Bel Canto Ref1000 MkII or Accuphase A-20

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.

The original BC ref1000 does seem to me to be essentially a stock Ice module in a nice box.

The ref1000mkii does have value added design enhancements regarding power supply and input section as mentioned.

I think prices on teh used market for these and other ICEPower based modules are starting to reflect the actual relative value of the different designs. Ref1000s can be had for much less than ref1000mkii's, for example.

Wryed 4 Sound is the company that seems to be blazing the trails in terms of overall value with their IcePower designs.

The newer BC amps are one of several that seem to be on the bleeding edge of what can be weaned out of Icepower sound wise and their higher pricing is in accordance with that.

I decided to take the best plunge I could with my initial foray into Class D/icepower (albeit used, not new) and have been most satisfied with the results.

I know there are many fine and more expensive amps than the newer Bel Cantos out there, some I have heard, some not, but at this time I would say I would be hard pressed to invest more in a power amp in the interest of better sound.

Then again I tend to look at things as either meeting my expectations or not. There is little value for me in the time and energy and expense involved in trying to continuously push the limit. Maybe someday when I retire....

Op, in your case, with Totem speakers, I suspect the mkii should be an improvement from what I read, but can't say for certain having never heard the original ref1000.

I would speculate that the Accuphase would take your sound in a more pronounced different direction, for better or for worse. Totem's I have heard all seem to like gobs of power and current. Based purely on specs, the BCs would seem to have a significant edge over the Accuphase in that regard, but the only way to know for sure would be to listen and compare. I would expect significantly different results from these two significantly different amps.

The Totem web site lists 50-200 w/ch (into 8 ohms, their nominal rating I assume) as the power recommendation.

The Accuphase is only 20 w/ch in to 8 OHM, from what I see. Though I am certain they are sweet ones, the Accuphase would appear to underpowered for the Totems.

And that is based on the the published specs. Smaller Totems I have heard, like Arros even, seem to thrive on way more power and current than advertised as recommended. That is not unusual. I believe many speaker makers publish power specs that will satisfy a larger % of the general public, but the power needs of demanding audiophiles to get the dynamics and performance they are looking for tend to be way higher than most vendors would be willing to publicize.