I own a McCormack DNA-125, and it is in my humble opinion, a steal at it's asking price. I am of the opinion that it outperforms the bigger 225, with my system anyways. This hold true in many cases, just read the review of the musical fidelity amps in Stereophile recently, where the smaller AC3 amp outclassed it's bigger brother. Steve McCormcack is probably right about the superiority of the 225 when placed in a no-compromise system. However, with my 6K plus speakers and other still very expensive components, the DNA is without peers up to double it's asking price. To put it simply, this amp is like it's creator, a model of integrity. Sorry folks, any comparison with previous or older McCormack designs is futile. The new designs sound so much better it's not even funny. Hope this helps.
New MCCORMACK Amps --- Better than Old
I have noticed that the new DNA-125 & DNA-225 amps are listed for sale at some very good prices, and yet many are not selling. One seller admitted to me that he had not even gotten one offer on his amp. You buyers don't know what you're missing!
I think this is because some audiophiles have, for whatever misguided reason, adopted the opinion that the older amps, when given mods by SMC, are far superior.
IT AIN'T TRUE!!! Even Steve McCormack says it isn't true. I spoke with him at length about this subject the other day. Only his Revision A brings the old DNA-1 and DNA-0.5 up to the sonic standards of the new models, with, perhaps a bit more treble delicacy. Steve stated that the new models are very, very good, and that it was not accurate to state that the Revised older models were much better. Talk about an honest guy! My hat's off to his honesty and integrity.
He also dispelled the belief that the DNA-125 was sonically superior to its bigger brother, the DNA-225. He said the DNA-225 sonically bettered the 125. I have seen ads and reviews by members who are claiming that the smaller amp sounds better. The designer himself should know, and you couldn't ask for a more honest, straightforward human being.
I called him to ask him about substituting a DNA-2 for my DNA-225. During this conversation, he never brought up modifying the DNA-2, but when I pressed him, he admitted it would sound the best of any of his designs, when modified for $2,500. But as a stock unit, he said the DNA-2 Deluxe would not compare to my DNA-225.
I own a DNA-225, and I can vouch for the fact that it is a great amplifier.
I think this is because some audiophiles have, for whatever misguided reason, adopted the opinion that the older amps, when given mods by SMC, are far superior.
IT AIN'T TRUE!!! Even Steve McCormack says it isn't true. I spoke with him at length about this subject the other day. Only his Revision A brings the old DNA-1 and DNA-0.5 up to the sonic standards of the new models, with, perhaps a bit more treble delicacy. Steve stated that the new models are very, very good, and that it was not accurate to state that the Revised older models were much better. Talk about an honest guy! My hat's off to his honesty and integrity.
He also dispelled the belief that the DNA-125 was sonically superior to its bigger brother, the DNA-225. He said the DNA-225 sonically bettered the 125. I have seen ads and reviews by members who are claiming that the smaller amp sounds better. The designer himself should know, and you couldn't ask for a more honest, straightforward human being.
I called him to ask him about substituting a DNA-2 for my DNA-225. During this conversation, he never brought up modifying the DNA-2, but when I pressed him, he admitted it would sound the best of any of his designs, when modified for $2,500. But as a stock unit, he said the DNA-2 Deluxe would not compare to my DNA-225.
I own a DNA-225, and I can vouch for the fact that it is a great amplifier.
2 responses Add your response