2. amps-preamps
  3. 1227653149

McCormack DNA .5 and 1- big difference?

I've got some B&K amps (ST-202 & Sonata EX-442) but a chance to pick up a McCormack DNA at a good price has arisen. Trying to pony up some spending money in case it's a wise choice.

I've lusted after the DNA 1, this model is the .5 however.

Looks like a slightly simplified board design internally, and power doesn't seem to be that reduced- advertised 100wpc/8 ohms for the .5 vs. 150wpc/8 ohms for the 1.

Looks like neither are a dual mono design- which I like in my EX-442.

Would the .5 also run cooler?

Need to power a variety of speakers- Dahlquist DQ-10s, aDs L1230s, AR 9LSIs, Vandersteen 2Cs and Thiel CS 2s.
thedelihaus
Post removed 
swampwalker's avatar
swampwalker
5,138 posts
 
The 0.5 is better sounding than the 1.0.
shakeydeal
979 posts
 
In the past I owned a B&K EX-4420 and ST-3030 amps. Not bad for the money, but the McCormack amps are worlds better. I had a standard DNA-1 and DNA delux monoblocks, never heard a 0.5. I say go for whatever McCormack amp your budget allows.

Shakey
brownsfan
1,508 posts
 
I had a 0.5 Delux and now have 1.0 delux monoblocks. I never had the standard 1.0. What I can tell you is that while the 0.5 delux is a very nice sounding amp for the money, it is far less resolving than the 1.0 delux monos. The 1.0's revealed some problems in upstream components. This lead me to replace the digital front end and preamp. At the end of all of this, my system was worlds better than when I started. The post from Shakeydeal above does not draw a huge distinction between the 1.0 standard and 1.0 delux monoblocks, so maybe my experience will be of some value to you. By the way, both run cool. Not much difference there.
ecruz
402 posts
 
I owned a DNA 0.5 and a DNA 1.0. I always thought the 0.5 sounded a bit smoother, but the 1.0 better controlled the low end on my Vandersteens 2ce's.
More to discover