McCormack SMC Audio upgrades: how good are they?


Does anyone know, or can tell me, how good the McCormack stuff sounds when upgraded by SMC audio? I was trying to determine whether to keep my DNA-125 Gold revision, or to go to a higher-end SS or tube amp. Budget would be $3k for an amp, or $4k for an integrated, both used. Has anyone had or heard a DNA-125 or 225 Gold and compared it to other amps? The stock amps sound a lot worse than the Gold revision (it costs $1700 for the upgrades), and I have never seen one used on here, which probably tells me something right there. Still.....

I can't listen to any high-end pieces around here, and have the upgrade bug again, but it may be unjustified at this point. Are there better units available at that price? Preamp TBD as well, but looking to spend $2k. Currently using a Dehavilland in my system. The problem with audio is that it seems that there is always something a little better lurking around the corner....
chiho
Chiho, the upgrades offered by Smc Audio are superb. I think your in a position that alot of audiophiles envy owning a DNA 125 Gold revision.

You might find an ss amp that has a fancier more bullet proof chassis but it will be near impossible to beat the sound quality offered by your DNA 125 with revision. With the upgraded 125 you have already laid a solid foundation to your system, why not like Swampwalker mentioned experiment with different preamps. They can definately make or break a system and will make a dramatic difference.

Also rather than look to replace the 125 & make a regretful decision, why not buy an extra tube amp to insert on occasions for just a different perspective. There is nothing wrong with having two different amps on hand to keep the upgrade bug at bay. Most of all enjoy the music!
Thanks for the responses. I had considered a nice tube amp to "change up" the sound. Something like a set of Manley snappers or Music Reference RM-200's: nice yet affordable.

Speakers are Tyler Linbrook full-range. My preamp is a C-J PV5, although I currently have borrowed an Ultraverve, which was a step in the right direction.

Any preamp ideas? I posted on this a month ago, assuming I needed a SS preamp to mate with the McCormack, but perhaps a tube pre will work. The Dehavilland and C-J are quiet, others I have tried had audible tube hiss. I also have thought about an SMC upgraded RLD-1, but was a little hesitant without first having heard one. SS preamps I have tried in the past have either sounded overly smooth (Classe) or a bit thin (Coda).
Just a couple of additional comments if I may... A previous post alluded to the need for a solid-state preamp if you went with the further Platinum upgrade, and this is not strictly accurate. Your current DNA-125 Gold has a high input impedance (100KOhms) which makes it suitable for use with any type of preamp. The Platinum upgrade normally includes the addition of balanced inputs, and the method I use for this reduces the input impedance to 10KOhms (also true for the monoblock versions). This means that whatever preamp you choose should have an output (source) impedance of 1000 Ohms or less, and this leaves out a few tube and resistor-based passive designs. Most preamps can drive a 10K load with no problem, but you do have to pay attention to impedance matching when making a choice.

On the other hand, all of our work is effectively custom, and you are not required to add the balanced-input option if you don't want it. For your DNA-125, the real step-up is to the Plitron power transformer which more than doubles the amp's current capability. Then there are a variety of capacitor, resistor, and wire upgrades that lift performance considerably further.

Food for thought...

Steve McCormack
SMc Audio
Steve,
on a side issue, how would you characterize the improvement in sound due to the input transformer in the case of the DNA125/0.5/etc. (other things being equal)?
thanks
Luigi
Hi Luigi -

I now use Lundahl amorphous-core transformers in my amp upgrades (and in my VRE-1 preamp). I started with Jensen transformers, but switched a few years ago when I found the Lundahls offered better transparency. I originally used input transformers to provide a balanced option, but I then found that I preferred the sound of my amps with them, regardless of which input (balanced or unbalanced) I was using. First of all they provide complete immunity from DC and RFI, and well-designed units have outstanding common-mode noise rejection (CMRR). This allowed me to simplify my amp's input stage, and the net result was sound that I hear as cleaner, clearer, smoother, and more "pure" if you will excuse the expression. And keep in mind that my design handles both balanced and unbalanced signals via the same path (the only difference being the input jacks) so you get the benefit of the transformer either way. Of course this only works well with great transformers, but that is the only kind I use ;-)

In short, I feel the input transformers are a sonic benefit even if you use only the unbalanced inputs. The only downside is the relatively low 10KOhm input impedance, but this is an issue with only a small number of preamps.

Best regards,

Steve McCormack
SMc Audio