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

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???

A psychologist could make a career and a fortune out of studying audiophiles behaviour! It is sad that egos and simply people's need for approval are the motivation for the majority of online reviews (and maybe profesional reviews [ST !!!]), as any person can appreciate when reading audioreview.com write-ups! I feel that one has no credibility as a critic if they cannot evaluate the flaws of the equiptment along with the virtues, and also have an extensive resume of previous components used. For many reviews there is nothing but glowing remarks of equiptment they own, especially so from folks who recently moved from low-fi receiver land to seperates, or cheaper anything on up to mid priced gear, as is often the case with highly reviewed budget components, and then folks really feel they own the best they can afford, regardless of their limited experience, where you typically see phrases like:

"Best for under X grand"
"Beats products costing X times as much".

and so on with no basis in reality! Funny as heck to read but sad that many people can't see through the BS.