This is an amplifier I would love to learn more about but with the original review here, and the one in Stereophile, I still have no idea what the sonic strengths are. Ok ok, it has great clarity. Great clarity compared to what? Ok ok, it is natural sounding. Natural sounding compared to what? Neither of these comments tell me much. Surely every product must have some weakness (other than it's external appearance) compared to other "state of the art" amplifiers.
A few months ago I heard the CAT JL-2 amp vs. the Atmasphere MA1 amps. I could make the same comments about these two amplifiers. Both of these were outstanding musical products. But they were so very different in virtually every way, e.g., tonal balance, resolution, dynamics, harmonic richness, etc. When you get to this level, it all comes down to personal preference.
Each of us has to make a compromise when it comes down to our own personal checklist as to which product most suits our own taste and fits in with the rest of our system. No offense to Hooper, but how can such a supreme product's sonic capability be summed up in one paragraph? If a product truly stands out from the competition, do we not deserve to learn more?
The Stereophile review makes no sonic comparisons, tonality, resolution, noise level, etc., to the other many "top" amp contenders. It is essentially worthless in providing value to the reader.
It's always nice to hear of a new "great" product, but unless the writer can put this new product into perspective of the competition, all the reader learns is that the writer claims this is a phenomenol product. But is this not the claim we read in every top-contending product review that essentially puts the previously claimed product out to pasture? And most likely, that older product has some strengths that exceed those of the new king of the hill. But we never hear about those as the new product has no peers.
John
A few months ago I heard the CAT JL-2 amp vs. the Atmasphere MA1 amps. I could make the same comments about these two amplifiers. Both of these were outstanding musical products. But they were so very different in virtually every way, e.g., tonal balance, resolution, dynamics, harmonic richness, etc. When you get to this level, it all comes down to personal preference.
Each of us has to make a compromise when it comes down to our own personal checklist as to which product most suits our own taste and fits in with the rest of our system. No offense to Hooper, but how can such a supreme product's sonic capability be summed up in one paragraph? If a product truly stands out from the competition, do we not deserve to learn more?
The Stereophile review makes no sonic comparisons, tonality, resolution, noise level, etc., to the other many "top" amp contenders. It is essentially worthless in providing value to the reader.
It's always nice to hear of a new "great" product, but unless the writer can put this new product into perspective of the competition, all the reader learns is that the writer claims this is a phenomenol product. But is this not the claim we read in every top-contending product review that essentially puts the previously claimed product out to pasture? And most likely, that older product has some strengths that exceed those of the new king of the hill. But we never hear about those as the new product has no peers.
John