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.
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.