[EdwardWest]

Why, thank you Dave!!

I'm going to Vancouver too to meet up with Colin, so I'll be straddling the border.......

Hugh

Hugh,

If you are planning a trip out this way next year, there a LOT of things that you may have a chance to do.  For example, Dave's Vancouver Island DIY event is excellent, the Pacific Northwest Audiophile Society has monthly meetings where I am sure you would be a welcome guest.  Then there are various individuals that could be easily gathered together for a casual visit.  Besides, there is no shortage of sight-seeing to be done in the Puget Sound region.

Please keep us advised - I would enjoy spending time with you during your visit!

Edward

[gaetan8888]

Why, thank you Dave!!

I'm going to Vancouver too to meet up with Colin, so I'll be straddling the border.......

Hugh

Hello Hugh

Sad that Vancouver are so far from Quebec province, it would be super to meet you and Colin.

Bye

Gaetan

[EdwardWest]

Hello Hugh

Sad that Vancouver are so far from Quebec province, it would be super to meet you and Colin.

Bye

Gaetan

Gaetan,

Looking from Australia, Quebec looks like it's next-door to British Columbia :^)

Edward

[planet10]

Why, thank you Dave!!

I'm going to Vancouver too to meet up with Colin, so I'll be straddling the border.......

A lovely ferry ride from there

dave

[AKSA]

Folks,

I will be somewhat restricted, the trouble and strife will be by my side, ensuring I'm not too focussed on audiophilia and subtly pointing me towards shoe shops.     I would love to go on to Montreal, I'd love to meet Gaetan and I do admit the French Canadian culture fascinates me, as it's had such profound impact on Canada over the last two hundred years, and that beautiful train ride beckons one day if I ever get the coin to enjoy it.....  they say Banff is stunning.  And I'd like to look over the big EMD factory in London, ONT, that would be interesting (I'm a fan of locomotive diesels).

But all this is a year away, anything can happen, but Ed, Colin, David, Gaetan, I will inform you all, thank you for your invitations and your interest!

Cheers,

Hugh

[bhobba]

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.

Thanks
Bill

[gaetan8888]

Hello Bill

The Naksa close to a Macintosh, yesss... goood.

Which Macintosh model it was, a tube one ?

Thank

Bye

Gaetan

[bhobba]

The Naksa close to a Macintosh, yesss... goood. Which Macintosh model it was, a tube one ?

Not the tube one - their 500W transistor amp:
http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/products/mcintosh-mc501-monoblock-power-amplifier.asp

And you may be able to get it below that price. 

I also must add to me it was close.  We had guys there with a lot more experience listening to amps than me - even a pro audio guy.  I suspect to them it may not have been what I would judge to be close.  But look at the price difference - a totally unfair comparison.  I would not spend that money in a fit on a product made and distributed in the usual way because the cut each person in the chain gets compared to what you can get elsewhere such as what Hugh does.  I would judge if the amp was distributed that way it would be about $5k - not $20K.  Maybe with a lot more experience and being able to hear differences in amps more clearly I would go up to $5K - but not $20K.  But then again with that sort of experience, the type of experience Hugh has for example, I may judge Hugh's amp differently - maybe the difference is a personal preference sort of thing - I don't really know.  That said the pro audio guy was adamant - as soon as we switched on the Mac's he said - Wow - amazing.  But the volume levels were not matched and this was hardly done blind.  That mac has amazing grunt and grip - perhaps that was what was being heard - but to be sure we would need to do a double blind level matched test.

After thinking about it further I think I would have really liked Hugh to be there.  He has heard tons and tons of amps and builds and tunes them by ear.  It would have been great hear what he thought the differences were and where they came from.  I am only conjecturing when I say it was the power and grip those Mac's had that was what was responsible for what we heard.  Guys have been telling me for a long time, and I did not really take it to heart because I tend to listen at low volume levels, that speakers respond to more and better power.  Maybe I may have to change my mind on that.

Also I know Mike Lenehan is looking around for new amps in his reference system.  As good as those Macs are that price it is simply over the top.  My gut feeling is what he eventually decides upon will be a better comparison.  But those Macs do have an enviable reputation - expensive yes - but good - and I can attest to that.  Some people say they are simply the best there is regardless of price.  Everyone likes them but when they hear the price - err - can I hear something at a more realistic price.

Thanks
Bill

[gaetan8888]

Hello Bill

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.

Bye

Gaetan

[bhobba]

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.

