Don’t buy used McCormack DNA 1990s amps

I suspect this is heading way deep into proprietary business issues.  Since C-J acquired McCormack, it would seem that any notifications about the equipment would be the responsibility of C-J and likewise any sharing of equipment schematics would be their prerogative.  

My (perhaps ill-advised) comment earlier in this thread saying "unless the amps are blowing up and houses are burning down" was clearly intended as tongue-in-cheek to illustrate that IMO the OP was a little over the top in his message.  Hopefully, that did not prompt anyone to believe there was an actual safety issue with the input boards.  SMc worked on a DNA-2 LAE that I owned and at no time did I hear anything about a safety issue.  In the case of my DNA-2, I had a full upgrade performed so the failed input board was replaced as part of a larger project.  The decision to spend the money to replace only the input board without further upgrades would obviously vary from owner to owner.

If anyone has service questions, they could visit the McCormack Audio website, where they can find the following message:

McCormack Audio has suspended production of all McCormack brand products and has no remaining inventory.
Service for McCormack products, including model and capacitor upgrades continues to be offered through our sister company, conrad-johnson design, inc.
For more information on service and upgrades of McCormack products, please contact us by email at service@mccormackaudio.com, or by phone at 703-698-8581 

After 25 - 30 years, ANY amp can fail, go out of spec, or just not perform as well as new. The pricing people are asking on equipment this old is ridiculous, but as always, buyer beware. HNY. My best, MrD. 

@mrdecibel Completely agree with you on all points.  But, the difference here is there is one specific part that has already shown itself very prone to failure for a very specific design reason and, unlike many other older amps and makes it more than likely for the fail and not easily or cheaply repaired because of it.  Again, my purpose here was to alert people who may be considering these 1990s amps, that come up for sale quite often, to at least be aware that they’ve got this very fragile and weak link that has, in fact, been failing because this specific part just doesn’t last much more than 20 years.  Granted with amps of this age it’s totally buyer beware, but I thought it helpful given this specific situation and failing part that people might at least like to know this going in.  Wouldn’t you?  Given what I know (and have experienced personally) I certainly would not buy one of these amps unless my plan was to get it upgraded, because there are plenty of other great used amps out there that do not have this specific degrading part and that, even if they do have an issue, can be repaired much easier and cheaper.  But that’s me. 

Soix, I have no problem with your post, as I understand and am behind you ! 

@mitch2

I suspect this is heading way deep into proprietary business issues. Since C-J acquired McCormack, it would seem that any notifications about the equipment would be the responsibility of C-J and likewise any sharing of equipment schematics would be their prerogative.

You would expect that this was the case but there is a thread on Audioasylum with a 2009 date on it where Steve Mc. himself responded on a thread telling a user that PDF schematics were available and he normally responds immediately to email requests for them. That date was about 10yrs after CJ bought the rights to the DNA amps, so if a legal limitation was in effect then the last thing he would be doing is posting and publicly offering schematics to the amps on audio forums. There are also other threads on alternate forums with later dates where people supposedly emailed him and received the schematics. Suddenly in the last few years this openness is no longer the case. I should add that I did ultimately find the schematics by contacting users on DIYAUDIO, but it shouldn’t have to come to that for a 30yr old electronics design. They should be public info after a certain period of time.

My suggestion of safety was not due to your prior statement. I understood your intent. I was just covering the "safety" aspect in case that was the motivational factor for SMc.