ARC LS1, LS2, LS3 , or LS7, which to buy?

Regarding ARC, I can't remember myself thrilled with any offerings; as John (jafox) I had singled out sp10. The 9 wasn't bad -- but I believe this opinion was linked to its much more reasonable asking price rather than performance...

Not intent on steering you away from ARC, I nevertheless remember comparing a sp10 with that an old mark lev pre at s/one's house. The ML was much better in dynamic presentation and frequency extremes (esp upper). Please note: I "remember".
I CAN'T remember if it was the ML1 or ML7 (probably the latter). I'd expect prices to be similar were you ever to consider such a machine (OTOH, mark lev used different connectors which means you'll have to solder a bit).

The issue of "accuracy" comes in many ways. If we are talking about tonality, tonal coherency, and such, I would agree that the LS2 is more tonally coherent than the SP8 and SP-10 line stages. I owned the SP-10 and realized how compromised its line stage was 10 years later when I went on a quest to upgrade this.

If we investigate other sonic attributes to determine accuracy, the LS2 is so far away from accurate it is not even funny. Listen to a piano, saxaphone, even human voice with the LS2 and take notice of how quickly tones terminate in space. This is not accurate nor natural at all. Notes with the LS2 occupy little to no space; the presentation is very one-dimensional. It only takes me one trip upstairs to hit a piano key and to know a piano does not sound like this.

As much as I wanted the LS2 to work for me, it was such a huge disappointment. Staying with the SP-10, with all of its tonality colorations and such, was easy as it at least conveyed the dimensionality of the performance that the LS2 failed miserably. Fortunately the LS5 came alone and retained the SP-10's strengths and brought on a huge refinement in tonal coherency, frequency extreme coverage, lower noise and thus greater resolution over the SP-10.

We all tend to speak in our own absolute terms. But our comments are relative to what we have owned or heard elsewhere. Had I not owned the SP-10 for many years, and had also not been so impressed with the LS5 vs. LS2 audition at the ARC dealer, the LS2 may have survived less scrutiny. But I also heard the magic in the MFA and CJ preamps and line stages; I knew how flawed the LS2 truly was.

Concerning some comments above, the LS2 uses one tube, not two. The LS1 and LS2 are hybrid designs, the LS3 is all solid state and the LS7 is all tubed.

I have no experience with the ML models as mentioned by Greg, but I did hear the ML38s directly against the LS5, and the ML sound was way way way too analytical for me. The Klyne was much more to my liking and was much less than the ML. The Krell KRC at the time was as dreadful as the ML38s.

For me, a component's tonal coherency only has relevance once it passes through the dimensionality, harmonic structure and decays in a believeable manner. And unfortunately, it is darn tough to find such a product in Marty's price range. The "modify" route would be the way to go here. Marty: you have a tough job ahead of you.

John

LS-7 wasn't bad as I remember I listened to it before I bought the LS-15. I believe the LS-7 has no remote control though. If that's not an issue, what John recommended with the Dynamicaps upgrade makes a lot of sense. I upgraded the caps in my LS-15 to Dynamicaps and the preamp is a different animal now.

I stand corrected regarding the LS-2 tube complement it was 1and not 2 (confused it with the SP-9). I am puzzled though at the overall condemnation of the LS-2 circuit, that Jafox seems to elicit on all his threads. This circuit right or wrong, was closer to a CD player strait into an amp than all previous ARC offerings including the SP-11/9 linestage. Of course the decay time on reverb ambient cues was not in league with the SP series that preceded it, but in real world listening (to CD sources), you could not go back. This is based on the original 1991/92 offering of the LS-2.

JAFOX, is your experience with both the original LS2 and with the later LS2B? I can definitely fault my LS2B for lacking top-2-bottom extension, harmonic definition, and for sounding relatively hazy, but not really for lack of staging. Furthermore, I confirm I find the sound of my LS2B to be somewhat warmish, with a moderate bloom in the midrange, rather than dry. Is it a case of the two of us hearing/judging thing differently, or could unstated design variability on the same product version account for some of our differing perception?