ARC Ref3 or McIntosh C2300/2500

Can't speak about the MAC, but I used to own the Ref 3. Wow ... what a piece of kit.

I also agree with the comments above re the Ref 5. I moved up to the Ref 5, but was quite surprised that it was NOT in a different league as compared to the Ref 3. I since upgraded my Ref 5 to the SE and think the improvements are very noticeable.

So I vote for the Ref 3 ... or if you can find an LS 27, another good choice.

I happen to agree with the comments that ARC tube gear does not sound tubey. It is warm, neutral, open and very enjoyable. Some may call that analytical, but I think the use of terms is just quibbling about taste.

If your budget permits, I would think about upgrading your phono pre to the PH-7. Forget the PH-8. Not worth the bucks. Also, keep an eye peeled for a nice deal on a CD-5, which is the SS version of the Ref CD-8. I own the CD-8 which is a very nice CDP. The CD-5 and CD-8 both use the same Burr Brown DAC chip set.

But the bottom line is that either the Ref 5 or the LS 27 would make for a fine center to your rig.

We can talk about amps in another thread.

Cheers,

Bruce

A further thought on ARC vs McIntosh in general. I have heard a lot of demos with ARC components vs McIntosh components. These are two great companies with loyal followers. My personal experience, however, has been that with the exception of some of the McIntosh tube gear, in most cases ARC performs in a whole different dimension than McIntosh. I love the McIntosh retro look and their pricing should put their products alongside the best out there, but folks, we're talking about a major league difference in what ARC components are capable of. I'm really not trying to trash Macs, but let's get real here. ARC has always been about pushing the boundaries of what is possible in high-end reproduction. McIntosh has never been taken seriously in the same way. This admission has been acknowledged even by many of the dealers who carry both lines (in their more truthful moments). Personally there are other reasons why I might own Macs, but not because I would expect them to be as resolving and tonally accurate as ARC products are and have been for a very long time.

I have the REF-3 and loving it. The time for me to upgrade preamps will be when ARC comes out with a new preamp that takes advantage of the technology found in their two-box 30 series. Don't know when that will be, but knowing ARC ... you know its going to happen.

And, I have the pH-8. It makes the PH7se that preceded it sound broken. Especially with these tubes:

http://www.upscaleaudio.com/russian-6h30pi-gold-pin/

During most of the 1970s I sold high end hifi equipment. I worked for two dealers, both McIntosh and one that also sold ARC. When I left the business it was with a full complement of ARC equipment for my own use. Today I own CJ, but still like the sound of ARC a lot and would be more than happy to own it again any time. With that said, the day is far off when ARC equipment would measure as well McIntosh. The fact is, when we say that ARC is our preference, what we are really saying is that we like the distortion that it adds, more than we like the distortion than McIntosh equipment adds. If we decide that ARC or any other tube gear is more tonally accurate, what we are really saying is that we find the inherent 2nd order harmonic distortion typical of tube gear to be preferable to the higher order harmonics that are more likely to be found in transistor stuff. I wish we could get away from the euphemisms and nonsensical poetry of the hifi press. When someone writes that one piece of gear is more "resolving" than another, that is meaningless. I expect a more sophisticated group here. Come people. Work with me on this.

Vdosc-

think about a VTL 5.5 pre-amp and demo, if possible, prior to any purchase. Conrad Johnson (CJ) is another consideration. Keep me posted and Happy Listening!