Ayre V-5x vs. McCormack DNA 225


Looking to upgrade and have narrowed choices to the 5x and 225. Anyone compared the two, what are your thoughts? Thanks.
dumboatc8da
Excuse me for not letting a sleeping thread lie, but I reread my "review" of the DNA-125 with a smirk just now, because I recently got a DNA-500. Wake up!

First off, back then I was perplexed by the review descriptions of the 225 as having a "lean and lively" type of sound, when I thought my 125 was, if anything, a touch toward the thick and dark side. Well, I still haven't heard a 225, but the 500 seems to have just that "l'n'l" type of balance (not that it lacks for bass) -- really not a lot like the 125 in head to head comparos. Since a 500 is supposed to be essentially a pair of bridged 225's internally, maybe this makes sense (though Bigtee thought the two smaller amps sounded pretty much alike). On the other hand, neither the 125 or 225 is a bridged, balanced-differential design like the 500, and both use CJ film-capacitors for input coupling, as opposed to the 500's Jensen transformer phase-splitters -- all factors which, combined with the differences in power, could be expected to greatly alter the resulting presentation.

Whatever, the 500 is certainly orders of magnitude more transparent, resolving, spacious, pure, wideband, and dynamic than the 125. It eliminates all the flaws I noted above about the 125 and then some. The only reservation I have in the early going here is that its midrange tonality may actually be *too* delicate, in the sense that, for instance, saxes sound more like sopranos and less like tenors than with other amps I've used. But the transient articulation, image separation, preservation of fine detail, harmonic eludication, micro-dynamic expressivity, macro-dynamic contrast, spatial contextuality, LF control, airy openness, and general lack of spurious textural artifacts is plain impressive. It makes my stock 125, which I liked, sound in comparison a good bit smaller and slower, less clean and smooth, and more compressed, colored, and homogenized, even though its midrange tonal balance is richer.

So my question now is, how would a pair of SMc Platinum 125's -- which the monoblock mod converts to bridged, balanced-differential operation with the transformer-coupled inputs -- compare to the one stereo 500? That might not be a fair fight, since the 500 has 12 output transistors per channel whereas a bridged 125 would have only 8. A pair of Platinum 225 mono's would equalize that count, and ought to exceed a single 500 I suppose, since the stock 500 doesn't have the same level of boutique massaging gone into it. And with either the 125 or 225, a pair of SMc mono's would feature separate power transformers per channel (toroid) instead of the 500's shared one (iron-cored).

But what I'm really wondering is, between the Platinum 125 or 225 mono's and the stock 500, would the 125 mono still maintain more of that richer tonality it shows in stock form compared with my 500 (and what has been reported about the stock 225), or would the transformation result in a "l'n'l" balance more similar to its bigger brothers? And what about possible SMc mods to the 500 itself? Guess I'll do two things: Hook up my stock 125 for bridged-mono operation and compare it to the 500 again driving one speaker, and call SMc...Oh, and also get a 20a-to-15a IEC adaptor so I play with power cords on the 500 to see how that affects tonal balance.
I have a DNA-500 that I've had for about a year now, and I love it. The midrange tonality, called "delicate" above is anything but. If it still sounds that way after a while, I would suggest trying a different power cord. I'm using an Elrod Statement on the amp with tremendous results. Also using a tube pre (VAC Phi 2.0), Legacy Whisper speakers and Virtual Dynamics Revelation cabling.

The sound is truly spectacular at times in my system. I am considering Kevin Hayes' newest tubed "statement" amp, the Phi 300, but can't quite convince myself yet that the sound I have FINALLY achieved can get much better, or that an as-yet-to-be-determined incremental increase is really worth the big bucks to acquire this amp. In other words, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!" The fact that I have not already acquired the VAC Phi 300(which I'm sure is undoubtedly a great piece)is probably the best endorsement of the DNA-500 I could ever give, since I am an admitted "instant gratification" person (a VERY, VERY, costly trait in this hobby!). (Incidentally, Steve is apparently also working on mods for the 500).

I have not heard the 225, but from talking to Steve a while ago, it is not in the same league as the 500. I also don't know that a modded 125 or 225 would touch a stock 500. If so, I'd be very surprised. Therefore, my suggestion would be to try to find a used 500 and be done with the Ayre vs 225 discussion and just enjoy the music!! Of course, your own ears are the best judge in your system....
Fplanner2000: I have seen your posts on the DNA-500 in the archives, and you certainly haven't been shy about praising it wherever you can. My observation about the tonal balance isn't necessarily a knock -- or not until I can satisfy myself which presentation is the more correct, the 500's or the kind I'm more accustomed to (the 500's overall competence and superior transparency give it some benefit of the doubt for now) -- but it *is* a fact so far, at least in my system. But as I said, I don't know if its character may evolve some as I continue to use it (I didn't buy it new, but I don't think it had been used a whole lot either), and I know from owning the 125 that it may well be responsive to power cord upgrading.

But all amps have a "sound", this one included. All I'm noting is that, in terms of tonal balance alone, the sound of my 500 seems to agree with the published review descriptions of the stock 225, which has been called "lean and lively, not dark and rich" or words to that effect by more than one reviewer. That I don't find the stock 125 to fit that description may be intentional on McCormack's part, since it was probably voiced to fit with less premium systems which could stand to benefit from an amp that gives good-for-the-money sources and speakers more of a place to hide.

FWIW, a conversation I had with Steve McCormack last year indicated that he did think a Platinum-modded monoblock pair of 125's would exceed a stock 500, so we can assume the same must hold true for Platinum mono 225's as well. Of course, he would feel that way -- but if it's the case that a pair of Platinum mono's could maintain or extend the 500's virtues while also giving a bit fuller midband presentation, then that would probably be the only compelling reason for me to want to go to that expense when I already own a 500. I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who's done this comparison.
Zaikesman: I'm not shy about praising the amp because I've been extremely pleased with it and I wouldn't have even known about it but for this site. If I can turn someone on to his amps that might not have even considered them before, I think that is a good thing and in part what these forums are all about. I also feel its in my, yours and all other McCormack product owners' best interests that we keep Steve busy so he will be able to continue to develop new cutting-edge products and mods for our gear.

Along that line, you might ask Steve about the mods for the DNA-500 that he is working on. Seems like modding your 500 would be a lot more cost-effective than modding 2 225's. I was lined up to do this last month, but decided to wait a while.
I have a Platinum DNA-225. About the only other amp I would consider is two of them in mono block configuration.