ARC Reference 150 or PAss X350.5 for summit

[murphys33]

I have recently changed my pass pre XP20 to the ARC Ref 5SE. Amp is a pass labs X350.5 and it is driving a pair of martin logan summits. I would like to know if the Audio research Reference 150 may be a step up from my current amp amd of it is able to drive the Summits?

 

[edwinr]

I love ARC stuff, BUT Nelson Pass amplifiers are a no brainer for Martin Logan speakers.

 

[TomDac]

What Edwin said.. Your X350.5 is a phenomenal amp and a perfect match with your Summits. I don't know a lot about ARC gear - I'm sure it's good - but it would be hard to beat what you're currently using.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Murphy,

What differences did you notice between the Pass Labs and ARC preamps?

I agree with the others regarding the merits of the 350.5. A very well respected piece of equipment.

Two thoughts:

1) Many support the choice of a tube preamp and a solid state amplifier. Best of both worlds. Tube and solid state.

2) Many support having the same manufacturer for the preamp and amplifier. Sonic synergy brings out the best in both units.

I've also read quite a few posts stating that users who have heard both prefer the ARC REF 75 over the 150.

Finally, I own the CJ ET5 tube preamp and the Pass Labs 250.5 SS amp. I like it alot.

Suggest you audition (if possible) the ARC amp with the ARC pre and determine what combo you think is best.

GG

 

[Brad225]

I agree with Gordon you really need to listen to both as they are both excellent choices and will have a different sound.
Though not the same I have CLSIIz's driven by ARC Ref 3 and VTM200's. The ARC amps have a very large, spacious, detailed sound stage/image that will relax you and draw you into the music.

I have listened to Audiosudecton (George's) SummitX's driven by a Pass MP20 pre (?) and XA 160.5 amps (?) and I can tell you that the dynamics and imaging are amazing. To me it creates a large sound/image that is much more forward and intense than my system. Don't take that as me suggesting it's not in a good way. The staging is such that you can sit well off center and not have the speaker you are closer to dominate the sound. The image still fills from one to the other.
George has spent considerable time effort and funds on the synergy of his system and it is obvious when you hear it. With much work you could recreate this sound.

I think you are talking about two different sounds with these manufactures and there is no way for you to know which combination of pieces you will prefer. Though if you were to pick a pre and monos in any combination you would have a great sounding system. Only your ears will be able to tell you if it is the best.

Were I ever to try SS amps instead of tubes my first would be Pass,

 

[murphys33]

Thank you for yr thoughts and opinions. Adding a arc pre gave me a very relaxed presentation and that drew me closer to the music. The pass xp 20 was a little quieter but gave an overall sterile presentation in comparison. Arc pre gave me a more lively feel which is addictive. I guess I preferred the tube as I started on tubes and went SS via pass and am now contemplating going back to tubes. Given that the summit have dip in impedance on high frequencies, I wonder if the arc ref 150 could handle such a situation without rolling off the highs.

 

[Rich]

I have the ARC Ref 3, Sanders Sound monoblocs, and Summits in one system, and the Sanders pre with the Pass X-350.5 driving Ascents in my second system. Based on what I know of all these components, I would stick with what you have. You have already attained most of what tubes have to offer by switching to the tube pre. Bringing in the tube amps will add little at this point and may bring in some negatives. The X-350.5 is one of the top amps out there for Logan's, in my opinion. I seriously doubt the ARC amps will be an improvement over the Pass.

 

[Pneumonic]

Impossible for one of us to say how they will compare to each other. As others have said the only way to know for sure is to have a listen to both connected to gear in your system, in your room, and listening to music at the volume levels you like to listen too.

Objectively, the ARC won't have a linear frequency response when it is connected to your Summit's. Whether or not this would be detectable is anyone's guess. OTOH, the Pass will have a perfectly linear frequency response, along with inaudible levels of distortion and noise, meaning it won't have a sound per se unless it is stressed to it's voltage output limits and clipped.

 

[Harlequin]

Murphy,

I've also read quite a few posts stating that users who have heard both prefer the ARC REF 75 over the 150.

GG

My apologies to the OP if I stray a little from the main element of this thread however I do feel that a little clarity and balance may be in order here .

I suspect that you are referring in part to this thread over on AA ? ~

http://www.audioaficionado.org/audio-research/24023-my-first-audio-research.html

Having myself demo'ed both the Ref 75 and Ref 150 with ML speakers as well as Wilson , Quad ESL , Harbeth for the sake of expediency I shall re-post my initial thoughts from the aforementioned thread ~

" I do feel that we need to consider this point most carefully when comparing the Ref75 vs the Ref150 .

Starting with the most obvious consideration ~

Of the few opinions that we have had reported to us , here and elsewhere , how many were formed as a result of an A/B demonstration incorporating the same ancillary equipment and/or system .

What were the relative running hours clocked up on each unit . The same model will perform differently with 300 hours on the clock as compared with 1000 hours , let alone unmatched hours upon two disparate models .

Were the valves fitted within each amplifier stock ARC factory Sovtek 6h30's and 6550's or a combination of alternates .

Were the KT120's utilized a matched set for both amplifiers , disparate output topology's making this an exponential factor even more important maintaining the Ref 150 at factory output distortion levels .

microstrip also touched upon another , perhaps subjective point, in ~

" IMHO the REF75 asks for an "easier" and less ambitious speaker "

Perhaps 'less demanding' would be appropriate here , however his point remains germane as to the voicing of speakers , particularly the mid-range . Where less dynamics and scale are required of the speaker I feel that the Ref 150 excels in the mid-range equitably as well as the 75 , however , the converse can place the 75 noticeably out of its comfort zone . "

 

[Gordon Gray]

I don't visit the AA site.

I do visit / post on the WBF site.

GG

 

[hifinutt]

I have used the arc ref 5 pre and the ref 5se with solid state belles mb200 with my summit x
pretty damm awesome , personally I prefer tube pre and ss amp although my current combo tom evans vibe/pulse with msb s200 amp is very enthralling and deeply moving but not quite up to the arc with the pre amp

 

[amey01]

I would like to know if the Audio research Reference 150 may be a step up from my current amp amd of it is able to drive the Summits?

Someone's opinion might be that ARC is better. Someone's opinion might be that the Pass is better. Does it matter? Listen for yourself and use what you like best.