[mike_p]

Newbie here. My very first post. Here goes. I'll be getting W4S amplification for my Emerald Physics 2.3's, along with Spatial Computer software and the entry-level multi-channel TC Studio Konnect 48 firewire DAC/audio interface. Walter Liederman & Clayton Shaw like tri-amping these speakers, and they ought to know. My short-term issue is cost. 

I can afford to tri-amplify now only if I use one of the W4S multi-channel amps. The full-size MC amps use the ASP power modules. I spoke with Clint at W4s yesterday, and asked whether the circuit topology for the boards in the MC (250X6) units is identical to those used in the SX and ST 500 amps. Clint checked with EJ, and no, the front-end tweaks that they do on the SX and ST circuits aren't present on the MC units, due to space limitations. So, first question, has anyone A/B'ed the SX or ST 500 or 1000 amps against their similarly-powered MC counterparts? If so, what are the audible sonic differences betwen those amps in your system?

Next, a couple of EJ Sarmento's posts on the "Official" Wyred 4 Sound thread in AVS Forum in the company's earlier stages of product development and marketing indicated that he experienced a difference in the sonics of the ASC module used in the ST/SX 250 amp vis-a-vis the ASP modules used in the 500 and 1000 series amps, i.e., he thought the ASC module and the 250 series amps had better sonics in the mids and highs. In fact, the product description on the W4S website calls the 250 their 'most detailed' amplifier. I haven't been able to listen to these amps. Has anyone compared the sonics of the 250 with the 500 or 1000, and if so, can you please describe the differences?  Thanks.

Last, W4S's Mini MC amps use a third B&O ICE Power module, the ASX. Clayton Shaw likes the measured high frequency performance of this module as compared with the others. Has anyone listened to the Mini MC amp(s)? If so, can you compare their sound with the bigger W4S amps and describe the differences that you heard in your system (or wherever you heard them)?

I'm wary of getting an affordable multi-channel machine with inferior sonics, in order to jump right into tri-amping the CS 2.3's. If there's a difference in sound between the amps that makes a  difference, it makes me less nervous to contemplate bi-amping for starters, using amplifiers with more involving and musical sound and then adding 2 more channels later. Notwithstanding the magic that the Spatial software certainly will work with eq, tube emulation, speaker control and room correction, sitting here on the couch typing it seems like the relative sonics of the amps ought to matter (although not by as much as they would without the control and correction software). On the other hand, not yet having heard the amps or experienced the benefit of Clayton's remote set-up, maybe it doesn't matter, especially if the relative differences in the amplifiers' sonics are minor.  I'm beginning to understand audio nervosa. Thoughts, anyone?

[mike_p]

Found on enjoythemusic.com, May 2008, in a review of the D-Sonic Class D amps, abstracted from B&O's website:

"Some amplifier manufacturers are adding different buffer circuits or trans-formers to the module inputs to raise the input impedance. This was originally done to be a better match to some experimental tube preamplifiers, but is now being offered as a major improvement to the entire sonic palette. We originally offered this circuit as an option but dropped it after determining that it made no sonic difference, even with our tube preamp customers."

[timind]

Here's a review where the author looks at several ICE amps, including the W4S amps, and discusses some differences.
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/amplifiers/seymour-av-ice-block-5001/seymour-av-5001-build-quality
 I did own the amp under review there but did not care for it. I preferred the PS Audio Trio-100 amp which uses the lesser ASC modules. The PS Audio amps use similar input modules as the W4S amps.
I also tried the Bel Canto Ref 500 amp, which uses the newer ASX modules, for about six months but it did not suit me either. Still preferred the cheaper PS Audio amp. I'm thinking it is the input module but who knows.

[mike_p]

Thanks for that. Have you also heard the PS Audio GCA-500's?

[Big Red Machine]

Thanks for that. Have you also heard the PS Audio GCA-500's?

The Wyreds are a better all-around amp than the dated PS Audio amps, which Cullen probably also makes.  I have had the GCA and 7 Wyreds.

[mike_p]

My bad. I'm getting the W4S amps, just don't know in what configuration. Ideally, I'd get a multi-channel unit to tri-amp and avoid the passive cross-over in the EP CS 2.3's. What I'm trying to learn through this thread is whether a W4S MC or Mini MC will give me the same quality sonic results as the ST-250 on mids and highs, and the bass control, extension and transparency of the ST-500. If so, that's what I'll do. If not, I guess I'm better off with 2 stereo units to begin with, and add a third later.

[face]

I would say the Mini-MC is a little sweeter compared to the regular 500.  As long as your speakers aren't very inefficient, you'll be more than happy with a Mini-MC.