Pass Labs Amp X350.5 or X350.8 anyone compare?

Ozzy, I did not hear the .8 as darker, but there was definitely more control of the
lower freq. and extension. That may be changing your perception of tonal
balance. The Egglestons need lots of power so it should sound more dynamic
with a cleaner more articulate base and more detail because of the lower noise
floor. But I compared the XA160.5 to the XA160.8 and am not really familiar
with the X series. They should be fully broken in by now.

Thanks for the comments. I also am running direct from my PS Direct Stream to the Amp. The Direct stream is known for its analog presentation.

I sense as well that the XA-160.8s have mostly settled in by 75 hours. I can see how some might perceive the .8 palette as slightly dark or tilted down. However this is deceptive, as there is also ginormous resolving power in the treble and upper mid-range, that emerges without over-emphasis from the most surreal black background that I've encountered in an amplifier. I'm still getting used to it, and am not yet persuaded whether the effect is entirely natural or subtractive. But the attendant absence of distortion, ringing, grain, and glare is definitely a good thing, and the system has never sounded so smooth and seductive.

Hmmm...I'll have to say I don't like a subdued upper midrange and treble. If that's the case with these .8 amps, I'm no longer interested in them.

Dave, I did not get the impression of a "subdued upper midrange and treble" when I compared the XA160.8 to the XA160.5 in Madfloyd's system. He has Pass XP30 and Wilson Alexias.