2. amps-preamps
  3. 170100-144660

Experience with Moon by Simaudio amps & preamps

My system 
  • McIntosh C2600 preamp and MC 302 stereo amplifier (replaced NAD C375BEE integrated amp)
  • Rega P8 Turntable
  • Moon by Simaudio 280D DAC (replaced Node 2i)
  • Sonus faber Olympica Nova V (replaced Sonus faber Venere 3.0)
I listen to music a little loader than most - and I want more volume.

I enjoy the sound I have and recognize each system can sound different.  I've been impressed with Moon for the value and the cost.

My initial view point was explore upgrading to the MC 462 and also listen to the Moon 330A - with the intent of determining if buying Moon 400M (monoblock version of the 330A) would be an alternative to the MC 462.  

Anyone have experience with Moon amps and preamps?  

I was impressed with the Moon 330A straight up against the MC 462 
  • I liked the improved details with delicate sounds in the mids and highs of the Moon.
  • My concern is the potential for harshness from the Moon
I'm open to suggestions, my budget is ~$10k.  The value of the replaced equipment is not to be added to the budget - any value from a trade-in or sale after the fact gets will be reallocated elsewhere.

Thanks for your thoughts and consideration.

mrklas
arafiq's avatar
arafiq
1,652 posts
 
Although I didn’t own the Nova V, I had the pleasure of owning Olympica 3s last year. I agree with ghdprentice that they are a superb match with ARC. Another contender is Luxman 590AXII. It has the sweet class A sound but enough juice to drive the hell out of those woofers. 
ghdprentice
6,844 posts
 
Perhaps I should explain my use if the word harsh in conjunction with the Moon. I chose the wrong word… I just should have said analytical / details highlighted. It was not fatiguing at all. Fatigue is caused by copious quantities of distortion and noise. I am talking about very high end gear here… so the degree is small. The sound was very detailed but a touch analytical in the upper reaches, with good space in the soundstage between images. The overall impression of each sound is natural, but less so on the edges and particularly to me when taken together. I found the treble to not be as pure and sweet as the real thing and definitely a bit forward. This to me is a bit hard (better word than harsh)… I am very sensitive to this. The leanness in the midrange did not help offset this. This was complemented by a similar leanness in the Pass. But these are the things that can be seen as small but add up to the overall gestalt of a system.

So while the differences in details can be small the overall result can be large and easily discernible. I can tell a Mac system within a few seconds… lack of detail, good midrange and a preponderance of bass. An Audio Research system, highly detailed, well defined and articulated bass, rich midrange boom… details not glaring. By process of elimination (if I knew there were these three systems as a possibility) I could within 30 seconds determine which was the Sim system… highly detailed, balanced across the spectrum, natural sounding, quiet background, but with details highlighted a bit. The Sim would be a bit harder to pick out as it sounds a bit like a number of good high end solid state manufacturers. 

All of these companies produce outstanding products. Each with there own character. The important thing is to match your own tastes to the appropriate company.
mrklas OP
441 posts
 
@ghdprentice Very helpful comments - thank you.

@arafiq I appreciate your suggestion.
More to discover