Audio Research Reference 6SE line preamplifier Page 2

After switching among all four preamps, noting sonic differences, and filling 3 pages of notes with superlatives, I was forced to take a break of several days. During that time, I kept asking every wine connoisseur I knew, including the 42 members of the San Francisco Audiophile Society who logged in to our prescheduled 2.5 hour chat—Michael Fremer, Herb Reichert, and I are doing another Zoom event with SFAS close to Thanksgiving—if they could tell me what particular wine in what special wine glass might serve as a metaphor for the clear, shiny, polished sound I was hearing. SFAS member Lawrence (Larry) Brown supplied a perfect answer: a Willamette Pinot Noir in a Riedel glass.

My first postbreak listen was in the COVID-19–mandated masked company of Erik Owen, co-owner of Gig Harbor Audio (footnote 3), and his 21-year-old daughter, Natalia. As befits listening during the pandemic, they shared the sweet spot on the front sofa while I sat in the back, way over to the left. With my neighbors' permission—I warned them that it might be loud, and that they could cry uncle at any time—I also left the door of the music room open to increase air circulation.

The three of us soon narrowed down our track choices from an initial six to the two most telling: the hi-rez remastering of Dolly Parton's less-than-superbly-recorded "I Will Always Love You (Original Version)" from Jolene (Qobuz 24/96 FLAC) and Yello's hot-on-top, depth-plumbing, wall-to-wall "Electrified II" from Toy (Tidal 24/48 FLAC). Both tracks include recitations: Dolly does her best to sound sincere as she repeats, in deadpan fashion, words that might embarrass a Hallmark card writer, while Yello's Dieter Meier's tongue remains firmly planted in cheek.

1020arc.ins

In a nutshell—"nuts" being the operative part of the term, because that's how I felt—I discovered that the REF 6SE sounded very different than it had a few days earlier. Much of the tonal beauty that had momentarily caused me to hold my breath remained, but the shiny polish and transparency that had knocked me over was gone. The REF 6SE unquestionably fattened up Dolly's voice, brought out the back-up singers in ways I found quite pleasing, and delivered extremely tight, gut-shaking bass, but there was an opaqueness to the sound, coupled with a lack of focus to the leading edge of tones, that stood in sharp contrast to the openness and clarity I experience with the Rossini itself controlling volume and no preamp in the chain.

Of course, I didn't say that to Erik. Not only can I not share my feelings about a product before a review is published; I also didn't want to influence what he and Natalia thought. So I confined my comments to "Hmm, that was really interesting."

A few days later, Erik succinctly summarized his feelings in an email that corroborated what I'd heard. "Listening to the Dolly Parton and Yello tracks, the AR sounded full and organic," he wrote. "Then, going to the Rossini DAC straight as the preamp, I felt the music was quite a bit more direct. Not fair to judge something from 30 minutes of listening, but the raw grip of the Rossini felt more intimate and real."

As for the other preamps, the MBL N11 was by far the warmest of the lot, with excellent bass. The well-over-twice-as-expensive D'Agostino was the giant killer (as in giant who kills, not killer of giants), with more color, bigger images than with the Rossini solo, a soundstage larger in all directions and set farther back, and the strongest bass. It blew Erik away. At the other end of the price spectrum, the Benchmark LA4, which costs less than a sixth of what the ARC REF 6SE costs, proved the least colorful and engaging of the lot, with recessed highs and a rather flat presentation. Although the LA4's sound improved when I added the manual's suggested 10dB boost and disabled its unused inputs, the listening experience was an object lesson in the axiom that as vitally important as measurements may be—I write for Stereophile because I consider measurements essential—measurements alone cannot predict how equipment will sound. Cue Bill Johnson or J. Gordon Holt.

A lot more solo listening sessions followed. On one occasion, I fished through new classical/new music recordings for solo piano, single and massed voices, small ensemble, and full orchestra—titles included Sarah Kirkland Snider's Mass for the Endangered (New Amsterdam/Nonesuch Records NWAM141, 24/96 WAV), Robert Honstein's Soul House (New Amsterdam 24/192 WAV), Lisa Bielawa's Blueprints I (16/44.1 WAV), tenor Jonas Kaufmann's new recital of German song (lieder), Selige Stunde (Sony 636976, 24/96 WAV), Reinaldo Moya's Hearing It Getting Dark (Furious Artisan 24/96 FLAC), Eric Huebner's recital of Ligeti's piano music, De'Sordre (24/96 FLAC, FCR269), and Shostakovich's Cello Concertos (24/96 WAV, Hyperion CDA68340) performed by cellist Alban Gerhardt and the WDR Sinfonieorchester under Jukka-Pekka Saraste—hoping to find something I felt moved to review.

