What's a contender to an Audio Reference 5 SE?

There is a new company who owns AR these days. They are responsible for the cheaper parts they use. Beside this the reliability is also not of the same quality anymore.

These things are more common these days, and that is not a good thing in the world of audio. We see it at all price ranges.

Audio is getting a hard time since 2008. It is a lot more difficult to compete these days. Beside this we see that the youth is less interested in better audio quality.

The positive thing is however that techniques improve and in some ways you get a higher level for less money than in the past.

The same group that now owns McIntosh. So according to your opinion McIntosh is also using "cheaper parts"? You are really holding a grudge against Audio Research aren't you? How long did you sell their products? 

@bo1972 you have not added even one shred of value to this discussion.  You have attempted to dominate someone else's thread, looking for real advice, with constant negativity about one brand in particular without ONCE offering an alternative.

But thank you to everyone else who offered advice and worthwhile opinions.  I went with the Allnic L-3000 Mk II.

Oregonpapa, your second paragraph directly above puts it perfectly!

J. Gordon Holt's first priority in music reproduction was lack of "vowel" colorations, followed by degree of transparency (concepts borrowed from photography---vowel colorations equating to inaccurate color temperature, and transparency to a high-resolution camera lens). Harry Pearson greatly valued the ability to create a three-dimensional image of an instrument, a voice, or an orchestra on a stage. Art Dudley values none of those nearly as highly as a system's ability to provide the forward momentum of music, it's "temporal" characteristic, feeling that Gordon and Harry's concerns relate to a static object, ignoring the inherent fluid nature of music, it's most important characteristic. Lots of audiophiles crave maximum low-level detail, it seems.

I can't fault any of them! But mine is "immediacy" and lightning fast micro-dynamics, the quality I find most lacking in music reproduced. Like everyone says, you can tell music is live from a block away from a stage, no matter the absence of imaging, or the amount of coloration from the live sound reinforcement system. I look for gear that does THAT the best, like the direct-to-disc LP, electrostatic loudspeakers (or horns, but they are just SO colored!), and the Decca/London phono cartridge. All of those have severe limitations and failings of their own, but you STILL can't have it all, no matter how much you spend. To each his own!

To go back to the original question, I must say I do like the ARC Ref 5SE, but not the price. I believe ARC do better Power than Pre Amps, just my view. The Ref 75SE I use, is remarkably good.

Some excellent suggestions re alternative Pre Amps, one I haven't seen is the Modwright 36.5, which I use with the Ref 75 now. I think it is clearly better than the ARC Ref 3 and the 2 box version of the 36.5 is definitely better than the single chassis 36.5 I have. I haven't heard them side by side, but I think the 2 box Modwright will be better than the 5SE and a good bit cheaper, plus the company is great to deal with.