Flex2: I am not surprised with your results at all. I still prefer the performance of 6922-based line stages over the 6H30 tube.
I had the LS5 MK II for several years when the Ref1 came out. I immediately compared the two and much preferred the LS5. And two other ARC fans did the same thing and we all preferred the LS5. The LS5 MK III came out a year later with greater tonal coherency and more resolution but the overall LS5 magic remained. If you really like the Ref 1, you should try to audition the LS5 in any version.
I wanted so much to investigate the Ref2 II with Amperex, Telefunken, Mullard or Valvo tubes. But a short time with the BAT 31SE and then onto the Aesthetix Callisto Sig., there was no going back to 6H30 based line stages. And now the Aria WV, first with Amperex PQ 6922 and now with the RCA 12BH7, is so far ahead of the others I had, that I have no desire to bother with 6H30 tubes.
I had the LS5 MK II for several years when the Ref1 came out. I immediately compared the two and much preferred the LS5. And two other ARC fans did the same thing and we all preferred the LS5. The LS5 MK III came out a year later with greater tonal coherency and more resolution but the overall LS5 magic remained. If you really like the Ref 1, you should try to audition the LS5 in any version.
I wanted so much to investigate the Ref2 II with Amperex, Telefunken, Mullard or Valvo tubes. But a short time with the BAT 31SE and then onto the Aesthetix Callisto Sig., there was no going back to 6H30 based line stages. And now the Aria WV, first with Amperex PQ 6922 and now with the RCA 12BH7, is so far ahead of the others I had, that I have no desire to bother with 6H30 tubes.