I devoted the most time to the Shostakovich. I loved how moving the second movement sounded through the REF 6SE. The preamp's extra touch of warmth and roundness—its fatter sound—delivered massed orchestral strings with added grace and beckoned me to move deeper into the music without altering its emotional impact. Yet, I wished for more transparency.

In all fairness, when I removed the preamp and relied solely on the Rossini's volume control, I found that while the dCS DAC/Clock combo set the cello farther back in a more open, transparent, marginally airier and more natural-sounding soundstage, its plainer presentation, with less weight and richness to the solo cello, was in some respects less alluring. Which leads to the question: What's more important in music as bare and emotionally devastating as Shostakovich's, seductive allure or raw emotional truth?

Are you happy? Are you truly happy?

We all need support
Given how much I'd loved the sound of the REF 6, I'd expected to be blown away by the REF 6SE. Instead, after that first glorious experience, I admired its sound, albeit from a distance. What was going on?

1020arc.side

When I discussed my befuddlement with Editor Jim Austin, he suggested I remove the preamp's Nordost Odin 2 power cable from the Nordost QB8 power distributor and plug it, first, into the AudioQuest Niagara 5000 power conditioner and, next, directly into the wall. I did, and I concluded that my existing power setup sounded the smoothest and most musical.

Next, I recalled my system setup when I first discovered the beauties of the REF 6. While amps and cables were identical, I was using the dCS Vivaldi DAC and discontinued Scarlatti clock, and Grand Prix's Monaco rack with acrylic shelves. Nordost Titanium SortKones supported virtually all components. Now I was using the dCS Rossini DAC/clock combo, Grand Prix's far more resolving and neutral Monza rack with bamboo shelves, and a carefully chosen combination of Wilson Audio Pedestals, Ansuz Darkz T2S resonance support feet, IsoAcoustics Orea footers, Nordost Titanium and Bronze SortKones, and Grand Prix Audio Apex footers. That's a lot of differences.

With all those changes, the reference system typically delivers deeper and tighter bass, a fuller midrange, more accurate soundstage depth and boundaries—the image is definitely set farther back, with more air around it—and better-balanced sound from top to bottom. What I now hear from recordings of singers, instrumental soloists, ensembles, and orchestras I've heard live is far more akin to what I have experienced in the concert hall.

My mind turned to my recent interviews with "engineer's engineer" Jürgen Reis of MBL (footnote 4) and Michael Børresen of Ansuz/Aavik/Børresen. Both designers emphasized the importance of fine-tuning systems and paying particular attention to equipment supports, racks, and cabling. To quote Reis, who was responding to a query about whether he thought I'd prefer his Noble line preamp or the more expensive Reference line preamp, "If you had the Reference preamp, you might need to change the rack or feet a bit to match your taste."

I had neither ability nor desire to change the rack—the Monza is demonstrably superior to what I had before—but I could certainly change my footers. In short order, I discovered that Nordost Titanium SortKones added focus and edge, which benefitted the REF 6SE. Now timbres sounded more differentiated—quite beautiful, in fact. With leading edges more defined, the midrange also stood out in a far more distinctive manner.

1020arc.close

The REF 6SE's warmth and vibrancy of color, prominent midrange, and seemingly more dramatic dynamic contrasts made me want to listen more and deeper. "I just love the low sounds of Gerhardt's cello, the smoothness of the fatter midrange, and the brilliance of the high piccolos," I wrote in my notes. Yes, the Rossini by itself had tighter focus, but without the preamp the sound was less adorned, with a less seductive cushion of warmth. Whenever I removed the REF 6SE, I missed the extra beauty that it brought to music. I might not have felt impelled to swear on the Holy Bible that I was absolutely totally 100% happy, but feeling like a doggie who is assured all the belly rubs and kisses she wants sure brought me closer to feeling content.

During my final listen, I returned to Yello's room-shaking Electrified II. Anyone who thinks a tube preamp's bass response cannot equal solid-state bass reach and control needs to hear how exciting and explosive bass sounds through the Audio Research REF 6SE. That, combined with a fat midrange and a lively (but not prominent) top, contribute greatly to a unique sound that is more than the sum of its parts.

