Woohoo & yippee

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.

IF you need a sub, best to use a self powered one rather than passive with most any amp.

I predict long term listening to bear out the McCormack as the winner in this contest.

BTW, driving a passive subwoofer and your 802s seriously compromised the sound of the McCormack.

Shakey

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.

Peleg,
I'm sure you will enjoy the amp.
I have a pair of the Wyred 4 Sound SX-1000 monoblocks that drive my Maggy's 1.6 and they sound very nice.

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.

Well, the amp you are using does not appear to be a slouch by any means. Either old or new amp should do fine with those speakers. And room is not big.

I'm thinking you will hear a difference between the two, but perhaps not a huge one on the grand scale of things.

Any tonality, particularly midrange presentation, soundstage, imaging and detail differences noted in particular should be interesting.

I'm guessing McCormack midrange a tad warmer and Icepower midrange more liquid and neutral. Just a guess though based on what I've read about McCormack amp sound in general.

And then there is always the more intangible things like fatigue factor, involvement, etc.

It'll be a fair fight between a very good lean and mean upstart modern amp leveraging a lot of new technology versus a solid but aged veteran. AN interesting bout for sure.

Power bills probably lower with the new amp I'll bet.

P, I'm interested to hear about your findings as you get them. Specs and technology never tell the whole story.

I moved from a 120 w/ch or so Musical Fidelity A3CR stereo amp to Bel Canto 500 w/ch monoblocks, also Icepower (not latest version though). The difference was huge, night/day in most every regard. Also considered Wyreds.

Based on amp specs, I don't think the difference will be as big in your case, but there coudl still be a major difference in that Class D and Class A/B are two way different beasts by design.

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?

P,

Tell us what your current system is then we can all demonstrate our psychic (or psycho depending on perspective) powers by telling you what to expect in relation to that.