ARC Ref3 or McIntosh C2300/2500


Can anyone comment on their actual experiences with these two pre amps?
I am considering an upgrade to my Audio Research LS26 and these are the ones I am considering. Both priced similarly on the used market, the Mac offers more features such as Phono and DAC (C2500) which is useful to me. But most important is how they sound. What I am looking for is more the "magic" tube midrange sound (which the LS26 does not have) as well as the wide and deep soundstage that I do have.
Just to compare, I put in a older VTL 2.5 pre amp and the midrange was much more to my liking than that of the ARC which sounded a bit "sterile" and "analytical" as the reviewers say. But the VTL did not have the wide soundstage nor quite as deep, fast, and top as the ARC.
Other gear :
McIntosh MC402 amp with Wilson WP6 speakers
ARC CD3, ARC PH5, VPI Traveler, Benchmark DAC. Transparent cables.
I listen to all sources, mostly classic rock, Jazz,
Thank you
vdosc
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!
Old thread. Good discussion but without a proper technical answer. Clearly ARC is the winner in popularity for resolution/pure performance.

However, the REF 3 requires a high input impedance power amp to sound best (ARC power amps are typically 200K). Matching to a 10K input impedance power amp will have a slightly rolled off treble and higher distortion. (ARC 3 rises to 1400 ohm output impedance at 20KHz and distortion rises dramatically into lower impedance amps)

The Mcintosh has much lower output impedance and will work with lower impedance power amplifiers (as low as 5 K).

The ARC design is indeed outstanding and close to the best SS in performance with the advantage of a hint of tube 2nd harmonic warmth. However, a high input impedance power amp will be more susceptible to ground loops/hum. The Mcintosh is not as bleeding edge in terms of performance and appears to lean more towards old school “tubey” sound (warm and rich). The Mcintosh can be expected to be more robust and workable with a wide variety of power amps.

Mcintosh is like Mercedes (built for comfort & ease of use). ARC is more like Ferrari (built for speed but not as easy to use). Frankly I would avoid 200K input impedance power amps like the plague - with this design you are almost guaranteed to have RF/hum/ground loop issues from very tiny stray current which may show up as hiss - nevertheless a Ferrari is a Ferrari and when everything is going well for Ferrari, Lewis Hamilton in his Mercedes is looking at the back of a Ferrari  - like at Bahrain.