[Caar]

When I referred that instead of a 5 I have now to put the P-9 to a 10 (or 11), I was not complaining, just stating a fact - as long as I have margin to increase the sound level to the level I want, I don't care if it is a 5 or a 50.
Just finished my music listening for today and I am liking more and more the sound I hear from the Ref9 SE V3 - decidely much better depth than with V2, the treble I decided by now that pleases me more. The midrange was superb with V2 and I can not find a difference with V3. The bass, well, I had to adjust slightly the 25Hz and 50Hzs controls of the Summits (reduce 0,5 Hz each) but that's a fact with these speakers, they are picky on the lower frequencies. Now the bass, to me, is as good as with V2 (never heard a better bass than the NuForce).
Sound spreads more to the sides of the speakers than with V2. Blackness was already to the top with V2.
Besides the depth - or holographic, if you want to call it that way - changes from V3 to V2 are noticeable but imo not that dramatic. After all, Ref 9SE V2 was already a superb amplifier so the margin to improve can not be 100%.

[worldcat]

For me changing to V3, Magic Cube, and cable's have made a huge upgrade in my system.  I have been taken to a different level, the imaging is something to die for!

[Aether Audio]

Friends,
 
As Jason mentioned, for those of you that have the Magic Cubes installed, would you mind doing us all a favor and simply remove them from your system and report back any differences that you hear?  I'm sure there are many that would be interested to know just how much of any improvement they make.  You might be surprised. 
 
Thanks! 
-Bob

[Caar]

Magic cube - I'm interested.
The report from different users about the V3 upgrade was very useful - in my case, the first audition, at hour zero, was a disapointment. But by then I knew things would improve after some time.
I hope the same happens with Magic cube - empirical experience from the first users.
Cheers.

[rustydoglim]

I have been reading these posts with some consternation. A story of high hopes, fears of disappointment, virtually child-like innocence in the expectation of wonderous joys, etc. The hours counted, the bated breathe, as each of you who implemented the upgrade sits down to listen ... again. 'Will it be better today?'
One thing that strikes me about the posts and the very few extant reviews in the press about the V3 is the absence of considerations about the effects upgrading may have on system synergy and the related matter of psycho-acoustics, i.e., our experience of sound.
Presumably, the upgrade/modification will influence our experience of the sound quality coming from the source(s) as well as the all-important preamplification we use. In other words, it is not likely that in any system there is a constant against which the effects of such upgrades/mods can be 'objectively' assessed. Is is rather not the case that the 160 hrs many of the posts cite for critical break-in time are in effect the hours are brains require to 'process' the modified sound quality from the whole system we use?

We at Nuforce always the scientific approach. We never listen to our product until it has passed a range of measurement. We are not audio alchemy     Sure, high-end audio design is part art and part science, but to us, science is the foundation (arts is doing the fine tuning with cap selection etc).

Take a look at this interesting and brief explanation of the amp's history:
http://www.nuforce.com/hi/faq/faq-V-history.html

Going from V2 to V3, a special concern/consideration was to make sure we keep the best of V2 and only improve what's lacking.  Even before many of you guys independently commented about the improvements (more balance, mid and high are better, more musical, smoother etc), the measurement results already told us what we can expect.  Frequency response got so much better (it is incredibly straight in the listening range and still extended far beyond many other amps) in V3, THD vs Freq plot also showed us that the high freq should improved.  The improvement in our feedback loop design can't be easily measured, especially with dynamic load (measurement test use passive resistor as load), but we can "guess" the outcome.  Also further improvement in ground wiring and layout resulted in lower noise.

Why didn't we put all these into the first generation? Just like all development of complex machines (CPU, software, whatever you name it), it takes time to learn and improve.

With regards to Ref 18, we are not going to make dramatic improvement (because a new generation of design takes up to 2 years or more, and it gets harder and longer).  There are more costly refinement we can make to the chassis, amp board, power supply that we can't do for Ref 9V3SE.
We haven't announced anything for Ref 18 is simply that we have no idea at this point. The prototype is not back yet 

[worldcat]

Magic cube will add much more imaging and micro detail!!! If you like that then purchase Magic Cube  

[rustydoglim]

Hello, new to this forum and i have a question

I have two ref9V3 newly updated to V3 and one of the amps do not start properly, if everything is shut down, preamp and all the other things, the amp will make this sound like its going up and down in frequense, cant find the right word for it, i am from Sweden

If i then start the preamp, Onkyo 806 receiver, the amp will turn on with a big thump and then it works like it should, i think

If i dont turn on the preamp and shut the ref 9 off it sometimes do not start again, completely dead until i unplug the powercord and plug it in again and then it is the same story all over again, WHY?

Please bare with my english, by the way: The V3 sounds great when i manage to get it right

Thomas

The upgrade is done at the distributor, not at our factory. Perhaps the signal feedback wasn't connected. There could be other reasons and you should contact support instead of trying to resolve it on this forum.

