Warm and Detailed S.S. Amp?

i am most concerned about upper midrange lower treble. any extra energy in this region, 1000 to 3000 hz can be most distressing to the ear. regardless of what happens say in the region 100 to 300 hz, the upper frequencies are critical to make a listening experience enjoyable.

it doesn't matter what word you use. it is better, as tvad suugests, to be precise in frequency response terms.

based upon my experiences, i prefer a drop in the range 1000 to 3000 hz. at 1000 hz, i prefer a drop of 1 to 2 db, and at 2000 hz, 2 to 4db. the purpose of this attenuation, is to compensate for most mediocre cds which have too much energy in that range, in my opinion.

i am not aware of any ss amps that are down in the range 1000 to 3000 hz.

ARC 100.2: Refined, detailed, awesome presence, easy to listen too. Warm... tube like....? Not sure too subjective... but it's the best solid state for my system (Dynaudio 1.8 MK II, LS-15 pre, Marantz 8001, AZ cabling). I used to have DNA 0.5, DNA 0.5 dlx rev B,DNA 225 stock.
For me, in my house, with my music, walls and ears, the 100.2 beats them all hands down at everything.
The ARC 100.2 is a masterpiece at the retail asking price, and a serious value on the used market.

Has any one considered using two, but each modified for mono? This would be a useful setup for difficult speakers. Just a thought.

Happy hunting!

Marco

Your system(s): Klipsh (horn), tubes, Muse digital

My system: CLS stats (planar), SS, Wadia digital

Originally though, I had all tube electronics, ARC SP-14 pre and two ARC trioded M300 MkII monoblks. So my before/after comparisons should be, I feel, fairly credible.

Today my system sounds just as inviting and involving, and easy to listen to, as when it used tube electonics. For your consideration, I should add that I DID make some (other) ancillary changes when I switched from tubes to SS:

1. Added a power regenerator and a bal. power unit (to dedicated circuits, mind you!)

2. Re-cabled the entire system, EVERYTHING, with PAD Venustas IC and Dominus PCs, and fitted an Aural Symphonics Optimism V.2 fiberoptic glass cable from CDT to DAC.

Oh, and one other thing,

3. Got my CLSs up on Sound Anchor stands (huge benefits which I won't detail here.)

Is there a big difference? Not really. The only word that comes to mind is "definition". Not 'analytical' (that's become a dirty word in audio ;--) Actually, for me, the system today is subtly more involving than in its tube incarnation, perhaps in the same way HD television is so deliciously involving you can hardly take your eyes off it. Like eating salted peanuts, I just can't stop listening. The sound isn't hard or fatiguing, and the presence/atmosphere of the venue always surrounds the performance. But, it IS a pricey system -- even counting some pre-owned equipment purchases.

I honestly think SS sonics are again improving across the board, to the point where very soon, tube designers will find themselves competing with even modestly priced SS gear (a decided reversal of the present situation!)

I'll never forget when Mike Lavigne, not long after putting together his brilliant listening room (except for the windows, sorry Mike) one fine day the Tenor amps disappeared, replaced by a bridged PAIR of $37k darTZeel SS amps (and $22k preamp!) (and speakers to match) and I thought WHOA!, Mike would never do this unless this gear did everything his tube gear did, and MORE!! (including MORE convenience ;--)

So I think we'll be seeing companies like darTZeel (why do they spell their name so weird?), Pass, Levinson (hopefully), Boulder, Goldmund, FM Acoustics, (maybe one day even Krell;--) learn how to remove the remaining "impurities" from solid state, and build amps at the same reasonable price/performance level which today, lets face it, is the sole domain of affordable tube gear.
.

Gosh you guys! It's all online now ;--) Here's a couple:

http://www.listenhear.co.uk/general_acoustics.htm

http://www.tnt-audio.com/topics/frequency_e.html

.