0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 144074 times.
Why, thank you Dave!!I'm going to Vancouver too to meet up with Colin, so I'll be straddling the border.......Hugh
Hello HughSad that Vancouver are so far from Quebec province, it would be super to meet you and Colin.ByeGaetan
Why, thank you Dave!!I'm going to Vancouver too to meet up with Colin, so I'll be straddling the border.......
The Naksa close to a Macintosh, yesss... goood. Which Macintosh model it was, a tube one ?
Yes it was unfair ! and a 70w amp vs a 500w amp without using a db meter to match the volume levels... a bit tricky test, maby the Naksa would have sound quite as good as the Mac if the volume levels was matched.
Does it was a blind test ?
If the guys did know, before listening, wen it was the MC501 connected, there is a psychologic factor who may have made the MC501 sounding better for them, because it's a Macintosh ... That's happened to me wen I brough my amp proto to a high end audio store for listening test, my amp case did look hawfull so they presumed it was sounding bad. They told me that a bad looking amp can't sound good. But my amp was way much better sounding that their amps. I have to say that the MC501 are a VERY POWERFULL and clean amp, even at full power there is no fuzzyness or fatigue, but for a long listening times I don't know if it still relax to listen. Looking at the MC501 amp service manual, I see a more complex amp, with balance ltp and vas and both using ccs, drivers with suckout-cap, .47R emiter resistors, a gang of parallel output transistors, and lot of protections circuits. I find it a bit over complicate to get that sonic result.
So the Naksa being quite as good as a MC501... another success for Hugh.
Perhaps the Maya and the Mac might be a fairer and closer comparison.
Hmmm, Thanks Bill, appreciate the posts and the comparison.
However, let me add my 2c, charged though it be!! Unless the tests are performed at exactly the same levels, and on the same material, with the same speakers and source, then they are not truly comparative. Level is really important. I'm most disappointed that with all the gathered expertise - and one of Oz's best speaker builders - this was not done. IFF the Mac was turned up even marginally louder then the validity of the test is dubious.
A similar test was recently performed in Amsterdam by Hans against a PSE SET 300B Audionote, and at the same levels. Verdict: aside from less image depth and less 'organic' sensation to the voices, the NAKSA was the equal of the Audionote, and more powerful and resolving in the bass and midrange. Of course, it has to be said that here the NAKSA had the power advantage, and possibly, again, makes the test a bit dodgy.
The subjective outcome of this test, Bill, will be that those gathered in Ashmore will now aspire to the Macintosh, and scheme and plan to acquire one in the next decade. That's the way people are!!
Perhaps my comments could be seen as sour grapes, but I don't think so. The NAKSA does sound very like a tube amp, it has a very similar harmonic structure, and within its power range it is a truly unique creature that has no peer at the price. That is the question, not how it compares to a 500W $20K amp with a totally different market and topology. However, it's all grist to the mill, and I thank you for the test.
Smiles all round!!
Hi Guys.Just got back from the DAC shootout. But that was not the only thing we did - we also had a chance to hear the Naksa.Ok everyone that heard it liked it with a number of people saying it was very good - including myself. It had what I would call a clear but slightly lively presentation. None of us thought it was tube like but not quite like transistor amps either. The way I would describe it was it had the clarity of a digital amp without the slight metallic sheen I find those types of amps add. Even a tube fanatic, Steve Garland, thought it was good.I must also add in what follows I find telling the differences between amps particularly difficult. I can usually do it but for me no night and day differences exist. But what I can say in when Mike switched out the NAKSA and put in his $20K Macintosh's we could hear a definite improvement - but mind you these are about 20 times the price. People who go to a lot of live concerts and even one recording engineer we had there thought the Macs were just more real. Now mind you, to me, they were close - which is amazing for an amp at this price point - but I have to say everyone thought the Macs were better.Bottom line here Hugh is well done - this is a keeper.ThanksBill
I'm most grateful for the interest, for the audience, for the opportunity, so I ain't complainin'........ my thanks to you and all others involved. My comments reflect the fact that this market is one of the toughest in the world and the slightest negative whiff can be the kiss of death. I doubt that will happen here; people realise I'm sure that the NAKSA is astonishing value, and hope springs eternal in the Aspen breast!!
Conversely, the degree of interest reflects the public obsession, and this is the reason I will be designing and building amps for decades to come!! Digital technologies, particularly MP3, all but destroyed high end audio, but I perceive that in recent times there has come a resurgence, and this is no bad thing.
I'd be interested in also reading about the DAC shootout - what was the outcome or can you point me to another thread regarding the DAC's?