Sure, as I said the amp is a detail master and delivered a very entergetic and dynamic sound. I think I can see why some would call the amp "tube-like", but in other ways the sound has nothing at all to do with the glowing stuff mid- range wise.
Review : PS Audio HCA 2 amplifier
This amplifier I awaited with eagerness since it represents a union between the old and the new. The amp uses a digital switch-mode device and a large torrodial transformer to output 150 watts into 8 ohms. The unit upon arrival stayed on for 200 hours with both FM and cd music playing. The rest of the system consisted of a Sony 555es SACD player, Proceed PRE, B&W n805's. Interconnects are XLO er-4, Audioquest viper, and Cardas Cross. Speaker cables are Kimber 4tc, Cardas Neutral Reference, and Transparent music wave 200. Comparisons were done with a Musical Fidelity A3CR amplifier. In rotation is Murray Perahia Back Keyboard Concertos 3, 5, 6, 7 (sony Classical), Stravinsky Conducts Stravinsky (CBS Records), Kathleen Battle Grace (Sony Classical), and Avalon Blues a tribute to Mississippi John Hurt, and on SACD James Taylor Hour Glass, Copeland conducts Copeland, Dave Brubreck Quartet.
The first impression is one of immediacy and energy but with much upper midrange/ treble grain/ glare. Furthermore, there was a lot of hash in the signal that despite many grounding schemes I was not able to get rid of and I suspect is endemic to the design. I will note that I ran the amp single ended only. But I can hardly expect this to be the culprit as I have never experienced such a problem before. The static is noticeable at the listing position.
Second, all voices sounded dry and nasal in quality, as if the body and chest were missing. Kathleen Battle sounded exactly that way and contrasted through the MF A3CR there is much less bloom and much more glare to the HCA 2's presentation. Strings on both CD and SACD sounded steely and metallic but low level detail seemed to come up in the mix compared to the A3CR. Both units presented a layered and deep soundstage but the HCA 2 reduced the height of the image to below the speaker plane compared to the A3CR. Imaging went to the A3Cr which made it possible to recognize that there is a whole first violin section in the Copeland SACD instead as the HCA 2 made it sound as if there were only three or four players. I much preferred the A3CR in all respects and any music compared to the HCA 2.
Third, cable changes made slight differences, but not major. The Cardas gave a little more bloom, the XLO a more lively presentation, and the AQ viper a more clear sound. However, compared to the MF A3CR there is always a glare to the HCA 2 that is fatiguing in the extreme. For instance, my girlfriend could not listen to the HCA 2 for more than about 5 minutes. Neither of us found any worth in the PS Audio amplifier from a musical point of view.
On a positive note the input jacks and speaker terminals are top flight and the included power cord is almost equal to their micro lab cable in Sonics. Further the lower midrange/ upper bass boost in the HCA 2 did deliver a punchy and dynamic sound and seems like a nice addition for mini monitors especially. Again though, the glare apparent through the HCA 2 is a fault that is not forgivable. I feel that if you have more forgiving speakers the amp may work for you, IF you can get over all of its other problems.
Have a good day.
The first impression is one of immediacy and energy but with much upper midrange/ treble grain/ glare. Furthermore, there was a lot of hash in the signal that despite many grounding schemes I was not able to get rid of and I suspect is endemic to the design. I will note that I ran the amp single ended only. But I can hardly expect this to be the culprit as I have never experienced such a problem before. The static is noticeable at the listing position.
Second, all voices sounded dry and nasal in quality, as if the body and chest were missing. Kathleen Battle sounded exactly that way and contrasted through the MF A3CR there is much less bloom and much more glare to the HCA 2's presentation. Strings on both CD and SACD sounded steely and metallic but low level detail seemed to come up in the mix compared to the A3CR. Both units presented a layered and deep soundstage but the HCA 2 reduced the height of the image to below the speaker plane compared to the A3CR. Imaging went to the A3Cr which made it possible to recognize that there is a whole first violin section in the Copeland SACD instead as the HCA 2 made it sound as if there were only three or four players. I much preferred the A3CR in all respects and any music compared to the HCA 2.
Third, cable changes made slight differences, but not major. The Cardas gave a little more bloom, the XLO a more lively presentation, and the AQ viper a more clear sound. However, compared to the MF A3CR there is always a glare to the HCA 2 that is fatiguing in the extreme. For instance, my girlfriend could not listen to the HCA 2 for more than about 5 minutes. Neither of us found any worth in the PS Audio amplifier from a musical point of view.
On a positive note the input jacks and speaker terminals are top flight and the included power cord is almost equal to their micro lab cable in Sonics. Further the lower midrange/ upper bass boost in the HCA 2 did deliver a punchy and dynamic sound and seems like a nice addition for mini monitors especially. Again though, the glare apparent through the HCA 2 is a fault that is not forgivable. I feel that if you have more forgiving speakers the amp may work for you, IF you can get over all of its other problems.
Have a good day.
- ...
- 17 posts total
- 17 posts total