My Long List of Amplifiers and My Personal Review of Each!


So I have been in a long journey looking to find the best amplifiers for my martin logan montis. As you know, the match between an amplifier and speakers has to be a good "marriage" and needs to be blend exquisitely. Right now, I think I might have found the best sounding amplifier for martin logan. I have gone through approximately 34-36 amplifiers in the past 12 months. Some of these are:

Bryston ST, SST, SST2 series
NAD M25
PARASOUND HALO
PARASOUND CLASSIC
KRELL TAS
KRELL KAV 500
KRELL CHORUS
ROTEL RMB 1095
CLASSE CT 5300
CLASSE CA 2200
CLASSE CA 5200
MCINTOSH MC 205
CARY AUDIO CINEMA 7
OUTLAW AUDIO 755
LEXICON RX7
PASS LABS XA 30.8
BUTLER AUDIO 5150
ATI SIGNATURE SERIES 6005

With all that said, the amplifiers I mentioned above are the ones that in my opinion are worth mentioning. To make a long story short, there is NO 5 CHANNEL POWER AMP that sounds as good as a 3ch and 2ch amplifier combination. i have done both experiments and the truth is that YOU DO lose details and more channel separation,etc when you select a 5 channel power amplifier of any manufacturer.
My recollection of what each amp sounded like is as follows:

ATI SIGNATURE SERIES 6005 (great power and amazing soundstage. Very low noise floor, BUT this amplifiers NEEDS TO BE cranked up in order to fully enjoy it. If you like listening at low volume levels or somewhat moderate, you are wasting your time here. This amp won’t sound any different than many other brands out there at this volume. The bass is great, good highs although they are a bit bright for my taste)

NAD M25 (very smooth, powerful, but somewhat thin sounding as far as bass goes)
Bryston sst2(detailed, good soundstage, good power, but can be a little forward with certain speakers which could make them ear fatiguing at loud volumes)

Krell (fast sounding, nice bass attack, nice highs, but some detail does get lost with certain speakers)

rotel (good amp for the money, but too bright in my opinion)

cary audio (good sound overall, very musical, but it didn’t have enough oomph)

parasound halo (good detail, great bass, but it still holds back some background detail that i can hear in others)

lexicon (very laid back and smooth. huge power, but if you like more detail or crisper highs, this amp will disappoint you)

McIntosh mc205 (probably the worst multichannel amp given its price point. it was too thin sounding, had detail but lacked bass.

butler audio (good amplifier. very warm and smooth sweet sounding. i think for the money, this is a better amp than the parasound a51)

pass labs (very VERY musical with excellent bass control. You can listen to this for hours and hours without getting ear fatigue. however, it DOES NOT do well in home theater applications if all you have is a 2 channel set up for movies. The midrange gets somewhat "muddy" or very weak sounding that you find yourself trying to turn it up.

classe audio (best amplifier for multi channel applications. i simply COULDNT FIND a better multi channel amplifier PERIOD. IT has amazing smoothness, amazing power and good bass control although i would say krell has much better bass control)

Update: The reviews above were done in January 2015. Below is my newest update as of October 2016:



PS AUDIO BHK 300 MONOBLOCKS: Amazing amps. Tons of detail and really amazing midrange. the bass is amazing too, but the one thing i will say is that those of you with speakers efficiency of 87db and below you will not have all the "loudness" that you may want from time to time. These amps go into protection mode when using a speaker such as the Salon, but only at very loud levels. Maybe 97db and above. If you don’t listen to extreme crazy levels, these amps will please you in every way.

Plinius Odeon 7 channel amp: This is THE BEST multichannel amp i have ever owned. Far , but FAR SUPERIOR to any other multichannel amp i have owned. In my opinion it destroyed all of the multichannel amps i mentioned above and below. The Odeon is an amp that is in a different tier group and it is in a league of its own. Amazing bass, treble and it made my center channel sound more articulate than ever before. The voices where never scrambled with the action scenes. It just separated everything very nicely.

