I'm an ARC fan. I own a ph8 phonostage and a Ref 3 pre. As we know, companies make products to different price points. That is another way of saying "consumer groups." I can shop above the ARC LS line, but far below their reference phonostages or newer reference preamps. I'll have to wait until their used prices come down drastically (years). So, that I can buy a used ref 3 pre for less than half of its new price is great, and I consider it a steal in the sense that most depreciation has already occurred and will be minimal for the rest of its life in my system. I can't argue with wlutke's characterization of ARC as the Robin Hood of used gear.
However, ARC degrades the meaning of the word "reference," which they use to characterize their uber-expensive gear, when they state that some new gear in the LS line surpasses the performance of older reference-line gear. In their defense, though, I'm sure the marketers know this and do it anyway because it has proven effective. I would also think their marketing decisions are based on hard data, stats, and an in-depth understanding of consumer psychology coupled with years of experience. This thread is an example of this marketing success.
My musings aside, when we compare new and old equipment, we have to change our almost total focus on engineering (as it relates to how the internal parts are put together), and spend more time thinking of the parts themselves (the SE stuff). Parts generally don't get cheaper over time, and while they too can evolve and become better, I can't imagine a company coming up with, say, a fantastic new capacitor, and then not pricing its "breakthrough" suitably; they are in business to make money, not get letters of thank you from appreciative audiophiles. And lets not forget the many other things associated with any new part that typically increase over time as well (shipping, packaging, wages, retooling machines, etc.) In my mind, this has to be discussed when comparing old and new equipment. Okay, enough of this, I'm gonna go and cue That summer feeling by Jonathan Richman.
However, ARC degrades the meaning of the word "reference," which they use to characterize their uber-expensive gear, when they state that some new gear in the LS line surpasses the performance of older reference-line gear. In their defense, though, I'm sure the marketers know this and do it anyway because it has proven effective. I would also think their marketing decisions are based on hard data, stats, and an in-depth understanding of consumer psychology coupled with years of experience. This thread is an example of this marketing success.
My musings aside, when we compare new and old equipment, we have to change our almost total focus on engineering (as it relates to how the internal parts are put together), and spend more time thinking of the parts themselves (the SE stuff). Parts generally don't get cheaper over time, and while they too can evolve and become better, I can't imagine a company coming up with, say, a fantastic new capacitor, and then not pricing its "breakthrough" suitably; they are in business to make money, not get letters of thank you from appreciative audiophiles. And lets not forget the many other things associated with any new part that typically increase over time as well (shipping, packaging, wages, retooling machines, etc.) In my mind, this has to be discussed when comparing old and new equipment. Okay, enough of this, I'm gonna go and cue That summer feeling by Jonathan Richman.