ARC or other Pre?

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).

Thanks Ralph. ... Actually, my question or point was focused more to Abrew's prior post about whether there's been earth shaking changes taking place in the technology. I thought you'd be in the best position to comment since you are a designer and manufacturer.

As I said, although not a tech, my surmise is that the quality of passives "may" (??) have improved over what the SOTA was 30 or 40 years ago. I would like to believe that other SS components like transistors and ICs likewise would have improved. But given your last post, maybe not. Dunno.

I agree that my last several ARC upgrades, while an improvement over the immediately prior piece, do share a house sound of sorts. But having said that, IMO, my current rig has come a loooong way over what I started with, ... say 10 years ago.

Just my opinion.

P.S. -- One of these days I hope to have the opportunity to listen to some of your gear. I'm sure it would be an "ear opener" (pun intended).

Bifwynne - thanks for the response. That's good insight you provided.

Well, I see that you are clearly speaking with the Tube Boys, but you did say, "Doesn't have to be Valves"

Spread Spectrum Technologies Ambrosia.... It will certainly stand in the league of the pre's you guys have been discussing. Price point fits and I believe it has also been produced in 240/50