ARC ls26 vs.SF Line-3/se

Saxo,

Which tube equipment does not have heat related damage? I have seen/heard many ARC VT series power amp failing due to poor tube layout and heat damage, but I will not declare it a poor sounding product though I do prefer SF Power 2/3 over VT-100/200. Same goes for other ARC pre or other tube gears out there.

And what's a dated design? If you can put in plain English what ARC has done that make them so much more advanced, many of us will be delighted to read. Or how SF circuit was dated? I am an EE by training, though my specialty is in semiconductor manufacturing so I feel I am not qualified to make comments on circult layout. I think Spaz is asking a question that related to sound, not design, board layout, circuit paramenters, etc. Good sound is often the execution of fine parts selection and circuit design, does not have to be SOTA to sound superb. Take the venerable Marantz model 9 or McIntosh 275, they were not SOTA back then and far from SOTA now, but why are they so desirable still after 30+ years?

This question has been asked before on Audiogon and many many owners have vouched the reliablity of their SF L2/3. You can't expect a tube gear to perform w/o issue when users start to try out NOS tubes that perform slightly out of the designed operating range, it's like modifying your car engine and call your car unreliable afterward.

So let's stick to the thread and only address the sound part.

"This question has been asked before on Audiogon and many owners have vouched for the reliability of their SF L2/3."
You said it Semi... if this is the point where all the SF L2/3 owners come in to back you on this, consider it done; there are plenty of us who couldn't have said it better than you did. My L3 is remarkably reliable and is now entering its 7th year of outstanding service while supplying phenomenal music to my life on a daily basis, (BTW Semi, your description of its exemplary sonics was 'spot on'). Getting back to that 'sound part' : AR has been a cornerstone of excellent tubed electronics and the latest reviews and overall feedback of their new Ref 3 has been a testament to their prowess. My personal experience with them is outdated, as previous auditions have only included an LS-16 and Ref 1, back in their days. -No one has to say they've had great strides since then and I'm sure the LS-26 is an excellent example of their progress but the L3 is still probably better compared as above, to the Ref 3. (IM Humble O). Good luck and happy Lissn'n.

You don't need to upgrade the line 3 is an outstanding pre I think even if you did upgrade you wouldn't hear that much of a difference.

Didn't want to take this thread in the wrong direction, but Fjn04 you are right, I wanted to point out that the SF Line 3SE is truly a preamp that can compete at the highest level with the best ARC has to offer.

The ARC Ref 3 is a very high quality reference preamp that conveys the ARC house sound and is a great piece of gear in the right system, possibly the last preamp you will need for a long time. For me, the "house sound" of the SF gear is different; being neutral, controlled, accurate, quiet and less euphonic than most tube gear. If you talk to Chris at PCX he will tell you that there are aspects of the Line 3 circuit design that are unique, leading edge innovations that have never been repeated since then. Never heard of QC issues with SF gear, quite the opposite I believe. As time goes on the SF Line 3SE will become more appreciated as one of those designs that stand the test of time. It seems in North America we have to upgrade to the "latest & greatest". Compare that with many knowledgeable audiophiles in Japan, Germany and Hong Kong who seek out the best in performance, get together and compare notes, do actual side by side comparisons and very often the most desirable equipment turns out to be reference gear from the past. It also means that you don't keep changing gear for 'upgraditis' reasons. I wish I still lived in Hong Kong!

Bottom line is that the Line 3SE is a high quality reference piece, not outdated at all, and will not be the weak link in your system. Do I say that as a proud owner of a Line3 - of course. But I also say it, by direct comparison with another reference preamp in my system and evaluations against other high quality preamps, such as the very accomplished Simaudio Moon P5LE, which also resided in my system, and the Kora Eclipse, which is also a nice piece (shame about the lack of support in N.A. for that brand).

Steve

Chris at PCX is a salesman, just as he was as president of Sonic Frontiers, and he knows how to do it well.

Frankly, it gets tiring to hear defensive outcrys from SF groupies.

Fact in point, ARC (William Johnson, among his other designers) are veteran electronic engineers, unlike SF, which was just a company started by a couple enterprising individuals who farmed out the design of their circuits to engineers of no particular great talent. Some good reviews by Dick Olsher and others at Stereophile catapulted them to a position loftier than deserved. My take? Too many audiophiles with limited musical discernment boast of the supposed sonic superiorities of what are, at best, mediocre pieces.

To call the Power 2/3 superior to the VT100/200 is simply ludicruous. Neither are the ARC pieces top flight in sonics. It's just that the Power 2/3 are less so.