ARC Ref 75 vs. Ref 75 SE


Has anyone had the opportunity to compare the ARC Ref 75 with the new Ref 75 SE?
hkaye
Knghifi- The Music Reference stock transformer is just fine. Excellent, actually, being an original Roger Modjeski design he has manufactured to his specs. But the art of transformer design, and hand winding them especially, is a dying art. Roger has made a lifetime study of transformers, and by hand winding his design he is able to extend it's bandwidth to a high frequency impossible in a machine-wound transformer---his, ARC's, or anyone else's. I have no idea how much difference it makes in the sound of an amp, and my system is too modest to warrant the extra cost. But it takes Roger about a week to make one, I believe, and a week of Roger's time, or that of any designer/engineer, is, I'm sure we all agree, worth a grand.
To me, the real crux of the ARC update/improvement matter is this: Let's say about ten years ago you had ten grand to spend on a pre-amp (must be nice!). Amongst your choices were the EAR-Yoshino 912 (designed by Tim Paravicini, a man very much like Roger Modjeski) and the ARC Reference whatever. The Ref, like all ARC products, has been updated/improved numerous times in the ensuing years, while the 912 remains unchanged. And the 912 STILL sounds better! How much has the owner of a Ref pre-amp spent to keep his pre-amp competitive? About the same as it's original cost? Hey, I'm just asking.

Now, look inside a Ref pre-amp, then inside a 912. The Ref chassis is stuffed with parts, lots and lots of them. Some may find this simple-minded, but to me it seems like the ARC designers have lost their way, and are just throwing everything but the kitchen sink into their electronics. Turntable critics feel the same about Harry Weisfeld's VPI designs. First one design, then another, then a third, each time claiming the new design is the best way to make a turntable. Every time ARC announces an update to a product, it is touted as being a drastic/huge/etc. improvement over the previous incarnation. You'd think with all the radical improvements, reproduced music would by now sound better than live!
Well, the flip side and potential benefit of the ARC upgrades to the folks particularly on this site is that you can probably buy the SE versions used and get a significant discount on both the unit and the improvements. Much like buying a McCormack Rev. Whatever amp -- much better amp at a relatively small premium to what a used original unit would cost. And like Oregonpapa said, nobody's forcing you to do the upgrades and the original unit would've cost substantially more if they offered it off the bat. Choose your poison, but I think giving consumers a choice in how much they want to pay for whatever performance is perfectly fine.
07-20-15: Bdp24
Knghifi- The Music Reference stock transformer is just fine. Excellent, actually, being an original Roger Modjeski design he has manufactured to his specs. But the art of transformer design, and hand winding them especially, is a dying art. Roger has made a lifetime study of transformers, and by hand winding his design he is able to extend it's bandwidth to a high frequency impossible in a machine-wound transformer---his, ARC's, or anyone else's ...
If the transformer is superior to anything on the market, why all the reported humming problems with RM200?

To me, the real crux of the ARC update/improvement matter is this: Let's say about ten years ago you had ten grand to spend on a pre-amp (must be nice!). Amongst your choices were the EAR-Yoshino 912 (designed by Tim Paravicini, a man very much like Roger Modjeski) and the ARC Reference whatever...
Then buy an EAR? Why are you so hung up on ARC? Who is forcing you to buy ARC? Where do you live? IRAN? Is there a new Obama / Robert mandate I should know?