Post by André on Mar 9, 2024 13:19:40 GMT
Mar 9, 2024 10:55:05 GMT dsjr said:
Is the 300 any better? Just asking in case I see one at a decent price and fancied a punt.
Well, it's like this...
The D-60 has little power and 'farts' if clipped, but it was said to have the 'nicest' tone of the three. I have a stereo one plus two bridged sets I inherited and the tightness in the bass compared to some 'Musical' models can make it appear lean sometimes - perfect for those old IMF's and similar with bass that over does it but plumbs the depths... bridged sets have a slightly 'looser' feel not suited so well in the bass to the Harbeths or Spendors here.
The D-150 was judged to be a dry sounding amp and well, it is, but I find even now that I can hear into recordings and easily hear production and mixing changes if I want to, the Harbeths being the limitation as to absolute focusing.
I LOVE the DC300A and fifty years ago it was judged a real 'animal' of an amp before other US behemoths and Accuphase etc. were imported starting in '75 or so. My pal's late 70's 300A mk1.5 (satin ally front, ally knobs and IOC lights to show when levels and distortion get too high) to me sounds divine in a iron fist in velvet glove kind of way, but I'd respectfully suggest that a Quad 606mk2/707 and onwards is within a knats of the power (about a dB or so), easier to service and arguably a better product all round now. With those Snell or whatever speakers I believe you use these days, I'd suggest you simply won't need this kind of power really - and neither do I!!! - and it could be argued that at low domestic levels it may not have the transparency these days that I know the Quad has, let alone your beloved Sonneteer amps have (I did compare an Alabaster with a QSP and they were comparable I remember! Until I get my greasy paws on one and actually USE the thing, it's a moot point