Conrad Johnson ACT2 against Audio Research Ref 3


I am in the market for a nice line stage preamp. My list has been narrowed down to 2 preamps based on reviews and many listening sessions availabe to me. I do have a local Audio research dealer and have heard and loved the Ref 3 but not Conrad/Johnson. Any thoughts regarding the ACT 2 is greatly appreciated. Thanks.....
ginas
Interesting in the "who's who of tube preamps.

I have heard that the people at Wilson Audio view the 3 best Reference tube preamps to be the
ARC Ref 3
CJ ACT 2
VTL 7.5

I also listened hard and heavy to the Lamm L2 preamp hoping that it would add synergy to my system using the Lamm ML 2.1 monos and I found it very cold and very sterile.

I just feel the Ref3 is for "my" ears the best tube preamp that I have ever owned
And what do the people at wilson audio know. Not trying to be funny or sarcastic it is just I have just never thought their speakers to be all that great. And believe me I am trying to understand as I have listened to their speakers in dealers showrooms on several occasions; I just can not appreciate them. Oh well different subject...........sorry.

Chuck
Odd that the VTL 7.5 even qualifies as a tube preamp. It is all solid state except for two 12 AX7's.

Wonder why they left out the Aesthetix Callisto? Maybe because it has 22 tubes?
I am now even more confused then when I first posted this subject but all feedbacks thus far are interesting and valuable to me (thanks again). I mostly listen to Piano, Jazz, classical, and a little bit of rock-n-roll. This next question is outside of the preamp subject but can someone comment on Cary Audio, CAD-211 Annivesary Edition amplifier and its ability to drive the AndraII's. Is it powerful enough to get the best out of the Andra II's?
I have just heard the ACT, but have had some previous AR preamps and currently own a pair of Premier 8s.

I second the recommendation to try to go and listen (preferably at your place), generaly speaking I would say thet the CJ line is a tad more musical, organic and involving than AR, which I find more analitic and grainy.

Fernando