Thoughts on the Audio Research 150.2

I also, just purchased this amp. The difference, I've been using audio research equipment for the last 20 yrs.
I know the sound and equipment. I recently changed from bi-amping to single amping thus the purchase of the 150.2.
I was vascillating back and forth between the ARC 100.2 & the 150.2.( the 150.2 replaced the 100.2 kinda sort of) After reading the review that Soundstage did (which was very favorable)www.soundstage.com, and reading some other reviews and opinions, I decided to take the plunge.
I was not disappointed to say the least. This amp is very good!! and encompasses their latest technology. To go from bi-amping to single with this amp, I'm not losing that much all things considered.
I'm mating it with the audio research LS-16 MKII preamp and the sound I'm getting is excellent. Detail, resolution, bass response is just great and I have a 18k system.
Long story short, this is a great amp.

This response is an addendum to my response regarding the 150.2. I know there have been some people who have attempted to compare it with the 100.2 which in its purest sense is not a fair comparison. You are talking about two different!! types of amplifiers and technologies. The 150.2 is a tripath or class "T" digital amp the 100.2 is not.
After finally hearing the 100.2, all of the accolades it has received are warranted no doubt. The luscious tube like midrange and the solidstate bass with great authority are all there but here is one thing I would offer. In trying to achieve "the absolute sound" in our respective systems What are we talking about? We are talking about trying to replicate the actual live performance and the live performance does not sound like tubes and it does not sound like solidstate. It doesn't even sound like stereo!
Having said that, when I listen to the 150.2 in my system, it sounds more like the live performance(and I've attended a lot of live performances)than any amp I've heard including the 100.2! Sometimes we get accustomed to hearing and listening to recorded music so much that we lose perspective of what live music really sounds like, particularly if we don't go to a lot of live performances.
So, nobody has rained on my parade to quote Mr. Dodgealum.
The bottom line is that in the final analysis it comes down to personal preference and my preference is the 150.2 based on my experience and I've been in highend audio for over 20yrs.

This response is in regards to Mr. Dodgealum and his response to my comparison of the 150.2 to the 100.2. I think we can agreeably disagree. You are right about evaluating equipment in the same system,same room,etc.to come to a 100% accurate conclusion (but that conclusion is still an opinion) That would be for someone who is not familiar with how to do listening tests and who is not at all familiar with specific equipment.
Again, I'm not a novice. Let me give you my resume. I've had an currently have audio research equipment and have had it for over 20yrs.!! I know the equipment and the sound of the equipment amps & preamps all the way back to the D-52b and SP-3A up to an including the 150.2 and LS-16 MK II(I've owned or had in my system) I'm astute enough to know what its doing in a system I'm familiar with. I heard the 100.2 in a friend's system of which I'm very familiar, a system I,ve listened to extensively for a number of years, an audio research system. So, I know the system. I did not go to a audio showroom an listen one time to an unfamiliar system and make my conclusion.
Again my reference is live music and live recordings not equipment but how the equipment portrays the music. The 150.2 makes instruments sound more natural to me and I know how instruments are supposed to sound as I'm also a former musician.
What we're dealing with here basically is opinion, you like the 100.2 I like the 150.2 there's nothing wrong with that. What a dull world it would be if we all dressed alike. ate the same foods, wore the same clothes etc.