Yes absolutely.  I have edited my response to more fully reflect this.  The fact it could go toe to toe in such an unfair comparison is a real credit to the amp the more I think about it.  But like I said my gut feeling is I would really have liked Hugh to be their to explain exactly what we heard.

But then again isn't this part of the fun of this hobby?  Seeing just what happens even in unfair comparisons?  It is extremely interesting, and in fact a great credit to Hugh's amp, it could do this.  I think the last thing we want to read is the dull boring comparisons with Hugh's amp against some other competition at around his price point, or maybe say two or 3 times higher, and similar paper specs etc.  In a sense that is unfair as well because his amps usually eat those babies for breakfast from what I have read.  Hugh mentioned someone had a highly regarded valve amp whose name escapes me but Hugh's amp was cheaper.  As soon as this guy heard Hugh's amp out that amp went.  When hearing that you tend to say exactly what can this thing compete against.  The fact it was able to do it against this insanely priced competition is no mean feat.

Thanks
Bill

[gaetan8888]

Hello Bill

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.

Bye

Gaetan

[LM]

Perhaps the Maya and the Mac might be a fairer and closer comparison. 

[bhobba]

Does it was a blind test ?

No - and obviously not - and it would have been fairer.

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.

Yes - all true.  And Macintosh's have an enviable reputation.  They are built like tanks. On a number of occasions when I heard Mikes speakers and people popped in for a listen I heard them say they have great respect for those amps - candidly saying as a matter of fact they are simply the best there is.  A guy I know who reviews a lot of equipment said he has heard none better.  Sitting next to him while he was listening to the amps was very interesting.  He picked up all sorts of nuances saying this difference and that difference and I simply could not follow what he was saying.  He listens to a lot of live music and was comparing it on that basis.  Suffice to say it was all hair splitting stuff and certainly not a detriment to Hugh's amp.

So the Naksa being quite as good as a MC501... another success for Hugh.

That a 20 or more times the price 500W monster that can easily deliver 1.2KW on peaks and it went toe to toe with it and people said it still sounded good.  They were coming up to me while listening to Hugh's amp and said they really liked it.  Of course its a credit to Hugh.  I don't think anyone was surprised people preferred the other amp sight seen and not level matched.  Yes a very good result indeed.

Still I would like Hugh's view on the result.

Thanks
Bill

[bhobba]

Perhaps the Maya and the Mac might be a fairer and closer comparison. 

Yes indeed.  Maybe that is what Hugh would suggest as well or perhaps the higher powered one he is working on or a possible newer amp he is working on than the Maya with even more grunt.  I know Carlos, who has built tons and tons of amps and like Hugh has probably heard just about everything there is thinks the Soraya is simply the best there is regardless.  This is the type of thing that makes this result so interesting. 

If Carlos, or Hugh, or Ginger or others who have actually built and listened to a lot of amps could pop in with a comment it would be appreciated.  I am now starting to form a preliminary and a sort of gut reaction opinion on this.  The pro audio guy and the person who did a lot of reviews based on live music would have had a different point of reference to people who actually build this stuff and have heard many different amps.  The guys who came up to me and said what a great amp the NAKSA was, on reflection were some of the techo guys there who actually build and designs this sort of stuff.  Maybe there is a bit of divergence of expectations hear.  Just a thought.

Thanks
Bill

[AKSA]

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!!   

Cheers,

Hugh

[bhobba]

Hmmm, Thanks Bill, appreciate the posts and the comparison.

Thanks Hugh.  I do know some of my comments raised issues that were a little different to what we normally see about your fine amps.  The result in no way diminished my respect for the amp.  If anything the fact that to my ears it stood up so well to what was a less than ideal comparison increased my respect.  I also wanted to add I did not mention that to my ears it had another quality on top of its crystalline clarity and lively sound - it had an ethereal airy quality kind of like what I hear in ribbons.  This was not distortion - I have seen the distortion figures of this amp - that is not the reason. No it is something truly unique to this amp.  I did not judge it to be valve like - nor was it to me transistor like - but valve guys like Steve Garland liked it.

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.

I suspect the level was not matched and this is a concern.  In the past when I have compared amps I took a trusty SPL meter along - here it didn't even occur to me.  I will try and not do it again.

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.

Yes - comparing amps of greatly different power ratings is a concern which of course makes level matching of even greater importance.

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!!

Sigh. Yes.  This of course was not my intention.  I think over the years I have opened my big trap and said things that at the time seems like the thing to do in the spirit of being open and honest.  This is all I was trying to do here.  However on this and many many other occasions in the past it backfired and had unintended consequences.  All I can plead is I think we all can fall foul to this and at least in my case it is a lifelong learning experience to prevent foot in mouth disease.  To anyone reading this do not fall for the trap.  This comparison was far from optimum.  I will be organizing much better comparisons further down the line.  Do not base it on this single comparison - base it on a wide variety of information including a number of different comparisons against a variety of equipment.

