Ayre V-5x vs. McCormack DNA 225

Excuse me for not letting a sleeping thread lie, but I reread my "review" of the DNA-125 with a smirk just now, because I recently got a DNA-500. Wake up!

First off, back then I was perplexed by the review descriptions of the 225 as having a "lean and lively" type of sound, when I thought my 125 was, if anything, a touch toward the thick and dark side. Well, I still haven't heard a 225, but the 500 seems to have just that "l'n'l" type of balance (not that it lacks for bass) -- really not a lot like the 125 in head to head comparos. Since a 500 is supposed to be essentially a pair of bridged 225's internally, maybe this makes sense (though Bigtee thought the two smaller amps sounded pretty much alike). On the other hand, neither the 125 or 225 is a bridged, balanced-differential design like the 500, and both use CJ film-capacitors for input coupling, as opposed to the 500's Jensen transformer phase-splitters -- all factors which, combined with the differences in power, could be expected to greatly alter the resulting presentation.

Whatever, the 500 is certainly orders of magnitude more transparent, resolving, spacious, pure, wideband, and dynamic than the 125. It eliminates all the flaws I noted above about the 125 and then some. The only reservation I have in the early going here is that its midrange tonality may actually be *too* delicate, in the sense that, for instance, saxes sound more like sopranos and less like tenors than with other amps I've used. But the transient articulation, image separation, preservation of fine detail, harmonic eludication, micro-dynamic expressivity, macro-dynamic contrast, spatial contextuality, LF control, airy openness, and general lack of spurious textural artifacts is plain impressive. It makes my stock 125, which I liked, sound in comparison a good bit smaller and slower, less clean and smooth, and more compressed, colored, and homogenized, even though its midrange tonal balance is richer.

So my question now is, how would a pair of SMc Platinum 125's -- which the monoblock mod converts to bridged, balanced-differential operation with the transformer-coupled inputs -- compare to the one stereo 500? That might not be a fair fight, since the 500 has 12 output transistors per channel whereas a bridged 125 would have only 8. A pair of Platinum 225 mono's would equalize that count, and ought to exceed a single 500 I suppose, since the stock 500 doesn't have the same level of boutique massaging gone into it. And with either the 125 or 225, a pair of SMc mono's would feature separate power transformers per channel (toroid) instead of the 500's shared one (iron-cored).

But what I'm really wondering is, between the Platinum 125 or 225 mono's and the stock 500, would the 125 mono still maintain more of that richer tonality it shows in stock form compared with my 500 (and what has been reported about the stock 225), or would the transformation result in a "l'n'l" balance more similar to its bigger brothers? And what about possible SMc mods to the 500 itself? Guess I'll do two things: Hook up my stock 125 for bridged-mono operation and compare it to the 500 again driving one speaker, and call SMc...Oh, and also get a 20a-to-15a IEC adaptor so I play with power cords on the 500 to see how that affects tonal balance.

To throw in my $.02 (or maybe more like $.01, or $1, depending on your point of view :-) by way of affirming that we sometimes hear things a little differently depending on our ears and gear:

I own a DNA-125, and have no experience with the 225 or the particular Ayre in question. Based on what I hear in my system, I've been surprised that some reviews have described the 125/225 (which are more similar to each other than either is to the 500; some folks seem to feel the 125 even sounds a little better than the 225 in certain ways, lower power notwithstanding) as being a bit forward and bright. I actually find it to be slightly mellow and laid-back if anything.

(That's through Thiel 2.2's via Au24 SC, powered with a Shunyata Sidewinder PC from an ExactPower EP15, and fed from a Levinson 380S via van den Hul The Second. Experimentation has shown that the 125 can in some ways prefer a bit warmer-sounding SC and PC in this setup, but I normally don't bother to switch everything around when I insert it, and it still sounds fine.)

I would not mistake the 125 for a top-flight amp - it has good authority and ease for its price/size, just not world-class - but it really does very little wrong: a touch of boxiness, generally not quite as airy, open, fast, or extended (or transparent) as better amps. IMPORTANT: Auditioners must be cautioned that this amp will sound unrealistically on the flat, hard, cold and grainy side if not given adequate warm-up, and should ideally be heard with at least 2 days of continuous power-on beforehand (in my system the 125 serves as the back-up to tubed monoblocks, but when I do use it I don't turn it off). If that's not possible, then give it at least 2 hours playing music before doing critical listening.

The strengths of this amp, to me, include remarkably pure and natural harmonic structure for what is after all a budget amp in audiophile terms (and a class A/B SS one at that). Bass weight/drive and overall loudness capability are also surprisingly good - I don't feel like I would ever need the 225 in my 14 x 23 x 8 room and with my speakers, even for playing high-energy rock so the neighbors can hear. Imaging is notably 3D and rock-solid (though not the largest, if that's what one desires), with good - not exagerated - focus, and as mentioned the soundstage is deep, if not quite as tall and wide as can be had.

Tonal balance is commendably full and neutral, except for some lack of ultimate extension at the top which subtracts a tad from sparkle and air, and only a hint of a slightly pinched or nasal quality in the lower treble that's never obtrusive, but simply keeps things like saxophone or ride cymbal just a tad on the closed-in side (or from fully blooming if you subscribe to that word). This is really quite minor though, and far from the worst thing you could hear out of such an amp, especially considering that the harmonic structure remains so benign.

Textures are smooth and clear and free from artifacts either niggling or gross. Coherence and timing are unified and consistent throughout the spectrum - I don't hear any phasiness, articulation is fine, and spatial deliniation is well-defined and -integrated. Driver control seems very good at the least - images don't cling to the speakers and show perfectly adequate if not outstanding separation - and again I find depth of field to be one of the amp's stronger attributes. Abundant clarity and cleanliness is always in evidence, no spitting or splashing.