Conclusion
Remember those days long ago when, if you or one of your roommates picked a bunch of flowers in a field and brought them back to the dorm or apartment, someone would stick them in an empty plastic yogurt container, place it on a table, and then forget about them? Decades later, having learned some of life's lessons, when someone brings home a similar bunch of flowers, you now devote time to carefully cutting their stems and arranging them in a vase that greatly enhances the presentation.

System tuning is much the same. The essential building blocks—the components—remain unchanged, but the context in which they are presented brings out their magic. What was formerly "really good hi-fi" blossoms into an audiophile bouquet.

The Audio Research 6SE line-stage preamplifier is a bouquet with a fragrance all its own, one that you may well find irresistibly seductive. If you want to hear all it has to offer, pay particular attention to context, and give it all the attention it deserves. Once you do, you may very well find yourself leaning back with a look of contentment on your face as you vow to return to it again and again.


Footnote 3: I extended the invitation to Erik only after checking with Jim Austin and ensuring that, since his store carried none of the brands he would hear, there would be no conflict of interest.

Footnote 4: Quoting John Atkinson, who knows an engineer's engineer when he sees one.

COMPANY INFO
Audio Research Corp
6655 Wedgwood Rd. N, Suite 115
Maple Grove, MN 55311
(763) 577-9700
ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
CG's picture

This beggars the obvious question - Which provides the magic? The setup or the gear?

Certainly it's a combination, but is setup undervalued? It reads to me like the system setup for Jason was roughly as significant in defining the sound quality and appeal as the new preamp. Perhaps I'm reading a lot into this, but what's going on? Is this like cooking, where the preparation and the seasoning often matters as much or more than the raw foodstuffs?

I've often marveled at how enthusiasts are willing to buy preamp after preamp, as one example, but will not even consider adding modest acoustic treatment of their listening quarters. Is that really sensible?

One famous owner of an equally famous cable company spoke many years ago in Stereophile how the selling prices of his products were based on the magnitude of sound improvement brought by using those cables over others. The actual cost of the product for him and the rest in the supply chain was irrelevant. If a certain cable made as much improvement as jumping to a three times as expensive amplifier, shouldn't the pricing for that cable be the same as for the amplifier? Whether you agree with that pricing philosophy or not, and it certainly has fanned some of the flames associated with the cable argument, there must be some basis in the results since people continue to buy more expensive cables. Herd mentality?

I'm not offering an opinion here. Merely asking.

Allen Fant's picture

Bravo! JVS
I really enjoyed the introduction leading into this gear review.
A Reference System + Equally Good Music = Happiness! Simple.

latinaudio's picture

... your article dismantles all comments directed to overvalue the relative low cost and high quality of the Benchmark LA4. It's a good device, but it's "light years" behind the best despite its flawless specs.
I'm tired of reading from objectivists that Benchmark products are "supreme" just because JA achieves excellent results when measuring them.
Audio Research, Dagostino, Ayre, DCS, etc. are out of my reach, but from what you and other reviewers have expressed they undoubtedly sound "in another league". So no: the Benchmark products are not what its fans say they are: cheaper yes, but better never...

Kursun's picture

Yes, the more money you pay sweeter it gets, for some!
As a matter of fact, overpricing is a well known marketing strategy as a bait for those people.

latinaudio's picture

If it sounds better it's simply better, what else is it about when we evaluate equipment? If it´s more expensive isn´t necessarily better (PMC fact.8 signature comes to mind).
Until the day you know what to measure exactly (and how to do it!)you will have to trust your ears absolutely. Like the ones from the stereophile reviewers, which is why I assume everyone reads this magazine, or not?

Glotz's picture

... Does not dismantle the other reviews that this and other magazines provided.

You rush to negative conclusion in the same way others rush to praise it.

What about the amp's input and output impedance mismatches with the LA4? JA specifically addresses the good match for the ARC Ref 6SE with the D'agostino, but does that imply it's also a good match for the LA4. Dubious.

While I do agree the objectivists are largely full of it, and on this site they have too overhyped various components in the line, but does it mean that JVS was 'correct' in his dismissal of the preamp to the others?

What about the additive nature of the Ref 6SE? The treble and bass in particular have been addressed over time and tailored. Is that less accurate as a result? Yeah, probably. Does it matter to great sound? No. It sure don't!

