Dynamics, slam, clarity

none that are obvious to me

Have owned the Mark II for two + years now, and have been pleased with everything about it except for a slowly pulsating mechanical hum which was present from the beginning. But, since I had the amp on the other side of the wall from the balance of the system, I ignored it until a few months ago, when I sent an email to Plinius N.Z. asking for suggestions.
They referred me to Vince Galbo, brother of the person I bought the amp from (Larry Galbo) who is now the repair manager for Plinius in Buffalo. Vince spent all kinds of time with me talking about the hum, the amp itself and the Mark III upgrade which he assured me would deal with the problem and then some.
So, despite the prospect of amplifier withdrawal symptoms, I sent the Mark II off for the upgrade, and in a mere nine days, I received it back. Not only is the hum entirely gone, but the amp now has a crystal clarity which is a noticable improvement over what was already an outstanding amp by any standards.
Given the quality of Plinius' parts/construction, their outstanding service and their fantastic sound, anyone looking for a new or used amp in this price range would be crazy not to audition one. In my view, the Mark II/III exhibits all of the advantages of a very high end solid state power amp with none of the disadvantages.

The Plinius amp. is a Wonderfull amplifier, that matches the Krell, Rowlandl and the like, for a fraction of the the price of those. Clean, natural, big, atmopheric sound, that deserves the best loudspeakers.

I have been listening with great care to both the Plinius SA 50 III and its larger brother, the SA 100 III, for several weeks now. I posted my review of the 50 a while ago. Though Peter Thompson (Mr. Plinius) and Plinius dealers swear these two amps sound much alike, I have found them quite different. The 100 adds a degree of weight and warmth to the proceedings, something many listeners claim to want. If you are one of these, you will admire the 100 a great deal. Rich and full, especially in the bass, it sends out ribbons of sound. It projects an overall warm, resonant accoustic. It is NOT heavy, thick, or slow. Detail is all there, though not prominent. If I had to characterize its sound in one word, it would be ripe, not overripe. But ripe. It is definitely what many have called tubey, as in tubey-warm. The 50 projects a lighter, more open sense of things. It feels faster, though they may be simply a difference in overall balance created by the 100's richer bass. You are more aware of detail with the 50. The 50 is not brighter, it just appears to give off more light, to illuminate. On another network, before the 100 was broken in, I compared itspresentation with the 50 by saying its light was more of the late afternoon variety, the 50's more like early morning light. The 100 now feels broken in pretty well and that comparison still holds. Both amps are very smooth. The difference between them (once again) is probably much like what Michael Fremer characterized the difference between the VTL 185's and 450's (then the 175's and 300's) as being: it may well come down to the inescapable difference between a lower and higher powered amp. It really does come down to taste and listening to these two amps will likely tell you things about your own taste you may not have known. They are fine examples of their kind, different kinds. For what it's worth, I find I prefer the 50. And I found I needed more power -- which I doubt -- I'd be inclined to vertical bi-amp with two 50's rather than use the 100. But some of my friends would calll me nuts.

This is postscript to my review of the SA 100 III. I am providing it because since I posted my review, the amp has continued to break in, resulting in subtle but significant changes in its overall presentation. Peter Thomson and I have exchanged several emails on this matter, and he concedes that the 100 in particular takes a VERY long time to open up and settle into its true identity. In fact, he wonders whether many reviewers have had the amp long enough to truly hear what it sounds like! Now, nearly four weeks and many hours old, the 100 has to my ears outstripped the 50, mainly by offering a more balanced overall presentation. The 50 has a lovely, beguiling, tubelike, sweet upper midrange that can draw you into the music, and many love it for that. I certaily fell for it. But compared head to head with the 100, it becomes apparent that it is achieving this effect by giving added emphasis to upper-midrange -- or rather by giving less emphasis (50 fewer watts!) to the bass. The focus is of the presentation is on the mids. It is sometimes as if the bottom half of notes is missing with the 50. With chamber music, this is not all that noticeable: the music has a lovely, clear presence to it. But with a full orchestral piece, the lack of weight and power is immediately clear. Listening to the Nielsen #4, for example, I was drawn in by the massed violins with the 50, but when the full orchestra came in, the presentation felt anemic. The 100 ultimately sounds more real,note by note. Strings are sweet enough but also have a reassuring thickness to them. The whole presentation wears better. I still have great affection for the 50, but I suspect that over time, especially with orchestral music, it would cloy a little. I have had that experience with Sonic Frontiers (SFD 2 II) and Conrad-Johnson amplifiers. It is not a huge thing: we are talking about very fine equipment here. But we are also making distinctions. And in the long run, I have found balanced overal presentations wear the best. The SA 100 III is a fine amp. For $4000, it is probably the best all-around value in the world!
Rest of my system, so you can make interpret this review: Naim CDX/XPS, Blue Circle BAC 3, Plinii, B&W 805's on very solid proprietary stands; interconnects are SPM, speaker cable is Straightwire Virtuoso; I use Electraglide Ref III power cords.