Theta Dreadnaught D: Good detailed amp. Looks very elegant, has a pleasant sound, but i found it a tad too bright for my taste. I thought it was also somewhat "thin" sounding lacking body to the music. could be that it is because it is class d?

Krell Duo 300: Good amp. Nice and detailed with enough power to handle most speakers out there. I found that it does have a very nice "3d" sound through my electrostatics. Nothing to fault here on this amp.
Mark Levinson 532H: Great 2 channel amp. Lots of detail, amazing midrange which is what Mark Levinson is known for. It sounds very holographic and will please those of you looking for more detail and a better midrange. As far as bass, it is there, but it is not going to give you the slam of a pass labs 350.5 or JC1s for example. It is great for those that appreciate classical music, instrumental, etc, but not those of you who love tons of deep bass.

 It is articulate sounding too
Krell 7200: Plenty of detail and enough power for most people. i found that my rear speakers contained more information after installed this amp. One thing that i hated is that you must use xlr cables with this amp or else you lose most of its sound performance when using RCA’s.

Krell 402e: Great amp. Very powerful and will handle any speaker you wish. Power is incredible and with great detail. That said, i didn’t get all the bass that most reviewers mentioned. I thought it was "ok" in regards to bass. It was there, but it didn’t slam me to my listening chair.

Bryston 4B3: Good amp with a complete sound. I think this amp is more laid back than the SST2 version. I think those of you who found the SST2 version of this amp a little too forward with your speakers will definitely benefit from this amp’s warmth. Bryston has gone towards the "warm" side in my opinion with their new SST3 series. As always, they are built like tanks. I wouldn’t call this amp tube-like, but rather closer to what the classe audio delta 2 series sound like which is on the warm side of things.

Parasound JC1s: Good powerful amps. Amazing low end punch (far superior bass than the 402e). This amp is the amp that i consider complete from top to bottom in regards to sound. Nothing is lacking other than perhaps a nicer chassis. Parasound needs to rework their external appearance when they introduce new amps. This amp would sell much more if it had a revised external appearance because the sound is a great bang for the money. It made my 800 Nautilus scream and slam. Again, amazing low end punch.

Simaudio W7: Good detailed amp. This amp reminds me a lot of the Mark Levinson 532h. Great detail and very articulate. I think this amp will go well with bookshelves that are ported in order to compensate for what it lacks when it comes to the bass. That doesn’t mean it has no bass, but when it is no Parasound JC1 either.
Pass labs 350.5: Wow, where do i begin? maybe my first time around with the xa30.8 wasn’t as special as it was with this monster 350.5. It is just SPECTACULAR sounding with my electrostatics. The bass was THE BEST BASS i have ever heard from ANY amp period. The only amp that comes close would be the jC1s. It made me check my settings to make sure the bass was not boosted and kept making my jaw drop each time i heard it. It totally destroyed the krell 402e in every regard. The krell sounded too "flat" when compared to this amp. This amp had amazing mirange with great detail up top. In my opinion, this amp is the best bang for the money. i loved this amp so much that i ended up buying the amp that follows below.

Pass labs 250.8: What can i say here. This is THE BEST STEREO AMP i have ever heard. This amp destroys all the amps i have listed above today to include the pass labs 350.5. It is a refined 350.5 amp. It has more 3d sound which is something the 350.5 lacked. It has a level of detail that i really have never experienced before and the bass was amazing as well. I really thought it was the most complete power amplifier i have ever heard HANDS DOWN. To me, this is a benchmark of an amplifier. This is the amp that others should be judged by. NOTHING is lacking and right now it is the #1 amplifier that i have ever owned.