I have heard this preamp for about an hour with 160M's with equal gear in a well-set up dealer's system, with great a great LP playback in tow.
I love it!

But that doesn't necessarily mean that the LA4 is worse or less accurate, just different, and different in JVS' system. He, rather, decided to make over-arching claims that the king has no clothes and referencing JGH and others.

I prefer if on the other more 'subjectivist' end of the spectrum we would ease up on the pronouncements that so well polarize audiophiles, or at least refrain from pure 'finality', when the job is to report on what one hears...

tonykaz's picture

It's a nonsense question, isn't it?

A person must discover the totally unique creature that they are.

It can take decades to purge cultural norm guidance.

Once someone stops being the person someone else demanded, life begins it's wonderful and exciting journey.

No-one is a Black Sheep, the people saying Black Sheep are the problem.

Be the unique person you are and celebrate life, everyone will stand with you. ( even if you're a trouble-maker like me )

I've always been pulling for you.

Two thumbs up

Tony in Venice

doug beechwood's picture

So the unexplored question here is... why is there a 20A IEC power connector on a preamp that draws 130 watts? And what connector is on the other end of the supplied power cord; a 15A or a 20A?

The specs shows the unit suitable for operation at 240VAC. Does this mean it has a switching power supply?

I'm awaiting delivery on 290 lbs. of an air conditioner & furnace. Installed by others, with a city building permit, and a 3rd party HERS test. Painfully expensive, but still $7000 cheaper than this item.

stereosnarf's picture

I've owned several pieces of ARC gear and they are great, but...

It really is all about the sum total of all the components and it's tough to know in advance what plays nicely with what. A mismatch of just one component can leave you feeling cheated.

An example; I own a Parasound JC5. I also auditioned the A21+. They are great amps... until you hook them up to a Magnapan speaker. That pairing is awful. The bass shrinks dramatically and the highs bloom a bit too much. Switch over to some cone-driver speakers (Ryans) and suddenly all is well. The difference is stunning. I can drive the Maggies with ARC or Manley gear and the Maggies and Ryans sound much more similar.(and great)

In that light, it's even easier to understand why manufacturers want you to use their components throughout your system. Theoretically, all mismatch has been eliminated.

tonykaz's picture

ARC was the most desirable Audiophile Brand.

I owned a few pieces and thought it was over rated but it had a nice industrial feel for owners.

Conrad Johnson, that I represented, was also over rated ( in my opinion ).

Today I wouldn't own either brand at eBay prices, much less new prices. ( I will buy at Yard Sale prices for resale ).

A person gets Bragging rights with ARC and pricy replacement tubes.

Still, ARC stands by all their stuff, no matter how old. Gotta love 'em for that.

and

I miss my local ARC Dealer, Harry Francis of Audio Dimensions in Birmingham, Mi. Hello Harry if you are reading this, I wish you were here in Venice-- I'll buy you a nice Sea Food Dinner at Sharky's when you're in town !

Tony in Venice

JHL's picture

...tinged toward negative personal anecdote from the past that dings the integrity of manufacturers or the choices of listeners isn't as pertinent as commentary on the real sound and owner feel of contemporary equipment.

It's free press. Commenters should remember the topic and show some appreciation for the effort to produce it.

tonykaz's picture

Accurate phrasing for sure.

I buy and sell this type of gear on the regular. ( eBay and elsewhere ).

My opinions are based on personal experience ( decades of personal experience ).

My 'Value for Money' equation is the main ingredient colouring my opinions that I'm able to share, they are just as valid as your opinion of my writings.

I share my Price Tranche philosophy with Steve Gutenburg's comfort level in pricing.

Super pricy gear deserves plenty of extra scrutiny and disapproval when justified.

ARC's integrity is outstanding, their dealers are typically outstanding.

Owner Feel is real for ARC, I agree.

ARC's Value for Money is supported by the outfits continuing Service ( for a hefty price ).

ARC has a kind of Aston Martin luxury positioning in the Marketplace.

I'm always happy to buy another ARC piece, I've just never had one that stood out as a keeper and I'm a little suspicious of reviews touting an ARC piece in the Concluding comments. ( which I suspect the reviewer MUST write )

Tony in Venice

ps. if you own an ARC piece, share your performance evaluation experience.

ps 2). the high MSRP Retail Price of this piece is what drives support for the higher used prices of ARC gear.

