My impression, from speaking with him, was that this was his preferred, smoother tube but that it was becoming difficult to find enough NOS. I left with the impression that his is the primary reason why he came up with the WPP200 which uses 5963/12Au7 tubes in their place.
My impression, having owned both, was that the 100 was indeed slightly quieter/smoother and that the 200 sounded more lively/dynamic but it wasn't a big difference and in the end, I retain the 200. More select tubes might have tipped the balance either way.
Perhaps, interestingly, George may not have been a brand/variant type of tube guy in that I had asked him what NOS of 2A3 tubes did he find worked best in his famous 3.5 monoblocks. (Why not "cut to the chase" and ask the creator, right?) He replied that he found the stock Sovtek 2A3's to serve just fine, to my considerable surprise, and didn't havea recommendation. (The early RCA's excel, I think.)
I'm left thinking he was more of a circuit thinker than a tube picker
having left us with some of the most true, point-to-point, simple/pure "valve" amplifiers and pre's I've ever heard...period.
My impression, having owned both, was that the 100 was indeed slightly quieter/smoother and that the 200 sounded more lively/dynamic but it wasn't a big difference and in the end, I retain the 200. More select tubes might have tipped the balance either way.
Perhaps, interestingly, George may not have been a brand/variant type of tube guy in that I had asked him what NOS of 2A3 tubes did he find worked best in his famous 3.5 monoblocks. (Why not "cut to the chase" and ask the creator, right?) He replied that he found the stock Sovtek 2A3's to serve just fine, to my considerable surprise, and didn't havea recommendation. (The early RCA's excel, I think.)
I'm left thinking he was more of a circuit thinker than a tube picker
having left us with some of the most true, point-to-point, simple/pure "valve" amplifiers and pre's I've ever heard...period.