My current amps are Mcintosh MC601s: i decided to give these 601s a try and they don’t disappoint. They have great detail, HUGE soundstage, MASSIVE power and great midrange/highs. The bass is great, but it is no pass labs 250.8 or 350.5. As far as looks, these are the best looking amps i have ever owned. No contest there. i gotta be honest with you all, i never bought mcintosh monos before because i wasn’t really "wowed" by the mc452, but it could have been also because at that time i was using a processor as a preamp which i no longer do. Today, i own the Mcintosh C1100 2 chassis tube preamp which sounds unbelievable. All the amps i just described above have been amps that i auditioned with the C1100 as a preamp. The MC601s sound great without a doubt, but i will say that if you are looking for THE BEST sound for the money, these would not be it. However, Mcintosh remains UNMATCHED when it comes to looks and also resale value. Every other amp above depreciates much faster than Mcintosh.

That said, my future purchase (when i can find a steal of a deal) will be the Pass labs 350.8. I am tempted to make a preliminary statement which is that i feel this amp could be THE BEST stereo amp under 30k dollars. Again, i will be able to say more and confirm once i own it. I hope this update can help you all in your buying decisions!


128x128jays_audio_lab

Showing 50 responses by charles1dad

What is the rationale for advocating ultra long break-in time for audio components? What part(s) require 1000 hours before they’re able to sound their best? I do accept the idea that some new w components/parts need some degree of burn-in and use, say 50 to 200 hours . I’m genuinely curious as to the necessity of uber level (>500) of hours for materials, capacitors, resistors, transformers, signal wire etc. Honestly, 1000 hours for "sufficient" burn-in ? I’d love a clear explanation.
Charles
Hi Guidocorona,
I certainly appreciate your direct observations in your own audio system. You can only report what you’ve experienced with careful listening. No doubt that the required burn-in process varies from one component (and probably brand) to another.

In my own experience I’ve found that by 150 to 200 hours ( sometimes less) that the audio components have settled in and have noticed minimal or no further changes after this point. We own very different types of audio components and that could very possibly  be a significant factor resulting in different observed burn-in duration. Thanks for sharing your impressions.
Charles
Regarding the idea of audio equipment burn-in I do believe that here’s an adjustment/accommodation aspect involved as well as a genuine electronic parts burn-in process occurring To what degree each contributes I don’t know.
Charles
David,
I agree with you in that listening memory isn't as brief or fleeting as some make it out to be. I can recall the overall sound quality and sonic characteristics of audio products I've beard pretty well over time. 
Charles 
Whitecamaross,
In my opinion you’ve described the sonic signature of Boulder pretty accurately and as guidocorona concurred with. On the several occasions I’ve heard them they struck me as dry, cold and sterile and lacking any sense of emotionally/musically involving.

A solid state amplifier that occupies the other end of the solid state genre spectrum are the Japanese Concert Fidelity ZL 120 and ZL 200. They were "very" musically engaging with a natural tactile and alive presentation. They allow an emotional connection with the music. Another exceptionally good solid state amplifier that’s very musical and involving was the Technical Brain also Japanese. Really good sounding but uber expensive. I’m a SET tube kind of guy but these two SS amplifiers made music 😊.
Charles
Chazzy007,
I agree with your assessment, too many variables simultaneously at play here.
1 Boxed up components inactive for awhile
2 New products being used that aren’t broken in.
3 Changing cables at a very early stage in the evaluation process.
4 Patience and time is needed to get this right.
5 Idealy one variable introduced at a time. Otherwise things can become confusing and misleading.
Nonetheless an interesting thread to read. I can appreciate the effort in this type of endeavor. 
Charles
Minori, 
 I don't doubt the apparently excellent synergy of the ARC REF 250 amp and REF 10 however it seems that the OP  is decidedly a SS  amplifier devotee based on the content of this thread. 
Charles 
I had an opportunity a few years ago to hear the Pass Labs XS 300/XS preamplifier driving the Marten Coltrane Supreme speakers. Impressive in an audiophile Hifi sort of way. I'm familiar with the Rowland "house sound". If the 925 is the ultimate example of this sound I'd personally choose the Luxman/Rowland combination. 

