Audio Research SP16L vs. SP17L

[kitjv]

Do I understand correctly that the SP17L replaces the SP16L? Can someone familiar with both highlight the differences for me? I have read the specs on both, but I am more interested in actual audible differences. Thank you kindly.

[Briz vegas]

I heard a Reference 3 today. System sounded nice but that same system sounded great with other less expensive pre-amps as well. The guy who owned the system was very impressed to start with but ultimately felt it did not engage him at an emotional level (too clinical ? Another hifi head said it might as well be solid state - I have heard that comment about a few valve preamps recently). The guy trying the Reference 3 said the same about the SP16 that he tried.

Thats not really answering your question but thats my 2 cents.

[twitch54]

The simplest way I can describe the difference between the two is that in the "16" it took from the "9" mkII and brought it up another level (12ax7 tube compliment) , whereas the "17" borrows on the topology of the ref 3, LS-26 (6h30 tubes) for is sonic signature, at an afordable "entry level" if you will.

Now putting it into what I have heard is like this, the "16" is more typical of a 12ax7 pre-amp, one needs to be more carefull with tube selection for the 12ax7's microphonic tendencies at times, but it can possess a little more "bloom" if you will. With the "17" and the 6H30 tubes, it is more neutral / passive device with respect to it's sonic signature, and for that reason I believe it is a truthfully revealing piece of equipment.

I have had ARC pre-amps in my system for twenty years now, my present one being the LS-26, and I feel they represent a accurate handling of what ever source you feed them.

If you favor lots of midrange bloom then ARC is not for you. Cary with their exstensive use of 6sn7 tubes will give you that instead.

As always, let your ears decide !