ARC Ref 5se inferior to LS28?

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.

I agree with minorl.   Besides Vovlo, Magneplanar (ARCs friends, neighbors, and sometimes collaborators) are very "slow" to upgrade or bring out new models.  Maggie also blind tests every modification and does not introduce anything until it passes those tests with some significant improvement.

I don't know if ARC uses blind testing or not, but they do a listening test on each individual unit before it leaves the factory.

I'd also modify the post above to read: "analog parts don't usually get cheaper over time"

Of the SP-2C, J. Gordon Holt wrote in Summer 1971 (Vol.3 No.1), Unquestionably the finest-sounding preamplifier we have tested to date, this [high-priced ($550) and all-tubed preamp] is the next best thing to the ideal "straight wire with gain." Sound is extremely lucid and detailed, but without a trace of the hardness or graininess that characterizes most other preamps. Control and switching facilities less versatile than on some competitively priced preamps. Phono equalization accurate to within 0.5dB.
Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-research-sp-3-preamplifier#yI3g2fujy4UfJbk4.99

If you were to compare the early model to the current version, by ARCs logic, it would sound terrible. But that is not the case according to more recent reviews.
 http://www.tonepublications.com/old-school/audio-research-sp-3-preamplifier/