Aesthetix Calypso VS ARC Reference 3

05-28-08: Jafox

The Callisto was way beyond twice as good as the Calypso because of the Callisto's ability to portray space, body of instruments and to carry the sound far beyond the edges of the speakers.

I guess it all depends on opinions of what "twice as good" means. IMHO, as with most things in audio, you pay 100% more (twice as much) for that extra 5-10% improvement (law of diminishing returns). I feel that if item A is way beyond twice as good as item B, item B must be broken. I don't feel that once you're in the high end, that anything KILLS anything else, I call that salesman speak.

That said John, you haven't heard the ARC Ref 3, and I haven't heard the Callisto. I VERY highly doubt that I would believe it was twice as good though, let alone way beyond twice as good, just from my previous 30 years in the hobby, and what twice as good means to me.

Cheers,
John

Not sure how you measure the last 5-10%, or how you calulate twice as good? But to me, gear that has the ability to get it right (last 5-10% ?) is always at least twice as good as gear that can almost get there. I also think that extra performance is well worth the money at any cost.
Sadly, this does mean I can afford to get it.

I have had the pleasure of owning both pre amps.At its price point the Calypso is very competent,I never experienced noise issues.The REF 3 just has that emotional immediacy and correct sense of timing that was lacking in the Calypso.

In my system the Calypso just lacked dynamics and soundstaging and was a little grainy compared to the PS Audio PCA-2. I would like to try the ARC myself but was impressed with the Pass Labs X0. Although it could be a little bright on some recordings, it was very dynamic and transparent with a great soundstage. The low level detail was outstanding. But the remote and user interface is rather poor.

Have you considered the Modwright LS 36.5? It is the price of the Calyypso and the performance of the REF3.