Which preamps is better? ARC REF 3 vs MC-2300

I have heard both and I own an LS26 and place the MC-2300 closer in performance to the LS-26. I have had a Ref 3 in my system on an in home demo and it really is many steps above the LS-26, however I have been told the LS-27 exceeds the performance of the Ref 3.

Hope that helps, my vote is for the REF3

Ref 3 all the way (full disclosure I own the Ref 3). For me the the Ref 3 is more resolving, more dimensional, and more tonally neutral yet accurate). The C2300 is a bit muddy and thick sounding in the mid- and upper-base, so it gives it a fuller, meatier sound but that obscures a lot of the detail and resolution that is evident in the Ref 3. The C2300 is easy to listen to (warm sounding preamp) but again it robs the performance of resolution and of rythmic pace (a bit slow sounding).

I am sure you will find many C2300 fans who will disagree and suggest the C2300. You should obviously try to listen and decide for yourself.

Good luck.

I found the C2200 much better sounding than the C2300. With tube rolling you can tailor the sound since the stock tubes are junk.

Ref 3. Cmalak's description of the differences is accurate. I test listened to the Ref 3 once against the Mac C1000. I initially preferred the C1000 but that was because I was doing the comparison in a system with a Mac amp. I purchased ithe C1000 and was in an all Mac system for a few years until I heard an all ARC system. The differences are huge. Mac has a smoother and thicker sound. Fatter in the middle. But Mac also substantially obscures detail. A dealer who sells both once told me that he sells Mac to customers who want a user friendly experience with a nice blue-lit ambience. He sells ARC to those who want a more transparent sound without the ambience and less bells and whistles.