Which Amp

[CannondaleSuperVee]

Between Parasound, Odyssey, ATI, Adcom or Sunfire, they will all end up being about the same price with very similar wattage ratings. Are they all about the same so the diffrence would be inaudible or is there one that would stand out. Thanks Jason

[musicguy04]

I like the way parasounds sound, especially the Halo's. I think they have a clear sound. I don't know much about the other brands, sorry.

[topspeed]

What will you be driving? What kind of music do you listen to?

[CannondaleSuperVee]

I have a set of MB Quart 2000's that they no longer make, they are 4 ohm and each cabinet has 2 @ 8 inch drivers 2 @ 5 1/4's and a tweeter, retail was $3200.00 for the set. I usually listen to rock music and use it for movies but the music is the main thing I want it for.
All the amps i'm looking at are going to end up being around $3000 if its 2 odyssey 3 channels amps or the ATI 2505 five channel.

[topspeed]

I have a set of MB Quart 2000's that they no longer make, they are 4 ohm and each cabinet has 2 @ 8 inch drivers 2 @ 5 1/4's and a tweeter, retail was $3200.00 for the set. I usually listen to rock music and use it for movies but the music is the main thing I want it for.
All the amps i'm looking at are going to end up being around $3000 if its 2 odyssey 3 channels amps or the ATI 2505 five channel.

Just to clarify, are you looking for a 2 channel or multi-channel? You've only mentioned the MBQ's but are referring to purchasing 5 to 6 channels of amplification. You're not planning on bi-amping your mains with the the same amp, are you?

[CannondaleSuperVee]

Topspeed,
I also have Quart center and surround speakers but the music is the main thing. The local store has a Krell 5 channel amp for $3050 sale price, but now I found an ATI 2505 clearanced for $1395 instead of $2500 so now i'm really confused.
I'm trying to build a nice sounding system and so far I have speakers I really like, wired with Monster Z3(probley will sell and get either Z4 or M 2.4), the Monster Signiture Series voltage regulator and the Sig. Ser. 7000 surge protector is on order and the amp is the next thing I need to get. Sorry to ramble Jason

[sy_lu]

Krell is a better amp than the ATI. More refined sound and possibly better current control too. If you can afford it, take the Krell.

[topspeed]

Topspeed,
I also have Quart center and surround speakers but the music is the main thing. The local store has a Krell 5 channel amp for $3050 sale price, but now I found an ATI 2505 clearanced for $1395 instead of $2500 so now i'm really confused.
I'm trying to build a nice sounding system and so far I have speakers I really like, wired with Monster Z3(probley will sell and get either Z4 or M 2.4), the Monster Signiture Series voltage regulator and the Sig. Ser. 7000 surge protector is on order and the amp is the next thing I need to get. Sorry to ramble Jason

Well, first I'd reconsider what you are allocating for all of this Monster stuff and apply it towards your amp budget. You'll hear a bigger difference between amps than you will switching cable. Even Paul Seydor of TAS mentioned how absolutely miniscule the audible differences are between high cost/high profile cables and Home Depot outdoor power cord. YMMV.

OK, on to the amps. I've never heard ATI so we'll leave that one out in the parking lot. My impressions of the other amps you listed are:

Odyssey:
Pros-Very good for the $, will have no problem with your load, runs cool, decent if not stunning bass depth and slam, very good in the microdynamics, pick your faceplate, customer support before sale, enviable warranty
Cons-Silvery and sibilant in the top end, leans toward the cooler side of neutral, the epitome of ss sound and not tube like in the least (this could be a pro depending on your taste), customer support if you want to return it .

Parasound (This is the for the Halo, not HCA's):
Pros- Excellent for the $, smooth mids and top end extension, very good bass depth and response, neutral sound, cool looks
Cons- Can be a bit fuzzy sounding, not the fastest in transients, apparently a ground loop problem based on recent posts

Adcom:
Pros- Usually huge bang for your buck, slamming bass, good all-rounder
Cons- Can sound grainy on certain systems, sibilant highs, another amp that is damn proud to be a ss design and sounds like it.

Sunfire:
Pros-switchable current design, run cool, no prob driving your speaks, lightening fast transient response
Cons-Cold, clinical, analytical sound, not musical in the least. I'll be honest, I can't stand Sunfire amps so 'nuff said.

