Conrad Johnson ACT2 against Audio Research Ref 3

Dave b. No issues with noise with cj stuff especially the ACT2. I run 4.5 metre cables btween myj ACT2 and prem350's. I used to have prem16 and prem8a's and while they were't noisy, they required a bit more work on placement etc as hum could be a problem with bad placement.

Henryhk - cj pre amps place the music as a whole first, then detail where relevent.
ARC has more detail up front, IMO ARC can be more hi fi sounding.
Overall cj easier to listen to over a wider range of recordings.
let the flames begin:)

No flaming from me Downunder. Just a pointer to my summary of the just published TAS review of the ARC Ref 3 at:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1123254379&openfrom&138&4#138

I have yet to read the new TAS. Valin is a long time lover of ARC gear. Pity he hasn't reviewed cj gear for some time. would have been interesting to hear his HP junior speak on the two.

Both cj and ARC very successful in their own versions of musical reproduction.

"ARC has more detail up front, IMO ARC can be more hi fi sounding.
Overall cj easier to listen to over a wider range of recordings.
let the flames begin:)"

It is not an issue of flames but an understanding of what flavor for each of us rocks our sonic boat.
CJ ACT 2 is indeed a fine preamp. Just not my flavor. The ARC Ref 3 for me and my tastes simply lights up my ears.

Oneobgin, what don't you like about the CJ Act 2?