Woohoo & yippee

Right now I have my trusty McCormack DNA 1 w/ Rev. A driving a pair of old (circa 1981) B&W 802s w/ APOC circuitry removed and a VMPS passive subwoofer, original Minimax DAC w/ Burson duals and I can't remember what's in the singles positions. I'm waiting to see what the mAmps sound like and then decide to go either w/ Burson or Dexas for the singles. This is all driven from a Mac Mini-MF VLink-either Pure Music or Audirvana Plus. My room is rather small 9 by 13 w/ an 18ft ceiling. So whadya think?

Actually, your thinking and mine are the same. I'm guessing the difference will lie more in just that...a different sound not necessarily better but we'll see. I understand these need a good 300 hours of break-in to get to their real sound but I'll post all along this break-in time to let it be known what it sounds like along the way. I always find those kinds of posting to be very interesting and helpful.

Got the mAmps last Thursday and they're approaching the 100 hr. mark now. When I first turned them on the sound was higher above the speakers than what I'm used to. It was also very clear and vivid. The highs were quite bright. It's like the amps were screaming "I'm HERE". As time passed and after running them continuously that level of in-your-face sound faded as did the bright highs. The sound doesn't seem to hang as high above the speakers as it did when I first fired them up. They seem every bit as detailed as the McCormack but smoother. An easy flowing sound to the music is becoming the norm. There was a time around 50 hrs. that the sound became kinda too smooth...rather boring almost but not quite. Now it's sounds very nice. One surprise is that the mAmps bass is just as good as the McCormack. The McC. drove both the B&Ws and a VMPS passive sub. The fella at Wyred thought it best not to have the mAmps drive the sub. So before the mAmps arrived I had unplugged the sub to get used to not having it and to see how the mAmps stacked up against the McC. in the bass. The B&Ws are only rated at 55hz but what bass there is is fast and tight. Well they stack up very well. The seem to drive the bass just as well in every way as the McC. did. How they would do w/ a speaker w/ some woofers that are bigger than 8" and deeper I don't know. I still would be surprised if they did as well as my old McC. Either way I think I have made a very wise choice. W/ their smaller size we can now start getting rid of cabinets and free up some space in the living room...that's what makes my wife happy.

I'll post more as the mAmps continue to break in.

Hi Shakeydeal and Mapman, I used the McC. w/o the passive sub for some 5+ years. I would have noticed any compromising in the sound. I think you underestimate the driving ability of the McC. I had an active sub (albeit a cheaper one) prior to getting the McC. but once I got it the bass of the sub was shown to be bloated and slow. Got rid of it. The passive being driven by the same high quality amp as the mains blended perfectly. Also, listened to the McC. w/o the sub connected for a few days before I got the mAmps.

Shakeydeal, you may be right in the long run but I'm doubting it. The improvement is primarily in that the mAmps are smoother and don't have occasional splashy highs. But the difference is not big by any means. What change there is so far is good. Besides, gotta make more room in the living room. So gotta send my much loved McC. to a new owner. I actually miss seeing it up on the stand.