How does the Phase Linear 400 compare?

For what its worth, JGH once wrote about the PL 400:

"This and the higher-powered P-L 700 have a sound that is characteristically their own: A rather fat, rich quality that one normally associates with good solid-state units of considerably lower power (such as the Citation 12 and the Crown D-60), and the effortless openness that is a sure sign of oodles of reserve power. Both however also have a noticeably fine-grained or 'gray' quality that is substantially less conspicuous in the 400 (which in turn has a shade more of it than the Crown DC-300A). In addition, although it is not easy to overload the 400, it does not respond very gracefully when it is overdriven (usually on heavy, sustained bass passages), and takes a perceptible period of time to recover.

"All in all, we would judge this to be a less successful design than the Dyna Stereo 400 (which sells for $100 more), but would rate it as being the best solid-state amplifier in its price class."

Seems to corroborate Sean's comments, not that we need JGH to corroborate Sean.

James: Thanks for posting that. Where in the world did you ever find that ? Do you still have the original magazine or was it on the net somewhere ?

I guess if you take things in perspective, J. Gordon Holt made some of the same comments that i did i.e. the Phase amps had a grainy haze, the power supply was soft and that the bass lacked sustain and definition. Other than that, it appears that he thought pretty highly of the Phase amps in their day. Obviously, his comments might be somewhat different if he were to look back upon those amps today knowing what he now knows.

The one thing that i have a hard time understanding is that he said that the Dyna 400 was a "more successful" design than the Phase 400, but rated the Phase 400 as being the best in its' price class. Given the difference in price of only $100, was he saying that the Dyna may have sold more ( i.e. "greater success" ) but that the Phase 400 was a better amp ? One cold also take it to mean that the Phase 400 was the best amp for the money, but for another $100, they felt that the Dyna was a step forward ? Without seeing the entire review / commentary, it is hard to tell how to take this comment. Sean
>

Sean: The quote was taken from the original hard copy magazine The Stereophile, Winter (4), 1973/74, pages 9 and 10. The quote represents the entire review, except for the title, power rating, price, and manufacturer's address. The price was $499. The Dyna 400, which was reviewed on page 11, had a price of $449 in kit form and $599 ready-built. Back then, $100 made for a different price class for JGH -- Whew! I hardly remember it myself. I was looking through my back issues because something I read on Audiogon about Wilson speakers reminded me about the Fulton J Modulars, which are also reviewed in this issue. I stumbled across the PL 400 review and remembered seeing this thread a few days ago.

Thanks for the follow-up James. Just goes to show how much things have changes since then, both in audio and the economy. While JGH thought that $100 was enough to separate one item from another in terms of the price category of a component, we wouldn't think twice about dumping $100 for a piece of wire nowadays. Makes me want to second guess a lot of the decisions that i've made if you know what i mean.... Sean
>

Hey, at the very least my Phase 400 and 700B had a personality. The faceplates and design aesthetics were typical of the 1970s wonderful creativity. The sound was not bad if you needed gobs of power. The amps were better than the 4000 Preamp. I still look upon the products of the 70s with fondness. The stuff was interesting and mostly all of it was obtainable. This was a time when you could truly call it a HOBBY. Today, well I dont think so........Frank