ARC: Out of receivership

[cleeds]

There's been a lot of speculation as to what led to ARC's crisis. It's likely that there is no one simple cause, but I think the biggest factor was insufficient operating capital. Let's hope its new owners have the wherewithal needed to develop new products and clear the service backlog. One way or another, it won't take long to find out.

[Charles]

I have always admired and had great respect for ARC. My problem has been that folks would come on and trash McIntosh. I didn't appreciate this at all. But I have always recognized ARC as the standard bearer for American tube amps. Let's face it, Mac abandoned tubes for a long time, and only recently have returned to their roots.

I think you are 100% correct that ARC's association with Mac severely damaged the company. Why? They tried to emulate Mac with all those doodads like meters, etc. My friend at Mac said as much. Mac gained a tremendous amount of knowledge from ARC because Mac studied ARC very very carefully while they owned ARC. Mac had access to all the ARC technology. I could tell you one very important thing Mac learned about tubes, but I don't feel I should. ARC gained nothing from Mac except poison, IMO. ZERO. When you go to their website there are some great looking amps there that don't have meters that are uncomplicated beautiful devices. Perhaps you could make some suggestions to help ARC return to its roots. It is a fact that their sound has changed but is it for the better. I don't know. I hate that this has happened. A careful analysis must be done by the new owners as to how to proceed with new products.

Best

Charles

I haven't seen an ARC amp in years. The ones I saw at Cumberland Audio in Nashville years ago were beautifully made, hand wired no circuit boards, tube amps, no meters or fluff/doodads that epitomized all that was good in the high end.

[Still-One]

Charles, I have no knowledge relating to what McIntosh may have learned while they owned ARC but I will disagree that the new ARC should go back to their roots and make gear that looks like it was designed in the 60's or 70's.

When I have time I will have a discussion with my local dealer who carries the line but I am pretty sure he has mentioned that there was a nice increase in sales after ARC came out with there latest designs.

You are not going to "maintain" a large base of owners who need to consider the expense and hassle of replacing the 610T's significant complement of tubes over time.

Industrial design is very important these days and even the most storied tube manufacturers have upped their game in this area.

[Porsche993TT]

Originally Posted by cleeds

There's been a lot of speculation as to what led to ARC's crisis. It's likely that there is no one simple cause, but I think the biggest factor was insufficient operating capital. Let's hope its new owners have the wherewithal needed to develop new products and clear the service backlog. One way or another, it won't take long to find out.

insufficient capital or capital spent unwisely, I don't buy that it was insufficient, huge following and been around 50 years, mis management etc is my bet

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Still-One

Charles, I have no knowledge relating to what McIntosh may have learned while they owned ARC but I will disagree that the new ARC should go back to their roots and make gear that looks like it was designed in the 60's or 70's.

When I have time I will have a discussion with my local dealer who carries the line but I am pretty sure he has mentioned that there was a nice increase in sales after ARC came out with there latest designs.

You are not going to "maintain" a large base of owners who need to consider the expense and hassle of replacing the 610T's significant complement of tubes over time.

Industrial design is very important these days and even the most storied tube manufacturers have upped their game in this area.

Jim, when I see a VAC or CJ amp that's what I mean. Inaccurate meters with spotty lighting are of no benefit and add to costs. ARC is competing with these folks more than Mac. But let's hope that ARC can get the problems worked out. However, I don't have the patience to play guinea pig on super expensive gear when there are other alternatives. ARC is super expensive and if I'm going to buy it, I want it to be thoroughly vetted. I suspect the 320M will be north of 30K per amp, twice the cost of my 3500 which is rock solid at 400 plus watts, accurate meters, perfect lightning, and almost overnight service (at least for me). I'm not in love with McIntosh in the sense that I would have any and I mean any, of the kinds of problems I have heard.

Months ago I asked Mark who owns an Alexx if he ever observed his meters indicating overload or clipping. The Alexx will easily take over 140 watts. I received no answer. About a month ago, I was playing "In the midnight Hour" at 85% and my R 3500 shutdown. Just turned off quietly. I don't play at that volume anymore. Meters can be of benefit, if they are accurate and easily visible, but very few are helpful. I think ARC's meters leave a lot to be desired. I find the Foundation Series much more to my liking. But the bottom line is the gear needs to work and be functional.

Best

Charles

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Porsche993TT

insufficient capital or capital spent unwisely, I don't buy that it was insufficient, huge following and been around 50 years, mis management etc is my bet

I don't know about the capital. McIntosh during its stint owning ARC learned a lot about tubes from ARC. Apparently, ARC has proprietary knowledge concerning tubes. ARC makes superior sounding tube amps because of proprietary knowledge. This did not work in reverse. That's a fact.

Best

Charles

[djcxxx]

ARC’s problems began with the GS series which was poorly marketed as ARC could not define the GS place in the line up. Arguably the GS styling was updated, elegant, and reliable, IMHO better in all respects to the current Ref styling. Customers were arguing the sonic and esthetic merits of competing in house components. Not surprisingly, pricing close to Ref series without being defined as such ultimately orphaned the whole series. Perhaps a sign of competing philosophies in management. A coherent product development and marketing strategy is alway necessary, but life and death for a small company with limited capital depth.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by djcxxx

ARC’s problems began with the GS series which was poorly marketed as ARC could not define the GS place in the line up. Arguably the GS styling was updated, elegant, and reliable, IMHO better in all respects to the current Ref styling. Customers were arguing the sonic and esthetic merits of competing in house components. Not surprisingly, pricing close to Ref series without being defined as such ultimately orphaned the whole series. Perhaps a sign of competing philosophies in management. A coherent product development and marketing strategy is alway necessary, but life and death for a small company with limited capital depth.

I got into tubes really late in my life and I am sold on Mac. But if I were younger, and if I was into tubes, the amp that would be a strong contender to Mac would be the CJ ART108A. It's 160 watts class A and I will bet that its rock solid with a great tube sound. It's beautifully made, absolutely gorgeous. Their pre's looks fantastic. It's priced right at 50K for a pair of mono amps. I have always admired CJ design philosophy. CJ's design philosophy is simple elegant circuit design, extremely high quality parts, and beautiful build with no fans and no doodads like meters. VAC amps don't remotely meet their specs. I suspect CJ amps meet or exceed their specs.

Best

Charles

[FreddieFerric]

No matter what spin anyone wants to put on these developments, to me it's clear ARC is a troubled brand with an uncertain future.

For myself only, when I looked long and hard at the GS series, I'm glad not to have invested in it.

[George Prentice]

While I am not in direct communication with the leaders at ARC, a good friend of mine is a dealer and has been in close contact with ARC over years, then with Trent when he bought the company and recently spent time with the new owner.

This whole thing has nothing to do with product lines or specific designs. Trent saw a huge opportunity to spring ARC from the company holding them and MAC, and if I remember correctly Sonus Faber. He was able to scrape the money together to buy it, but just barely.

Tube shortages and increase in interest rates made them unable to meet their debt obligation… which was only a bit over a $1M. This has nothing to do with product lines or it’s viability as a business. It is about how the company was purchased and cash flow. That is it.

There were restrictions put on what to develop when they were with Mac. Not a good thing. These are gone now. So, the new owner, who is a business man and passionate about audio… and he appears to have deep pockets… cash flow should no longer be a problem. ARC should be able to get back to doing what they do best… create natural, detailed, and musical audio electronics.