PS: Typical McGowan Sound? -- HCA-2 & Classic 250


The commentary I have read on the HCA-2 has been mixed, but the criticisms I read remind me of the typical criticisms that have been expressed on all of Paul McGowan's designs in the past: An upfront, technicolor upper midrange & lower treble, some harmonic thinness, & a tight, but lean bass.

I'd sooner believe the review on Audiogon than I would KR's review in Stereophile, whose questionable hearing I don't trust.

In looking at the responses to the Audiogon review, it is interesting to see that half the responders love it; the other half hate it. By seeing all of them for sale on 'Gon now, you wonder what the real scoop is.

I'm kind of interested in the CLASSIC 250, which is a non-digital design that has alot of hoopla about it on the PS website. Has anyone heard or bought this amp, or compared it to the HCA-2?
kevziek
The number of these amps on the used market is disturbing, but more disturbing is what they are being sold for, or rather, what people are willing to pay for them! These amps can be bought NEW for what folks some are buying them USED for! Hot or not, it's unreal that they can sell for over a grand used, especially since the market is flooded with them, which does make you wonder..... The measurments where awful but many people do enjoy distortion of one sort or the other.

On a related note, the Musical Fidelity gear was also raved about and had a great demo policy, yet has a stronger following by consumers, so I'm thinking the MF A3cr gear may be a better bet. Most fortunately I will have the HCA-2 and A3cr in home to demo shortly, along with an Odyssey Stratos and Parasound JC-1 monoblocks, and am pretty anxious and excited to see how they all measure up!
I find this statement rather odd.

"In looking at the responses to the Audiogon review, it is interesting to see that half the responders love it; the other half hate it."

Kevziek, your entire post seems to be a very subtle and clever attempt to bash PS Audio and the HCA-2 in particular.

If you take a broader look at opinions beyond one Audigon review, I think your 50/50 statement will evaporate. I have read every post I can find online about the HCA-2. My opinion is that from those who have *actually heard this amp* the ratio would be more like 90/10. Many of the so-called "haters", upon close inspection, haven't even auditioned this amp. They are simply responding to measurements or hearsay. Who cares about measurements, how does the damn thing sound!

My grandmother never measured a thing when she was cooking. Pinch of this and a dash of that. I would put her dishes up against anyone who used the same recipe and measured everything perfectly. I always found it funny when my sisters measured the ingredients perfectly and yet their dishes never TASTED as good as my grandmother's.

Just like cooking, I believe circuit design is as much art as it is technical execution.

If I were you I would be looking for the best *measuring* amp in the world and then live happily ever after in *measurement* bliss regardless of the sound.

BTW, I own the HCA-2 and love it.
Fiddler's comment is a typical example of the audiophile who cannot accept questioning or criticism of their beloved choice without attacking the questioner. His paranoid accusations of my engaging in "PS bashing" is quite uncalled for.

I myself own tube equipment, and I can tell you that my last two tube amps were not purchased on the basis of distortion specs; however, both of them tested on Stereophile with substantially less distortion than the HCA-2. JA's comments on the type and magnitude of the distortion it exhibited are particularly troublesome. JA specifically points out that the distortion he found indicates the amp is having a very hard time dealing with signals that other amps don't. THAT is a concern. Look at the spikes for the IM tests. They are dreadful!

Although I don't place great emphasis on measurements, I do believe that they can, and have been proven, to show gross problems with the design.

Furthermore, the sonic character described by those criticizing it (i.e. pushed too far forward in mids & lower highs, too lean midbass, brightness) have been criticisms of Paul McGowan's designs in the past. These comments seem to support this as his preference in sound. I certainly don't cherish such qualities, and wish to avoid them.

Audiogon's forums are intended as a place to foster healthy controversy and discussion, not to attack those questioning a design that you happen to own.
Fully acknowledging that a 30-day trial is a great opportunity to listen for myself.....

I really had to scratch my head when reading the Stereophile review of this amp too. If a $1700, 150 watt/ch amp is rated Class A and is seen as driving a pair of expensive, reference speakers in a manner comensurate with the Class A rating for an experienced listener, and does so with suspect meeasurements, and none of this is questionable, then a bunch of people have wasted a bunch of money on more expensive amps. This, indeed, may be the case - Class D amps may truly be the future.

Yes, there's no substitute for listening for ones self, and yes, measurements don't begin to tell the whole story, but there's certainly enough here to warrant a comment / thread without it having to be seen as a subtle slam on a manufacturer.
Please note the Rowland new amp the 301 is based on some
variation of Class D amplification. What does that tell you???