Looking for an opinion from Parasound owners who have had HCA-1000A and Halo A23

adb3da

I am curious to hear from people who have owned both the 1000A and the A23. Is there much sonic difference? I was planning on picking up an A23 but pulled the trigger on a 1000A on a craigslist whim. Wondering if I am really missing out on anything.

Thanks!

disneyjoe7

I thinking A23 Halo would win, the Halo amps are really built sweet.

pearsall001

adb3da@yahoo.co wrote: »

I am curious to hear from people who have owned both the 1000A and the A23. Is there much sonic difference? I was planning on picking up an A23 but pulled the trigger on a 1000A on a craigslist whim. Wondering if I am really missing out on anything.

Thanks!

Doubtful there will be any audable difference...go with the best deal.

dkg999

I haven't owned a Halo series amp yet, however I have been a long term owner of a HCA1000. I'm sure in a very intense comparison the Halo would be a better amp, at least everyone who bought one and Parasound hopes that is true! The 1000 is very neutral and needs to be paired with a lively pre in a music system. Mine drives my two LSIC center channel speakers in my HT and sounds very nice in that role.

adb3da

dkg999 wrote: »

I haven't owned a Halo series amp yet, however I have been a long term owner of a HCA1000. I'm sure in a very intense comparison the Halo would be a better amp, at least everyone who bought one and Parasound hopes that is true! The 1000 is very neutral and needs to be paired with a lively pre in a music system. Mine drives my two LSIC center channel speakers in my HT and sounds very nice in that role.

I notice in your sig that you also have a 1500. Do you think there is a big step up with the 1500?

nooshinjohn

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

I thinking A23 Halo would win, the Halo amps are really built sweet.

Agreed... the Halo amps are very, very good

adb3da

I was poking around on diyaudio.com and found a post by John Curl himself discussing the HCA-1000 and the Halo amps. Here is the quote and below is a link to the thread. It doesn't directly comment as to the difference between the HCA-1000A and the A23, but reading between the lines, it doesn't seem like there are many changes.

I don't appreciate 'second guessing' my designs. The HCA 1000 is my least expensive design and is quite a bargain, if I say so myself. It is made for home theater use, primarily, and is marginal for quality audio. I use one for home theater reproduction, also powering a subwoofer and A-B rear channels. It does an adequate job, but just barely.
Serious listeners should get the A21 or the JC-1 monoblocks. That is where I put my best effort.
The A23 uses my design, but not my direct input. 2 means 2 ch, 3 means cheaper.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/116329-parasound-hca-1000-upgrade.html

dkg999

The 1500 is a significant step up in sound quality from the 1000.

Lietuvis91

I have had quiet an interesting learning experience with these two amps.

When I compared the 1000a and 1500a using M70s as a test bed, the 1500a come out on top without a doubt. I absolutely LOVE what this amp does for my M70s and I think those two are an excellent sonic match.

but...

This wasn't the case with my lsi9s. With lsis, the 1000a brings the upper frequencies forward, while the 1500a tends to blend them into the backround, making it seem like the upper frequency detail was coming from somewhere deeper in the box (the speaker). The lsi is already a rather relaxed, laid back speaker and the 1500a has a mellower, deeper and a darker tone than the 1000a. I just felt that the synergy was overall better with 1000a and lsis.

Go figure... now I have a NAD amp running my lsi setup and this so far has been the best match yet.

adb3da

Lietuvis91 wrote: »

I have had quiet an interesting learning experience with these two amps.

When I compared the 1000a and 1500a using M70s as a test bed, the 1500a come out on top without a doubt. I absolutely LOVE what this amp does for my M70s and I think those two are an excellent sonic match.

but...

This wasn't the case with my lsi9s. With lsis, the 1000a brings the upper frequencies forward, while the 1500a tends to blend them into the backround, making it seem like the upper frequency detail was coming from somewhere deeper in the box (the speaker). The lsi is already a rather relaxed, laid back speaker and the 1500a has a mellower, deeper and a darker tone than the 1000a. I just felt that the synergy was overall better with 1000a and lsis.

Go figure... now I have a NAD amp running my lsi setup and this so far has been the best match yet.

That's interesting. Did you compare the amps with the speakers in the same room?

Lietuvis91

Yes, same room, same speakers, same speaker position, same pre-amp, a true back to back A-to-B test.

A very seasoned hi-fi store owner in town tells me that my Marantz has a relatively "dark" image pesentation, so if that is true, that may have some influence on what I'm hearing. It's likely that if you pair a yamaha pre-amp with the 1500a and lsis, you might get a different result. I've just never tried a different pre-amp (the vsx-52 in my sig is still unopened in the box).

Comparing the 1000a & 1500a showed me that the amp has an influence on detail presentation and I began to look for an amp that would bring the detail forward. This is how I ended up with the NAD and couldn't be happier, as this amp did exactly what I had hoped.

In a way, it's really cool to see John Curl's post where he says that he designed the 1000a for HT. It sort of confirms that what I heard wasn't an anomaly.

steveinaz

I think the halo series is mostly a cosmetic upgrade. Specs seem to be very close, as does design when compared to the HCA series.

The 1500a differs from the 1000a in that it uses a JFET front end; thereby improving sound quality. Add to that the 60 ampere/ch current capability of the HCA-1500A.

I think you'd have to spend a SIGNIFICANT amount of money to out-class either the Halo or HCA series of amps. I have had a Cary $3500 amp in my setup, and while it was an improvement, it was subtle--and not (IMO) worthy of the extra expense.