SF Line 3 vs. Rogue 99

I've only heard the 99. It was against a BAT 3i and the Rogue blistered the 3i -- made the 3i sound crude in comparison. Prior to that I auditioned a 66 against the 3i and would have rated them equal, although different. I bought the 66, but price was a factor (demo 66 LSR - $800, BAT ($2000, remote extra $500). I have not demoed the 99 v. 66, but can only deduct that the 99 would also humble the 66. Unfortunately, haven't heard the Line 3.
Mike

I had the Rogue 99 and the SF Line 2, SF more neutral,
on the less than exciting side. The Rogue 99 was more
alive, more bloom, richer, with SS detail, wider soundstage.

In fact I just bought another Rogue 99 because I found
I was missing it, and want to put something tubed back in my
system with bi-amped SS,ers

Please note that I had the L2 and not the L3, and have
never heard the L3 so I cannot compare the two, but can
say the 99 is a bargain deluxe at it's price. IMO!

Bob

Listen to both in your system.Its the only way to tell.

leafs is correct, obviously, but sometimes this is tough...

re: features, the sf wins hands-down. besides having a signal-processor loop, it has a tape monitor & balance control, which the 99 doesn't have.

re: sonics, i've never heard the sf, but everyone sez it's wery neutral - some critics say it's almost solid-state-like. i owned a rogue 99 magnum-version for about 6 weeks; it was wery tubey, w/no bass response in my system, possibly due to impedence problems. so, for me, i'd get the sf, even tho i've never heard it! ;~) but, as i'm way-happy w/my melos, i have no desire to look for something different.