"Musmys" E-406 clone amp, a HiFi newbie's review =)

[OldHvyMec]

you're supporting piracy by not doing so. eff the ripoff.

It's not piracy if the patents have long since expired. All of the Musmys and dartZeel schematics can be found legally in the public domain. The dartZEEL 108 never had patents; it was developed in and around labs in a few different colleges. That design was actually a project.

I'm a Mcintosh, Accuphase, Cary, and Herron user and vintage collector. Even Mcintosh's idea of Unity Gain is public domain now. There was only one guy in the US who used to rewind their MC225, 240, and 275 transformers. Now he is even gone.

Power amplifiers are not Saturn 5 rocket's. Look at Adcom; they used Nelson Pass designs with and without his blessing. He even joined in a few times with the 5500 and 5800. Excellent amps, BTW. I still have a pallet or two of them. Great amps, except for the 565s. I don't know who designed them.

Musmys is really a diamond, and it's not in the rough. I have a pair of A75s that can be bridged and are rated at 2ohm stable minimum.
I have Krell, Accuphase and Pass amps on hand; the A75 runs cooler and is every bit as easy to look at. It took all of 30 minutes to roll the Class A up a bit. Without a bunch of testing, they are putting out an honest 60 watts. AB close to 600 watts.

They truly make my small LS planar/ribbon speakers sing without the slight roll-off that ALL my Class Ds have. They have zero floor noise too. I'm amazed at the cost/quality, and they run just as cool as any of the 9 NC500oem I use with an MX121 from time to time.

2 bridged A75s have made a lot of difference in the RMx Elixirs and push a pair of Kappa 9s with ease. That is saying something. The Kappa 9s can suck a power pole dry...

Regards

 

[Talisman]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Clones are in poor taste. They exploit the "I want to, but I can't" feeling and appropriate intellectual property and a design that isn't theirs to make money.
There are so many good original products even if they "don't look like an Accuphase"...

 

[TonyJZX]

i'm in two minds about this

if the e406 real one is out of production then why does it matter?

to me this are the same as a GT40 or Lotus 7 or Shelby Cobra replica

 

[101geo]

i'm in two minds about this

if the e406 real one is out of production then why does it matter?

to me this are the same as a GT40 or Lotus 7 or Shelby Cobra replica

I'm not, old designs reborn can be a joy. Many years ago I decided to fulfil my boyhood dream and buy an AC Cobra. I drove a couple and they were terrible and dangerous so I built one with modern underpinnings and it was a joy to drive, taking me to Le Mans twice with ease.

 

[Mart68]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Clones are in poor taste. They exploit the "I want to, but I can't" feeling and appropriate intellectual property and a design that isn't theirs to make money.
There are so many good original products even if they "don't look like an Accuphase"...

They're not 'clones' and no copyright, patent or intellectual property is being infringed. How many times does that have to be said?

They look reminiscent of Accuphase. That's it.

 

[lokkerman]

@pablolie It's not piracy, the circuits are not the originals and are off-the-shelf, public domain models. Besides a lot are lifted from Douglas Self books. The cases are homage and nor branded as the originals. Piracy is created by big companies making huge profits - Soccer Shirts spring to mind Cost a dollar to make and sold at $200. No wonder there is a massive black market. In the UK B & W speakers are made in China, not in Worthing; iPhones are made in China. All for greater profit. If someone can make a product that is a durable as the original and sounds just as good but is one nth of the cost, that is well within the rules of capitalism.

As I noted earlier - these are not clones.

Clones are the Ford Explorer, the Mirror image of a Range Rover [the design being transferred whilst Ford briefly owned them], along with the Jaecoo 5, the Chinese equivalent.

 

[Talisman]

They look reminiscent of Accuphase. That's it.

How sad, and sad also for those who buy it, with so many excellent original products it's really a poor thing to have a clone of something very expensive
In Italy, Peugeot had released an incredibly apt commercial. A poor Indian boy who absolutely wanted to use a 206 took an old local car and started working on it until he got "his" 206.
This is how I see people who buy a clone of a well-known high-end product.

 

[Mart68]

How sad, and sad also for those who buy it, with so many excellent original products it's really a poor thing to have a clone of something very expensive
In Italy, Peugeot had released an incredibly apt commercial. A poor Indian boy who absolutely wanted to use a 206 took an old local car and started working on it until he got "his" 206.
This is how I see people who buy a clone of a well-known high-end product.

