McCormack DNA-1 vs. Adcom GFA-5802

Relative noob here. I'm looking for a new (used) 2-channel amp to power my new Polk LSi9 bookshelf speakers. I've pretty much decided that I want to get the McCormack DNA-1. I've considered the Parasound Halo 23, as well as the Adcom GFA-5802, but it sounds like the McCormack DNA-1 is the better amp, according to a number of folks (unfortunately, I'm unable to personally listen to any of them).

My question is this: if the McCormack is the better amp, why is it priced around the same place as the Adcom and the Parasound in the current used market? I realize that the Adcom has a bit more power, and Parasound has made some great amps, but people seem pretty unanimous in preferring the DNA-1 for sound quality. What gives? Am I missing something? Is the used market just not as rational as I thought it would be, or has the superiority of the DNA-1 to the Adcom GFA-5802, and the Parasound Halo 23, been overstated? Is it just a matter of taste? Preference for the DNA-1 seemed to transcend mere fanboy-ism.

Thanks for any input.

Showing 1 response by ig316b

For those that are wondering this is straight from the SMc Audion wed site Q&A.

"The R1 circuit board was created by McCormack Audio to allow them to produce amplifiers from the remaining stock of DNA-1 parts, and to facilitate certain repair jobs where the original board had been damaged. This new circuit board is effectively equivalent to the circuitry in the DNA-225. McCormack Audio is now offering the “R1” board as an upgrade, including Cardas hardware and Noble emitter resistors. This makes a very nice improvement with a distinct performance advantage over the original amplifier.

Although the R1 upgrade is not connected with my work here at SMc Audio, some have asked how it compares to my upgrades. Direct comparisons are difficult, but I would say that it delivers performance roughly comparable to my Revision B.

I thought it was a good deal and no I didn't buy it.