Obviously we all appreciate it's a matter of individual taste between two highly regarded choices. In my opinion I believe that the Luxman/Rowland will be more natural sounding  and emotionally/musically involving (higher capacity to keep one deeply and fully engaged in the in the music).  Whitecamaross it will be interesting to read your listening impressions and which component combination you prefer. 
Charles 
The OP uses Wilson  speakers (happily) so  OTL amplifiers wouldn’t be an ideal pairing. I don’t find speaker sensitivity the limiting factor but rather speaker load impedance characteristics in regard to OTL compatibility.
Charles
Atmasphere,
I don’t doubt the example that you cite above, there can be successful exceptions (To the rule) presented to make a point. My comment was a general observation of what amplification would be more suitable for the demands of this particular speaker.
4 ohm nominal load
2 ohm dip at 90 Hz
Very high phase angles in the upper/mid bass region.
This type of load challenge is usually going to require a very capable high current amplifier to meet and handle these demands.

My point is that OTL use with this speaker is probably avoided by the vast majority of Wilson owners for the stated concerns. Too be consistent I am a proponent of actually listening to judge. However measurements/specifications can guide one’s selection process and narrow down the chance of an incompatible amp/speaker match.

In this case a 2 ohm speaker load in the lower frequencies suggest an OTL amplifier wouldn’t be the first choice.
Charles
Actually those measurements are from J.A.  Following the Stereophile review of the Alexia 2.
 But again if your amplifier has proven that it can successfully drive this speaker or similar speakers then more power to them.. I know that these are fine sounding amplifiers, I do not dispute that.

 I am just saying that this wouldn't generally be the expected outcome of an OTl driving a low impedance difficult speaker load. Ultimately the proof is in the actual listening which in your example you have confirmed.
Charles
Pokey77,
Thank you for your kind comments.
I enjoy reading this thread because it is purely  about listening which as you note is the most important aspect in evaluating audio (by far) .

The OP places a component into his home system and simply listens and reports what he hears, I like this. Subjectivity is the rule when it comes to listening to music and evaluating audio equipment.

The OP is finding the Rowland 925 is  producing sublime sound quality,yet according to guidocorona he hasn’t even scratch the surface of these amplifiers yet.
Charles
The potential issue with these cable changes at this juncture is that as guidocorona has pointed out is the Rowand is continuing burning-in and changing its sonic character. Sorting this factor from what the cables are contributing sonically can be confusing and imprecise. I believe that is a valid concern. It isn’t a concern if you don’t accept the "many" hours (800 To 1000) for burn-in concept. So obviously a matter of perspective. Not everyone believes in the ultra long hours of burn-in idea.
Charles
Agree that high impedance speakers are beneficial for "all" types of amplifiers but the plethora of 4 ohm speakers in the marketplace suggest many don't believe or  this accept this viewpoint. .
Charles 
In my opinion I believe some of these comparisons are too hastily done. Patience is required to achieve meaningful impressions with these high caliber components.  
Charles
Your friend makes a very valid argument. I have to think the REF 10 and Rowland 925 pairing could be extraordinarily. Surely demands a listening evaluation. I believe that the gap between the two DACs might be evident but subtle (relative to the preamplifier comparison)..
Charles
Hi whitecamaross,
You point regarding brief listening sessions and subsequent impressions is true. This is why I mentioned the need for patience. In your situation you have the ability to exercise this option. I do certainly appreciate initial and progressive listening impressions. You have two excellent preamplifiers paired with an excellent power amplifier.

There’s no doubt that each of the preamplifiers have distinctive strengths and sonic characteristics and that  if and when possible should have adequate time to be thoroughly sorted out. You are in the ideal situation to carry this out. A cold REF 10 (sitting idle for 2 weeks) versus a fully swarmed up Luxman isn’t equal footing if a true direct comparison is the objective.

