|
Vintage Asylum Classic gear from yesteryear; vintage audio standing the test of time. |
|
|
|
Vintage Asylum Classic gear from yesteryear; vintage audio standing the test of time. |
|
In Reply to: Re: how did the mc 2100 sound... posted by Brian Levy on April 3, 2006 at 14:52:11:
"The 2100 and 250 are not the last word in looking through the open window sound with very high resolution and airiness; all those attributes of what we perceive an excellent SS amp to have. They are closer to an excellent tube amp signature and are easier to listen to long term and transmit the emotion of the music."No offense, Brian, but I owned a 2505 (250 with meters and glass faceplate) about three years ago and sold it within three months. The sound was "okay", but certainly did not compare IMO to an "excellent tube amp." In fact, I preferred the Dynaco ST-70 that I had way back when, and that is not saying much.
I personally found the 2505, which had been recapped and serviced not long before my acquisition of the unit, to be veiled, thin and lacking dynamics. The imaging and soundstage that I have experience with "good tube amps", including an MC-255 and MC-240 and now a Fisher 400, were MIA and sorely missed with the 2505. It was a very "flat" sound, uninvolving. I guess I would say that it sounded like its response curve. :-) This was with a pair of Cornwalls and I also tried it with Heresy's and a pair of NHT book shelf speakers. It did better with the NHTs (acoustic suspension vs. horns), but the "tube magic" that these early SS Mc units are reputed to possess was still not there.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: how did the mc 2100 sound... - Burke 04/3/0616:36:36 04/3/06 (3)
- Re: how did the mc 2100 sound... - Brian Levy 07:56:22 04/4/06 (0)
- Re: Typo - Burke 16:37:41 04/3/06 (1)
- Re: Typo - airtime 17:29:39 04/3/06 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
