Comparison of McCormack DNA500 to DNA225

RandyH · « **on:** 13 Feb 2006, 04:14 pm »

I have heard the DNA500 and am really impressed with the sound of this SS amp. However, my room and speakers do not really require 500wpc...unless it's the only way I can get that wonderful sound. The DNA225 is an interesting alternative in terms of it's power and price. Do the 225 and 500 share the "same sound" with the differences being only in the power rating, or are their design differences between the two that make the DNA500 not only the more powerful amp but also the better sounding? I know there has been a lot of discussion of the DNA500 in this forum but I can't seem to locate any discussions that talk much about the 225. If I missed it, please let me know.

thanks
Randy

fRsimms · « **Reply #1 on:** 13 Feb 2006, 05:51 pm »

I have a McCormack 225. I haven't heard the 500. It is my understanding that the 500 is a box with electronics of two 225's in it. Each 225 is set up for monoblock configuration. Also the 500 has some diferential inputs added. There may be more differences that I am not aware of.

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #2 on:** 13 Feb 2006, 06:01 pm »

How about some "225" reviews...don't know if you've seen them...

http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/545/ [/list:u]

http://www.audioreview.com/cat/amplification/amplifiers/mccormack/PRD_124853_1583crx.aspx [/list:u]

AB · « **Reply #3 on:** 13 Feb 2006, 06:42 pm »

Email Steve McCormack.

smcaudio@pacbell.net

He is very quick to reply and you will have your answers from the man himself.

SWG255 · « **Reply #4 on:** 13 Feb 2006, 06:50 pm »

The McCormack DNA-225 is a very nice sounding amp. I like it better than my old Threshold 4000 and my current Eighth nerve modified Carver ZR-1600 Tripath amp. It reveals more harmonic complexity and "flesh on the musical bones" than either of these amps. It also has very deep and solid bass performance, and has no trouble feeding the high current demands of my friend's Von Schweikart VR-4 Jr. speakers. I also found it a good match for my VMPS RM40s.

The DNA-500 is an entirely different beast however. I haven't heard one but I'm assured by those who know that it is both different in overall design and much superior to the DNA-225 in refinement, dynamics and "musicality".

In short, the DNA-225 is a very fine amplifier, but there's a reason mcCormack designs and sells the DNA-500 for almost double the price.

KJ · « **Reply #5 on:** 13 Feb 2006, 07:24 pm »

I was surprised they didn't have their amps hooked up at CES for comparison. All they did was put them out on display.

Anyone know if they will be at RMAF this year (with speakers attached)?

zybar · « **Reply #6 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 12:51 am »

Quote from: SWG255

The DNA-500 is an entirely different beast however. I haven't heard one but I'm assured by those who know that it is both different in overall design and much superior to the DNA-225 in refinement, dynamics and "musicality".

In short, the DNA-225 is a very fine amplifier, but there's a reason mcCormack designs and sells the DNA-500 for almost double the price..

Well said...

George

Bemopti123 · « **Reply #7 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 02:09 am »

I think stating that the DNA 500 is simply a double DNA 225 in a single chassis would be a mistake in judgment. According to what I have read, Steve McCormack has yet to devise a mod package that would add or improve on the sound of the mighty 500. There must be a reason to this. Perhaps, whatever Steve could add might simply cost $$ but not worthwhile in the sound department. If this happens to be the case, then, the 500 is an entirely different amplifier from the 225, this is not to say that the 225 is a slouch either. I own it.

Perhaps not to discount the 225, I have to say that it is the ONLY amp that I have paid almost close to retail and have not felt cheated soundwise. This means that is one hell of an amp that has plenty of merits of its own. I can only begin to phantom what the 500 is like. Can you imagine?

Paul

zybar · « **Reply #8 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 02:11 am »

Quote from: Bemopti123

I think stating that the DNA 500 is simply a double DNA 225 in a single chassis would be a mistake in judgment. According to what I have read, Steve McCormack has yet to devise a mod package that would add or improve on the sound of the mighty 500. There must be a reason to this. Perhaps, whatever Steve could add might simply cost $$ but not worthwhile in the sound department. If this happens to be the case, then, the 500 is an entirely different amplifier from the 225, this is not to say that the 225 ...

NO need to imagine, just have to walk downstairs,

George

NealH · « **Reply #9 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 03:24 am »

I believe the 500 is a true differential circuit topology - all the way through. The positive half of the sine wave is handled by one circuit and, the negative half by it's complementary but, separate circuit. When done properly the linearity and dynanic control are often better. And any non-linearity (what little is has) in these type circuits will lead to even order harmonics instead of odd order. Of course it takes a lot more parts which makes it quite a bit more expensive. This approach is often seen in cost-no-object designs.

es347 · « **Reply #10 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 07:32 pm »

I have owned a DNA 0.5 for over 10 years and will never (that's a long time) replace it. I compared it to several other amps back then and it was noticeably less fatiquing yet detailed. It drives my Logans just fine and even looks pretty good. The new 500w McCormack is reputed to be possibly the best amp period. That's a strong statement but could very well be true. A poster said that the 500w is in a class by itself but I would be willing to bet it sounds a lot like all the other Steve McCormack amps. His amps seem to have a signature sound which is no sound at all....just the old straight wire with gain. If you are looking for something that powerful then by all means buy it. You won't find another 500w that sounds that good for the $$. McCormack builds one heck of an amp regardless of model though so if your room size calls for a lower power amp buy the 150 or 225 without reservations. Trust me...and a heck of a lot of other guys.

