McIntosh C1000 tube pre vs. ARC Ref 3?

"At least I admitted not hearing the Ref 3. That's probably more than
most of you would have done"

Really? Do you Hantrax have priviledged knowledged of what I or anyone else has heard. . . Or may this be a minor case of Messianic fixation?

Sad reality is that you seem to be as qualified as I am in drawing a direct comparison between the two units. . . which is not qualified at all. . . i.e. I know Ref 3 very well, but C1000 not at all, thus I won't be caught dead commenting on the prowess of the latter. Yes, I do admit of having heard other McIntosh linestages Over the years. . . but that is not at all relevant, as none of them were a C1000.

Hantrax your logic is nonsense. To post a strong opinion about something you never heard is absurd. I have owned many ARC and Mac products through the years and although there tends to be a house sound, The Ref3 has been touted to be a break through product. The best to come from ARC in many years. Come back after you've done yourhomework! While brand loyalty is something we can all relate to, your post is hard to swallow.
Jeff

Thank you all for your responses. I decided to arrange for a one on one in house direct comparison. The differences to my ears are that the Mac was more neutral and transparent. You could hear greater detail on passages, both simple and complex and better leading edge on notes. Also, human voice sounded more real. On the other hand, the ARC had more bloom, bigger soundstage and could be overwhelmingly beautiful. Much more drama. MAC = film. ARC = technicolor. I'll take the MAC but I could understand the ARC point of view. Also, MAC is one beautiful piece of audio jewelry.

>>Hantrax your logic is nonsense. To post a strong opinion about something you never heard is absurd.

I posted no strong opinion on anything I haven't heard. You probably need to go back and read the thread.

I listened to the tubed Mac against Ref 3 with esoteric cd player, B&W 802s MacIntosh 501 monolocks. Then listened to Ref 3 alone with Halcro amp and Hansen King speakers which were beautiful. Listened to classical guitar, Steely Dan, Van Morrison, smattering of classical and jazz. I have ordered the Mac pre and will use with Mac 2102 tube amp, VPI Superscoutmaster w Dynavector XV-1S, Bel Canto PL1 universal player, Stealth cabling, Wison Watt Puppy 7 speakers. What Fremer said in his review was so true. The background is so black on the Mac that all detail is revealed. All human voices lose grit and grain that I never knew was there until I heard voices without it. This is truly the least tubey- sounding tube product I have ever heard, but it is by no means solid state. The ARC wears tubes on it's sleeve very well. In fact, it could be more spectacular because of it's nice blend of color saturation. On the other hand, an instrument on the ARC can occasionally sound slightly unlike the instrument itself (although always on the side of euphony). The clarity and leading edge that the Mac has is simply missing on the ARC. But I was very impressed with it's way with music though and would probably have purchased that over any other pre I've heard. I have heard VTL, Conrad Johnson VAC, CAT, BAT all of which have great qualities and faithful adherents . I simply can't imagine a pre can sound better overall than the tube Mac 1000. Although I must qualify that I have not heard the Lyra Connesoisseur and I have heard Shindo and Lamm and liked them a lot (esp Shindo) but refuse to consider a pre that lacks flexibility of use and some form of remote. As far as looks are concerned, the Mac tubed preamp is simply far and away the prettiest piece of audio equipment I have ever seen. That's not why I'll buy it, but it's a nice extra. I expect to have it in hand by Friday. I'll update you on phonostage or any other aspect that you'd like.