Unico vs A3.2 amp - a toss-up choice ?
Responding to SIMONLEEMD- I have owned the A3 MF Integrated and thought the 3.2 offered superior resolution in the form of slightly greater detail ,and slightly more extended top end.The difference in low frequency however was not slight at all-the 3,2 was far more extended without any lack of definition.This is the main difference in the latest generation of MF integrateds,subjectively speaking. tracer |
Perhaps this will help, the latest web review of the Unico: http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/unisonresearch/unico.html |
Salut mon ami. The Unico might emulate well the exquisite refinement of the "tres" expensive Pathos Twin Tower integrated, wich again is itself an hybrid using the 12ax7 as input stage. Much more natural soundind, I am convince, than any solid state in your price range, (and many time more), yet, irrespective of tubes selection, they should not be able to deliver the proper weight and impact associate with the large orchestra. You would want a richer tonal presentation, burnished brass, airy, textured and forcefull bass along with an over all large-scale dynamique ability. In your price category and with an hight- average speaker sensitivity like yours, a push- pull, EL 34 based tube amp would be my choice. The Conrad-Johnson's CAV-50 integrated will give you that, along with oustanding imaging and timbre accurracy, low- noise floor and substantiel hall's presence. This is a 45 w, 4 ohm amp that is classiquelly configured to make solid state of higher wattages much less convincing dynamiquelly than they should. It is $ 2,500, but if you dont mind buying used, it might eventually be accessible to you. Cheaper variation with similar configuration exist ((Antique Sound Lab ,etc) but I have not experienced them. |