As I was making out the money orders to pay for this amp, part of me was just a little hesitant... I have never heard this amp, but I have heard amazing things about it... This goes against my #1 rule of HI FI: DONNOT BUY A COMPONENT UNTIL YOU HEAR IT IN YOUR SYSTEM.
After setting up the amp in my system, I heard something I have only heard very few times before... A Heavenly Sonic Purity. Words fail me... I am in utter awe of the musical sound that flows from my system. I had Monarchy SE deluxes before... and they were quite nice. The Plinius makes them look and sound like toys. On a scale of 1 to 100 of transparency, the Monarchy's clock in at about a 90. They would be rated in low Class A to High Class B by Stereophile. I think the Plinius amp is about a 99 on a 1 to 100 scale of transparancy. If there is an amp for say less than 6-8k out there that competes with the Plinius, I have yet to hear it. Even for ANY price, I think the Plinius is only dwarfed by sheer POWER and not sound quality.

I will know more about this amp when I hook it up to my primary speakers, the Alon IIs mk II.

I wish I could give it more than 5 stars...

Excellent. Musical, powerfull, involving. On of the best. At the price there are no competition.

This is a world class amplifier. I think it could compare favorably to any amplifier made today.
5+ Stars

Six month follow-up review. Plinius is fully broken in. Substituted Joule Electra LA 100 for Sonic Frontiers Line 1. Pure music. Not listening to system anymore. The Joule Electra/Plinius combination driving Waveform Mach Solo's from John Otvos of Canada is remarkable. No listener fatigue. Solo piano, voice, and acoustic guitar sound natural--almost organic. The amp slams orchestral, rock, and choral. Check out Lux Eterna (Larudisen) by the Los Angeles Master Chorale. You will meet your Maker.

This Amp represents the best buy in an amplification source in high end audio today. I currently have two in my system, running as mono-blocks. That's 400 Watts per Channel into 8 ohms and 640 into 4 ohm loads. I switched to Plinius several months back after owning Krell, which by the way is a fine product in its own right. The Plinius however, provides a more natural presentation. It is neutral, while the Krell has a very distinctive signature and a somewhat etced high end (it sounds like solid state). While this appeals to some, to me, the real difference between Krell and Plinius is that Krell sounds like very good HiFi (accurate, technical presentation). The Plinius sounds like REAL, LIVE MUSIC, and that's what you hear. Smooth, yet articulate, enchanting "draw you in" Midrange with wonderful extension at the frequency extremes. Imaging, transparency, clarity, detail and soundstaging are all there. This is a fast amplifier that knows how to let go of the notes (giving the impression that the highs are somewhat rolled off). Build quality is superb. These babies are built to last and they do take a lot of time to break in. What more can I say that hasn't been said already?
By the way, I am not a high end HiFi junkie who's always looking for the latest and greatest, and I do not have a finely honed ear for product comparisons. I'm just a guy who loves MUSIC and getting lost in it! If that's what you're into, then give Plinius a listen, you just might get lost in the music too. 5 PLUS STARS all the way!

Equipment:

2 Plinius SA 100 MKIII (Mono-blocks)
EAD Ultradisc 2000 CD
ARC LS-15 Preamp
MIT Z-Center
Dynaudio Contour 3.0 Speakers
Harmonic Tech Cables-Interconnects

If you think that the amplifier is good. Check out the pre-amp. Same tubey sound, unrestricted highs, huge well defined soundstage. Teamed with a goldmund da/transport and Acarian Alon iV's. It sounds better than your favorite records. Not a joke. The sound has such richness and depth that you will think twice about replacing your components for a long time.