The 125 falls behind my reference amps (VTL 185's) in terms of overall liveliness, micro-dynamic expressiveness, and macro-dynamic impact, and it's not as deeply resolving or quite as detailed in portraying timbral color. Transparency is a bit curtailed, details such as cymbal decays or mouth technique not as extensively excavated. Its feet aren't made of clay or anything, but better amps can be a touch quicker and more finely shaded of transient nuance, though the 125 is excellent in terms of lack of overhang. I don't hear the hardness, glare, excessive edginess or chestiness, congestion, flat aspect, mistiness, darkness, dodgy imaging, detached sense of reverberent ambience, or anything else that I might have expected in a SS amp at this price. Just a very residual degree of 'mechanicalness' - a little less organic/present/alive/fully-developed when compared to a better amp - which engenders a small sense of remove or relative diminishment of physical 'action', but not nearly so much as to be uninvolving. I will dance and play air-drums to this amp, and can feel the emotiveness of singers clearly conveyed. It has never made me wince or wander off, and often draws me in. But it can't quite envelop, sweep away, caress, or hard-wire to the brain the way the tube mono's can. Big duh.

Perhaps the McCormack upgrades largely address the shortcomings, but they are not bothersome when the amp is considered on its own. It may not be SOTA, but it doesn't ring a false note, and is easily enjoyable all around. It's also entirely comfortable driving 4 ohms and playing loud (and runs cool doing so). Maybe the 225 would ameliorate some of the slight sense of restraint (NOT strain) in the 125, I don't know (though it seems reasonable to assume), but I wouldn't dismiss the less-expensive 125 out of hand if your speakers are at least of average sensitivity and your room, speaker cabinets, and woofer diameters are mid-sized or less. Most importantly, this amp sounds real and honest, neither adding to nor taking away from the sonic presentation in ways that could compromise the relaxed musicality that's essential to believability from gear and trust from the listener.

IMO it's a highly competent bargain at its price, but I don't have wide enough exposure to rank it among its competitors. All I can do is tell you what I hear. End of off-topic review :-)

Bigtee: Just to reiterate, I don't personally have a take on the 125 vs. 225 question, because I haven't heard the 225. I was just alluding to things some others have opined - including, it seems, yourself. All I can say is that the 125 sounds quite powerful on its own terms, giving my (untreated) room and speakers (which are themselves by no means strongest in the areas of high-level dynamics or bass power) all that they and my ears can handle, with ease. When I bought this amp (from a fellow 'Gonner), I wasn't really planning to keep it, I just needed a temporary spare at the right price and this was local and therefore easy, but now I intend to keep it around for the foreseeable future.

I should also point out that one of the natural upgrade paths available would be to run two 125's wired for monoblock operation. In my system, the (nearly-3X the price at retail) VTL mono's are rated for roughly similar output power into 4 ohms as the single stereo 125, but enjoy at least double the power supply heft. Bridging a pair of 125's wouldn't exceed the cost of the VTL 185's (although it would with full McCormack mods), but would about double the rated max power and bring the power supply comparison into line. I don't personally know what the amp sounds like differentially-bridged (posted user comments I've seen are positive) or with the other McCormack upgrades (ditto), but it wouldn't stun me at all if a mono pair of fully-modded 125's would give just about anything around their price range a run for the money, tubed or SS (including, I'd venture to assume, the 500, which reviewers seem to be unanimously freaking over with almost embarrassing gushiness). Believe me, I have mused over the thought of selling the VTL's and taking a flyer on this route myself, and might be inclined to do so if it weren't for the cost and depreciation, which would take many tubeset purchases to equal.

Thanks for the 'story' Bigtee. Look forward to your future report 4yanx (and Bigtee too if the Belles deal works out).

02Pete: Hey, you talk as if a McCormack was a high ticket exotic or something :-) Think of it as a Toyota among amps - more than a taste of Lexus quality for not much more dough than a Chevy. As a former NAD owner myself (where I started with separates in '87), I think you have something to look forward to when you let Audiogon help make your next step affordable.

Fplanner2000: I have seen your posts on the DNA-500 in the archives, and you certainly haven't been shy about praising it wherever you can. My observation about the tonal balance isn't necessarily a knock -- or not until I can satisfy myself which presentation is the more correct, the 500's or the kind I'm more accustomed to (the 500's overall competence and superior transparency give it some benefit of the doubt for now) -- but it *is* a fact so far, at least in my system. But as I said, I don't know if its character may evolve some as I continue to use it (I didn't buy it new, but I don't think it had been used a whole lot either), and I know from owning the 125 that it may well be responsive to power cord upgrading.

But all amps have a "sound", this one included. All I'm noting is that, in terms of tonal balance alone, the sound of my 500 seems to agree with the published review descriptions of the stock 225, which has been called "lean and lively, not dark and rich" or words to that effect by more than one reviewer. That I don't find the stock 125 to fit that description may be intentional on McCormack's part, since it was probably voiced to fit with less premium systems which could stand to benefit from an amp that gives good-for-the-money sources and speakers more of a place to hide.

FWIW, a conversation I had with Steve McCormack last year indicated that he did think a Platinum-modded monoblock pair of 125's would exceed a stock 500, so we can assume the same must hold true for Platinum mono 225's as well. Of course, he would feel that way -- but if it's the case that a pair of Platinum mono's could maintain or extend the 500's virtues while also giving a bit fuller midband presentation, then that would probably be the only compelling reason for me to want to go to that expense when I already own a 500. I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who's done this comparison.

I should probably start a new thread ;^)