For them to be 'clones' they must be exact copies and they are some way distant from that in appearance and I suspect in the circuit too.

I take your point about the 'sadness' aspect. If I went into someone's room and they had Musmy then I'd probably think 'Accuphase!' then be disappointed when I got closer and realised they were not Accuphase.

But then I am sure you could take Sony, Kenwood, Hitachi, Philips (et al) kit and just swap the badges round and no-one would be any the wiser unless they were truly obsessive about those brands. 'Looking similar to something else' isn't really that unusual for hi-fi equipment.

 

[lokkerman]

TBF, I bought my E-406, not because it looks vaguely Accuphase [the VU meters are just so passe] but because of the specs. As I have built many amps over the years, I think I know what am looking for - to create a good sound - and I could not buy a truck full of components and then build it for this price, let alone assemble it too.

 

[TonyJZX]

for me i dont care to protect the ''honor" of accuphase or whatever high end audio company, i dont own them, i'm not their PR or legals so i dont care if other companies 'steal' their look

however saying that i would say that they should have their own look if their internal designs are so good

 

[fpitas]

Based on this thread, it seems like you'll need a link to one provided with a real-time update service .

Yes, it's confusing. Not sure I'd even call it a clone so much as a "looks-kinda-like-it". But it does seem worth the price if you like to tinker.

 

[Chr1]

Jeez. If you think it's "sad"...don't buy one.

But no need to slate those that do.
I actually really like the idea of good amp designs being made to a good standard, for a cheap price. Let's face it, this is what Topping et al do. The fact that someone else designed the circuitry to me, doesn't matter a f***. Why should it?
If there is no copyright infringement, all is good.

The fact that it is a proven design is a bonus surely? I look forward to when today's more powerful SOTA Class D designs are in the public domain too.

I don't understand why people get upset when the only thing being "cloned" is possibly the styling/appearance of an Accuphase.

Would love to see some measurements tho.
No harm, no foul.

 

[TonyJZX]

i dont really care if they do a straight copy of the original simply because i think that if the piece is truly the legend it is and now out of production and in the hands of collectors then i think a straight replica gives new audiences an impression of the 'real thing'

isnt that better than being a completely dead design?

eg. if someone does a straight copy of the NAD 3020 then it kinda lives on?

 

[zenon]

I have tried to contact MUSMYS, as I would like to know why there are at least two variants, WWWK. Perhaps there are more?

I want to see whether they use a servo or just a capacitor in the feedback loop to maintain zero output.
Also, it would be good to know what kind of circuit they use, so I can decide whether to buy it and/or potentially make any modifications. That said, the mechanical construction is certainly excellent—there’s no doubt about that.

 

[lokkerman]

I want to see whether they use a servo or just a capacitor in the feedback loop to maintain zero output.
Also, it would be good to know what kind of circuit they use, so I can decide whether to buy it and/or potentially make any modifications. That said, the mechanical construction is certainly excellent—there’s no doubt about that.

I will open mine up again shortly, IIRC I could not see an op-amp in the circuit (on the PWA) when i last looked [although my running up tests, showed both channels going to 7mv DC before settling to 2/3mv, suggesting no servo] - I really don't like the idea of a servo amp as they are a single point of failure for the entire package. They were all the rage in the late'70's but I had a fatal with my old Sansui A80 {incidentally, an Accuphase look-alike} when the servo amp oscillated and took out the driver stage of one channel of a wonderfully rare pair of Keswick Audio speakers in milliseconds. The mid-bass driver was irreplaceable.

 

[mhardy6647]

Would love to see some measurements tho.

That'd be good.

Frankly, though, I am not sure why these are viewed as good designs. They might be, but... They are clearly & emphatically not "clones of good designs" in any meaningful way.

They contain a festoon of impressive-looking parts with impressive looking manufacturers' labels -- but are those labels also clones (EDIT or perhaps genuine OEM components but floor sweepings that fail to meet their release specifications) and/or are the actual circuits robust and, indeed, as @Chr1 asks by inference, capable of delivering what they promise quantitatively? We read flowery assessments of how they sound.
Is there good reason to expect that, e.g., the two most recent variants of "clone" (subclones, I guess, as my discipline might say) interchangeable in terms of their measured performance?

I am deeply skeptical.

And, for me, the biggest question -- how long with they hold up? If, e.g., they cost 1/10th of an Accuphase (or darTZeel) but last 1/20th as long (in terms of not just functioning but performing at their initial specification) they are not such a great deal.