Occam · « **Reply #11 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 09:56 pm »

Towards the bottom of the page 'splains how the balance bridged differential topology works -
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/mccormack/dna500.html
It may be marketing puffery, but at least its accurate puffery....
The topology also minimizes power supply induced distortons.

This may also be why folks are so impressed with the performance of the Belles Signature 150 and 350 when operated in monobloc bridged mode.
FWIW

zybar · « **Reply #12 on:** 15 Feb 2006, 12:42 am »

Quote from: es347

I have owned a DNA 0.5 for over 10 years and will never (that's a long time) replace it. I compared it to several other amps back then and it was noticeably less fatiquing yet detailed. It drives my Logans just fine and even looks pretty good. The new 500w McCormack is reputed to be possibly the best amp period. That's a strong statement but could very well be true. A poster said that the 500w is in a class by itself but I would be willing to bet it sounds a lot like all the other Steve McCormack amps. ...

I respectfully disagree.

From my numerous talks with Steve McCormack it is quite clear that the DNA-500 is quite different in its topology and presentation. having heard the old DNA line as well as the newer 125/225 line, I would say they don't really sound like the 500.

George

es347 · « **Reply #13 on:** 15 Feb 2006, 03:22 am »

Quote from: zybar

I respectfully disagree.

From my numerous talks with Steve McCormack it is quite clear that the DNA-500 is quite different in its topology and presentation. having heard the old DNA line as well as the newer 125/225 line, I would say they don't really sound like the 500.

George

Disagreement accepted. I sure like my 0.5 but hey it's only money, right?

es347 · « **Reply #14 on:** 15 Feb 2006, 03:27 am »

Quote from: zybar

I respectfully disagree.

From my numerous talks with Steve McCormack it is quite clear that the DNA-500 is quite different in its topology and presentation. having heard the old DNA line as well as the newer 125/225 line, I would say they don't really sound like the 500.

George

Holy cow George. I just checked out your system pix. Humbling, very humbling indeed. I feel I should be kissing your ring. It must be hard not to sit in those sweet spots 24/7. Way to go. ':o'

SWG255 · « **Reply #15 on:** 15 Feb 2006, 10:09 pm »

Quote from: rnhood

I believe the 500 is a true differential circuit topology - all the way through. The positive half of the sine wave is handled by one circuit and, the negative half by it's complementary but, separate circuit. When done properly the linearity and dynanic control are often better. And any non-linearity (what little is has) in these type circuits will lead to even order harmonics instead of odd order. Of course it takes a lot more parts which makes it quite a bit more expensive. This approach is often seen in cost-no-object designs.

The Blue Circle 200 series amps are both hybrids and fully balanced designs, i.e. the positive and negative halves of the waveform are amplified separately. The BC-202 I had in my system for a few days had the best bass control and definition I've ever heard in my system. It wasn't lean or too fast either, as some solid-state beheamoths can sound. I can only imagine what a DNA-500 would do with about 4 times the power of the BC-202! By comparison the DNA-225 was about as well defined as the BC-202, but the bass didn't have the harmonic richness and weight the BC-202 exhibited in my system. Some of this difference might have been due to the tube input stage of the Blue Circle amp, but I didn't feel that the increased sense of bass control was due to the input tubes.

Don't get me wrong, the DNA-225 was very darn good in my system, if I didn't aspire to an amp in the DNA-500 class, I'd easily live with the DNA-225. The BC amp is almost twice the money, it should sound better.

BobM · « **Reply #16 on:** 16 Feb 2006, 12:13 pm »

Quote from: zybar

I respectfully disagree.

Having heard the old DNA line as well as the newer 125/225 line, I would say they don't really sound like the 500.

George

Very interesting observation George. I have a self modded .5 that I like to say is a "near Rev A" mod. I talked with Steve and incorporated everything except some board routing changes that he does proiprietarily. Then I spoke with Bob Crump and voiced my amp along the lines of what he did for the JC1. I think Steve's platinum mods take it all even further with great results, no doubt. Having heard what his mods can transform these amps into, and having seen his comment that he can't make the 500 any better than it already is I can only imagine how wonderful it sounds.

What is amazing to me is that it could ever sound better. I don't doubt that the 500 can yet be in another league from the modded models, but I just wonder how much better it http://CAN actually be. I was agast at the improvements after making my mods, so no doubt it can be better, just boggled with how and in what way. I agree with es347 that my modded .5 amp is going to stay in my system for a long long time.

ENjoy,
Bob

zybar · « **Reply #17 on:** 16 Feb 2006, 12:51 pm »

Bob,

I haven't heard any of the modified McCormack amps yet, just the stock ones.

From reading the glowing customer comments and talking to Steve McCormack the modified amps do indeed seem to be a significant step up from the stock models.

Before I bought the DNA-500 I asked Steve if a pair of 225 amps converted to mono blocks and with Platinum mods (top level) would be his "best" product. He told me that it would was pretty much a toss up and that the modified 225's would be a little sweeter and warmer sounding while the 500 would be a little more neutral and dynamic.

George

ctviggen · « **Reply #18 on:** 16 Feb 2006, 01:36 pm »

Thanks for that, George. I'm considering going to monoblocks for my RM40s and the 225s might not be a bad choice.

eric the red · « **Reply #19 on:** 16 Feb 2006, 01:52 pm »

Has anyone here compared the DNA-1 Deluxe to the newer 125/225 McCormack amps? I've never heard a bad word regarding Steve McCormack or his audio gear and he has quite a loyal following (with good reason) amongst audio geeks