Hi,
I might have to sell my NuForce amps due to my temporary economical situation, and I'm looking for high value substitutes until my tax returns come rolling in. I live in Norway, so they'd have to use 220-240 volt power. Used and DIY would also be interesting. Tubes, perhaps?
My speakers are DCA 2.0's with a sensitivity of around 89dB/W, I think. 8" + waveguided 1" textile dome. Very easy impedance cuve, 6 ohms nominally (again: I think).
Any suggestions? 
Yes. Check out the Charlize:
http://www.diyparadise.com/charlize.htmlOr maybe a Panny XR55
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=602135Well, I and a five (4M, 1F) friends of various audio/music backgrounds (one has a system anchored by B&W N805s, one has a DM from Yale, one was a player in a major symphony orchestra, and so on) did a single-blind listening test between the XR55 and my previous setup (Marantz AV600 pre-proc, Adcom GFA-535II, and Adcom GFA-2535) when the XR55 was basically new. (I had watched "The Daily Show" twice though it and that's about it.) Obviously, the test was not multichannel, because the Marantz does not do Dolby Digital or DPL2. Levels were matched at 1kHz with a scope and the matching was confirmed at 100Hz and 16kHz. Speakers were 12" Tannoy duals, which are both extremely resolving and moderately efficient (~94dB/w/m). Source material used was orchestral (Vladimir Ashkenazy conducting Shostakovich), jazz (Bela Fleck and the Flecktones), female vocalist (Natalie Merchant live). All were fed from a Powerbook to an Apple Airport Express and encoded in Apple Lossless. Though it doesn't matter, all of the panelists had seen BFF and Natalie Merchant live before; I was the only one who had heard Ashkenazy conduct live, though not this particular piece.) Cables were switched manually, or pretended to be switched using a calculated time delay, which is the flaw in the test. The listening and equipment were in different rooms (~25' of speaker wire) so that the listeners could not see what was going on. Each musical excerpt was played 7 times over 1/2 hour. After the data were crunched in SAS, it was clear that there was no statistically significant sonic difference between the Marantz/Adcom separates and the Panny. As a control, the next day the same panelists ran a second single-blind test, this time using two pairs of identical speakers (KEF Q-Compacts) rather than swapping leads on one set. As the geometry of the Q-Compact precludes vertical stacking, one pair was set next to the other horizontally on the same stand, with a horizontal center-to-center spacing of about 7", to either side of what was consider the ideal placement azis. At random intervals, the leads were swapped, so that one set of speakers was connected to the other electronics. (Or simply connected to the same ones after a delay to simulate swapping.) Two statistical analyses were run, using SAS. Controlling for change of speaker pair (which was statistically significant, as one would expect) the difference in the components was not significant. The conclusions are obvious: no difference. However, the Panny is much smaller and uses far less energy for the same result, so on balance I think it's a win for the little guy. If size or energy efficiency aren't concerns, then the Panny would've lost because I already had the other gear and the Panny was (small) additional expenditure. Previously, this system or components within it had been found sonically identical to several other chains, generally featuring more expensive gear (the Adcoms vs. Classe amps, the Marantz pre vs. a Meridian 501, that sort of thing) but there's no valid reason to think that what what works "up" won't work "down", too. Any receiver of competent design should sound the same as the Panny, or for that matter a multi-kilobuck Meridian/Classe separates system, on appropriate speakers.
A note about blind listening tests of amps Appropriatly trained/experienced people can tell the difference - but genrally they are suptle. With more experience/training you will notice it readily however.
Thanks
Bill