Of the ones you've mentioned, I'd pick the Halo in a New York minute. I'd then compare them to the two other amps that RGA and Psonic mentioned because they are absolutely right, both Bryston and Rotel and superb amps. I'm not a fan of Krell either but they are very good amps if you're into their sound. I'd also consider B&K and Aragon while you're out there. A'gon has some interesting options from Proceed, Classe, and I particularly like this one:
http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls....1550&demo&3&4&

Hope this helps and good luck in your search.

[sy_lu]

I never heard of Odyssey and my experiences to other brands are limited to models that are a few years old. I have an older HCA series Parasound. A just ok but not greate amp. Its ability to drive low ohm speakers is not very good and it also has the worst ground loop problem of all the audio devices I ever owned. ATI probably can drive the low ohm speakers better but the sound is less clean. Adcom was only on par with a mid range receiver. The worst sound of all was the Sunfire. I got an in home trial of the Sunfire and its sound was so muddy that the Denon 3300 (I used it as a pre/pro) receiver's amp section has a clearner sound. I end up got a Legacy PowerBloc5 that was oem from a small company call Coda. I think regardless what music or movie you play, a good amp should be fast and have very good current capacity to handle any speakers you will put on it.

[psonic]

I would add Rotel to that list, if you can find a dealer that is. IMO Rotel is possibly the best power amplifier under $1000. I own the RB981BX which is basically same as the current RB-1070 130wpc. The $999 RB1080BX 200wpc is a stereophile class B product, which none of the others can boast. Another enjoyable amp in that range would be B&K. Both well worth considering...


http://www.rotel.com/products/stereo...amplifiers.htm

[RobotCzar]

Since you label yourself as a newbie, you deserve to at least hear a few facts instead of the usual BS.

Under controlled conditions nobody (that is nobody) has demonstrated that they can hear differences among properlyperforming and measuring amps and they have been tested in a variety of conditions over the past 25 years. If frequency response is flat and they have relatively low distortion into reasonable loads, then there is no reason in the world they would "sound" differently. (Even if they did, moving your head or your speakers a few inches would have more effect on what you hear.)

Audiophle magazines lie about this or fool themselves (as to audio fans) beacuse they need something to talk about. Things that actually affect what you hear are generally ignored because you can't buy them (except speakers).

Do yourself a favor and research the issue beyond what you read in forums and magazines. People can't hear difference among even cheap vs. expensive amps. The ones you listed are all just fine and should be judged base on power output per dollar, features, and build quality only.

[DMK]

Since you label yourself as a newbie, you deserve to at least hear a few facts instead of the usual BS.

Under controlled conditions nobody (that is nobody) has demonstrated that they can hear differences among properlyperforming and measuring amps and they have been tested in a variety of conditions over the past 25 years. If frequency response is flat and they have relatively low distortion into reasonable loads, then there is no reason in the world they would "sound" differently. (Even if they did, moving your head or your speakers a few inches would have more effect on what you hear.)

Audiophle magazines lie about this or fool themselves (as to audio fans) beacuse they need something to talk about. Things that actually affect what you hear are generally ignored because you can't buy them (except speakers).

Do yourself a favor and research the issue beyond what you read in forums and magazines. People can't hear difference among even cheap vs. expensive amps. The ones you listed are all just fine and should be judged base on power output per dollar, features, and build quality only.

Nobody? That's a wild claim! You are infinitely familiar with each and every person that may have done such a test? Don't you mean nobody, as far as YOU know? If you do some research yourself, you might find that two guys from Stereophile demonstrated exactly what you're saying "nobody" has done. Not enough trials to be a true demonstration? That's been said before. So now what you mean is that they haven't demonstrated it to YOUR satisfaction. That's quite a bit different from your original half-baked claim.

Audio magazines don't lie or fool themselves. What they do is exaggerate the differences they hear until they become "night and day" differences instead of what my experience tells me they are - slight, subtle, minute. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

As for your last paragraph, I'd say the first sentence is very good advice, the second sentence is a claim you can't substantiate and the third is only your opinion. I'm not going to say you're wrong because, quite frankly, I think most solid state amps that measure properly and are of adequate power for the speakers DO sound nearly identical. But that's only MY experience and my opinion. So I essentially agree with your basic premise but it's absolutely wrong to think it's an absolute truth, at least at this point.

