Bel Canto Ref1000 MkII or Accuphase A-20

Wow thanks for the informative reply. What I am really curious about is should I upgrade to mark 2 or try something like a basic accuphase amp like the a20. I really like the mark 1 but I don't know if the mark 2 will make a huge difference in my current setup. Thanks again for the respond.

Metronet, I have heard Mk.1 and 2 side by side. Mk.2 is more extended and transparent with a little more harmonic development. Mk.2 has a little cleaner treble and is a little more linear in bass. Mk.2 has also higher input impedance, so it is compatible with more preamplifiers than Mk.1. Some people prefer Mk1, because it's a little warmer, but mostly because. . . in some quarters the older the version or product, the more valuable it is considered. . . it's that nostalgia thingie all over again.

Guido,

Saying some people preferring the Ref 1000 mk1 over mk2 because of some nostalgic factor is kind of stretching it. If you are talking Leak, Quad II,Mcintosh 275, etc i can understand. It's just a reboxed ice modules with a nice case and better binding post and a choke. Mk2 is just a catch up exercise for a hefty premium in the face of presence of other ice module product with more work done.

The MkII (now called REF1000M) definitely takes things further than the original REF1000. The addition of a custom input stage board and another board with a custom power stage make the REF1000M a different beast and hence the higher price. So, I don't think anyone can say it is just an amp with reboxed ice modules.

The following video is a little old, but it explains a lot of things. John Stronczer has the S-500 (now called the REF500S stereo amplifier) cracked open and explains the input stage and then also explains the extra power stage board which is added to the REF500M monoblocks and REF1000M monoblocks.

http://uk.cinenow.com/videos/1861-bel-canto-s-500-stereo-power-amplifier-top-audio-milan-2008

Jaspert, thank you for expressing your opinion.

I have spent some time investigating design differences between the 2 versions, by pouring over published materials, talking with Jonathan Scull, and talking with John stronczer who designed both units. As mentioned above, My reasonably detailed description of the design changes is found in 2 paragraphs of my review article for PFO, which you can link to from my previous post. The technical component of the article was verified for accuracy by BC. Of course, the design changes would not be material, if not for the fact that there are easily perceivable/audible differences between the 2 versions. I personally easily prefer the sound of MK.2. . . but that is utterly immaterial.

G.