This is my only point. As I’ve written before, I appreciate your efforts and commitment in providing this thread. I believe that there are many who read and enjoy your commentary. With preamplifiers of this very high caliber the choice will depend on the particular audio system in use and of course the taste/preferences of the specific listener.
Charles
The Gryphon should be a formidable and interesting comparison with the Rowland 925 mono blocks. 
Charles 
I’m very partial to tube components but tube power amplifier is a considerably different circumstance from tube preamplifiers. So much depends on amplifier and speaker load interaction. With the Wilson speakers I can understand the desire to stick with solid state amplifiers when all factors are considered. There are tube power amplifiers the would be suitable but there are fewer options overall going this route. Simpler to remain with transistors in my opinion.
Charles
Chazzzy007,
I use a tube power amplifier ( SET mono blocks) and a tube preamplifier and without any question it’s the best sound quality I have ever had in my home.
However virtually everything is situational when it comes to High End audio and constructing a home system. Your idea of tube preamp and solid-state amplifier is a recipe for success that has worked for many audiofiles.

Yet for whitecamaross an all solid-state signal chain (Luxman and Jeff Rowland) is giving him the best sound he has had thus far in his home. Once again an example that there is no one or single best way to put together a system. It just depends on many variables and the particular circumstance.
It will be interesting and informative to read how the Gryphon performs in his system.
Many roads do lead to Rome.
Charles
Hi Chazzzy07, 
 The Rowland  925 has set a very high reference point.  I'm assuming the Gryphon will be mono blocks (Which model?) so my curiosity is high to read what sonic differences are discovered between the two esteemed power amplifiers. It could be a matter of which amplifier is more synergistic with the Luxman preamplifier and current cables. I don't see a "loser"  in this scenario but rather an issue of taste and system compatibility. We shall see. 
Charles 
I think the vast majority of readers of this thread understand your decision regarding the preamplifiers.  Preference will vary depending on the particular audio system make up.REF 10 better here and the Luxman better there.  We get it. There's art to putting a system together and most experienced audiophiles/music lovers acknowledge that. 
Charles 
"Is this where I am headed?"
Possibly, however the yet to be heard Gryphon could potentially alter that direction. You don’t know at this juncture unless you re just assuming the Rowland superior to the Gryphon. 
Charles
Hi,
No not necessarily but I do recognize their esteemed reputation and think that they may be worthy challengers to your impressive Rowland 925 amplifiers. You have the privilege to conduct a direct comparison and this is why I find this thread interesting.  You actually listen,  there's no better way to judge audio components. 
Charles 
Integrated amplifier ( upper tier) versus top level mono blocks yet may still be a very compelling direct comparison.  You just never know. 
Charles 
ricred1,
Both of those Integrated amplifiers are held in the highest regard. My suspicion is that you would be nappy with either. 
Charles 
1 The 925 mono blocks are class A/B rather than class D. They implement a switching power supply.

2 This is Rowlnd’s top model and is a 4 chassis design. If one were to compare this to Gryphon (in an  apples to apples manner) I believe that their mono block offerings would be more appropriate than their integrated amplifier (although excellent in its own right).
Charles
My apology gentlemen.   When reading a Stereophile article discussing the Rowland 925 they described it as a class AB circuit/topology with a SMP supply. I certainly may have misread that particular article.
Charles
Richopp's comments are a very good reminder of how we all as individuals just hear things  differently. I played trumpet and have a plano in my home. I have heard many non box speakers over the years. They have their various strengths but also possess obvious flaws and weaknesses (as does everything). 