To the original poster, take Robot Czar's advice and arm yourself with some research knowledge. Then listen carefully, and preferably in a controlled test. Then take your results to the bank and forget what both the "measurements only" crowd and the "night and day" difference crowd tell you. They're both wrong, IMHO. It's true that there is a lot of BS that circulates through the world of audio gear. It appears when someone leans too far to one side. As with many debateable issues, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[mtrycraft]

Nobody? That's a wild claim! You are infinitely familiar with each and every person that may have done such a test? Don't you mean nobody, as far as YOU know? If you do some research yourself, you might find that two guys from Stereophile demonstrated exactly what you're saying "nobody" has done. Not enough trials to be a true demonstration? That's been said before. So now what you mean is that they haven't demonstrated it to YOUR satisfaction. That's quite a bit different from your original half-baked claim.

Audio magazines don't lie or fool themselves. What they do is exaggerate the differences they hear until they become "night and day" differences instead of what my experience tells me they are - slight, subtle, minute. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

As for your last paragraph, I'd say the first sentence is very good advice, the second sentence is a claim you can't substantiate and the third is only your opinion. I'm not going to say you're wrong because, quite frankly, I think most solid state amps that measure properly and are of adequate power for the speakers DO sound nearly identical. But that's only MY experience and my opinion. So I essentially agree with your basic premise but it's absolutely wrong to think it's an absolute truth, at least at this point.

To the original poster, take Robot Czar's advice and arm yourself with some research knowledge. Then listen carefully, and preferably in a controlled test. Then take your results to the bank and forget what both the "measurements only" crowd and the "night and day" difference crowd tell you. They're both wrong, IMHO. It's true that there is a lot of BS that circulates through the world of audio gear. It appears when someone leans too far to one side. As with many debateable issues, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Are you refering to the large group test with 5 trials? Out of the number of participants just by chance you can expect exactely that result, nothing more of getting 5 out of 5. Besides, it was a very poor test indeed, regardless what they try to claim about it. This may also be the one where the frequency was not level matched, among other things.

So, that one is out of the way. Next?

There is a compilation of amp tests in The Proceedings of the AES 8th International Conference, 1990, page 117-120. 13523 trials prior to that time.

[DMK]

Are you refering to the large group test with 5 trials? Out of the number of participants just by chance you can expect exactely that result, nothing more of getting 5 out of 5. Besides, it was a very poor test indeed, regardless what they try to claim about it. This may also be the one where the frequency was not level matched, among other things.

So, that one is out of the way. Next?

There is a compilation of amp tests in The Proceedings of the AES 8th International Conference, 1990, page 117-120. 13523 trials prior to that time.

Yes, that's the one. Statistical analysis may suggest that the 5/5 was by chance and there could have been other things wrong with the test, no question. But we don't KNOW that the two people didn't or couldn't hear differences. As such, we have to be careful what we claim as fact. For all anyone knows, someone HAS heard differences. But there ain't no "next" as far as I know. There may never be one and there may never have been one. I would bet the farm that even if there are sonic differences in solid state power amps, they are so miniscule that no one could ever be sure they heard them - all the appropriate codicils attached i.e level matched, etc, of course! But I am speculating, the same as anyone is.

You may recall that I participated in some single blind test of SS power amps several years ago. The amps ranged in price from extremely modest to quite expensive. None of us heard even the subtlest of differences. For a group of audiodorks, it was like having our legs cut off! Ever see one of those Springer shows where the male swears he's not the father of his girlfriends child and the test results show he is? Well, the look on those guys faces is the same one we had! Then the protestations began!

[RobotCzar]

Nobody? That's a wild claim! You are infinitely familiar with each and every person that may have done such a test? Don't you mean nobody, as far as YOU know? If you do some research yourself, you might find that two guys from Stereophile demonstrated exactly what you're saying "nobody" has done. (PLEASE GIVE REFERENCE, IT IS UNLIKELY A GUY FROM STEREOPHILE COULD DEMONSTATE ANYTHING SCIENTIFICALLY.) Not enough trials to be a true demonstration? That's been said before. So now what you mean is that they haven't demonstrated it to YOUR satisfaction. That's quite a bit different from your original half-baked claim.
(MY CLAIM IS BETTER BAKED THAN YOURS AS YOU ARE ASSUMING SOMETHING WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE--"THAT I KNOW OF". DO YOU KNOW OF ANY?)

