• HifiVoice
• Audio
  • Milestones
  • Classic 25
    • Original
      • Description
      • Schematics
      • Backgrounds
      • Building
      • Measurements
      • Observations
    • Modifications 1
    • Modifications 2
    • Links
  • iPod
  • DIY DAC

Observations

Magazines

Hifi Choice (January 1994):
• Warm, but very open midband.
• Good showing on the dynamics front.
• Good sense of timing.
• A little veiled.
• Concluding remark: Not an amp for the mind, but an amp for the soul.

Audio and Techniek no. 39:
• Definition of instruments and voices, especially in the midrange, is a strong point of this amplifier.
• Problems with difficult loads.

Hifi News and Record Review July 1996:
• Problems with louder and complex passages.
• Slightly muffled boxiness around viola pitch.
• "Reveals things of the voice that wants me to play more."

Hifi Video Test, May 1995:
• Dynamic.
• Sound is 'soft as silk'.
• Very precise treble and mid. Powerfull low.
• Balance between low, mid and high also maintained at low volume levels.
• Good stereo image.

My own observations

Something which is obvious, and mentioned by the magazines as well, is a very good midrange. Reproduction of vocals is supreme. The mids integrate with treble and bass very well. I would summarize it with very coherent sound characteristics, which excells with acoustical music. The amp has "fun" performing music. It has a good live-performance, a good drive. The stereo image is very good as well, broad and deep.

The original amp also has some draw-back. The otherwise excellent seperation between sound sources is less obvious during loud passages. Treble is a bit on the shrill side (which is mainly caused by the National tubes supplied). Bass performance is OK, but less controlled than with my solid-state Marantz PM-54 amplifier. Electrical (harsh!) music sounds too relaxed with this amp, it misses punch. But there is a trade-off, because music which sounds humming or bumpy otherwise, is less stressful.

I've compared this amp with an Audio Innovations 500. It is on the same quality level. The 500 sounds a bit more "romantic" or "fluid", the Classic is more towads the analytical side. It depends a bit on your taste, mood, or the type of music which sound you'll prefer. Personally, I prefer the 500 a bit more, but I've also heard people telling the other way around.

My conclusion is that this amp has a very good price/performance ratio. I've hardly heard competitive amps at price ranges which are even twice as much. I think it's therefore a pity that this amp isn't fabricated anymore.

next->