Bel Canto Ref1000 MkII or Accuphase A-20

Metronet, you can conduct a valid comparison of Bel Canto Ref 1000 Mk.2 against one particular class A amp, but a generic comparison of a single class D amp against the entire class A group is not possible. . . there are enormous differences between individual amps in any particular class, and there are sonic overlaps between classes. It is likely that you would find Ref 1000 Mk.2 more pleasing than some class A amps, and less pleasing than other ones. .

I have not listened to the Accuphase A-20 amp, but I have reviewed the Bel Canto Ref 1000 Mk.2 for Positive Feedback. See:
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue43/bel_canto_ref1000.htm

Hope this helps, Guido

Metronet, I have heard Mk.1 and 2 side by side. Mk.2 is more extended and transparent with a little more harmonic development. Mk.2 has a little cleaner treble and is a little more linear in bass. Mk.2 has also higher input impedance, so it is compatible with more preamplifiers than Mk.1. Some people prefer Mk1, because it's a little warmer, but mostly because. . . in some quarters the older the version or product, the more valuable it is considered. . . it's that nostalgia thingie all over again.

Jaspert, thank you for expressing your opinion.

I have spent some time investigating design differences between the 2 versions, by pouring over published materials, talking with Jonathan Scull, and talking with John stronczer who designed both units. As mentioned above, My reasonably detailed description of the design changes is found in 2 paragraphs of my review article for PFO, which you can link to from my previous post. The technical component of the article was verified for accuracy by BC. Of course, the design changes would not be material, if not for the fact that there are easily perceivable/audible differences between the 2 versions. I personally easily prefer the sound of MK.2. . . but that is utterly immaterial.

G.