I agree with Calvin's response above-- good assessment. Since SF was purchased by Paradiegm (sp?) Audio over a year ago, it is financially stable. I verified this with their Technical Rep. several months ago. In the two Stereophile reviews of the SF Power 2 and 3, RJR called the Power 2 "boring", a very unprofessional choice of words (IMO) for an amp that was then put in their Class A Recommended components-- it seems to me that there is a big contradiction involved here, ie how could a "boring" amp be Class A. As to the Power 3, the reviewer said "these amps don't rock"-- in other words they lacked pace, rhythm, and timing. Yet the Power 3 was also put into STPH. Class A-- another significant contradiction IMO. Please note that other reviewers of thes amps said they were excellent. Look up the reviews on SF's web site; also the reviews on Audio Review. No, I don't own either of these amps but am seriously considering the Power 2. Dbear; I have used the Line 2 for over two years-- SE with no problem-- sources have been a Muse 2 DAC, and a Levinson 360S DAC. And I don't know what you mean by "overloading". Also, when used SE, it does not mean that 1/2 the circuitry is not used-- it doesn't work that way, but different parts of the circuitry are used SE versus balanced. I also use the Line 1 SE and have had no problems-- source is an Adcom DAC. They are both excellent pre-amps. Myoussif if you would prefer to pay MORE for this amp, I can give you some references (hey dude, just joking). Over the weekend, a Power 2 (demo, MSRP $5000.) was sold for $2000. because the business was both moving and changing focus-- wish I could have afforded it at the time. Cheers. Craig.