Audio magazines don't lie or fool themselves. What they do is exaggerate the differences they hear until they become "night and day" differences instead of what my experience tells me they are - slight, subtle, minute. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
(IT ALSO DOESN'T MEAN THEY DO EXIST!)

As for your last paragraph, I'd say the first sentence is very good advice, the second sentence is a claim you can't substantiate and the third is only your opinion. I'm not going to say you're wrong because, quite frankly, I think most solid state amps that measure properly and are of adequate power for the speakers DO sound nearly identical. But that's only MY experience and my opinion. So I essentially agree with your basic premise but it's absolutely wrong to think it's an absolute truth, at least at this point.

.

Of course I mean nobody I have heard of. How could I know about something I haven't heard of? I am not aware of any evidence that people can distinguish properly performing amps. Nit picking that statement is useless. I don't know that nobody can jump to the Moon, and I haven't checked everybody out. Still, I get the feeling that nobody can jump to the Moon. After 20+ years of NO ONE I KNOW OF being able to demonstrate they and hear amp differences AND due to the logic involved of distortioni and frequency response errors lower than can be detected, reasonable people might conclude that nobody can because (to my knowledge) nobody has and it defies the known perceptual abilities of humans to do so.

So, you can take the middle road and the reasonable position that we don't know that NOBODY can jump to the Moon. But, don't bet on it.

Skeptic criticizes measurements "from the 30s" (I guess the laws of physics and human perception have changed a lot since then), but he doesn't say what could be causing audible differences other than distortion and frequency response errors. There ain't anything else! He posits that some amps may have audible distortion into some speaker loads, but he is quite unspecific about that and, in my view, overestimates the problem because he thinks he hears problems in a 30 year old amp. Why assume that people can hear differences in amps, skep? Don't you think they should prove it? We are all awaiting such proof. Don't hold your breath and don't spend money on amp differences that are imaginary.

[DMK]

Of course I mean nobody I have heard of. How could I know about something I haven't heard of? I am not aware of any evidence that people can distinguish properly performing amps. Nit picking that statement is useless. I don't know that nobody can jump to the Moon, and I haven't checked everybody out. Still, I get the feeling that nobody can jump to the Moon. After 20+ years of NO ONE I KNOW OF being able to demonstrate they and hear amp differences AND due to the logic involved of distortioni and frequency response errors lower than can be detected, reasonable people might conclude that nobody can because (to my knowledge) nobody has and it defies the known perceptual abilities of humans to do so.

So, you can take the middle road and the reasonable position that we don't know that NOBODY can jump to the Moon. But, don't bet on it.

Skeptic criticizes measurements "from the 30s" (I guess the laws of physics and human perception have changed a lot since then), but he doesn't say what could be causing audible differences other than distortion and frequency response errors. There ain't anything else! He posits that some amps may have audible distortion into some speaker loads, but he is quite unspecific about that and, in my view, overestimates the problem because he thinks he hears problems in a 30 year old amp. Why assume that people can hear differences in amps, skep? Don't you think they should prove it? We are all awaiting such proof. Don't hold your breath and don't spend money on amp differences that are imaginary.

As for the reference on the Stereophile test, I don't save references. Sonic differences or no sonic differences among amps isn't a meaningful enough issue for me to go nuts and horde references. However, Mtrycrafts may have effectively shot that one down anyway.

What I meant by "no one you're aware of" has heard differences in amps is that the people that claim to do so aren't concerned enough about what you think (or what I think, either) to sit and take DBT's and make copious notes. That's for the scientific crowd. Your average audiophile only cares about what sounds good (or different) to him. There's no reason for him to try to prove anything to you. You're the skeptic - he's not. If you need proof, you can always gather your own. For what reason would they be obligated to make you happy with a peer reviewed, bias controlled test? Have you ever participated in one? I have! never again! They are a major PITA. And because YOU want proof, audiophiles should go through that?

My point is that simply because you aren't aware of anyone being able to detect differences in amps (assuming enough power, etc etc etc) doesn't mean they aren't there. You claimed they weren't. Until you've personally tested all amps under all conditions, you don't know for sure. I've tested enough of them to believe they sound virtually identical. However, Skeptic's experience with equalization that he has quoted a few times makes me wonder if perhaps my ears simply aren't up to the task. Either way, I'm satisfied with what I can or cannot hear but I don't presume that everyone else has my same hearing.

