F1a, apologies for the delayed response. Having heard the 211 and 300b monos a dozen times if not more and the Sapphires at least double that, I can say that in Roger's system, all else being equal (meaning everything literally):
Sapphires - the 18W rating does not do the amps true justice. Peak power I have never actually heard, as even with the "relatively" low sensitivity of the Churchill's (95-97db rated, can handle 500W max RMS) and my Harbeth SHL5s (rated 86db, but measured closer to 93db), the room never needed more than 2-6W with rare 12+ peaks on major orchestral works. It has been a while since we measured dbls but I can say that I've never left Roger's place with my ears ringing, but I never fell asleep while listening either. The Sapphires always had heft and wonderful clarity. Having swapped in various amps over the years along side the Sapphires, I was never reminded of a mushy 300b sound. The bass is present with weight. The mids are rounded but even. There is a touch of sweetness but not saccharine-like syrup. I suppose what struck me the most early on was how the very top end of instruments, like a bell or a trumpet or a triangle (particularly triangles), the sound would hang for moments longer than I had heard on other systems and then floated off into the distance. That was my third jaw-dropping moment in my hi-fi adventures, but perhaps the most stunning and readily accessed from memory.
I began to crave the Sapphires as a final stop, at least with my Harbeths. If I ever change speakers, or want something different, my wife will insist I keep the SHL5s because of how natural they sound. Perhaps like many male audiophiles, I longed to engage my wife in at least a deeper appreciation for music and at best an ongoing aspiration for the best sound we could build in home and afford. The Sapphires worked perfectly with the SHL5s (I left them with Roger for a time so he could try them out given their lower rating but there incredibly stable impedance). We sat for hours and again, I felt as if I had heard the best I would ever hear in the context of that gear.
Then not so out of the blue, but certainly sooner than I had anticipated, Roger gave me a call and let me know the 211 prototype Ruby was all fired up and in the main system. Would I like to have a listen, swapping between the Sapphires and the 211s? .... no brainer response from me :)
I sat with Roger and another local audiophile who owns the Sapphires, the 211 Topaz, an Opal upgraded to the Ruby and I think he has the Ruby phono as well. Anyhow, he knows Wyetech gear better than I do because he has it all in two of his personal systems.
Before I commented on the differences I perceived, I let this audiophile comment. He was not confused, but stunned would be appropriate to use. His response: compared with the Topaz, from memory, the Rubies just do it all BETTER.
The speakers were all quite efficient (Zu Definitions I believe they were, 104db, Tannoy Churchill at 95-97db, the Harbeths at 92-93 as measured, listed at 86, Acoustic Technologies LLC Classics (95-98 db - can't recall the exact details)) all of these were smacking us with a dynamic and resolved wall of sound. The highest we saw the Sapphires go was 24W peak as a pure test. The Topaz could do that as well with ease. Still, the point is that these 211 Ruby monos were doing things better. More weight to the sound, the bottom end sounded more authoritative in the lower mid-bass and into the bass. The highs were crystal clear but there was a sweetness the Topaz never seemed to manage. The Topaz has been called clean but dry through the high frequencies. Not overly dry per se, but, at least for me, I always felt the Sapphires had a magic through the highs that the Topaz never matched. When I write this, I don't mean to indicate staggering differences. Get to the level these amps are at and although the subtleties for many are worth swapping between the 300bs and the 211s, without the Topaz and Sapphires available to A/B... well I doubt anyone would feel there was something missing (to a great extent anyway).
If I had to choose (and my current financial situation would require a decision), would and have always said: go with the Sapphires. Maybe it is 300b magic, or maybe the Sapphires, being a newer design, have some extras in there that just work for my ears (compared to the Topaz). Regardless, the Topaz would be a reasonably distant second to the Sapphires I want in my system.
Then came the Ruby monos. Because the first prototype was a 211 SET, I had an easier time comparing to the Topaz and yes, the Rubies just did everything better. The extension in the low end tended to have more of a grip running down the octaves. The Rubies presented the highs as if enveloped for a time, allowing the notes to hang just a bit longer and the balance was richer (meaning not as dry) up through the treble. No combination required much more than 8W and never needing more than 25W peaks. The reserves are greater and the dynamics were superior because if it (I assume). I never felt the sound was compressed or that the amps were working really hard. It means that people who are interested in a SET that has real power and control but want to use speakers that are 90db and lower, the Rubies will give them something to seriously consider.
Then, after a fairly long time, I heard the 300b Rubies and here I was, in the sweet spot and I experienced something I hadn't since hearing my first pair of extraordinary transducers. These 300bs had it all and I sat quiet and often with my mouth gaping wide, hopefully not drooling, but I can't be sure :)
These have more power and present with more power and control than the 211 Rubies. The magic of the 300b tube that many crave (as I do and loved when listening with Sapphires) was there. All there. But again, not slow, not thick or syrupy. There was a deeper soundstage and the treble was just so darn smooth. Even difficult albums up top were sounding grand. The notes just kept going and trailing off into the sunset as it were. Never etched, nor dry. The highs were extended but never strident nor pitchy. We just sat for hours listening to record after record, CD after CD. I didn't want to leave.
Wyetech pre/amps are overbuilt. They will easily pass to my grandkids (and I'm in my 30s). All of the offerings have that attention to detail and built-in safeties, that one could buy any product and be secure and happy.
But we are all here to discuss absolutes, right? :) If so, then I would buy the 300b Ruby if I had the scratch. They are quiet; they are stable; they have built-in safeties; they are powerful/authoritative and they are magical from top to bottom, but particularly in the mid-range (where I like to live most days). Both types of Rubies are accurate, but if one can start waxing about the small stuff that tends to be difficult to achieve and usually comes with a high price tag, then the 300b just did it better. Chasing the elusive last 5%, the 300b is racing and easily overtaking the 211 when comparing and desiring the minutia.
It seems to me that getting to 80-85% is pretty simple. Going into the 90s and the options are thinned out. Many around these parts, when raving about a product, are usually discussing what I would consider the last 10-5% and the "oh my what a world of difference" statements are naively and mistakenly broadcast as if the the lesser product is close to an AM radio vs. the other high-end products they are compared with.
I really like the Harbeth sound and I am considering the 40.1s at some point. They are massive compared to the SHL5s and need power to keep the bass well controlled. I would need the Rubies to deal with them fully. The Sapphires can do it, but initial power and particularly at peaks, the Rubies would handle it all but better.
