$510.00 for an Aluminum cover for the ARC Ref. 10?

Hey, I didn't say it about D'Agostino's amp, Roger did! But as Roger pointed out, so did John Atkinson, in his comments on the results of his bench tests of the amp. Between the lines of course, as Roger also pointed out. For anyone wanting to read an evaluation of the amp's design from a circuit design expert's perspective (recommended for anyone contemplating it's purchase), it should be easily found on the Music Reference Audiocircle Forum.

As for Roger's credentials versus, in this case, Dan D-Agostino's, it reminds me of when back in the 70's Frank Van Alstine had the nerve to offer a mod for the Audio Research SP-3. Why, the SP-3 was designed by Bill Johnson, the best designer in High End! Who does Frank Van Alstine think he is? He doesn't even make his own products, just modifies those of others. Frank claimed his mod corrected a number of faults in the SP-3 (inaccurate RIAA equalization, insufficient gain at low frequencies, circuit instability, etc.). And guess what---it did, as Harry Pearson wrote in TAS. After that, every owner of an SP-3 wanted the Van Alstine SP-3 mod. The fact alone that Dan D'Agostino has a higher profile than Roger Modjeski---does that invalidate Roger's evaluation of Dan's amp?

Just so you'll know, Roger Modjeski is not one of those guys who finds fault with everyone else's designs. He thinks highly of Mike Sanders (Quicksilver), Tim DeParavicini (EAR), and Ralph Karsten (Atma-Sphere), amongst other current designers.

Brooks Berdan, the most critical listener I've ever know, sold only products he liked, business be damned. What he liked in tubed electronics were VTL, Jadis, and Music Reference. Period. In solid state he found little to like, but loved the amp of Richard Brown, the BEL. Like Roger, Richard had an underground cult reputation for his design abilities. Talk about a low profile! Brooks couldn't keep the amp in stock---every time he demoed his, the listener bought it! It would take months to get another, as Richard built them on his kitchen table, one at a time. Does the fact that Brown Electronics Company had few dealers, were never reviewed or talked about on Hi-Fi sites, and are owned by almost no one, mean that Richard's opinion of an amp's design would not be not worthy of consideration? Or that his qualifications to even have one are in question? If so, I suggest no one ask Jeff Beck to evaluate the playing of, say, Eddie Van Halen. A bad analogy perhaps, but you get the point.

Roger Modjeski is not one of those guys who finds fault with everyone else's designs.

LOL! You gotta be kidding?

Guys ... you're overworking this issue.

Acrylic or aluminum or no cover at all .... it's all BS. I've listened to my Ref 150 SE and Ref 5 SE with and without aluminum covers. Couldn't hear a difference. The real problem is audiophile-nervosa.

I have metal covers and am happy as a clam. Oh ... and here's some audiophile heresy. I don't screw down the cover on my amp. Why??? So I can check tube bias more conveniently. OMG ... think of the microphonics.

And ... IMHO, based on pics, I think the acrylic cover looks chinsey (sp).

Bdp24, That story brought back memories. I met Brooks Berdan (RIP) when he was in Pasadena working at Stereo shoppe that morphed into GNP setting up tables. I bought gear from him when he opened his store in Monrovia. While visiting him one day he offered me to take home a pair of BEL amps to audition. The amp was totally the opposite of what I expected to hear in my system. It had great separation, but NO dynamics. The one feature I did enjoy was it had tons of inner detail, front row midrange and highs. Brooks always had a slight bias against amps with deep powerful low end bass. I brought them back and ended up keeping my Mark Levinson 335. I will say he introduced me to Wilson Audio and changed from Martin Logan electrostatic speakers to Watt Puppy 7's. I understand why the BEL amps had a "cult" following. Not for me.