Has anybody heard the new Audio Research LS 27?

I haves owned and enjoyed using an ARC preamp. I even recently considered buying one of their preamps because I think they sound that good. But is ARC really any better or more dedicated to great sound than Atmasphere, Lamm, CAT, or any number of manufacturers? I think not.

BTW, I'm capable of judging a musical performance without ever having been a symphony conductor. I can hold a valid opinion about our commander in chief without ever having been the President. And yes, I can judge the relative complexity of building a preamp compared to some other components. Just because you can't do something doesn't mean I can't.

An example of a company staying in business by meeting a pre-existing market demand - airlines. Say I want to go to Europe from the U.S., several airline companies are there to meet my need. Essentially airlines replaced cruise ships and at some point in the future some new travel innovation could replace airlines, but until that new method of travel arrives airline company can offer the same old same old.

Knghifi, if I read you correctly you actually agree with some of our description of ARC's business model. It's just that you see in purely in a positive light.

Market differentiation is an interesting phenomena. How does a company draw attention to its products in a marketplace where everything is essentially the same. In the audiophile world we pay an enormous amount of attention to what are in fact very small differences. For instance, if a Ref 5 is a major improvement over a Ref 3, then how does a Ref 5 compare to an SP6? Given the large number of models the have come and gone between the SP6 and the Ref 5 we would need to invent a new word to describe the more than super, unbelievable, hard to imagine sonic improvements of the newer model. But even ARC admits that with a few upgraded parts the SP6 can sound substantially like their current preamp offerings. If that's the case, then the difference between the Ref 3 and the Ref 5 really is very, very small. Whether or not that very, very small difference is worthwhile or valued is a separate question.

You haven't heard the LS 27, you're perfectly happy with the LS 17 and you haven't listened to anything else since buying the LS 17 for comparison, yet you're going to buy the LS 27 because ARC makes premium value for money product. Just to be argumentative, are you really making an informed decision or is it an act of faith?

There is no denying the ARC makes fine sounding products, but that does not mean one has to buy into their new model hype. Manufacturers are constantly improving, tweaking, modifying their products and many do it without declaring it a MkII or giving it a new model number. It is also important to remember that as low volume producers audiophile companies are frequently at the mercy of large suppliers. If suddenly a tube, capcitor, laser assembly, etc is no longer available, they may have to "upgrade" their model.

The following is a rant: we're talking about line stages! A few inputs, a source selector, volume control, outputs and a suitable power supply - there ain't that much technology to be constantly refined. Like I said, ARC makes fine products, but the fanboys (thank you Elizabeth) do like to hype it just a little bit.

Companies can stay competitive in an open market by satisfying pre-existing customer demands and needs. Alternatively companies can be equally successful by creating customer demand and needs and offering solutions to problems customers didn't even know they had until the "new" product came along. Apparently some people don't understand the function of marketing/advertising.

I find it hard to understand how in an industry where resale value is becoming increasingly more important that a company would seriously undermine or disregard the investment their customers have made in their products.