How Do Odyssey Amps Stack Up To McCormack Amps.

Both are impressive, but I'm partial to the modded McCormacks. I don't think you will find many SS amps better than a fully modded McCormack at any price.

As for the stock versions, Peter Moncrief reviewed both and liked them almost equally if you read his International Audio Review.

Personally, I would go with the older McCormacks (DNA .5 or 1) for two reasons. First, these are the models that can be modified and the full mods surpass the current production models. Second, the McCormacks are more preamp friendly than the Odyssey. I don't think a passive preamp is advisable (and definitely not optimal) with the Odyssey.

You might want to look around I have seen the DNA225 for around $2100. Try www.tsto.com. They are good guys. Also, might want to take a look at Stereophile. They gave the DNA225 a class "B" rating.. Enjoy listening..

I had a DNA-1 Rev. A with extras, and I'm sorry, but as good as it was, it still sounded somewhat sterile and cold. Yes, it was quiet, grain-free, and very black. When I would put on audiophile brass recordings, there was no bloom to the brass, a flatter imaging, no body to the instruments. I was comparing this to a tube amp, I should point out, but I do think there are other solid state amps that do things better.

So what would some of you that own either brand, say the sonic characteristics/differences between the two brands. Also, I must say I listen from a wide variety of material from Bela Fleck on DVD-Audio, to Norah Jones on 200 gram vinyl, to Tool on compact disc. And by the way..thanks for all the great comments so far....

Wow...there's been some interesting stuff written about the Odyssey line over at HarmonicDischord.com. On paper, it looke like it would be pretty tough to beat the upgraded monos.

How about the Tempest pre? Any thoughts on that? How's the phono section?