Thanks for the tips.
In these days I'm evaluating a new amplification: pre-ampli with tubes, made by a local expert (japanese - $10.000), and a power unit NET, MK105M, (105W, Dual Mono, MOSFET, $1.500).
Well, the improvements are very impressive. The soundstage, the micro-contrast and the dynamic have been very improved. In comparison, the A3 field is very flat and far from listener. Its 85W are not sufficient. In the test I've also switched between the pre, A3 and tubes. I've understood two things:
1. The pre-ampli is very important: it gives the main characterization of sound.
2. For the power unit is not important the absolute power, but the "quality" of watts.
However, the weak of system is in the tonal balance: too low bass frequences and too much medium. The high frequency are not so "clear". I'm going to test the MF Tri-Vista 300. It can be the right trade-off?
In these days I'm evaluating a new amplification: pre-ampli with tubes, made by a local expert (japanese - $10.000), and a power unit NET, MK105M, (105W, Dual Mono, MOSFET, $1.500).
Well, the improvements are very impressive. The soundstage, the micro-contrast and the dynamic have been very improved. In comparison, the A3 field is very flat and far from listener. Its 85W are not sufficient. In the test I've also switched between the pre, A3 and tubes. I've understood two things:
1. The pre-ampli is very important: it gives the main characterization of sound.
2. For the power unit is not important the absolute power, but the "quality" of watts.
However, the weak of system is in the tonal balance: too low bass frequences and too much medium. The high frequency are not so "clear". I'm going to test the MF Tri-Vista 300. It can be the right trade-off?