Some years ago, I owned the Cary CAD 500MB monoblock power amplifiers, which were the original amps said to have been designed and/or voiced by Dennis Had in his living room. Those amps were not perfect but I enjoyed them for their rich tone, full powerful bass, and solid build. I sold them and moved to a series of Class A amplifiers but then decided to go back to a pair of Cary monos and purchased the newer Cary SA-500.1 monos. While I found those newer amplifiers to be just as powerful, quieter, and possibly more detailed than the 500MBs I had previously owned, they seemed to be missing the same level of body and tone that made the older 500MB amps so enjoyable and engaging to me. Maybe the Sanken 50 ampere, high current, wide bandwidth bipolar output devices used in the 500MBs (and not in the newer amps) had something to do with the sound I heard - who knows. I sold the SA-500.1s and moved on, and I actually purchased another pair of the older 500MBs a couple of years ago that I currently use to power my outdoor system.
In short, I believe the older CAD 500MB and CAD 200 amplifiers were indeed designed by Dennis Had to display a touch of "tube body and warmth" while the newer SA-200.2/500.1 ES line of amplifiers were designed to be modular, with bigger power supplies and newer parts, which resulted in a somewhat more detailed yet still powerful sound. However, to my ears, the newer amplifiers did not retain the same level of body or warmth of the original amplifiers - they do not remind me of tubed amplifiers.
Below is what TAS had to say about the sound of the Cary SA-500.1 monos, which I suspect should mostly mirror the SA-200.2s.
Even though part of the design goal was to retain some of Cary’s well-known tube sound in a solid-state amplifier, Cary did not ladle on the classic tube sauce heavily enough to dominate the amp’s sonic flavor. It does not have an overt upper-bass emphasis, a loose mid-to-lower bass region, or a soft top end. The 500.1 had just a pleasant hint of warmth and sweetness and most definitely had no signs of poor grip and definition in the bottom octaves. On the contrary, the 500.1 had better-than-expected bass control and clarity. The upper frequency range was well extended but with a lighter touch rather than a “ruthless truth” approach. The lower midrange was indeed a bit warm and inviting à la tubes, but only just enough to readily bring out music’s natural underlying appeal. Again, not an overt classic tube-sound dousing.
