Rich; organic true balanced amp w good detail $6k

I have owned the Monarchy SE160's twice! I loved them and the mids are wonderful. I would say the mids are certainly more forward compared to Belles. However on my Dali Grand speakers and paired with a very good tubed preamp the Belles 350 Reference amps just ran circles around the Monarchy amps in terms of resolution, bass control, power, stage size, purity, highs were far more extended, far better speed and pace.

The Monarchy amps also caused a horrible thump in my speakers making a loud noise and pushing the drivers out when turned on. That is common and usual for the SE160. I got used to it, but it took some time.

I ran two Belles Ref 350 amps for a little while and the sound was effortless and beautiful. I just could not affort two 350's at that point in my life and settled on one for awhile.

I have always liked the sound of Hybrid amps owning several Blue Circle amps and the Monarchy's. When I found the Belles the Monarchy's were quickly sold.

I now own a Canary CA 309 modified to be very close to the newer CA339. It is a 45 watt per channel 300B push/pull monoblock amp. They would be glorious on your speakers, but are not balanced and you have to manage 8 - 300b tubes! Yikes.

The Belles 350 or 150 Ref's as monoblocks would be very good. The new Belles MB01's are much more expensive then used 150/350 reference amps, but I also hear they are as good as it gets at any price.

I don't want to manage all the tubes in my Canary amp, but they stay until I can find a hybrid or SS amp that is as musical. I am trying a Butler 2250 next. 250 watts in a unique hybrid design.

If Monarchy fixed the turn on thump problem with the SE250, then it may be worth trying. More power is also better as the SE160 drove my speakers more like a 75 watt SS amp.

Bill

For P/P, Class A, Triode, the CAT JL2/3 are in the first rank. CAT eschews balanced operation.

I guess I better chime back in here on the balanced thing. The preamp is definitely a true balanced design, as is the dac. So ideally, it would be nice to maintain this all the way through, hence the original criteria. However, if another contender appears that is truly more musical and synergistic, and is NOT a true balanced design, I will consider it.

Tvad- good comment on the rhetorical vs practical re: the balanced viewpoint. In fact, I spoke to my buddy tonight with the Lamm M1.1's. There is a balanced in, but he nor I are sure if it is a true balanced circuit, I suspect perhaps not, it is simply an XLR connector- someone please correct me if I am in error. From what I understand, the new Clayton M-200 monos are a true balanced design, but I will get this re-confirmed. In fact I spoke to David Belles today, who strongly recommended his new M200 monos, however they are a single-ended design...

Sc53- re: Ayre, I remember now hearing it once at a local dealer, and would agree with Jmcgrogan2- dynamic extended and fairly transparent, however there is no way I would compare them to certain tube amps I have had- a good recommendation though none the less, and thank you for joining the thread!

John- interesting- you're the first one to mention 'thin & edgy' re: the Belles- hmmm- that has me worried a bit... But no, I don't feel I am 'on my own'- all of the help here has been great! thanks again for continuing this thread with me.

Bill- there is just something about the Monarchy that doesn't put it over the top for me, and I can't explain what, but understand that they are limited in certain ways from a bandwidth perspective, and I don't feel they would be the 'end of the line' for me... The Canary recommendation is interesting though- in fact, Israel of Coincident was selling some of them for a while to his customers, especially the 339's- they did have a nice full-bodied quality to them, but of course single-ended, and the tueb replacement costs scare me!

Maybe I need to get out of town and go hear my buddy's Lamm M1.1's and that may convince me to save up and wait for a used pair. There is another dealer an hour or so away that has the VTL 450 Sigs- if they have a triode mode, as my buddy led me to believe, that could prove enticing. Well- thanks again everyone, fantastic recommendations all round!

Sutts, we need John to verify if the 350A he heard was the Reference or the older standard 350A. Goodness I have owned to many amps, but the standard 350A I did not like. It was thin to my ears. The Reference 350A has much more body and weight. It soars higher and smoooooother.

Funny you own the very speaker brand I am looking to mate with my Canary amps. I would love to hear my Canary amps on a high effeciency speaker. Mine are 4ohm and 90db effecient - not an easy load for a tube amp. I may try a Paul Speltz Zero autoformer so my amps see an 8 or 12 ohm Dali Grand.

Bill

01-07-08: Sutts
I guess I better chime back in here on the balanced thing. The preamp is definitely a true balanced design, as is the dac.

Is your transport also fully balanced?

If the Belles 150A Reference monoblocks were thin and edgy in my system, then I would not own them. Also, be aware the 350A and 350A Reference are different amps. It's not clear to me which version John heard, but in any case it was apparently auditioned in the single ended stereo configuration, and not in the monoblock configuration running balanced. It makes a difference, but perhaps not in the overall tonality given the associated gear with which it was paired.

BTW, are you aware the 150A Reference in monoblock configuration is rated at 500wpc into 8 ohms and 1000wpc into 4 ohms? Plenty of juice to blow up your Coincidents.

:)