I think we all agree that every individual has the right to choose whatever he/she wishes. But also in my experience individual wishes may evolve, change as one is exposed to new experiences and learns more about what there is out there. Certainly my views are changing, and have changed. Otheriwse I'd be dead. For now, I agree that many tube amplifiers deliver a very pleasing sound by essentially introducing greater even-order harmonics into the music. These amps minimize or cloak odd order harmonics which are universally irritating. The flip side of these designs frequently includes a lesser ability to reproduce frequency extremes (e.g. lesser bass control, roll-off highs), as well as limitations to realistically reproduce complex or demanding musical passages (e.g. large orchestras). Furthermore, some argue this "euphonic" sound over time becomes fatiguing. I acknowledge, however, that there are certain tube amps out there which have ingeniously avoided most of these drawbacks (e.g. the top ARCs, the Wolcott Presence, the Atmaspheres, recent Jadis, etc.) but at astronomical prices and significant user-unfriendliness (heat, tubes, breakdown, maintenance, weight). Some people claim that these no-holds-barred tube amps offer the peak of music reproduction, period. And perhaps they do. But they seldom cost less than $10K (the Wolcott is around $9K, it is a superb amplifier for difficult loads, and has variable output impedance). However, I respectfully submit that there is no tube amp out there at a price of around $2K that even comes close to the overall performance of the Marsh A400S solid stat3e amp. I am not trying to impose this view on anyone, and I appreciate that many of you respect my opinion, as I do yours. But expressing differing views is more illuminating to all than wallowing on our common views, so please bear with me. In the end, of course, you will make your own decision, whether it be the Marsh, the Odyssey (which I haven't heard), or a tube amp.