It always is a matter of compromise as we recognize no audio product  is perfect. At the end of the day it is simply a matter of preference.  Richopp's would choose as he described and all things considered I would prefer a high quality box speaker with cones. Each of us accepting the inevitable tradeoffs involved. In my experience high quality box speakers can reproduce the sound of instruments exceptionally well. I haven't heard non box speakers sound superior in this regard, 
Charles 
Roberjerman,
The OP is a complete stranger to me and probably to you as well.  I'm the near polar opposite in my habits (same preamplifier, amplifier and speakers for 9 years and very happy). My impression of whitecamaross is that he's having fun and experiencing much enjoyment.  I believe that he views this as an adventure and there's always something new to explore and sample. 
Charles 
Perhaps a case of reading interpretation but The Luxman sonic description by WC is the antithesis of so called low fi. My interpretation is that the Luxman 509x is fabulous sounding. If I had to rely "solely" on the written description of WC the Luxman 509x would be my choice. 
Charles
The description of the Boulder isn’t " neutral " it has a sonic signature of cold/cool, analytical, sterile/clinical. If you were in a room and someone was singing , playing the piano, guitar, saxophone etc. If this was done without use of electronics or amplification then you have pure natural or neutral sound (nothing but you and performer in the shared space).

The result would anything but cold or sterile (quite the opposite, vibrant, rich and very emotionally engaging interaction with the musicians) as the Boulder is described above by whitecamaross . Nope, the Boulder has a signature and it isn’t "neutral".
Charles
whitecamaross,
Your written comments suggest clearly ( to me ) that you find both the Gryphon Diablo and the Luxman 509x excellent sounding with each having its distinctive character. Overall they occupy the same level of performance and will appeal to different types of listeners depending on taste.
Charles
I'm in 100% agreement with bill_K's post. Not right vs wrong but rather which design's strengths/compromise package  suits a listener's taste best. Numerous approaches to achieve excellent sound quality. 
Charles 
Ricred1,
Thanks for the clarification. Given your first post I thought you were saying the Magico left you cold emotionally even though in the technical sense they impressed you.
Charles 
Hi Roxy54,
Interesting observation from you regarding the McInTosh 601. You rank them as mid fi tier even though WC says that they improve the Magico’s performance by an impressive 30%? Do you attribute this improvement solely on the increased power/current  capability?
Charles
Roxy54,
Thanks for the clarification.  It's hard to know (sometimes) when reading text. Some people find McInTosh excellent sounding and others are unimpressed by their performance. 
Charles 
Hi ricred1,
Is the Magico in your opinion truly an accurate speaker or merely one that’s errs toward a thinner and analytical character rather warmth/full body?

I ask for this reason. I recently attended a piano recital that was unamplified in a modest size gallery. I was about 20 feet away from the piano. Talk about full, rich very warm harmonics and vivid sound. Not even a hint of edge, brightness or thinness, zero!

So when speakers are described as"accurate to explain brightness,edginess etc. It seems to suggest coloration going in the other direction. If a speaker is genuinely accurate then it should sound "natural" and organic just as the Steinway grand piano did as described above.

It won’t equal the natural sound of the live piano(asking too much of any speaker) but should come reasonably close . It certainly shouldn’t add or impose an edge, bright or thin coloration to instruments.it seems that speakers with upper frequency emphasis are mistakenly given credit for hyper detail, transparency and accuracy. Ricred, why could you not live long term with the Magico?
Charles
David,
The Magico is the specific variable in question. WC and ricred1 were directly commenting on the performance of this speaker. WC comparing differences heard between it and other speakers in his system. So yes this Magico discussed in isolation as to its contributing sonic attributes.
Charles
Hi David,
I don’t believe we disagree as much as you may think. No doubt an audio system is judged as a whole with every component, cable, accessory etc. imparting in various degrees some level of influence. You and I have acknowledged that fact in previous conversations and correspondence.

However in this thread WC has listened to the Magico and then replaced it with the Focal and then commenting on the distinctions heard between them. So he is in fact isolating the individual speakers as variables. Now to your point on the other elements of his system, yes they are certainly impacting what is heard by him.

