 

[XV-1]

i don’t trust his writing at all

Cash for comment?

 

[lem321]

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

There is a new ARC amp coming out later this year, the Reference 320M, which will double (?) the output of the Ref 160M.

 

[MRJAZZ]

A VTL phono came in for review and it’s auditioned for two months but no comparisons are made with his references. IMHO that’s total nonsense. Obviously he is trying to evade from any kind of comparisons. There is a saying for this kind of situation where interests cross with each other. It’s rough translation is like if I spit down it will hit the beard spit up hit the mustache.

I don’t say VTL is not a good phono I believe it’s great but that’s not the point. The point is reviewers at Stereophile and Absolute Sound hardly telling the truth. How many times did you read a bad review for American products from those reviewers?

For example they praised Audio Research 160M mono block amplifiers when it came out. A friend bought 160Ms new, together with the preamp. He used them for almost two years and I listened them many times. I can not forget how terrible they sound every time I listen. I don’t expect much from Audio Research amps but old Audio Research amps have a relatively ok sound. On the other hand 160Ms sound horrible.

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.....

 

[andromedaaudio]

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

 

[mtemur]

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.

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.

 

[mtemur]

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’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.

 

[tima]

I might be wrong but I’m not lying. IMHO that is not always true with reviewers.

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.

 

[bonzo75]

Guys mtemur is not new to hifi. His experience on certain gear especially analog is higher than most on this forum. So he can make these judgements, he would have read enough reviews and tried and tested those products himself

 

[tima]

Guys mtemur is not new to hifi. His experience on certain gear especially analog is higher than most on this forum. So he can make these judgements, he would have read enough reviews and tried and tested those products himself

And ... ? I don't believe his experience is in question.

 

[bonzo75]

And ... ? I don't believe his experience is in question.

“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

 

[morricab]

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 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.

 

[andromedaaudio]

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.