My "Musical Cultural Literacy for Americans" write-in competition seems to have been a smashing success. I received 65 entries, and only a very few missed the mark. A few more were obvious, so-so, or lacking in passion. Many were good. But a score or more were of enviably high quality. Choosing the top 12 was tough. At the end, who won a prize and who did not was entirely my own subjective decision. The winning entries are posted in full on <I>Stereophile</I>'s website as an <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/thefifthelement/407fifth/index3.html">append…; to my <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/thefifthelement/407fifth">April column</A>. Here are the points I made online in announcing the results:

My "Musical Cultural Literacy for Americans" write-in competition seems to have been a smashing success. I received 65 entries, and only a very few missed the mark. A few more were obvious, so-so, or lacking in passion. Many were good. But a score or more were of enviably high quality. Choosing the top 12 was tough. At the end, who won a prize and who did not was entirely my own subjective decision. The winning entries are posted in full on <I>Stereophile</I>'s website as an <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/thefifthelement/407fifth/index3.html">append…; to my <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/thefifthelement/407fifth">April column</A>. Here are the points I made online in announcing the results:

I had been sent a sample of the Woodside SC26 tube preamplifier during my June 1994 review of Woodside's <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/694wood">MA50 monoblock amplifier</A> (Vol.17 No.6). Although I used a number of preamplifiers during that review, I was most impressed with the MA50s' spacious, three-dimensional soundstage when driven by the SC26. At the time, I had an impression that the SC26's sonics combined a midrange richness with a good dynamic range. Although I had to return the Woodside MA50s to the importer after I reviewed them, I continued listening to the SC26.

I had been sent a sample of the Woodside SC26 tube preamplifier during my June 1994 review of Woodside's <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/694wood">MA50 monoblock amplifier</A> (Vol.17 No.6). Although I used a number of preamplifiers during that review, I was most impressed with the MA50s' spacious, three-dimensional soundstage when driven by the SC26. At the time, I had an impression that the SC26's sonics combined a midrange richness with a good dynamic range. Although I had to return the Woodside MA50s to the importer after I reviewed them, I continued listening to the SC26.

I had been sent a sample of the Woodside SC26 tube preamplifier during my June 1994 review of Woodside's <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/694wood">MA50 monoblock amplifier</A> (Vol.17 No.6). Although I used a number of preamplifiers during that review, I was most impressed with the MA50s' spacious, three-dimensional soundstage when driven by the SC26. At the time, I had an impression that the SC26's sonics combined a midrange richness with a good dynamic range. Although I had to return the Woodside MA50s to the importer after I reviewed them, I continued listening to the SC26.

I had been sent a sample of the Woodside SC26 tube preamplifier during my June 1994 review of Woodside's <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/694wood">MA50 monoblock amplifier</A> (Vol.17 No.6). Although I used a number of preamplifiers during that review, I was most impressed with the MA50s' spacious, three-dimensional soundstage when driven by the SC26. At the time, I had an impression that the SC26's sonics combined a midrange richness with a good dynamic range. Although I had to return the Woodside MA50s to the importer after I reviewed them, I continued listening to the SC26.

I had been sent a sample of the Woodside SC26 tube preamplifier during my June 1994 review of Woodside's <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/694wood">MA50 monoblock amplifier</A> (Vol.17 No.6). Although I used a number of preamplifiers during that review, I was most impressed with the MA50s' spacious, three-dimensional soundstage when driven by the SC26. At the time, I had an impression that the SC26's sonics combined a midrange richness with a good dynamic range. Although I had to return the Woodside MA50s to the importer after I reviewed them, I continued listening to the SC26.

Brian Tucker, the US Quad importer, introduced me to the Woodside MA50 tube amplifiers and their manufacturer, John Widgery, during the 1992 Summer CES. Tucker's combination of Woodside MA50 tube amplifiers and <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/416">Quad ESL-63 USA Monitor</A>s sounded unusually neutral, dynamic, and detailed. This was good news; back in 1987, Dick Olsher (Vol.10 No.6, pp.104&ndash;5) was unable to recommend an earlier Woodside-manufactured amplifier, the Radford STA 25 Renaissance. Brian mentioned that the MA50's design is a much-improved version of that earlier Radford model. Time for another review.