Swapping of speakers occurred but the room, front end, cables, rack etc. remained unchanged. Under these circumstances one would hear to a fair degree the different sonic signature of the competing speakers. Granted with the contributions of individual system products.

This can’t be avoided. Remove front end and amplifiers and the speakers forever remain silent. David you know that I’m a proponent of the "everything in an audio system matters" philosophy. Change any single part of the system and you change the sound heard, no argument about that.
Charles


As a former owner of the Symphonic Line (SL) RG 7 amplifier I’d be surprised if the Odyssey is a sonic equal. The RG 7 was a very good sounding solid state amplifiers my system ( prior to my migration to tubes). If the Odyssey is why would anyone buy the considerably more expensive SL amplifiers?
As an observer following the comments and listening impressions posted it seems that the Focal is a speaker for the long haul and years of happy ownership. Jafox your comments are revealing and the comments from WC’s non audiophile relatives are noteworthy.

Going strictly by comments on this thread it just seems as though the Magico impresses initially but could possibly wear on listeners as time passes onward.
Charles
Whitecamaross, 
I completely understand your vivid Formula1 car analogy and it's the gist of what I was inferring from yours and other comments on this thread.  For certain this type of speaker will suit some listeners ideally.  As any experienced listener would conclude it is a matter of chosen tradeoffs. 

It has been quite interesting reading your listening impressions of the Magico and Focal speakers as they represent very different flavors of music reproduction. 
Charles 
Roxy54,
I agree that there will always be a staunch and devoted group of electrostatic speaker owners. High End audio bas many niches that withstand the test if time.i do recall a period where I thought electrostatic speakers offered clear and unmatched qualities.

I no longer believe this to be the case currently. In my opinion based on listening experiences high quality dynamic speakers have caught up to electronics in their former areas of strengths. Overall dynamic speakers occupy a higher performance tier. No doubt opinions will differ on this topi given the inherent subjective nature .
Charles
Whitecamaross,
I'm not surprised by your listening impressions with direct comparison between the tube versus solid state McInTosh power amplifiers. 
Midrange, detail, air, larger soundstage,  emotional engagement,and increased musicality . These are the areas where good tubes exceed good transistors more often than not. 

If the Magico is as accurate as your have described ,  then it would easily  reveal the distinct sonic contrasts between them. They appear to have done so. The BHK  amplifier is said to be very good (I've not heard one) I'd give it a listen.
Charles  
I don’t doubt that the Pass Labs may outperform the MAC 2301 in certain parameters yet come up short in others. The Pass may not be better in an overall satisfying sense. Thai will be quite an interesting comparison. It sure seems as though the Magico responds very favorably to good quality tube power. It’s behaving as a relatively neutral conduit. That’s a good attribute IMO. WC is getting a hefty dose of musical realism based on his comments regarding the MAC 2301. That's hard to achieve sometimes. 
Charles
I will state upfront that on an open forum such as this one there will be many opinions expressed that others can agree or disagree with.  I am in agreement with riaa and minorl in this case. I'm familiar with both Ayre and Audio Research  audio components.  Based on my listening experiences I don't find Ayre superior to Audio Research by any stretch of the imagination,  no way, no how. Just my opinion and full acknowledgement of the subjective nature of it all.Riaa has heard both and prefers the Audio Research.  Each listener must trust what they hear and the results will surely vary.
Charles 
"Neutral like SS" I don’t accept this premise.
Which SS amplifier is Neutral? Pass Labs, McInTosh, Krell, Bryston, Solution, Ayre, Gryphon, Constellation? All of these are transistor amplifiers and each has its own sonic signature. So which one is the neutral example?

There is just as much variation amongst transistors as there are within the tube amplifier niche. Both types of output devices have coloration but differ in characteristics of the sonic spectrum. If anything, tubes ’generally’ sound more natural despite their colorations  than most transistors with their own  colorations. It really depends on which type of sonic coloration you can live with long term and remain content .
Charles