In an attempt to refocus the discussion, I'd like to point the gang to the recent blog followup by Martin Colloms:
http://hificritic.com/Scene/news.aspx
In his post Martin lists 17 different measurable flaws he seems to have uncovered in the reviewed samples. I have heard only the current version of the Channel Island amps and the older Evo2 series of Bel Canto, while I have not heard the latest Bel Canto series nor I have any experience at all of the other two brands. I admit I have detected some slight artifacts in the Evo 2 and perhaps more so in the Channel Island which may be congruent with his observations. The problem in his analysis is rather that -- once again -- he jumps to generalizing conclusions by extending a priori these flaws to all and every switching amplifier implementations on the market today. I have no qualms with his analysis. . . the problem is all in the logic of his induction step.
http://hificritic.com/Scene/news.aspx
In his post Martin lists 17 different measurable flaws he seems to have uncovered in the reviewed samples. I have heard only the current version of the Channel Island amps and the older Evo2 series of Bel Canto, while I have not heard the latest Bel Canto series nor I have any experience at all of the other two brands. I admit I have detected some slight artifacts in the Evo 2 and perhaps more so in the Channel Island which may be congruent with his observations. The problem in his analysis is rather that -- once again -- he jumps to generalizing conclusions by extending a priori these flaws to all and every switching amplifier implementations on the market today. I have no qualms with his analysis. . . the problem is all in the logic of his induction step.