JHL's picture

...how to string that all together to reflect or expand on the article but you're right that opinions happen. Some hew closer to pertinent reality than others too, which if we're on about sound and hardware, helps.

tonykaz's picture

I've never owned any piece of Audio Gear that performed as well as a Magazine Reviewer reported. I attribute it to Manufacturers carefully selecting pieces to send to magazines. Typically, any two ARC SP 6b's will sound different. Certainly, the Conrad-Johnson Premere 1 Amps, I sold, did not sound like the reporting that Tony Cordisman did on the original review sample ( a rave review ), the new ones I sold ( as a full line dealer ) were not wonderful in any way. ( the MV-45a was the Pavaratti of the Conrad-Johnson range ).

Tony in Venice

JHL's picture

...that about the only way I can, which is as an opinionated negative anecdote from the past with a side of projected manufacturer incompetence.

How it reflects on JVS and the 6SE is unknown.

tonykaz's picture

Jason just wrote his best piece yet, he's a unique person with something to say.

ARC is ( as far as I can tell ) a wheezing Dinosaur, attempting to recapture the illusive Bill Z's tremendous success.

Magnapan, on the other hand, remains the Outstanding Audiophile Contributor from the frozen north of Minnesota.

My opinions, only!

Tony in Venice

JHL's picture

...are a lot of great engineers and a lot of entirely competent manufacturers.

Given that neither original company or chief engineer remain, and given that you're projecting intent against type, how does criticism follow?

tonykaz's picture

Audio Gear priced at Automobile price levels leaves the gate wide open for generous criticism.

The gear should sound outstanding but it typically doesn't ( my experience ).

You can critique me for being critical, if you like.

Being an Audiophile is all about discrimination and critical evaluations.

Plus, there is plenty of room for differences of opinion.

I like ARC for it's ability to attract buyers not for it's sonic performance.

so, I buy ARC at the right price and sell.

Tony in Venice

JHL's picture

...more followup about ARC or its engineers or purported values then. An improvement over imagining them.

I imagine a world in which comments threads trailing free editorial content apply to better sound and camaraderie, not asserting a corporate ethic or quizzing the guy taking the gear home or the socio-economic failings of whomever. John Lennonists will appreciate that stereophile's utopia.

tonykaz's picture

I imagine a world of wonderful music not based on pricy.

All of us are peaceable comrades with unique and valid opinions.

We have a passion for our little niche hobby, mine has been lifelong.

I also have a certain love for Stereophile and JA1 since his HFN&RR days, I don't subscribe or read the other Audiophile Glossys. Stereophile's Editorial Content Percentage is the largest of any Journal I'm aware of. ( I do follow the Audiophiliac on YouTube, of course, and miss Mr.Dudley & Tyll )

Stereophile attracts the intellectual vein of Readership and commenters with it's outstanding Editorial Guidance and mostly verbose & poetic reviewers.

Stereophile is "Home Sweet Home" for Audiophiles Globally.

Tony in Venice

MatthewT's picture

Ever get boring and repetative to write? It does reading it.

"I'm always happy to buy another ARC piece, I've just never had one that stood out as a keeper and I'm a little suspicious of reviews touting an ARC piece in the Concluding comments. ( which I suspect the reviewer MUST write )"

teched58's picture

Seeing your (tonykaz) sig, all this time I thought you were in Venice Venice (i.e., Italy). Who'd have thunk it's actually Florida!

tonykaz's picture

Florida is Quality of Life!

Venice Italy is history !

Venice Florida is an incubator for old people, swimming in the pool, year round sun shine, rainbows weaving thru shades of gray rain clouds, fresh seafood at the Amish Market and very little culture.

Italy is thick with the Cultural Civilization of my ancestors.

I have a Colnago Master lite steel bicycle hanging in my office, it's as close as I'll probably get to living in Italy. ( from the Eddy Merckx era )

Tony in Venice

FredisDead's picture

JVS is no doubt a very nice guy. But IMHO his talents lie in show coverage. His reviews are often too much a personal pursuit and a reflection of himself rather than the subject of his review. It as though where you, me, and all of us would look at the subject of this review and see an ARC Ref 6SE, he is looking at a mirror. The new editor made a mistake. This review should have been assigned to Mike so that the rest of us could read something meaningful, particularly if we want to know the qualitative difference between the Ref 6 and Ref 6SE.
This review is absolutely worthless. In fact, it is outright painful to read.

tonykaz's picture

I've been overly harsh too.

