My Threshold experiences are with the T200 and Sa3.9. The T200 was a great all around amp, even though only 100w/ch stereo. It was an "angry 100watts" however! Lot's of snap and bass weight. It was also very clear, detailed, and big sounding. I liked the amp very much. Would own one again if need be. Good stuff.
The 3.9 was, besides being less wattage (60/ch st), a bit sweeter on top, and midrange perhaps a pinch fuller from what I remember. It didn't however have the bass weight and smack of the T200 to be true. These differences however were small comparatively. Top to bottom, I liked em both just fine. Maybe the T200's trebble was a smidge "drier" sounding, but still excellent, smooth, airy, extended...as with both amps.
If I were driving a pair of modestly senstitive mini monitors, I'd lean towards the more sweat 3.9. If I was driving bigger speakers, or speakers with lower sensitivity, and I needed to rock a bit, I'd go T200.
I never heard the T400, which was like only 50 watts more power than the 200 or something. But I heard tell that the 200 was better, but not sure.
Anyway, that's my Treshold experience. All in all, good stuff indeed!
The 3.9 was, besides being less wattage (60/ch st), a bit sweeter on top, and midrange perhaps a pinch fuller from what I remember. It didn't however have the bass weight and smack of the T200 to be true. These differences however were small comparatively. Top to bottom, I liked em both just fine. Maybe the T200's trebble was a smidge "drier" sounding, but still excellent, smooth, airy, extended...as with both amps.
If I were driving a pair of modestly senstitive mini monitors, I'd lean towards the more sweat 3.9. If I was driving bigger speakers, or speakers with lower sensitivity, and I needed to rock a bit, I'd go T200.
I never heard the T400, which was like only 50 watts more power than the 200 or something. But I heard tell that the 200 was better, but not sure.
Anyway, that's my Treshold experience. All in all, good stuff indeed!