which amp should i get another marsh, aragon, eAR

This is how I would rate the amps in terms of sound quality: Evo 200.2 (the best) Marsh 400S (second) Aragon (last). My opinion only.

still does not answer my question. Is the Aragon mono blocks better than two Marsh 400s or two Evo 200.2, or maybe a eAR amp?

Sounds to me like you either have a room mode situation(common) or may prefer a different speaker. Unless those qualities you're talking about are infintesimally off for your taste, you need possibly room treatment or different speakers. Try speaker placement variations first. Cheers

Audition them all if you can. My reference amplifer the H2O is available for audition from www.iceh2oaudio.

Carlton

Try 2 A200s. They actually sound a bit better than the 400.

Re "I believe the pre-amp should be completely passive."

It has been my experience, passive preamps are a poor choice when partnered with PWM amps, such as the eAR. And that is a crying same, because I believe the great PWM amps are the most natural amps ever devised.

I owned the eAR MKII. It was great. Now I own the H2O Signature. It's huge power supply significantly lift's it's performance over the former.

I would never use MIT with a PWM amp either. For one thing, MIT cables sooth the highs. You don't want to do that to the sweet highs of PWM amps. Another thing is, it is imperative to have double, or triple shielded power cords on all components including the PWM amp.

To add to what I was saying. I really enjoy Marsh equipment; therefore, considering buying another 400s. Detailed, open, and great imagery. But on the other hand, I am looking for more midbass and a more up front midrange. I have noticed in the past when I have bi-amped the Paradigms the sound is 2 times better. Also thinking a more powerful amp will do the same thing. For example, the new Aragon mono-blocks with 400w, eAR with 300w, or bi-amp with Evo 200.2. All interconnects are either MITs or audioquest. To back myself up about the amp being the most important upgrade, I believe the pre-amp should be completely passive (meaning it should not change the signal from the source) and the amp the task of accurately amplifing the signal and like Sufentanil said "MATES REASONABLY WELL WITH THE SPEAKERS." I am looking to spend about 5000.00 on this new amp setup. I hope this helps.

I think you need to provide some more details about what kind of sound you have now and what you don't like about it. What are you looking to achieve, and what is your budget? That will help us offer any suggestions.

I personally disagree with your assertion that the amp is the most important upgrade. PROVIDED THAT THE AMP MATES REASONABLY WELL WITH THE SPEAKERS, I would argue that speakers and preamps can change the sound the most. But that's just my opinion.

Good luck,

Michael