I need to soften up.

I'm blaming my anger on what the donkeys did to my Bernie.

Oh well, moving on.

Sorry isn't strong enough.

Tony in Venice

gtaphile's picture

I wish the review samples of these hybrids would include NOS replacement tubes as part of the kit. In my opinion having played with all aspects that one should play with (power conditioning, PC's, IC', equipment stand, footers, room treatments etc.) to optimize the preamp, the NOS changeover is the largest improvement. Clearly the opaqueness is lessoned as well image focus is improved.

ejlif's picture

I don't see the point of reviewing a preamp when you are digital only and running a DCS system known to be just as good if not better than running through any preamp at any price. If you have multiple sources and need switching then you are stuck with having to use a preamp but digital only, no preamp is a no brainer unless you just want to spend more money. The cables alone used are more than the cost of the preamp. 30K + for a marginal improvement and possibly worse sound is not much of a sales pitch.

Jason Victor Serinus's picture

that your statement is not true. dCS never claims its volume control is the end-all, be-all. If it did, it would not display with preamps from other companies at shows. Regardless, even if the dCS volume control were superior to every possible preamp design, it would still make a useful base point for comparison.

ejlif's picture

it is made clear by your review that a spending an additional 30K may get you nothing and if not worse sound maybe. It seems that most reviewers of DCS say ditch the preamp. I have a Rossini and clock but never had preamp with it. I'd like to add vinyl but just to much to try and find a preamp that will not actually degrade the sound of the Rossini. I think I'd go for an AD converter and phono pre before going to a regular analog preamp.

Jason Victor Serinus's picture

Glad to learn that you're asking based on personal experience. While the AR preamp definitely costs less than $30,00 - it's under $20,000 - the preamp I now use with my Rossini DAC/Clock combo is the D'Agostino Momentum HD preamp. It's more than $30,000 - $40,000 to be exact. Please see my review. I never cease to be amazed by this baby. It heightens color contrasts, but not in an exaggerated way; enlarges images in natural proportion; and is a monster when it comes to bass. It's also as smooth as can be. I had heard it with the Vivaldi stack at at least one store demo and perhaps a show before it came to me for review.

Ortofan's picture

... "heightens color contrasts", "enlarges images in natural proportion" and "is a monster when it comes to bass", is this device somehow extracting additional information from the input signal or is it creating these artifacts?

Is it simply a preamp - as in providing gain, volume adjustment and input switching functions - or is it additionally performing some sort of processing function to subjectively enhance the audio signals passing through it?

Jason Victor Serinus's picture

Your comment presupposes that there are absolute colors and image sizes on a recording, and that any preamp that, in contrast to other preamps, enlarges images, heightens contrasting colors, and transmits more bass information creates artifacts that are the results of "processing" and "enhancement." I would argue instead, based on what I hear, that the D'Agostino Momentum HD preamplifier moves reproduction one step closer to the real thing.

Take, for example, Seattle Symphony's recording of Richard Strauss' Also Sprach Zarathustra. I attended one of the two performances from which the live recording was assembled, and sat 8-10 rows back. There is no way that my Alexia 2s and the rest of my components, in my 16 x 20 x 9 room, can reproduce the sheer volume of the instruments that created the huge, glorious sounds I heard. My system can't move as much air, and if I turn the volume higher in an attempt to do so, I overload the room and potentially damage my hearing. The D'Agostino Momentum HD preamp moves me one step closer to what I heard compared to any other preamp I've ever used in my system, or what I hear when I rely on the dCS Rossini DAC's volume control. It takes me one step closer to the truth of my actual experience.

Having used the now departed from Serinusland dCS Vivaldi DAC in my system, I know that if I had it in my system instead of the Rossini, images and bass would be larger and weightier, colors would be even more saturated, and instrumental textures and the contrasts between them would be more palpable. Is the Vivaldi, in turn, adding information, bits, artifacts, or whatever you might wish to call them? Is it enhancing the signal? I would suggest instead that it enables me to hear more of what's on the recording. To my ears, the D'Agostino Momentum HD preamp does the same thing.

Ortofan's picture

... wasn't the Audio Research Reference 6SE the subject of the discussion?

Nevertheless, the question remains as to what aspects of the transfer function of a preamp (D'Agostino Momentum HD, or otherwise) might possibly account for its purported ability to allow a listener to subjectively "hear more of what's on the recording" than when it is not in the system?

X