Comparing ARC, Lamm and Modwright Preamps

Rrulack, I had the impression it had dual volume controls, one for each channel, and no remote. In other words, not only do you have to get up, getting the volume right requires diddling with two separate controls. A purist approach, but not for everyone.

I owned an ARC LS16 mkII driving Bryston power amps some years back. Tube rolling the 6922 inside gave it a good warm sound to offset the rather clinical presentation of the Bryston. In my upgrade itch, I auditioned the ModWright and later the Lamm. In my opinion, the ARC LS16 was bettered by the ModWright, which was bettered by the Lamms. Again, based on my tastes.

I may be late by couple of years but wanted to post my observations regardless.
I have had a modwright 9.0se (with the tube power supply upgrade), ARC LS26 and now the Lamm ll2.1. Unquestionably the Lamm is the best of the three. It has significantly better resolution. Soundstage depth is amazing and finally it has better bass extension and signficantly more definition in the lower frequencies. I also feel that listener fatigue is the least with the lamm during extended listening. I also felt that the modwright SQ was quite close to that of the ARC. So I would rank them as 1. Lamm 2. ARC 3. Modwright
Cheers,
Sid

I had a Modwright LS-100 and it was noticeably warmer than my ARC Reference 5SE or the CJ GAT that I put it alongside with at a friend's place for a shootout.

The LAMM IMHO is very similar to the ARC but I didn't go for it because of the lack of HT bypass.

The ARC isn't used with ARC gear but it does benefit greatly from a full balanced set up.