I think all this is getting to what is the nub of the issue for me. Hi-fi equipment seems to be made to reproduce the kind of music that most people buy/want to listen to: no surprises there, but a 'good' amp - a five star WHF recommendation for example - should surely be able to cope well with any music, a comment that has been made before on this forum.
Phileas has a point, and I'm well aware that classical CDs (especially) are notoriously varied in recorded quality, mine certainly are; but shouldn't a 'good' amp make the best of what it plays? 'Rubbish in rubbish out' is an easy phrase/excuse, but I want an amp which will make the best of (e.g.) the Kolisch Quartet's marvellous playing of Schubert, even though it was recorded in 1929. The Yamaha I tried (see above) even made a hash of a Haydn quartet (recorded in 2001 on original instruments) and of Walter Klien's 1970's recording of a Schubert sonata; 'clankerous' indeed. These discs don't sound harsh or clankerous on an old Denon DRA-F101 system that I possess, but of course they don't sound particularly clear either.
So your remarks, cse, strike a chord with me, not 'rant', I think, more a cri du coeur as they say where I live; and I very much take your point about the detail/warmth compromise. Is 'warmth' manufacturer-speak for 'muddiness'? In any case, from your experience it appears that simply paying more for an amp will not resolve this issue.
I can't afford an Arcam 38 and can't find an Arcam A65. I am aware that a Quad could be the answer, but is there a suitable Quad which also has a headphones outlet? The Arcam Alpha 9 is high on my possibles list - someone described its sound a a bit 'muddy', which is a encouraging!
I have shown an interest also in Nad amps - here is why:
http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/nad-c350_e.html
I wonder what youmake of this (cse, matthewpiano...).