[LTMS]

The upgrade is done at the distributor, not at our factory. Perhaps the signal feedback wasn't connected. There could be other reasons and you should contact support instead of trying to resolve it on this forum.

Yes i know i should, i was just wondering if it is a problem or if it should be like this? I have no idea myself, i am at level zero of this

Thomas

[maligue]

To Casey and Jason ... thanks for responding to my "doubts" ... about impedance matching and the broader issue of 'expectations' when upgrades are available.
With regard to the former: You agree with the Prima Luna designer - overblown and ignorant remarks. Well, science being the contentious thing that history shows it to have been (and I guess audio engineering is no exception), let me quote what another illustrious audio firm thinks about the matter of impedance matching (and note: they explicitly refer to a tube preamp in relation to one of their products [PS Audio]:
"The input impedance of a power amplifier is an important issue, particularly if you are using a tube product to feed it (or if your solid state design is not a low impedance output drive).  No tube preamp should be asked to drive an input impedance of less than 30K, but the ICE modules’ native input impedance is only 10K.  This is undesirable for a tube product, causing poor bass performance and phase shift at audible frequencies."
I wonder what you say about this, as they go on to say that a minimum of input impedance for the power amp should be 50 KOhms.

[Aether Audio]

Friends,

Seeing that I am now the high-end audio technical support person for NuForce, I suppose I should try to help answer your concerns regarding the amplifier input impedance issue.  Please bear with me in the following, as the issue can be a bit complicated.

In a "theoretically" perfect world, the output and input impedances of audio components would appear as purely "resistive" terms.  That means there would be no variation of the impedance with respect to frequency.  If this were the case, then impedance matching (or lack thereof) would be a relatively very minor issue.  In a situation where the output impedance of a preamp is high (above 1K-Ohm) and the amplifier input impedance is low (below 10K-Ohm), the only consequence would be a very slight (approx. –1dB) reduction of voltage being delivered from the preamp into the amplifier.  Even in about the worst case where the impedances were the same (as in 600-Ohm professional equipment), the voltage being fed into the amplifier would be reduced by ½ (-6dB) as compared to what would be measured on the output of the preamp when it was not connected to the amp (no load condition).

A loss of -6dB would certainly be significant from a gain standpoint such that you would probably have to really turn up the preamp volume control, but unless the preamp simply could not provide that much extra gain and began clipping the signal, one would not expect to hear any difference in sound QUALITY.  That being said, then a –1dB gain loss should not introduce any negative effects whatsoever.  Again, in most cases a –1dB loss of gain due to an amplifier exhibiting a lower input impedance (10K-Ohm or so) is usually about the worst case we run into when it comes to high-end audio equipment.  Therefore, we would not expect to hear any audible degradation of the sound, even in this "worst case" scenario.

Now… the above only holds true as long as both the output and the input impedances of the connected devices are "flat" from a frequency response standpoint.  If a product were advertised as being "truly" high-end, then one would hope that we could expect the designers thereof to have made provision for such a flat impedance response.  Due to complicated technical reasons though, it is not typically possible to provide a flat impedance response under all impedance miss-match conditions.  This is especially true regarding a device's (a preamp) output impedance.  Nevertheless, using good "modern" design techniques would suggest that a preamp should be able to meet such a "flat impedance response" requirement when faced with a typical "worst case" load impedance of about 10K-Ohms.

If a preamp cannot achieve this level of performance, it does not necessarily mean that the device will not "sound" good, especially when it's driving an amplifier that exhibits a higher input impedance.  If this is so though, then the designer has severely restricted its possible use with other products.  There is no "right" or "wrong" in this regard and it is simply a matter of choice on the part of the designer of the product.  It is clearly a matter of opinion, but we question the wisdom of such a design philosophy from a marketing standpoint.  At a minimum, owners of such products would be well advised that if they select such a product, they should understand that their peripheral equipment (i.e., amplifier) options will be limited to those that exhibit input impedances that more closely match the requirements of their preamp.

You see… there is strong motivation on the part of the amplifier designer to keep the amp's input impedance as low as reasonably possible.  High impedance inputs are far more susceptible to external and internal noise pickup and distortion.  Good "low noise" design then suggests that the input impedance be kept as low as possible.  This then is in direct conflict with many (especially tube) preamp designs.  Tubes are relatively high impedance devices and require special types and/or circuits to achieve good low output impedance performance.  From a technical standpoint, designing tube preamps to have a lower output impedance is not really a significant design challenge, but doing so usually comes at a slightly higher financial cost due to the expense of better tubes and/or a higher parts count.  Unfortunately, it seems a common practice is for designers to simply avoid the added cost and parts count, and then recommend the preamp be used with amplifiers of higher input impedance.  Doing so though forces the amplifier designer to make potentially significant compromises in the performance of his product if he wishes to accommodate such a preamp.

