ARC or other Pre?

From what I have read, the LS 27 nips at the heels of the Ref 5 (not SE) and probably sounds a little better than the Ref 3. Don't see too many LS 27s for sale, but occassionally one or two hit the "for sale" sheets.

Is there really that much difference between the models, such as the LS27 and say the LS26? And the Ref3 versus the Ref5? We're talking mid-20th century technology here, folks -- there are no real breakthroughs happening here. Something about a company that is constantly releasing new models and new "upgrades" makes me a little suspicious. Are they simply playing games, because they know they have a group of core customers who will go out and buy every new model that is released? I am just asking the question. As opposed to a company that is so confident in their designs that they only release new models when they have something truly new to say (Pass Labs for example).

I'm not attacking ARC very much -- I own an LS16 mkII myself! (also own a Pass).

I'm just wondering if we are exaggerating the differences too much.

^^ ARC has an internal policy of a new product announcement every 90 days. It might be an amplifier, DAC, preamp- whatever.

Abrew and Ralph ... I've been through a lot of ARC gear. SP16 >> SP17 >> Ref 3 >> Ref 5 >> Ref 5 SE. VS-110 >> VS-115 >> Ref 150. PH-7 >> PH-8. Ref CD-7 >> Ref CD-8.

Not sure I can say "one size fits all" as far as whether every jump either has been a real improvement or not. Having said that, I do think the Ref 5 SE is a far better sounding unit than the SP16, by a real long shot. Ditto re the Ref 150 as compared to the VS-110, and the CD-8 compared to the CD-7.

OTOH and IMO, any sonic differences between the PH-7 and PH-8 were slight nuances. A little more so between the Ref 3 to the Ref 5. Frankly ... I regretted some of the changes as not being worth the money, IMO.

In contrast, I think the Ref 5 SE and Ref 150 are better sounding than what I had immediately before. Earth shaking?? Like what planet have I been living on for the last 61 years?? ... Give me a break.

But ... looking back over the whole journey, I think ARC has made incremental improvements that add up to something special. I'm sure Ralph can speak better to this than me because he designs and builds "Class A" gear. I surmise that technology and materials know-how has improved over the last 30 to 40 years. I gotta believe that transistors and other passives are simply better than what was out there in the early days.

Ralph ... your thoughts???

OK- you asked... IMO/IME ARC has had a 'house sound' for a long time. To me it has always been slightly dry, conservative, good definition, but not lively. So far in terms of preamps I have heard they have all been some variant of that house sound.

I gotta believe that transistors and other passives are simply better than what was out there in the early days.

Not exactly sure how to interpret this statement, but if we are talking about passive components, I think you are right- they have improved. Transistors these days is another matter- the manufacturers are less interested in making linear transistors and there are a lot of counterfeits that have no-where near the performance they are supposed to have. This is one reason why class D is showing up more and more (not to mention they are a lot cheaper to build).