Watt/Puppy 6.0 vs Amati Homage vs Andra

adsal, respectfully disagree about wilsons. to get all the performance they are capable of you need high current and speed. when i went from levinson #33h to #33 there was a dramatic improvement in all areas. problems i had previously assigned to the speakers or even sources/software were revealed to be amplifier related on the wilson watt/puppy 6s. don't know if the same holds true for andras and amatis.

dear mikelavigne,
wilson with 33 or 33h never gives you best performence.i had a chance to compare them white goldmund 29.4,arc ref 600,krell 600,ml 33 (also another friend has 33h+watt puppy6 with mit shotgun evo).best sound was goldmund and arc 600 than krell.for my taste even new generation m.levinson amps are better than 33 and 33h.did you ever see any reviewer or very experienced audiophile using 33 or 33h? (but ml amps has a wonderfull match with revel speakers)

adsal,
i do have a few siltech g5.
anyway...

wslam
how is siltech g5?

adsal,
i see in 2 different threads that the #33/#33h are not your favorite amplifiers:^) also, that since reviewers (or expierienced audiophiles?) don't have them (except john atkinson) they must be substandard. i respect that that is your opinion.

the point of my post above was not that the #33 was better than any other particular amp but the the watt/puppy 6s work dramaticly better with more horsepower.

i think that the #33s of 1994 are somewhat a somewhat different animal than the #33s that are currently being built(my set was new last year and no, i have no particular evidence to support this claim). but in any case after living with them for a year and compareing them to other amps on watt/puppy 6s (but not in my room) i am very happy with them.

particularly if you prefer the krell fbp600 or the arc600 to the #33 then our listening tastes and priorities are quite different. of course, context is all important so who knows.

enjoy