That is probably what he means Elberoth.
If you cannot find much, look at the comparisons between the CAD 500MB and the current SA-500.1 as some has been written about those two, both of which I have owned.
In general, the 500MB was much loved for its warm, (old style) tube like midrange but it had a somewhat fat bottom end and mine were a little noisy. I enjoyed them and happily lived with their flaws for a year or so. The newer (improved) SA-500.1 is very quiet and clean at all frequencies, has a monster bottom end that is well controlled and goes deep, but seems to have lost some of the midrange magic of the earlier model, resulting in a somewhat sterile presentation in comparison. Some folks like that sound and you do get a nicely constructed amp that is modular in design for easy field repairs, if ever needed. I suspect the sonic differences between the 200 and 200.2 may be similar, in a relative sense, but I have not heard them.
If you cannot find much, look at the comparisons between the CAD 500MB and the current SA-500.1 as some has been written about those two, both of which I have owned.
In general, the 500MB was much loved for its warm, (old style) tube like midrange but it had a somewhat fat bottom end and mine were a little noisy. I enjoyed them and happily lived with their flaws for a year or so. The newer (improved) SA-500.1 is very quiet and clean at all frequencies, has a monster bottom end that is well controlled and goes deep, but seems to have lost some of the midrange magic of the earlier model, resulting in a somewhat sterile presentation in comparison. Some folks like that sound and you do get a nicely constructed amp that is modular in design for easy field repairs, if ever needed. I suspect the sonic differences between the 200 and 200.2 may be similar, in a relative sense, but I have not heard them.