2. amps-preamps
  3. 1235710915

Considering new amp - Mccormack

I've got the itch to upgrade my amps.

Currently I'm horizontally biamping with two modified Adcom GFA 555 II.

Rest of system as follows

B&W 803 Matrix SII - Recently refurbished
Sonic Frontiers SF1 Preamp
Music Fidelity A3 24 Dac
PS Audio P1000 power conditioner

Favorite Bands are:

Radiohead
Bon Iver
Fleet Foxes
Massive Attack

What I don't like about system: Raspy... especially with radiohead vocals.. The B&W combo with adcom and vocals of peter york are Harsh.

I'm considering the Mccormack amps, anything from the DNA .5's modified to mono's or DNA 2 or DNA 500?? Currently there is a DNA 2 Limited edition on Audiogon for about the same amount as the DNA 500.

My max budget is around $3k, but less would be nice, maybe I could get away with a single DNA .5 or DNA 125?

Any advice would be much appreciated.
koryodell
brownsfan
1,508 posts
 
I've had two Adcoms, the 535 and the 5500. I've also had two McCormack's, the DNA 0.5 and 1.0 monoblocks. The McCormacks are head and shoulders above the Adcoms in every way. I had severe listener fatigue problems with the Adcoms, which improved when I bought the fist McCormacks.
There is no doubt that will get you closer to where you want to be. Also, don't underestimate the 0.5's ability to drive demanding speakers. It did much bettery with my maggies (1.6QR's) than the 200 WPC Adcom did. Also, most of the unmodified amps have 100 kOhm input impedance, so any pre will drive them. I'd say go for it then see where you are.
soix
8,995 posts
 
Brownsfan makes a good point -- it might be the modded McCormacks that have a lower impedance input.
bikerduud
75 posts
 
I recall from past experience enjoying the sound that the McCormack amp made driving a pair of 801 series II. Definitely less harsh than the Adcom. The 801's are very similar to your 803's in terms of its sonic signature. The 801's are known to be very picky about which amp to use. The Adcom GFA 555 II amps are very powerful but don't have the refinement and resolution that the B&W's demand.
unsound
7,318 posts
 
I'm a big fan of the McCormacks. Not such a big fan of the B&W's. As good as the McCormack amps are, I can't help but think that there might be different, more compatible amp choices out there.
amadeus
8 posts
 
I once owned the Matrix 803s and drove them with the DNA .5 and it had more than enough to drive the speakers. I actually think the DNA .5 is a better sounding amp than the DNA 1 and much better than the DNA 2(standard edition). I think the treble of the DNA series is a little bright and hard. They have great dynamics and drive though. The 803s are a dry sounding speaker. I think they mate well with the old Aragon 4004 Mk2 which has a better midrange and a more liquid treble than the DNAs but not quite as much drive. The Adcom amps are inferior to both the DNAs and Aragon with cramped soundstaging and a very non-liquid presentation. They do have fine dynamics though.
More to discover