In Sam Tellig's review of the MKIV, he said this:
The MK IV, with its tighter bass, seemed to have a tonal balance different from its predecessors. And it did. Maybe Richard Bews is right : "The amp has more 'richness' now.
At the beginning, though, there seemed to be less of the earlier versions, light and life, which I so loved. I didn't hear the same illuminated-from-within quality that I heard with the MK III.
I didn't hear it for about a week, the change, when it came, was dramatic. The amplifier opened up in all its glory, and I do mean glory. Air, ambience, sweetness, light, extraordinary low-level resolution that has me thinking that so- called 'high-resolution' downloads are probably a waste of money.
The MK IV, with its tighter bass, seemed to have a tonal balance different from its predecessors. And it did. Maybe Richard Bews is right : "The amp has more 'richness' now.
At the beginning, though, there seemed to be less of the earlier versions, light and life, which I so loved. I didn't hear the same illuminated-from-within quality that I heard with the MK III.
I didn't hear it for about a week, the change, when it came, was dramatic. The amplifier opened up in all its glory, and I do mean glory. Air, ambience, sweetness, light, extraordinary low-level resolution that has me thinking that so- called 'high-resolution' downloads are probably a waste of money.