Good questions. I was using a very high-quality James Burgess 45/46 stereo amp and only bought the Paramounts because I got a great local pick-up deal on them (I had no intentions of replacing the Burgess amp). However, the more I listened to the Paramounts, the more I was impressed.
That meant something because I was biased against the Paramounts for a number of reasons. First, I have never liked most of the 300B amps that I have heard. Also, I was always told that you had to have AC heating of the filaments and tube rectification for best sound (neither of which the Paramounts use).
The pair I acquired was a very early pair that was built by an Electrical Engineer. I liked their sound enough to start investing more money in them. They already came upgraded with a large Mundorf and two small V-Cap capacitors, so I purchased the V1.1 soft-start upgrade kit and had it professionally installed.
Then came upgraded power cords, Hi-Fi Tuning fuses, Ericsson 2C51 input tubes and bi-wiring speaker cables. They were really sounding good at this point, but the final piece to the puzzle was upgrading to EML solid-plate 300Bs.
With the EML 300Bs, I now have superior response at the frequency extremes, nothing like the classic 300B sound with weak/bloated bass and poor high frequency response. Also, certain sounds like saxophone and vocals are exceptional. I know it’s a cliché, but I really can make out the words to songs much better with the EMLs.
Even though I got a great deal on the Paramounts, I ended up spending quite a bit of money to put this altogether (this also includes the purchase of an Eva 2 LDR passive preamp). However, it's been well worth it. I feel the Paramounts, as configured with the upgraded tubes and caps, provides the best combination of the Burgess amp, my previous Fi 2A3 monos and several other amps I have owned.
Gerry
