Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
71.67.188.239
In Reply to: RE: New high power amp. Let the stoning begin :) posted by RickeyM on September 11, 2016 at 07:26:15
Since you had a DNA 0.5 which is quite refined while playing within its capacity, how did the BGW compare on the fine points in the mids and treble? That is where pro audio amps are usually thin and lose harmonic content or sound rough and grainy. There are plenty of good sounding pro amps that you can use at home.
All for having good solid power on a maggie well beyond the calculated requirement.
Follow Ups:
The McCormack had a bit more detail than the BGW. A bit more of that top end "airiness" if you will. The BGW gives you some of that air around instruments but the McCormack has the edge there. The amp that immediately preceded the BGW is a Yamaha MX-830 and the BGW bests that in SQ as well as having a couple hundred watts per channel more to boot.
Now I have to mention that the IC's in use now are different than I used with the DNA so that might account for the difference. I going to swap the previous IC's back in and do some more listening.
If I haven't said it before, I'll say it now. The BGW is very "neutral" sounding. Very balanced sounding from top to bottom. No unpleasantness in the mids or treble at all.
Though it is often an area where ICs can have an influence, amps differ there more substantially than audiophile ICs do.
Thanks for the description, I am just not particularly familiar with the BGW line but auditioned the McCormack line in its heyday. I thought the DNAs were far better on top than top linear Crowns and Brystons, not to speak of Peavey and a few other discount brands that sounded just plain awful. Those were thin and harmonically threadbare.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: