Yes there are many things you can do with an SP-10 to improve it, but some of the limitations are with the 6922's themselves. Most of the new ARC line stages use 6H30's which frankly are better tubes with regard to dynamics and voltage swing then a 6922 or a 12AX7. It's simply newer technology. The Russian's never stopped designing new tubes. That doesn't mean all new technology is better, but in this case the 6H30 is superior, as are the newly developed power supplies utilizing more linear transistors in the newer line stages. |
I also want to make it clear that I have great respect for ARC. They have been most instrumental in the renaissance of tube amplification and a clear cut front runner in cutting edge design since their inception. I have owned 4 ARC products over the years and all have been enjoyable and satisfying. It is their marketing practice methods only I bring into question, I find it very calculated to sell more product. If others don't mind there are those that do and this is a valid point to bring up especially in their mid priced product line. |
Onhwy61,
The point is that the LS27 is better then the LS26.
I know a top engineer who had a LS26 in his tightly controled,very neutral listening room..He replaced it with the LS27 and theres no question it sounds better.There must have been something ARC was able to improve. |
No one,not even ARC forces you to upgrade.
If new better products effect your re-sale value,I don't think ARC should care to much about that.
They are a business that has to fight to make a PROFIT.
Some people don't seem to understand Capitalism. |
Agreed. If you don't keep reinventing yourself you will be quickly passed by the competition. |
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. |
Efner, this isn't about capitalism it is about ARC's perceived marketing model and how some see it. Your comment about ARC's new offerings effecting resale values and ARC not caring, I'm not too sure they don't care. If the resale value plummets on older products when new ones come out after a period of time folks may come to a conclusion that ARC doesn't offer the best value for the prices they charge. Obviously this doesn't seem to be the case as there always seem to be a demand for their used products for folks unable or unwilling to pay for new.
|
05-06-11: Onhwy61
Companies can stay competitive in an open market by satisfying pre-existing customer demands and needs. How if not offering new products? Give me an example. Apparently some people don't understand the function of marketing/advertising. Yep, I TOTALLY AGREE 05-06-11: Onhwy61
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.
Onhwy61 (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread)
05-07-11: Tubegroover
Efner, this isn't about capitalism it is about ARC's perceived marketing model and how some see it. Your comment about ARC's new offerings effecting resale values and ARC not caring, I'm not too sure they don't care. If the resale value plummets on older products when new ones come out after a period of time folks may come to a conclusion that ARC doesn't offer the best value for the prices they charge. Obviously this doesn't seem to be the case as there always seem to be a demand for their used products for folks unable or unwilling to pay for new. Resale value is driven by supply in demand. Demand is driven by the customers that can't afford or want to pay for a new unit. The only control ARC has is to build a highly desireable product that will generate demand and a very robust used market. For a company to stay in business, they have to release new products periodically to generate revenue and interest. I bet a LS28, LS29 ... are already in the product release queue. They count on and expect a portion of the customer segment to upgrade to the new releases. It doesn't make business sense to incorporate everything in one release if they want to stay in business. |
It doesn't make business sense to incorporate everything in one release if they want to stay in business. Interesting. Then I am not getting the state of the art with each new product. I am getting the state of the marketing game. No thanks. |
Interesting. Then I am not getting the state of the art with each new product. I am getting the state of the marketing game. No thanks.
Jafox (Reviews | Threads | Answers | This Thread) It's YOUR purchasing decision. There is NO penalty in NOT making the purchase unless they nationalized the audio industry like health care. |
The point is a company will never say this is the best we can and will do and all future business is to ONLY support existing customers. |
Bottom line kind of a Cavaet Emptor, buyer "be aware" as some past ARC customers here have become. I hear you Knghifi and agree. This isn't to say that at some point in the future I wouldn't purchase a new ARC product if I felt it offered what I was looking for at a price I could afford to pay. But I think you hit the nail on the head with
"It's YOUR purchasing decision. There is NO penalty in NOT making the purchase unless they nationalized the audio industry like health care"
except the health care part. Some things really grate on us heh? But this isn't about health care it is about audio so maybe we should keep things on point and not get off track with such polarizing subjects interjected in this discussion with no clear point. It seems we're having a difficult time enough with this simple little issue of a small company and their marketing practices. |
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. |
High end audio is largely about people pursuing diminishing returns with ever increasing expenditures. ARC 's business model is among the least cynical in this regard when you consider that one can purchase a set of speaker cables that well exceed the cost of a Ref 5, only to have them replaced shortly by another "sonically superior" version costing even more.
It is a hobby after all and one is free to not pay and not play. |
Lets all keep in mind that we are talking about a company that is highly respected for both its products and customer relations.We're throwing stones at the top of the heap.
If you want to criticize a company for poor business practices,I think ARC is the last place we should start. |
Tubegroover, your right ARC resale is among the best in the industry,I just think that some people must be feeling cheated because ARC keeps improving their product line.
To me that criticism makes no sense. |
Again, this is utter hogwash..
"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"
If you've heard both the pieces in a system, you would not be making such assertions. Agreed, sometimes with this hobby it can involve diminishing returns, but not in this case. To the OP, the LS 27 settles nicely between the REF3 and the REF5. Do go listen to it if you can. I'm not sure what you've been using or comparison shopping for, but in the $7k range it's a winner. |
05-07-11: Onhwy61
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. Airline is a highly regulated limited competition service business ... NOT commodity based. You are comparing apples to oranges. USUALLY customers shop based on schedule and price and not the type of plane. Knghifi, if I read you correctly you actually agree with some of our description of ARC's business model. No, you read me INCORRECTLY! It's just that you see in purely in a positive light No, It's not positive or negative just reality. |
This is exactly what happens when a car manufacturer comes out with a new model every year. That's why some people buy used cars in order for someone else to take the depreciation 'hit'. Are people pissed because once they drive their new car off the lot, it depreciates a few grand? They are not. They realize models change every year. Prices go up and more options and accessories become available for the new model. That's the way it is. The marketing model exists for any electronics product and even cars as stated above. If you don't wish to precipitate in the purchase of new products, try buying something used next time. |
I guess the question is whether in fact the many models and revisions of
those products over the years were in fact the result of continuous
improvement of preamplifier performance, or in fact the result of
calculated product marketing strategies geared to driving demand. Both
are legitimate and a business is certainly entitled to do whatever it needs
to do to drive sales and stay in business (and providing good products and
customer service is an essential part of that, and ARC certainly does make
good products and at the pinnacle of customer care). However, I feel that
the principal circuit topologies needed for building a good sounding active
line stage with gain have been around a long time and very little has really
changed in that regard, other than some better parts with tighter
tolerances (perhaps). So yes, ARC makes very fine products - they always
have. But I don't believe the "improvements" overtime is to the
degree which all the models, revisions, latest and greatest announcements
might suggest. That is I think it is every bit as much driven
marketing/advertising principles as it is by technical ones. That doesn't
mean there is any reason not to own an ARC preamp, they are very fine
indeed. |
Caveat emptor. Buyers decide: The Market reacts: Companies live or die
ARC has survived for the last forty years, if it's all been a gimmick it's remarkably well disguised! |
Again, I have a hard time with people complaining that they use the same circuit or similar circuits year after year. As a Warranty Repair Station for ARC, I can say without question their circuits change as do the parts they use. If people need to complain about this they can build their own line stages. It is not an easy task. Some people sure know how to beat a dead horse. |
I have done a bit of research on the differences between the LS26 and LS27, trying to read between the lines but I really couldn't determine anything substantially different other than a beefier power supply and different parts. It seems the chassis is a little deeper as well but the circuit is basically the same. The LS27 also weighs less. As the owner of a 10 lb amp I don't hold much weight that weight matters but power supplies and filter capcitance sure do which usually add some weight. All accounts seem to attest that the LS27 is a step above the LS26 in listening impressions.
My question to Hifigeek1 as you seem to be quite familiar with the circuit designs of ARC products in general. Is there a REAL difference in the circuits between the LS26 and LS27 or just modest changes in parts and power supply? Your comments about the 6H30 tube and an improvement over the 6922, greater transconductance I presume which surely would benefit the sonics subjectively. I can only imagine if this tube were implemented in an SP-10 with its tube regulation and quite large power supply. This is MY point and Onhwy61's as well. I don't want to come across as bashing ARC, I'm not. A healthy ARC is a good thing for the audio industry but the point is that there really doesn't seem to me to be anything revolutionary over the past 25 years in the design of their products although there is little doubt that there have been incremental improvements based on refinements more than radical new approaches, outside the box thinking, if you will. Just curious on your thoughts.
|
It does seem automotive technology has changed dramatically over the past 40 years, not so with linestage circuit designs. For those with money to spare, getting the lastest ARC then flipping it 3 years later for the latest ARC is fine -why not, does no harm and they are excellent linestages. But if money was an issue and you wanted to have a wonderful linestage you could easily buy a 20 year-old ARC preamp and be very much in the company of what any ARC preamp has to offer - a good sounding linestage - there simply has not been that much improvement or new knowledge of how to design a linestage - better part always helped, then and now. |
I currently have a ARC line stage that I bought in 2000. I have never heard any of the newer line stages. Now I'm curious to take my line stage to an ARC dealer and compare it with the newer models. |
Granted, there are not thousands of ways to amplify a signal. Circuits change when designers have the insight to use a SOTA device in a new way. In tube design it would be utilizing a new tube. The circuit topology has to change to take advantage of it. True you have less design options wih tube products then transistor. Bipolar transistors give way to j-fets at preamp inputs thereby lessening noise. Some of this is semantics. What is your definition of a circuit topology change? Are you aware of the fact that the way you lay the circuit board out, the circuit board material, and the thickness and width of the traces can make or break a potential design. It is true that if a designer finds that a particular circuit in a product like a power supply sounds particularly good, (yes power supplies do have a strong effect on an audio circuit), they might use it in another design. You have to remember that it's the whole package, not just individual parts or circuit topology that make up the sound of the unit your listening to. Some manufacturers actually remove or update parts as they become available after the first design because it sounds better or gives better reliability. That's not being cheap, that's improving performance and that would be a circuit topology change. In fact a new manufacturer of amplifiers has just come out with a new output transistor circuit that doesn't utilize emitter resistors. That to me is a new circuit design. I don't think someone like Nelson Pass or John Curl would say there had been little change in line stage design over the past 40 years. When new parts come out, circuits change. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. |
I agree with what you say, to me it is a bit of the hyped up nature of things in this hobby, you would think this stuff sounds more real than real by now:) I think most of us can also agree that ARC has been making wonder tube preamps for a long time - they undoubtedly know what they are doing, whether they are you cup of tea or not the obvioulsy have made many listeners happy with their efforts. |
I haven't heard an LS27 but I intend to buy one nonetheless , All indications are that it is a cost effective upgrade from my LS17 ( which incidentally I am perfectly happy with ), having not listened to anything else since I bought it .
Spirited discussion about ARC's constant upgrades etc has been going on since the late 1970's , so nothing has , or will , change .
I regard ARC as a value for money premium product . |
now there's sensible thinking....I didn't want to insult you and say we're like-minded, everyone knows I'm crazy! |
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? |
"ARC may come out with new products every few years,but how can one criticize when the continue to push sota forward?"
Personally, I think the state of the art was maxed out years ago and now they are just offering products that are more complex and different sounding, but not really better. I would not mind seeing a rerun of some former products that were great for the time and still better than 95% of what is made. |
6550c, perhaps the point I was trying to make:) |
Unless Humans stop evolving and using their brains and leaning new things, the state of the art will never end and become stagnant. Simply replacing a few parts with newer parts on an old obsolete piece of equipment, will never outdo a new one if the new one's design is different and better. There are new circuit designs and comparing with the old one there is really no contest. Unless the new and old have the same circuit design and layout. As I have stated several times in previous posts, there are many reasons why manufacturers come out with new equipment. 1) upgrades on previous models that they discovered after the model was released. Auto, airplane, computer manufacturers do this all the time. one cannot wait until a project is perfect before releasing it. 2) Total redesign of a product that is simply better than the previous design. 3) Magazines will not review older equipment, even if they are still in production, and therefore, in order for manufacturers to keep their names in the press, they must come out with new, even though sometimes the new is not always better. This is the one I don't like. Also, remember, for high end, there is a limit on which there is a customer base. Many of us simply cannot affort the high end. Cars, stereo equipment, cameras, computers, clothes, etc. For low end and mid fi, people are willing to spend a certain amount, but will not venture into high end as often. I could come out with a new revoluntionary product tomorrow and the next day, someone will reverse engineer it, put their name on it and sell it and I am yesterday's news. So, the basic truth is, unless you are in the amp of the month club as is the case of many audiophiles, if you are very happy with the sound of your system, you are there. But, there is always something out there that is better. The question is are you willing to go get it or do you need it? or can you live with what you have? With me, I love my system, but I know the problems are with my room, which is not so easy to fix. I always advocate that you/we find a reputable dealer that you can trust and that trust you, and is willing to let you borrow equipment to listen to for a week or so. This way you can hear the equipment in your system and your home. My dealer (Stereo Design, in San Diego, CA, will let me do this with a credit card on file.) If I like the equipment, I let them apply the card. If I don't, I return it and no harm, no foul. I have demo'd many pieces that way. One point, after doing this, I will alway buy that equipment from that dealer if I decide to purchase it.
enjoy |
No manufacturer that designed a great circuit the 1965, from a 1940s recipe would still be in business selling the same thing - even it was as good as it gets. While immature technologies evolve quickly, a preamp circuit is not one of them. Better parts with better tolerances and indeed improvements, especially if reliability goes along with it, but preamps, if they are to evolve at al, in terms of sound quality, will do so very, very slowly - digital? well that is another story, we may see significant improvements there. We seem to be wired for the new, and the marketers know that, soap or stereo, and nothing wrong with the fun in all that, but great preamp design was figured out a long time ago IME. New functions geared to dealing with new technologies, well that is a legitimate upgrade to older models that did not contemplate changing sources and connectivity requirements. |
i heard it and bought it. from a marketing standpoint it may be too close to the REF at this price point. using with the PH-7 with power supply upgrade. excellent. |
"Simply replacing a few parts with newer parts on an old obsolete piece of equipment, will never outdo a new one if the new one's design is different and better."
Funny thing about old obsolete equipment, I was just listening the other day to a friend's "obsolete" highly modified SP-10 Mk 2 with his "obsolete" modded D-115 Mk2. Now I'm not going to say it is up to the latest offerings from this esteemed company but this system is highly evolved and emminently musical and enjoyable, I say the devil is in the details. btw, is it real yet? No doubt it sounds great, happy listening! |
I bought my LS-27 8 months ago along with the DS 450 and excellent it has sounded after an initial long burn-in period of about 600 hrs |
I just purchased an Ls-27. I have not heard the Ls-26, Ref3 or Ref-5. I was using an Ls-25. For me this is a major upgrade in my system. It sounds so good I can even listen to digital and like it. |
Funny I just read Ref5-SE already released, how long did that take. Same old ARC. Great marketing.
|
While not as bad as say Wilson, ARC could do more to protect the investment of the original owner. For instance, they could offer things like the SE "upgrade" at cost for the original owner. Or they could offer the original owner a guaranteed trade up percentage for future purchases. The only thing they did to protect their customers who bought the LS-26 was to increase the price of the LS-27 by $1000!
I've owned two pieces of ARC equipment. I respect their business savy and quality products. But until they do more to protect the customer who buys their products new, I'm afraid I'll let them take the hit when the Ref 5 becomes the Ref 5SE. What will the Ref 40 be worth if the rumored Ref 10 comes out, say for 18K, and trumps its performance? Once you get into five figure retail prices depreciation is a significant issue and can't be ignored.
The LS-27 is exactly what I'm looking for. But $7000 for a line stage is a major investment, especially since it's only worth $5000 the minute you walk out the door. And would be worth maybe $4000 when the LS-28 is annouced at or near the same retail price.
For me, ARC products only make sense used. Particularly when it's being replaced by a newer model. |
Egrady, my system is all ARC, so your thread resonates with me. I agree that the only sensible way to break into the ARC product line is to buy used. That's the main way I acquired my ARC stuff.
The other way is to buy factory refurb units. The principal advantage is I know the unit is in tip top shape coming direct from ARC after a road show or whatever. Just picked up my "refurbed" PH-8 phono pre that way. Only problem going the refurb route is that you get only 15% off regular retail and you have to buy through a retail dealer, which to my mind is still not enough off and is inconvenient.
I don't know who ARC reaches out to with new products. If its the same customers who suffer from "upgrade-itis," I don't know if the "upgrade at cost" model will work for ARC because that would turn it into an "upgrade" shop which could limit profit margins. But . . . if ARC is penetrating the market by reaching new customers who are willing to pay full freight retail, then your suggestion would be be a nice courtesy to loyal "family members" like me.
A case in point is that I bought a used Ref 5 about a year or so ago. Shortly thereafter, the Ref 5 SE hit the market. The retal cost delta is $1000. However the cost for me to upgrade my Ref 5 is $2500! Now . . . as a member of the family so to speak, I would be really grateful if the upgrade cost was at cost to ARC. Maybe it is??? Who knows. Cal told me that the old Ref 5 version has to be practically remanufactured in order to bump it to SE grade.
Next to last point. The new SE version is touted to be in "another league" as compared to the "regular" Ref 5 version. Maybe it is. But I'll let you folks in on a little secret. I used to own the Ref 3 and PH-7 phono pre. Each was touted as a "major" improvement over its predecessor. IMHO, I would say that the improvement delta is measurable in the "tweak" magnitude sense -- not "in another league" magnitude.
Last few points. I just saw a used Ref 150 amp hitting the market. The ask price is $9K, which is $4K less than retail. Maybe I'll upgrade my VS-115 amp to a Ref 150 in a while, but not yet. I think my next change may be speakers, so I read member comments and learn and have some ideas. Maybe RSL ESLs (a Ralph Karsten "fave"); maybe Wilsons; maybe Magicos. Dunno yet. No rush. I'm kinda happy with my curent rig, so I will "stick" for a bit. |
Has anybody compare the Audio Research SL 27 pre-amp
to a Cary Audio SLP-05 pre-amp, thanks. |
