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
