Thoughts on the Audio Research 150.2

Thought I would post thoughts on the 300.2 I recently purchased (replaced a Krell FPB-300)to drive ProAc D38; ARC LS25mkII pre, ARC CD3 MKII, Kimber select cables, ExactPower. The results are stunning! What a great amp! The combination of components is very synergistic. Couple of learnings along the way: 1)keep the amp on as much as you can. After power-on the 300.2 takes a long time to sound great again. According to my ExactPower the amp draws less than 60W so it's like keeping a light bulb lit. 2) Invest in the best power conditioning and power cord you can. I'm using ExactPower and Kimber Palladian PK-10. Very noticeable improvements. Class D and Class T digital amps are showing up in many companies product lines. ARC has one of the best implementations so far.

Thanks Rsorren1, I´m considering a 300.2 for my Magnepans but how would you describe the bass compared to the FPB 300 which is known for having great powerful bass?

Hasse, sorry it has taken this long to get back to you. The bass on the 300.2 is outstanding. Not as rich sounding when compared to the FPB300 but BETTER DEFINED. The Krell amps have a rich, powerful, sound. They tend to present the soundstage "in-front" of the speakers. The 300.2 lays the soundstage behind the speakers. I've owned Krell amps since 1991 and became familiar with the rich, forward Krell sound. When I initially heard the 300.2 at home on demo, it took me just a little while to determine that the bass response was actually more articulate and better defined. Try it with Maggies. I can't believe that it would be a bad match given the proper cables and power

This response is an addendum to my response regarding the 150.2. I know there have been some people who have attempted to compare it with the 100.2 which in its purest sense is not a fair comparison. You are talking about two different!! types of amplifiers and technologies. The 150.2 is a tripath or class "T" digital amp the 100.2 is not.
After finally hearing the 100.2, all of the accolades it has received are warranted no doubt. The luscious tube like midrange and the solidstate bass with great authority are all there but here is one thing I would offer. In trying to achieve "the absolute sound" in our respective systems What are we talking about? We are talking about trying to replicate the actual live performance and the live performance does not sound like tubes and it does not sound like solidstate. It doesn't even sound like stereo!
Having said that, when I listen to the 150.2 in my system, it sounds more like the live performance(and I've attended a lot of live performances)than any amp I've heard including the 100.2! Sometimes we get accustomed to hearing and listening to recorded music so much that we lose perspective of what live music really sounds like, particularly if we don't go to a lot of live performances.
So, nobody has rained on my parade to quote Mr. Dodgealum.
The bottom line is that in the final analysis it comes down to personal preference and my preference is the 150.2 based on my experience and I've been in highend audio for over 20yrs.

Eee3. I would agree absolutely that it all boils down to personal preference. However, I would ask with regard to the 100.2 and 150.2 comparison--how do you know which you prefer? I do not doubt the sonic attributes of the 150.2--I've heard the amp and it sounds good. However, I heard it in DIRECT comparison with the model it replaced, the 100.2 and I preferred the older model. I can say unequivically that the 100.2 is my preference because I compared it to the 150.2 in the same room, same system, same everything. It is only through this type of comparison that one can make an intelligent choice. Comparing the two amps in different systems etc. really tells you almost NOTHING about which you prefer. You say the 150.2 sounds more like live music than the 100.2. Are you sure? Or does the SYSTEM which contained the 150.2 sound more like live music in the room you heard it than the SYSTEM with the 100.2 in the room you heard it in? I also disagree with your assertion that we should not be comparing the two amps because they are different designs. Evaluation by comparison is pretty much what this whole hobby is about--and besides the 150.2 is the amp that replaced the 100.2 in the manufacturers lineup. Why shouldn't we compare and see whether the new design exceeds the performance of the older model? I would think this type of comparison would be the most relevant of all. Sorry to sound a bit shrill but I think we all need to more consistently bear in mind the role that room acoustics and system synergy play in determining the sound we hear. Once those variables are controlled, then personal preference can be more authentically determined and roundly asserted.