ARC Ref 5se inferior to LS28?


This is what a big dealer told me the other day. Dealer speak or right on the money? Would very much like to hear opinions of the many knowledgeable ARC users on Audiogon. Thanks

4425
It seems to me if ARCs engineers are so good they would have built the newest model first. But I suppose their marketing dept. is even better.

Darn it, I was sucked in again and got carried away, losing the point I had intended to make. Of course ARC makes great sounding gear, and deserves all the success and satisfied customers they have earned over the past forty-seven years. And they have indeed stayed at the top of the game by keeping their R & D an ongoing effort. The analogy to automobile development is an apt one, one with which I have no beef. There are a lot of companies that stagnated and eventually died because of a failure to continue to improve its products.

But looking at it from the perspective of a potential purchaser, I keep coming back to example, only one I could cite, of the Atma-Sphere products. If one accepts the premise that the current incarnation of the A-S MP-3 pre-amp and the ARC LS27 (or any other ARC pre-amp of roughly comparable price) are in the same ball park (even if each will be favored by different people), what has the owner of each had to spent in order to now have their quality?

The owner of the MP-3 has spent the cost of the original plus those of the infrequent factory updates. The updates have been relatively minor in nature (and cost), the basic circuit and design remaining the same---it was a "finished", fully realized design and execution.

For the ARC owner, the story is very different. If the current A-S MP-3 is only slightly improved from it's original version, how much better was it at the time of it's introduction in comparison to the same-period ARC? I mean, it has taken all the intervening ARC pre-amps to get to where the A-S MP-3 is now, assuming my premise for the sake of argument. All this time the A-S owner could have been enjoying the sound quality of the MP-3, while the ARC owner has either had to make due with the apparently sub-par sound of his LS-15/16/17/whatever, or send his current pre-amp to ARC for installation of the latest in the frequent updates, or even more costly, sell the old pre-amp and buy the new, completely redesigned model. It appears to me that the changes made to each ARC model---from the LS-16 to the LS-16 Mk.2 for instance, were repeated in every single model. It's as if Rich Larsen had to rediscover everything he learned on the improvements made in the previous model for the next. The ARC circuits keep getting more and more complicated, the circuit boards more cluttered. My EAR pre looks almost empty in comparison.

In the 50's/60's/70/s, American car companies offered completely-redesigned versions of their models every two years or so, while BMW improved their product line incrementally, building on the already "correct" platform of the 3-series, 5-series, and 7-series. I drove my 528e for fifteen years, getting 230,000 miles of driving pleasure out of it. The design and build quality was already fully developed at the time of it's introduction, no need to completely redo it and offer a replacement model two years down the road (no pun intended! :-).

The difference in design approach implies that Ralph Karsten knew way before the ARC team how to achieve a given level of sound quality at a given price. If one had bought an MP-3 twenty-five years ago, he all this time could have enjoyed the sound quality it provides. The ARC customer, in contrast, would only now have that sound quality, in effect investing in the ARC design teams education!

A comparable, though not exact, parallel could be made in the world of loudspeakers. An enthusiast could buy a pair of the original QUAD ESL's in the late 50's, owning them without needing to make any changes to them as other designers endeavored to equal their sound quality in their own designs. It took literally decades for other speakers to appear which equaled any of the QUADS abilities, some of which most other speakers still lack! Peter Walker spent years developing the original QUAD, not releasing it until it was a "finished" design. He spent even longer (almost two decades) getting it's follow-up, the QUAD 63, fully ready for market. That's my kind of designer, and my kind of product. The kicker is that buying this kind of product from this kind of designer and company not only gives you better sound at an earlier moment in time, but is cheaper in the long run---a win win!

bdp24: very well put but perhaps too logical for what is an emotional crowd, myself included. From a business model standpoint ARC has done a great job keeping the type of customer they have in pocket by tapping into the emotional element of their customer base.
One thing to keep in mind is that ARC may hold it’s value more than any high end brand so they are obviously doing a lot right. However I think it’s more from superior market positioning than tech breakthroughs which simply aren’t possible at the rate they introduce them.
A little blind testing would be very informative. No doubt differences would be heard between the new model and the one it replaced but could anyone truly say that the new model necessarily sounds better than the previous unit IF they were listening blind? In fact take the last 3 Ref models and compare this way. It would be fascinating and never done as far as I know. I think it unlikely the newest model would consistently come out on top. IMO only and certainly not applicable only to ARC. It seems like Wilson follows this model also, among others. It’s a good one.
Finally to be sure I’m not challenging ARC customers at all as nobody chases new and improved more than I. In my experience at a certain level it’s more about small differences than breakthroughs.
My apologies for being so verbose but damn high end audio is fun!

@bdp24 , the downside of a long running product, for folks who buy on the used market, is possibility of old age. For example, if one is looking at buying a ARC LS27 preamp, they have a pretty good idea how old it is.
Now if one is looking to buy a A-S MP-3, or Cary SLP-98, or similar, it is much harder to determine the actual age/condition of the unit.
Yes, the unit may have had some upgrades, but some of the caps (etc), may be 15-20 years old.

Personally, I am more comfortable having a more accurate account on the age of a unit when shopping for used audio components. So I do not mind ARC's marketing scheme. YMMV.
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.