General Asylum: REVIEW: Plinius SA-102 Amplifier (SS) by Sam H

Model:	SA-102
Category:	Amplifier (SS)
Suggested Retail Price:	$5000
Description:	125 watt Class A stereo/ 460 watt bridged mono
Manufacturer URL:	Plinius
Manufacturer URL:	Plinius

Review by Sam H ( D ) on June 15, 2002 at 11:05:02
IP Address: 203.96.111.202

Add Your Review
for the SA-102

The purpose of this note is to provide a very brief comparison between the Plinius SA100 Mk 2, Plinius SA102, Plinius SA250 Mk 4, and the Plinius 8200 integrated ( 8200I). I auditioned them all in my home system over 6 weeks during April - May 2002. These products have all been individually reviewed at length in various magazines etc recently, and I don't intend to write another book about what has already been written - you can track these reviews down - they are all good cost effective products and the published reviews reflect this. The additional comments I make have not been covered elsewhere to my knowledge, and may be useful for anyone considering an upgrade to a SA102 and SA250. This is my first post to this site, and maybe this comparison should be under another heading - maybe someone more familiar with the site can shift it if needed.
SUMMARY :
The SA102 is a huge improvement in all respects over the SA100 Mk 2. It sounds much better, and the power supply of the SA102 makes almost no mechanical noise - you need your ear near the amp to hear it.
The SA250 Mk 4 has a very similar tonal character to the SA102, but it definitely has the edge over the SA102 in clarity of articulation, dynamic, and to a lesser extent imaging. And, the SA250 heated the room up more. But, the power supply of the SA250 makes only slightly less mechanical noise than that of a SA100 Mk 2.
The 8200 Integrated has a very similar sound to the SA102 and SA250 ( when coupled with M16 pre amp ), but as you would expect, it did not provide the clarity of articulation and precision of imaging of the much more expensive separate components.
In choosing between the SA102 and SA250 there are many factors to consider. If you have reasonably efficient speakers, a smaller room, and generally do not listen at "loud" volumes, the SA102 will probably do the job you want, take up less space, make almost no mechanical noise, and save you some money. If your system needs more balls to make it get up and go, and you need some extra heat in the room, the SA250 is probably a better choice. The only way to find out is to take both amps home and try them out for yourself.

