No, the amp was well broken in from the dealer and over a year old. |
Martin Colloms, respected British reviewer, reviewed the Classe CA-200 in Stereophile, Feb. 97. He said the amp had a audible sheen or emphasis in the treble, adding a breathiness to vocals. He also said that pace, rhythm, dynamics and listener involvement were not addressed in the design as much as smoothness and a relaxed, laid-back sound.
He admitted that he was "not totally knocked out" by the Classe, even though he didn't knock it that much. A rather lukewarm response to this amplifier. He seemed to think it was just an ok amp.
This review, plus some negative comments I have seen by some audiophiles, and a past audio store salesperson who really trashed the line, have made me wonder. |
In response to 'Pops', it sounds like you are venting anger at Martin Collom's review, rather than basing this on facts. I don't see what you are basing your belief on that he "reviewed this as out of punishment". He has certainly proven himself to be an articulate and serious reviewer. Further, Bob Reina's review in Dec. 1997 of the CA-100, while positive at the price point, did indicate a number of sonic flaws as well. No, I don't base my decisions on Stereophile reviews, but I do think taking the totality of all opinions sheds some light on the overall sonic of a piece. |
Responding to Lpim, read review on CA-200, Stereophile, Feb. 97 by Martin Colloms. He used many top-notch products with it & amps to compare it to. His final analysis was that he was not totally knocked out by the Classe. He heard a sheen or emphasis in the treble; felt there was a lack of rhythm & dynamics, and it had a low listener involvement factor.
See also Bob Reina's review of CA-100, Dec. 97, where he heard problems in the upper midrange and a dark sound to the high treble. It rendered music thick & opaque.
Usually when you find more than one review that finds similar problems, it is a good indication that there are problems.
A number of people claimed that the different models sound different. I find that hard to believe when they are all based on the same circuits (except the Omega and some models below it). |
Since posting this thread, I have listened to the Classe 201. And it does have significant sonic shortcomings.
(1) The bass is not tight or defined or powerful.
(2) There is an overall lack of air or extension in the high end.
(3) There is an opaqueness to the sound. Individual images seem congealed together, they are as of one fabric, not truly separate.
Yes, the midrange initially sounds nice, but further listening reveals the above flaws, and to me, they are intolerable. |
Dragont, do your homework first. Classe told me that the circuitry in the CA201, 301, 401 is ALL THE SAME CIRCUIT. Any improvements from the Omega project that are used are used in all of them. The CAM 350 & 200 are different, and incorporate more of Omega's technology. The McCormack DNA-225 is far superior to the Classe. I went on the Audio Research tube gear, and it blows all of this stuff in the dust. |
Can't this be an intelligent discussion instead of an "attack Kevziek"? I tried to encourage discourse and dialogue and a presentation of varying opinions. Let's stop this politicial correctness. Ohlala, if you're happy with your Classe 70, all power to you! I began this thread to find out other's experiences, not be attacked for daring to say negative things about the enshrined Classe amplifiers.
I have nothing against Classe. Actually, I think they are a great company and truly dedicated. Their Omega amp, and probably the CAM series, have been well received. I have no opportunity to hear them, as the Classe dealer here doesn't carry anything but the small models. The CA201 to my ears was too homogenized sounding, and the lack of air and space in the highs, along with their rolloff, made it a non-choice for me. |
Jayt, or is it Dragont? Why do you have two user names on Audiogon?
Your name-calling is inappropriate, unfounded & only reflects back upon the writer.
It is certainly curious that Classe' sales manager would tell both of us different information. Since the information Classe gave me is also STATED IN PRINT in all Classe' owner's manuals, I would say that my information is correct. Go in the first pages to "CLASSE DESIGN PHILOSOPHY", and I quote, "All Classe products share exactly the same circuit design philosophy. This means ALL AMPLIFIERS and all high level circuits benefit from the same design goals. Similar circuits are then tailored to different power levels etc...."
In response to your accusation that I "pre-empted the discussion with a list of negatives on the entire Classe line," I suggest you read the title of the thread. It specifically states "amps". What right or business of yours is it to tell me to "leave the discussion," the one that I began? Why don't you follow your own advice.
Nilthepill, the systems I listened to the Classe in were very revealing systems, the components of which I shall list. In any event, the results were clear and significant.
Preamplifiers: VTL ($4500 new model), SFL-2
Amps: Mac MC2000, Mac 352, McCormack DNA-225, Audio Research VT-100 Mk II
Source: Ayre $7500 CD player, Sonic Frontiers SFT-1 & Theta Pro Basic IIIa
Speakers: B&W Nautilus 802, B&W 802 Matrix III.
|
Thanks, Tweekerman, for defending me and the original reason for my thread. This thread has basically served to allow others to spew upon me nastiness, condescension, and anger; which has only served to reveal their personality flaws and emotional problems. If you can't handle another opinion or questioning of the sonics of your beloved Classe product, then don't read or respond to threads about it. |
The bottom line on this whole thread is that many, but not all, devotees of Classe amps who answered here can't handle any criticism towards their enshrined objects. This is quite myopic and immature. There are constant excuses: Martin Colloms did a subjective review; Robert Reina didn't know what he was talking about; the systems are messed up. Quite frankly, if all Classe owners have to offer is excuses and attacks on every reviewer who has given lukewarm reviews to these amps, I'd rather the thread end, too.
In response to Ramstl, the McCormack amp I compared it to is a much refined design over the DNA 0.5 you owned.
I have outlined the systems I used to analyze the CA-201, and I'm sure that I zeroed in on the sonic characteristics of this amp. It isn't a matter of taste -- I am describing sonic deficiencies both I and an audiophile friend heard. FYI, I am a professional musician, pianist and vocalist, and am acutely aware of what sounds like music and what doesn't. |
Ramstl, taste and opinion are just that. However, repeatable, sonic characteristics are not the same. The Classe 201's damped out, airless, rolled-off high end was very obvious to three different listeners on highly resolving systems. So was the weak, flabby bass. These are deficiencies, not just taste issues. If I was speaking of things like, "a little brighter", "a little darker", "more upfront", "more laidback" -- those are characteristics that I could see can be interpreted as "taste."
There are people who think a Hostess cupcake tastes as good as a homemade chocolate cake made with butter and premium chocolate. Is that just a matter of taste? It's a matter of quality, and there are many who lack the discernment to know.
By the way, the DNA 0.5, while a decent amp, is tizzier and inferior in other ways to Steve's new DNA 125 . He will tell you that himself, as well as over 40 other audiophiles reviewing the DNA125 on AudioReview. |
