new to tubes, match for spectral amp

I'm not being concrete (read: rigid), simply giving you my honest advice in a concise form. That you did not like its consequences in flexibility for your next purchase does not reduce my advice in the same manner.

Yes, flex, Eidolon is more harmonically rich to balance out people who buy SS, and particularly units like Spectral. The MIT does the same thing. At that, assumed, level of system balancing such divergent balancing in equipment profiles, in my humble opinion, is regressive.

This is an arranged system without the flexibility to move in as many directions as other systems because it designed to appeal to the audiophile who wants it done for him by a grouping of manufacturers working together in the first instant. This philosophy, while effective in the first instant, reduces flexibility thereafter. Flexibilty is not impossible, but tubes are incongruent with this system's balancing parameters. If the system still sounds sterile (even after the harmonically enhanced Avalons and MIT's...) then I would agree with the person who says to go with a tubed DAC.

Again, we need to know why the questioner finds his system needs changing and in what regards (a sudden move towards tubes assumes, usually, deficiencies in harmonics and spatial presentation, although the questioner never specifies this). Perhaps I wasn't being, er, concete enough in my first response...

Mixing and matching Spectral and ARC is fun!!! I have done
it for over 15 years. This was before they changed the input
impedence on their more recent amps(really stupid move).
Their best amp by far was the DMA-200(pure class A, none
of this class AB bullshit). The best ARC amp was the D-150
or the D-79(absolute bulletproof tube amp).Spectral's
signature is their preamps(more so than their amps). The
DMC-10,12,20,30,30SL, are sonically very similar, very
high rez, low grain/low noise, particularly in the highs.
Violins are not etched at all. The DMA-200 was a real
muscle amp(probably in response to Krell). High current,
very high rez, very neutral. Curiously everyone thinks
Spectral as "dry" I think in terms of being neutral and low noise. The current batch of amps DMA-150/360 are excellent
amps but a notch below the DMA-200. ARC had its peak in the
mid 80s with the SP 8/10/11 preamps and the D79/115/150/160/250 servo amps. Lately I have taken a liking to the Reference 2 preamp and the Reference 300 amp. Their best designs in years. My current collection includes an
ARC SP-6, SP-8, D-79, D-115, D-150. Spectral DMC-10, DMA-50(bridged), DMA-100(old-style Class A), DMA-200(class A). I mix and match all the time, every combo possible, some
work, some don't. Some observations: classical(chamber)SP8
and DMA100, classical(large scale) SP6 and DMA200; jazz
SP8 and DMA50s or DMC-10 and D150.

One note: perhaps it is not the tubes vs solid state
argument but the dynamic speaker vs nondynamic speaker argument that perplexes you. Perhaps you are a candidate to move upward in the world to the sublime nature of electrostatic speakers. Do not get me wrong Avalon speakers
are the best dynamic speaker I have ever heard, but just
not the best speaker. The Spectral might deserve better.

Right Shubert! The Spectral DOES deserve better!
Mixing spectrals with Jadis is fun too.
I agree with you about the 200 ! I run two of them, besides a pair of 360's.
Regards

I have an AR sl15 & spectral dma 200, with transparent cabling

it is nice but not a spectecular match

I uses the krell 250p before and it gave a far bigger, deeper soundstage, but a bit harsh

any suggestions? other cabling? krell 280p spectral preamp? from shubertmaniac I understand that i should keep the spectral dma 200....