But, with equal frankness, if folks want to buy them, that's their decision.

 

[fpitas]

I am deeply skeptical.

Agreed.

 

[MAB]

That'd be good.

Frankly, though, I am not sure why these are viewed as good designs. They might be, but... They are clearly & emphatically not "clones of good designs" in any meaningful way.

They contain a festoon of impressive-looking parts with impressive looking manufacturers' labels -- but are those labels also clones (EDIT or perhaps genuine OEM components but floor sweepings that fail to meet their release specifications) and/or are the actual circuits robust and, indeed, as @Chr1 asks by inference, capable of delivering what they promise quantitatively? We read flowery assessments of how they sound.
Is there good reason to expect that, e.g., the two most recent variants of "clone" (subclones, I guess, as my discipline might say) interchangeable in terms of their measured performance?

I am deeply skeptical.

Yes. They look fancy, there is no evidence of good performance. I would like to see the evidence.

And, for me, the biggest question -- how long with they hold up? If, e.g., they cost 1/10th of an Accuphase (or darTZeel) but last 1/20th as long (in terms of not just functioning but performing at their initial specification) they are not such a great deal.

But, with equal frankness, if folks want to buy them, that's their decision.

Great post.

Erin just reviewed a McIntosh amp clone.
After seeing the performance, hard to say it’s a bargain. If it isn’t reliable then it’s not worth anything.

It would be nice to get measurements. Otherwise no way to say this is a good design.

 

[lokkerman]

That'd be good.

Frankly, though, I am not sure why these are viewed as good designs. They might be, but... They are clearly & emphatically not "clones of good designs" in any meaningful way.

They contain a festoon of impressive-looking parts with impressive looking manufacturers' labels -- but are those labels also clones (EDIT or perhaps genuine OEM components but floor sweepings that fail to meet their release specifications) and/or are the actual circuits robust and, indeed, as @Chr1 asks by inference, capable of delivering what they promise quantitatively? We read flowery assessments of how they sound.
Is there good reason to expect that, e.g., the two most recent variants of "clone" (subclones, I guess, as my discipline might say) interchangeable in terms of their measured performance?

I am deeply skeptical.

And, for me, the biggest question -- how long with they hold up? If, e.g., they cost 1/10th of an Accuphase (or darTZeel) but last 1/20th as long (in terms of not just functioning but performing at their initial specification) they are not such a great deal.

But, with equal frankness, if folks want to buy them, that's their decision.

You have obviously not read the latter parts of the thread; I bought one to refurbish an amplifier I built in 1982, [that's reliability, it never failed] I don't know your age but it was 44 years ago when I built it. The parts I buy from Mouser or whoever are the same makes almost as 40 years ago. Who the hell clones Nichicon? - when they are made in China? Have you tried to buy second grade components? They are scrapped at manufacture. Your car parts are made in China, your laptop is, your phone is, your TV is, your router is and maybe your car is. Most of your consumer Sh1t is. FACT. Please open your eyes to the fact that US/European/UK stuff sold out years ago on manufacturing, even Swiss watches use Chinese components. I was a product manager [with a $300m P & L product line] before I retired and if I believe that it's good, then that's my judgement. Please have your point of view but don't diss off others that see that sense. As for Erin's clone - he makes money from these daft challenges - Try Beeny, he's more relevant but not necessarily absolute but great to enjoy

 

[MAB]

You have obviously not read the latter parts of the thread; I bought one to refurbish an amplifier I built in 1982, [that's reliability, it never failed] I don't know your age but it was 44 years ago when I built it. The parts I buy from Mouser or whoever are the same makes almost as 40 years ago. Who the hell clones Nichicon? - when they are made in China? Have you tried to buy second grade components? They are scrapped at manufacture. Your car parts are made in China, your laptop is, your phone is, your TV is, your router is and maybe your car is. Most of your consumer Sh1t is. FACT. Please open your eyes to the fact that US/European/UK stuff sold out years ago on manufacturing, even Swiss watches use Chinese components. I was a product manager [with a $300m P & L product line] before I retired and if I believe that it's good, then that's my judgement. Please have your point of view but don't diss off others that see that sense. As for Erin's clone - he makes money from these daft challenges - Try Beeny, he's more relevant but not necessarily absolute but great to enjoy

Most NE5532 on aliexpress are fake.

Nichicon also are faked and sold on truckloads in Ali.

It would explain how they can build these for much less than the BOM cost of the original un-fake components.