DETAILS
I had used a Plinius M16 pre amp and SA100 Mk 2 power amp in my system from late 1997 until May 2002. I had been quite happy with the SA100, but knew it could be improved. I have recently become the New Zealand Distributor for Tara Labs ( speaker and interconnect cables ), and knew I needed to improve some aspects of my system for demonstration purposes, as well as personal satisfaction. My primary occupation is consulting electrical engineering, generally for heavy industrial applications.
My friendly dealer ( who has sold me music for the last 25 years ) had a client wanting another SA100 Mk2, so I traded in my amp, and took home a well run in SA102 from the in store system to audition. I had the SA102 at home for about 4 weeks. The sonic improvement fromm the SA100 Mk 2 to the SA102 was huge, and immediately evident. I generally agree with the description of sonic differences between the SA100 and the SA102 given in the extensive SA102 review previously posted on Audio Asylum by jadem6 April 9 2002.
What I can add to the previous reviews is that the power supply of my SA100 Mk2 made quite a lot of mechanical noise which was clearly audible from my listening position ( about 7 m away ), and intrusive at low listening levels. I live in a very quiet area. In comparison, the SA102 was silent - you almost have to put your ear on the chassis to hear any mechanical noise from the power supply. All the SA102s have this great, new, previously undocumented, feature. My dealer put my SA100 Mk 2 into his in store system ( from which the SA102 had been removed ) and he noted the same sonic characteristics and mechanical noise changes as me.
After 10 days of living with the SA102, I borrowed a friends' SA250 Mk4, and took it home for a direct comparison to the SA102. This SA250 had the latest (March 2002) ciruit modifications implemented. After an overnight warm up of the SA250, I did a listening comparison. All comparisons were done in Class A, with Polycrystal Reference Isloator footers under both amps, and identical power cables to each amplifier from my power supply filter. The tonal character and sonic presentation of the SA102 and SA250 are very similar. On the first day, while listening at low levels, I was wondering why I had gone to all the effort of moving the heavy SA250 when the SA102 sounded equally good. But listening at louder levels and pushing the speakers a bit harder, the SA250 clearly demonstrated it has much bigger bollox. The SA250 was clearly much more in control of the speakers multiple bass / mid driver array. Where the SA102 might just start to "bloom" on a note, the SA250 would clearly articulate it - this applied from deep bass through to cymbal crash. At this point I realised I would probably purchase the SA250 Mk4. Over the next 4 days of comparing the SA102 and the SA250 I continued to be impressed by the similarity of the sound of the two amplifiers far more than the diferences. The SA250 always had the edge over the SA102 in clarity of articulation, and dynamic. Also, I noticed some improvements in imaging with the SA250, which may have been more apparrent if I had more time to compare the two amplifiers side by side. And, of course, the SA250 heated the room up a lot more.
Except, the mechanical noise from the power supply of the SA250 Mk4 I borrowed was louder than my SA100 Mk 2, and very intrusive compared to the near silent SA102 that was next to it. I went to another dealer and listened to the mechanical noise coming from the power supply of another new SA250 Mk4 - in the store this SA250 seemed quieter than the SA250 unit I had at home. I was at the point of placing an order, so, being in New Zealand, I contacted Plinius and discussed the issue of mechanical noise. The mechanical noise from power supply of the SA250 Mk 4 I had made to order and purchased is lower than that of the SA250 I borrowed, a little lower than the SA100 I had, but it is still much louder than the near silent SA102.
The SA102 was a completely new design, and was released after the SA250 Mk4. The power supply of the SA102 is about half the size of the SA250 Mk4. It would be nice to think the audible noise levels would be similar, but they are not due to the different mechanical arrangements of these components within the SA102 and SA250. If Plinius ever rearrange the SA250 internal components and release a Mk5 version, maybe they will address this sonic issue as well.
While my SA250 was being manufactured, I sent my Plinius M16 pre amp back to Plinius to have the Hovland Musicap signal capacitors replaced with Auricaps. This seems to have made a subtle but worthwhile improvement. I can not quantify this change, as the modified pre amp came back with my brand new SA250, so there were a lot of sonic changes to get used to once everything had been run in for a few days.
During the two weeks while my SA250 was being manufactured, and my pre amp was away being modified, I borrowed a well run in Plinius 8200 integrated from my dealer ( having returned the SA102 ). The tonal character and imaging of the 8200I was similar to the M16 with SA102 or SA250, but as you would expect, it did not provide the clarity of articulation and precision of imaging of the separate components. I was very impressed by the 8200I; it costs less than my M16 pre amp, and could happily live with it in a less critical application than my main system.

Product Weakness: It isn't a SA250 Mk 4
Product Strengths: Great Sound ! Huge improvement over SA100 Mk 2 and it fits in the same physical space.

Associated Equipment for this Review:
Amplifier:	Plinius SA100 Mk 2, Plinius SA250 Mk 4, Plinius 8200 Integrated
Preamplifier (or None if Integrated):	Plinius M16, S/N 7823
Sources (CDP/Turntable):	CD Sony XA7 ES
Speakers:	Lambert Audio Virtuosso Majors;
Cables/Interconnects:	Interconnect cables - Tara Labs RSC Air 1, XLR ( CD - Pre, Pre - Power ), Speaker cables - Tara Labs RSC 1800 Prime Bi Wire
Music Used (Genre/Selections):	Rock / Jazz - including selections from Patricia Barber, Cassandra Wilson, NIN, Tom Waits, Thievery Corporation, Kronos Quartet, Nick Cave, Ben Harper, Charlie Haden, Lou Reed, Keb Mo, L7, Dido, Buena Vista Social Club, Cure, PJ Harvey, Curve, Public Enemy, Tim Garland, Bic Runga, Diana Krall, Tim Finn, ....
Room Size (LxWxH):	5m x 9m x 2.5
Room Comments/Treatments:	Fully carpeted over poured concrete floor .Speakers on long wall.
Time Period/Length of Audition:	4 weeks
Other (Power Conditioner etc.):	Home made mains power filter unit; passive RF filter unit using tubular ferrtite cable shields with filter capacitor between and line and neutral - circuit topology similar to Schaffner "FN329 medical" but built using discrete components with much higher power handling.
Type of Audition/Review:	Home Audition
Your System (if other than home audition):	N/A

Product Weakness:	It isn't a SA250 Mk 4
Product Strengths:	Great Sound ! Huge improvement over SA100 Mk 2 and it fits in the same physical space.