And so the debate continues… "Whose responsibility is it to achieve optimal performance?"  Seeing that a lower input impedance can benefit both tube and solid-state power amplifier designs equally, it would seem the "onus" is on the preamp designer.  Good luck trying to tell him that though! 

I hope this helps. 
-Bob

[maligue]

Dear Bob!
Thank you for the lucid and detailed explanation.
I can't possibly adjudicate the matter, though I am left hanging as regards the advisability or otherwise of an Upgrade to V3. The facts are there on paper: the Prima Luna outputs 3.5KOms and the V3 has an input impedance of 22 KOhms.
So it seems, reading you, that it's a question of tossing a coin ... and hoping. It might sound fine, even if the electronics are out of sync.
I wonder what you would do (assuming 'change the preamp' is not the first and only option)

Best

E

[Aether Audio]

maligue,
 
You are most welcome... and THANK YOU!  I'm glad I could help.
 
With regards to your preamp and the V3 upgrade, I'll give you the numbers and we can take it from there.
 
As it stands, your preamp combined with the orginal V2's input impedance of 44K-Ohms would result in a voltage drop (loss) at the input of the Ref 9 of -0.665 dBV.  That's barely over -1/2 dB and apparently it did not present a problem for you.
 
OK then, the same preamp driving into the new V3 board will yield a loss of -1.28 dBV... which is about twice as much as before, but still barely more than -1 dB.
 
Usually if there is any problem at all, it will be at the frequency extremes - and most likely at the low end around 20Hz or thereabouts.  If we assume the preamp's output impedance doubles to 7K-Ohms at 20Hz (that's pretty bad if it does), then that adds another -1.28 dB of loss.  I would assume a doubling of the output impedance to 7K-Ohms as being a "worst case," so that means about the worst you could expect would be a -3 dB loss at 20Hz with respect to the rest of the spectrum.
 
In my opinion, a -3dB loss at 20Hz is pretty insignificant and could probably be accommodated for fairly easily by simply moving your speakers a few inches closer to the wall behind them.  In all actuality, unless you have speakers that go very low into the bass, the odds are you wouldn't notice a bit of difference other than having to increase the setting of the preamp's volume control by a small amount.
 
Considering the above, I wouldn't think twice about giving the V3 upgrade a try.  The only hesitation I would have is if you are already running the preamp with the volume control at almost full volume.  Then again, if that were the case you would already know there was a problem and wouldn't even be considering the upgrade.
 
So... those are my thoughts on the matter.  If your preamp already provides plenty of gain with the V2, then I'd say you should be fine going with the V3.
 
I hope this helps.  Good luck and...
 
Take care, 
-Bob

[maligue]

... just a note concering the volume control : with the Ref 9 V2 SE in place I often can hardly remain in the room (4.5 x 6.2 m.) if I raise the volume beyond 10 on the dial of any of the preamps I have in my stable (the P-9, Bryston BP-26, and my current favorite the Prima Luma Prologue 3). In which case, therefore, the upgrade to V3 will, in accordance with your observations, permit far more 'control', fine-tuning of the output.

Once again thanks and best wishes from snowy Switzerland

[worldcat]

With over 300 hours of break-in on my V3's, new cables, and magic cube my system has been taken to another level. Holographic, imaging, resolution, micro detail, blackness between the instruments, the sound stage is so wide and deep i can hear so far into the stage its mind blowing, and it go's on and on.  I believe the upgrade has been monumental in my system.  Going from V2 to V3 is a huge upgrade in my opinion!     I do not know how much better Ref 18 will be but much more improvement it could be one of the best amps in the world at any price.

[David C]

Worldcat
how do you have the magic cube hooked up? and is the improvement from it worthwhile

[gammajo]

Worldcat - Thanks for the report. Enjoy thye new level. I am still in the line waiting for upgrade

[beachbum]

Last night we played and listened to 10 lps. The session lasted into the early morning total musical enjoyment. V 3 is the real deal.

[worldcat]

I do think Magic cube is worth it.  Imaging and micro detail even better.  If you can demo for your system.

[worldcat]

Yes i agree V3 is the real deal.  I wonder how they will be reviewed in the big magazines if they will review them at all?

[beachbum]

The original Ref 9 was Absolute Sounds amp of the year i believe in 05. Class D amps are a hard pill to swallow for some long time audiophiles. Change in design is a tough sell for hard core tubed and solid state fans. I ve had many dealings with those who are against what Class D brings at other forums.

Again last night 7 lps and the difference between V 2 and V 3 is easily heard by my ears. More time i get V 3 probably over 500 hrs now it seems the better they get. A true wall of sound with depth along with micro details that give me goose bumps. I listen to classic rock music thats over 35 years old. I ve heard these songs hundreds of times but now i m hearing things not heard before. I love it.

But today music is taking a back seat going to the SuperDome to watch the NFC Championship game Who Dat Baby
Geaux Saints