[RobotCzar]

What I meant by "no one you're aware of" has heard differences in amps is that the people that claim to do so aren't concerned enough about what you think (or what I think, either) to sit and take DBT's and make copious notes. That's for the scientific crowd. Your average audiophile only cares about what sounds good (or different) to him. There's no reason for him to try to prove anything to you. You're the skeptic - he's not. If you need proof, you can always gather your own. For what reason would they be obligated to make you happy with a peer reviewed, bias controlled test? Have you ever participated in one? I have! never again! They are a major PITA. And because YOU want proof, audiophiles should go through that?

IF "AUDIOPHILES" ONLY CARE ABOUT WHAT SOUNDS GOOD TO THEM, THEN WHY SHARE THEIR OPINIONS WITH OTHERS. THEY ARE HEARING THINGS THAT ARE ONLY IN THEIR HEADS, AND THEY ARE PRETENDING THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT REAL, OBJECTIVE DIFFERENCES. THEY NEED TO STOP AS THEY ARE MISLEADING AUDIO NEWBIES. THEY ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO MAKE ME HAPPY. ....AND I AM UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO RESPECT THEIR UNFOUNDED OPINIONS.

My point is that simply because you aren't aware of anyone being able to detect differences in amps (assuming enough power, etc etc etc) doesn't mean they aren't there. You claimed they weren't. Until you've personally tested all amps under all conditions, you don't know for sure. I've tested enough of them to believe they sound virtually identical. However, Skeptic's experience with equalization that he has quoted a few times makes me wonder if perhaps my ears simply aren't up to the task. Either way, I'm satisfied with what I can or cannot hear but I don't presume that everyone else has my same hearing.

And my point is that there is no evidence (I am aware of) that anyone can hear differences in amps. If you are aware of such evidence then tell us, if not, then don't pretend my statements are unreasonable. They are a lot more reasonable than believing things for which there is no evidence and also make no logical scienctific sense.

Let me reinterate this last point. Current scientific information about human auditory perception indicates that people cannot hear differences in distortion typical in modern amplifiers (driving typical speaker loads--for skeptic's sake). So why in the heck do you believe that some people can? If some claim that they can, shouldn't they be on the hook to demonstrate that they can? Well, to date, I am aware of no body that has demonstrated that they can.

Ask me if I care if audiophiles don't care about this or my opinion. Who cares who doesn't care about other people's opinions. Those people shouldn't be reading and writing in audio forums.

[mtrycraft]

(I guess the laws of physics and human perception have changed a lot since then), .

It's called evolution

[skeptic]

This statement ignores the fact that nearly all vacuum tube amplifiers exhibit significantly inferior performance by delivering an indistinct unclear sound and boomy colored bass with limited low end capability. (I exclude the relative handful of OTL tube amplifiers which have overcome the high output impedence exhibited by conventional designs using very high plate impedence output circuits with inefficient impedence matching transformers.) This is regarded by some audiophiles as a "warm" or "sweet" sound especially when connected to their shrill audiophile loudspeakers with limited low frequency output capability. The electrical shortcomings of these amplifiers may actually compensate for the shortcomings of the loudspeakers but that hardly justifies their other obvious limitations for example the fact that they begin to self destruct from the first second they are turned on.

The abillity of amplifiers with linear signal topology to perform up to their audible potential depends on the quality of the power supply and the nature of the load. Small amplifiers with relatively modest power supplies will sound indistinguishable from heftier designs with efficient easy to drive loads. On the other hand, the beefier designs will show their mettle when the loads are difficult and the program material is demanding. The good news it that for people more interested in the quality of the amplifier and not the quality of the brand cache, there are excellent units available at remarkably modest prices, a far cry from the market realities of 40 years ago.

The current specifications presently in use for describing and measuring amplifiers has been inherited fromt the 1930s when they showed the real differences between competing designs. They are completely obsolete and of almost no use today when comparing units. For example, frequency response is still measured at 1 watt with a resistive load. What of any practical use does that tell us?

If what you sad was true, you could pick practically any amplifier off the shelf at random and it wouldn't matter. IMO, sound systems should be engineered as a totality considering budget, type of music to be played through it, room acoustics, room size, and maximum undistorted sound levels required. Pick the loudspeakers first and then choose from amplifiers which can satisfy their drive requirements. You won't need an engineering degree to do that.