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.

Interestingly to my ears it is not tube like.  Knowing the details of the amp I thought it would be.  I am not an experienced valve amp listener and I bow to your experience in this area.  My opinion however is it is better than the valve amps I have heard.  That's right better.  It has a clarity I have not heard in valve gear.  The stuff I have heard may have been of the euphonic variety but none of them had the clarity I heard in this amp.  This clarity was coupled with a light airy quality - again something I had not heard in any amp.  It was lively as well but that was something I expected because I read you had designed it that way.  Others also noted this so it is prety sure you achieved your aim.

No Hugh this is not sour grapes.  You, like me, simply are simply expressing what you think.  Thats all - and they are totally valid.  The comparison was flawed - simple as that.  I will ensure that mistake is not made again.  True it has no peer at its price - it also probably has no peer at twice, 3 times, or maybe even 4 times - it took 20 times to raise an issue.  Note I used an issue - a better conducted comparison will quite likely have a different outcome.

Mike for various reasons is getting rid of this amp as his reference.  Rest assured I will conduct a better comparison with whatever replaces it.  I will in the coming weeks compare it to the little Redgum I am currently using.  But that will be lopsided - it is much cheaper and from my listening to both the unique character of your amp will almost certainly win out.  Still in the interest of a comparison to a wide variety of equipment I believe it will be of value.

The other thing I must relate is your amp was not the only thing we checked out.  Another product whose designer was there also initially scored rather poorly.  Comments were not flattering.  However when it was used with a different piece of equipment it faired much better.  It faired a lot better later in the evening - it probably needed to be warmed up.  The designer was philosophical about it.  He knew his product was selling like hotcakes so it must be doing something right.  It needed to be warmed up and matched with the equipment.  We now know that and hopefully the same mistake will not be made.  The same here Hugh - the same mistake will not be made.

Smiles all round!!   

Of course.  I have been posting here for quite a while.  I think this type of thing happens every now and then.  All I can say is hopefully the same thing wont happen again.  Comparisons will be fairer in future.

Thanks
Bill

[AKSA]

Hi Bill,

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.


Cheers,


Hugh

[TimS]

Hi Bill

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?

Tim

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.

Thanks
Bill

[bhobba]

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!!   

I think so as well.  Typically guys interested in your stuff are quite technically literate.  They understand this stuff and can see through the usual gloss and dross.   Gaetan saw through it immediately - in fact some of his comments reflected exactly what I was about to say before I said it.  He reached the correct conclusion - in many ways this is actually a triumph for the NAKSA.  He analysed the the result correctly - since the comparison was was not optimum and the amp still stood up so well this was a plus for the NAKSA.  He analysed the Macintosh's correctly describing its circuit and even its sound which is spot on - I have heard the Macintosh many times and what he described is exactly how the amp sounds to me as well - very clean with huge power.  This amp is not the natural competitor to your amp and Gaetan even pinpointed it weakness - possible fatigue listening over long periods.

While this is a tough market Hugh you have an advantage - technically literate guys understand your stuff.

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.

Hugh you are reading my mind man.   We discussed a lot of these issues at the shootout.  I hold a slightly different view.  I believe computer audio is the future and will usher in a golden age where you can play and select from a vast amount of music from the comfort your chair.  That is the way I use it and the convenience has led to a transformation in my enjoyment of music.  As one guy into computer audio expressed it - you actually listen to more music.

It is also leading to completely different ways to listen to music.  Steve Garland the maker of the Killer DAC that won the shootout transfers music to disk (when possible that actually is from master tapes) at the level he listens at.  No preamp, no digital volume control that may bit drop - just straight to the amp.  We heard a few of these and they were simply unbelievable.  The pro audio guy there was shocked at it quality - his words were - this is unbelievable.  This is a guy that hears and creates master tapes all the time. 

I have to tell you Hugh I heard Elvis like I never herd him before.  It was so transparent unless you were warned like we were you may not actually pick it was Elvis.  We were in awe.  This is the potential of computer audio once it is fully developed.

Thanks
Bill

[bhobba]

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?

Hi Tim

It is over on SNA - check out:
http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/showthread.php/26992-DAC-Shootout

Steve Garlands Killer DAC won it.  Take my word for it - that is one great DAC.

Thanks
Bill