Garfish, I must admit to not being familiar to the changes associated with Steve McCormack's various revisions of the original DNA series. I know that many people sing their praises. Don't get me wrong about the DNA .5/1 Deluxe or non-Deluxe. When I first heard them, I almost bought one. When you take into account price, they are a super buy. They have great bass slam which the Aleph doesn't have, very good midrange and overall very good dynamics. But to my ears they are a little rolled off in the high end when compared with an Aleph. The Aleph 4's also provide better detail, soundstaging, and excellent bass extension, if not great slam IMO. The Aleph doesn't have outstanding dynamics and is a little "suppressed" in the upper midrange. I guess I would give all these characteristics different weights than you, Craig, but I would come out with the Aleph way ahead of either the DNA .5 or 1, Deluxe or non-Deluxe. Again, I have no experience with any of the revisions by SMcAudio. Then you are comparing an amp around $2000 vs $7000 (retail prices). It ought not to be a fair comparison. Still say that the Vandersteen 3 series (particularly the 3 and 3A non-Signature) were some of the most dynamic speakers I have ever heard. They have plenty of get-up-and-go regardless of the amplifier used. You could mate them with a less dynamic amplifier. The 3A Signature, having a little bit more high end detail than the 3a(although still forgiving) could be even a better match than a 3A with the Aleph 2,4 or 1.2, given that these amps are all a little laid back in the upper mids. Kevziek: Hmmm. It is possible that I just got a bad audition of the DNA-125, but I found it to be a little lifeless. Don't remember the other electronics but the speakers where Alon 5's. Amp seemed to have a lot less slam than the earlier DNA's, but I must admit I found the Alon 5 to sound a little weird on its own. No amp that we tried seemed to straighten out the sound. So, maybe that was the fundamental problem.