[DMK]

This statement ignores the fact that nearly all vacuum tube amplifiers exhibit significantly inferior performance by delivering an indistinct unclear sound and boomy colored bass with limited low end capability. (I exclude the relative handful of OTL tube amplifiers which have overcome the high output impedence exhibited by conventional designs using very high plate impedence output circuits with inefficient impedence matching transformers.) This is regarded by some audiophiles as a "warm" or "sweet" sound especially when connected to their shrill audiophile loudspeakers with limited low frequency output capability. The electrical shortcomings of these amplifiers may actually compensate for the shortcomings of the loudspeakers but that hardly justifies their other obvious limitations for example the fact that they begin to self destruct from the first second they are turned on.

The abillity of amplifiers with linear signal topology to perform up to their audible potential depends on the quality of the power supply and the nature of the load. Small amplifiers with relatively modest power supplies will sound indistinguishable from heftier designs with efficient easy to drive loads. On the other hand, the beefier designs will show their mettle when the loads are difficult and the program material is demanding. The good news it that for people more interested in the quality of the amplifier and not the quality of the brand cache, there are excellent units available at remarkably modest prices, a far cry from the market realities of 40 years ago.

The current specifications presently in use for describing and measuring amplifiers has been inherited fromt the 1930s when they showed the real differences between competing designs. They are completely obsolete and of almost no use today when comparing units. For example, frequency response is still measured at 1 watt with a resistive load. What of any practical use does that tell us?

If what you sad was true, you could pick practically any amplifier off the shelf at random and it wouldn't matter. IMO, sound systems should be engineered as a totality considering budget, type of music to be played through it, room acoustics, room size, and maximum undistorted sound levels required. Pick the loudspeakers first and then choose from amplifiers which can satisfy their drive requirements. You won't need an engineering degree to do that.

If you're responding to me, my statements ignore the "fact" you began with because I've never found it to be a fact. I've found tube amps outperform solid state with ease, if all we're talking about is the resultant sound and not the technical or longevity or convenience problems. If you're hearing boomy bass and especially an unclear sound, you're listening to the wrong amps! My speakers could hardly be called "shrill". No tweeter! If anything, the highs are rolled off which is ok since I can't hear anything above probably 13 khz anyway.

But I'm glad you responded because it made me remember your post regarding SS amp sound where you wrote that you knew SS amps could sound different because when you swapped one out, you had to re-calibrate your equalizer. Could you refresh this for us and perhaps Mtrycrafts could respond?

[skeptic]

First of all DMK, I was responding to Rober Czar but I will be happy to discuss the recalibraton of my equalizer when I had to swap out my blown Dynakit Stereo 120 with the comparably powered (60wpc) Mosfet 120 I built in 1993. After more than 20 years of venerable service, the Dynaco was taken out by Prokifiev's Alexander Nevsky, track 5 The Battle on the Ice DG 419 603-2. The load was the relatively efficient but not necessarily easy to drive 4 ohm Teledyne AR9s with three additional Audax tweeters per channel in parallel. I can't say if my identical vinyl recording would have been so effective at blowing up that amplifier. The Mosfet was a kind of lineal decendent of the 120 designed by Klaus and Peterson, two very respected amplifier designers. Much to my amazement, a direct swapout of the amplifiers yielded a rather different sound. For other people who haven't read any of my postings about equalization and other matters, I want my sound system to reproduce the sound of acoustical instruments as exactly as I can remember them on as many of my recordings as possible and that I haven't found the kind of measurement equipment for audiophile use including noise generators, calibrated microphones, and spectrum analyzers useful in achieving that goal. So unfortunately, I have come to resort to a long period of trial and error trying to achieve one small incremental improvement at a time and sometimes going backwards. It took me about two years to get back to where I felt I had been. Can I be absuolutely sure that the end results are exactly the same? The obvious answer is NO.

Thanks for reminding me DMK. That experience alone was enough to convince me that all amplifiers do not sound the same.

[RGA]

Good tube amplifiers that I have heard don't sound warm or sweet. most new even cheap Tube amplifiers put out under 1% total harmonic distrotion across the complete audible bandwidth - including new Single ended topoplogies - and when it does happen to distort sounds better to the ear.

I would be happy to own either a SS or a Tube so long as it sounds good - and there are pretty good and bad examples of both.