Adcom, B&K, or Rotel?????????

B & K amps do not sound like tubes, regardless of what others tell you or you read. My Father has owned a B & K amp, I've owned several B & K's and my brother is currently doing a quad amped set-up consisting of a B & K ST-140 for the tweeters, ST-202 for the mids, ST-202 for the woofers and an EX-442 for the subs. We've modified the power supplies, done circuit upgrades and improved the wiring in all of them. I am VERY familiar with their good and bad points. I have also owned and listened to several different Adcom amps. They are typically sterile and lifeless sounding, lack dimensionality, do not offer any form of "air" and the soundstage / imaging characteristics are non-existent. Bass is typically lacking definition and pitch while treble is relatively sharp and strident. I have run them with everything from passive line sections to tube preamps and solid state preamps. I always found them lacking in the areas that i mentioned above. I will say that Adcom does stand behind their products and offer very reasonable repair prices and turn around time should you ever have a problem with one of their products. I can't really comment on the older Rotel stuff. I would take a stock B & K over an Adcom any day. The good thing about the B & K's is that the circuitry is very simple and responds well to simple and inexpensive modifications. The sound is typically far more musical, relaxed and enjoyable, even in stock form. The Adcom might offer more exciting sound initially with it's boom and sizzle characteristics, but it's lack of finesse and the "cardboard" reproduction quality that it puts forth grows old relatively rapidly. You didn't mention any of the other components that your running or looking at. Keep in mind that a music reproduction system is just that. A SYSTEM. You have to get pieces that will work together in order to achieve the end results that your looking for. This means that EVERYTHING from signal source to interconnects to amplification stages to speaker wires to speakers to room reflections and resonances will affect what your hearing. Don't underestimate ANY part of the chain or how important they are to making the system complete. Sean >

I have had a B&K st 140.Its a nice amp.Rotel is junk adcom is no better.How much are you looking to spend.

Depending on your budget, you could get a used McCormack DNA 0.5 (100WPC) Standard or Deluxe version or even a DNA 1 (175WPC) Standard or Deluxe and it would absolutely blow away the three brands you mentioned. If you are curious, look all around the both the print journals and Internet review sites for the glowing reviews. It gets even better with the McCormack gear though. Steve McCormack, the original designer and all around good guy has started a little firm call SMcAudio that's doing upgrades at different price levels for each of the amps in the DNA line. So you could invest a little bit in a DNA 0.5 now (you can probably find one for around $750) and gradually improve the already excellent sound through upgrading. If you are curious about the upgrade options go to www.smcaudio.com. Or, you could just call Steve himself and he would be more than happy to discuss your options. Anyone else have an opinion about McCormack gear?

I would take the B&K over Rotel & Adcom but what about others like McCormack, Bryston ST series, older Classe. All of these would be better than the B&K stuff (IMHO) - Maybe too high for your budget but worth a look as excellent options???

Sean, I'd be interested to hear about the modifications you've made to the B&Ks. If you don't want to clutter up this thread you can email me through member lookup. I currently own a B&K AV6000II. Probably not the best but I like it. It drives a pair of Paradigm Reference Studio 60s. Don't know how it compares to Adcom or Rotel. But it is definitely better than the NAD 2400 it replaced. My one complaint is that is seems a little slow dynamically. Some of the problem was alleviated when I replaced the stock power-cord with a Custom Power Cord Company Model 11 cord.