Gamut D200?

what's the difrence between GAMUT D200 and PLINIUS 250mk4?
i give up. what is the difference? -cfb
Cornfed strikes again. You know cornfed if you feel a post is beneath you just do not commentIf other people feel the same the post moves down the list causing no problems.Your above-it-all posts surve no purpose. Larry
Confedboy's response is good natured and very funny.
I had a good laugh.
I agree with stereodad. Mr. Corn's (sometimes good sometimes trite) remarks seem to ALWAYS slip past the curchlady censor of this site. What gives?
Is Mr. Corn an owner at Audiogon?
Dear Dad- CFB has been around longer than you and added more to discussions. He's entitled to a little fun.
The GAMUT is not exactly high current and has problems driving low impedance speakers. This is a minor drawback considering its world-class sound. I have heard both amplifiers and I prefer the Gamut by a small margin. The monstrous PLINIUS, on the other hand, can drive any speaker extant. Compared to the GAMUT, it sounds a tad sweeter and a bit less detailed.

I am quite chagrined that Mr. Cornfedboy's puerile response has become the topic of this thread, and not the question posted by Mr. Musicland. Let's not forget the purpose of this forum.
I agree with the analysis of Aisip above. I own both the Plinius SA-250Mk IV and GamuT D200 -using the Plinius on the woofers and the GamuT on the towers of the Nearfield Acoustics Pipedreams Loudspeakers. One additional comment- the soundstaging of the GamuT amp is without peer, Tube or SS, in my experience.
I own both the D200 and a pair of Wolcotts; they are very different beasts, each is truly superb in its own right when used with the proper speakers. I am not familiar with the SA 250 but am very familiar with the SA 100 run in mono, both class A and AB. The SA 100's are the antitheseis of the D200, slow, dark, lacking in transparency but powerful at the bottom. Even in a bi-amped system, the SA 100's would not be my choice (I have heard that the 250's are a completely different amplifier and much, much better). The major weakness of the D200 is its ability to deliver current into a tough load. With a reasonably efficient speaker like the Kharma's, it is excellent top to bottom. Driving less efficient dynamic speakers (such as the early Rockports), its bass suffers; however, above that it is still wonderful. It is, perhaps, at its very best in a bi-amped situation, such as Quads with separate subs. A last thought, the D200 is a champ at imaging; however, the way in which it creates the soundfield is different from that created by really superb tube amps and to me less believable. Likewise, its midbass is leaner than that of a good tube amp. Not so much better or worse as just different.