I can only offer my opinion about an older Classe amp that I owned. The Classe Seventy (about $1300 when new, 70wpc, natch) was already a few years old when I bought it 3 years ago, but in its time, I recall that it was a lower-powered SS reference for a couple of reviewers. It replaced an NAD 2200 (100 wpc) in my system and was better in every way. It also struck me as being exceptionally well-built for a non-luxury product, but it did exhibit low but noticable mechanical transformer hum. Driving my Thiel CS2 2 floorstanding 3-ways, it was powerful and in control, but the bass range was rather too heavy and overbearing. It also exhibited some graininess and "electronic" character, but I was able to ameliorate this to a degree through the addition of a Synergistic Research Master A/C powercord, which enabled me to keep listening to the amp longer. Then, I auditioned an older conrad-johnson preamp/amp combo, and wound up buying the PV-8 preamp, which I still use. This really helped the overall expression of the sound in place of my old NAD pre, but I couldn't get the c-j tube amp's sound out of my mind. When the opportunity came to buy a new demo c-j MV-55 (45 wpc, all tube), I took it home to audition against the Classe. This proved to be one of the most significant audio-educational experiences I have had, and what finally took my budding system from "hi-fi" to high end. Not to dump on the Classe, but only now did I really believe that I was hearing a natural and accurate reproduction of recorded music. In audiophile-speak, the most improved areas were: lack of imposed timbral character (the Classe was revealed as dark on top, having uneven response in the middle, and edgy in the lower treble, in addition to being too-generous in the bass); a purity of harmonic rendering of musical overtones that eliminated "electronic " aspects from piano, for instance, and prevented cymbals from sounding somewhat like white noise; rock-solid imaging and location of performers and instruments within a more expansive, deeper soundstage (the Classe changed the location and size of images with the loudness and frequency range of notes played); increased overall transparency to low-level detail and dynamics; no apparent grainy texture or hardening glare, replaced with a smooth airiness; a rejoining of reverberent bloom with the vocal and instumental images from which it initially eminates, presented as surgically separated events in different planes via the Classe; more 3-D body to the presentation of images; the elimination of a certain "phasey" quality that indicated improved response in the time domain; and listener fatigue reduced to the vanishing point. The Classe, not surprisingly, did exceed the c-j in the area of bass slam and control, but not in overall bass-range tactile believability or balance (the c-j was later much improved in bass control when I changed the stock Sovtek EL-34 output tubes for Svetlanas, which also improved HF extension). As a result of my purchase of the MV-55, I would say that I subsequently listened to my system twice as often, and for twice as long when I did - clearly a "good thing" for anyone who cares about music! Also, it enabled me to really begin upgrading my source components and cables and truly hear the results. Now obviously, this is a very limited comparision which cannot be extrapolated to other, more recent Classe models, or to any other SS amps in the price range, for that matter. But in fact, my experience does leave me curious whether in 2001 a music lover of average means can exceed my tube satisfaction with a currently made small SS stereo unit. (Someone else, however, is going to have to report on that one.) But I will say that my time with a Classe amp left me admiring its construction and value, and thinking that it must have been designed from more of an "engineering" standpoint than a "music reproduction" perspective. I hope they've managed to integrate the two more since then.
