Audio Research Preamp Experts?

Can you clarify also what would be considered a worthwhile upgrade from sp16 and why?

Thanks.

"clarity, lower noise and greater dynamics of today's line stages'

Clarity, low or no noise, and excellent dynamics accurately describes my sp16.

Not an ARC guru but I would be surprised if older models had all these attributes to the same extent. It is a very modern sound that is difficult to distinguish as involving tubes to my ears.

True that match to amp is a huge factor and very important to address up front.

Not just any SS amp will do. Same true of most tube pre-amps, not just ARC.

Impedance matching between components from source through amp is the main technical spec that can be used to determine likely better matches producing better dynamics, lower distortion, etc..

10:1 ratio or higher of input impedance to output impedance upstream is generally considered good.

Tube gear like tube pre-amps has higher output impedances than SS making meeting this goal less guaranteed without checking first.

I suspect Merlin Bam to be tube friendly, so I would not expect a problem in general with tube pre-amps there, but BP would be the one to say for sure.

low/absent noise level with sp-16 is similar. I did not think tubes could be that quiet.

When there is even a minor tube issue though, you here it. My sp16 developed a very low level whine when I first hooked up the BC monoblocks. I thought it was the new amps at first. Shuffling the 6 12AX7's internally eventually eliminated the issue somehow. Back to dead silence ever since.

Minor, what is the rest of your system you are auditioning ARC pre-amps with?

I've heard a lot of high end systems and I am quite pleased with the sp16 in most every regard. What specifically did you hear different between it and other more expensive ARC pre-amps?

minor, thanks for that.

i'll go out on a limb and suppose that my ohm speakers may compensate for any deficiencies in imaging and soundstage that might occur with the lower end sp16 compared to higher models. the ohms are champs in this regard with most any amplification.

i have also used mit ics but now run dnm reson ics which i find superior in most every regard and really delivers results that just sound right.

there are many ways to achieve a certain level of performance. areally good pre in general can only help. i think the arc gear in general is a fantastic one to build a system around.

I've worked hard to get most all recordings to sound good enough to be worth a listen, even if I am initially unfamiliar with the material. The sp16 fits the bill for that in my rig.

I used to think a lot of recordings were bad, ie not worth listening to for me prior to recent upgrades including the sp16. I have difficult with the concept that better gear makes some recordings worse. I do not want that because I like listening to most anything, at least once.

When I hear that I wonder if there is really still something amiss in the rig and/or perhaps expectations for a certain kind of sound or recording quality are just not realistic.

I know its a subject of debate. I have no upgrade bugs currently because I can listen to almost anything and enjoy it, even though most have their limitations. That's exactly where I want to be. The good recordings sound exactly the way I think they should, and lesser ones sound good enough to enjoy almost all the time. At least part of it is managing expectations. Few recordings sound alike and most have at least some enjoyable elements.

Do the bad recordings really sound worse or just sound that way more relative to the good ones?