Sold my Nord Three 1ET7040SA Monos — Upgrading to 1ET9040BA MB MKII Flagship

[huw]

Folks, let's not argue about everything. Op was happy to buy a new amp. Let's let him be.

This is fair. I bought a boXem amp, then a few years later I replaced it with another more expensive boXem amp with Purifi modules. That made me happy too.

But @boXem's point is valid - the performance of the modules is so high that manufacturers can unknowingly degrade the module designers specifications through poorly designed cable routing or unfortunate choice of connectors. Measurements of the complete amp such as you provide do matter, even if the differences are ultimately below the threshold of audibility .

 

[Buckeye Amps]

This is fair. I bought a boXem amp, then a few years later I replaced it with another more expensive boXem amp with Purifi modules. That made me happy too.

But @boXem's point is valid - the performance of the modules is so high that manufacturers can unknowingly degrade the module designers specifications through poorly designed cable routing or unfortunate choice of connectors. Measurements of the complete amp such as you provide do matter, even if the differences are ultimately below the threshold of audibility .

Hey now, we fired our QC Beagle after that snafu. Was a huge thing back then. So sad.

 

[huw]

Hey now, we fired our QC Beagle after that snafu. Was a huge thing back then. So sad.

My use of the word "unfortunate" was (perhaps not) carefully chosen - I didn't mean to imply any fault on your behalf! I don't recall the precise details - something to do with the composition of the binding posts not as described in the manufacturer's specifications?

 

[Buckeye Amps]

My use of the word "unfortunate" was (perhaps not) carefully chosen - I didn't mean to imply any fault on your behalf! I don't recall the precise details - something to do with the composition of the binding posts not as described in the manufacturer's specifications?

No worries at all, hence my somewhat unserious response.

But that is pretty much what happened. We were using brass binding posts in small batches from one supplier. Then switched to a direct supplier for larger quantities at the same time as we expanded our amplifier lineup. Turns out the new ones were steel with a coating.

Even though we did measurements before releasing the amps, there was a mistake on our part that obscured the issue from showing in our results that Amir eventually saw in his review.

 

[huw]

Turns out the new ones were steel with a coating.

I just dug back through the thread to remind myself that once you'd identified this you offered replacements to all affected customers:

Buckeye 3 Channel Purifi Amp Review

I have an AC Infinity Aircom sitting on top of my 3ch Purifi set to come on when the inside temperature reaches 86F....it has yet to turn on even when I watch movies near reference (and the 3ch is running my LCR) My AVR is powering just two surrounds now and I can feel the heat venting out of...

www.audiosciencereview.com

(I don't know why the forum software shows the wrong summary for the linked post!)

 

[Cpopovic]

Interesting video on the subject : https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1CSTY22rjQ/?mibextid=wwXIfr

 

[KL....]

This is fair. I bought a boXem amp, then a few years later I replaced it with another more expensive boXem amp with Purifi modules. That made me happy too.

But @boXem's point is valid - the performance of the modules is so high that manufacturers can unknowingly degrade the module designers specifications through poorly designed cable routing or unfortunate choice of connectors. Measurements of the complete amp such as you provide do matter, even if the differences are ultimately below the threshold of audibility .

Hey now, we fired our QC Beagle after that snafu. Was a huge thing back then. So sad.

No worries at all, hence my somewhat unserious response.

But that is pretty much what happened. We were using brass binding posts in small batches from one supplier. Then switched to a direct supplier for larger quantities at the same time as we expanded our amplifier lineup. Turns out the new ones were steel with a coating.

Even though we did measurements before releasing the amps, there was a mistake on our part that obscured the issue from showing in our results that Amir eventually saw in his review.

Hi @Buckeye Amps, if ok to ask, what effect/s were there to the measure/measurements? Was it clearly noticeable....

 

[JSmith]

what effect/s were there to the measure/measurements?

Buckeye 3 Channel Purifi Amp Review

This is review and detailed measurements of the Buckeye 3 Channel Purifi amplifier based power amp. It was kindly drop shipped to me by a member and costs US $1,699. As you see, the case is utilitarian. The amplifier is extremely light making you think there is nothing in the box! The back...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Buckeye 3 Channel Purifi Amplifier Review (2nd)

This is a second review of the Buckeye 3-Channel Purifi based balanced class D amplifier. First sample had an issue with its binding posts increasing distortion. It costs US US $1,595. Typical of Buckeye amplifiers, focus on what is inside rather the case which is utilitarian. An indicator...

www.audiosciencereview.com

JSmith

 

[Ruediger]

Very interesting what a material not to spec can do to a good appliance.

 

[KL....]

Buckeye 3 Channel Purifi Amp Review

This is review and detailed measurements of the Buckeye 3 Channel Purifi amplifier based power amp. It was kindly drop shipped to me by a member and costs US $1,699. As you see, the case is utilitarian. The amplifier is extremely light making you think there is nothing in the box! The back...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Buckeye 3 Channel Purifi Amplifier Review (2nd)

This is a second review of the Buckeye 3-Channel Purifi based balanced class D amplifier. First sample had an issue with its binding posts increasing distortion. It costs US US $1,595. Typical of Buckeye amplifiers, focus on what is inside rather the case which is utilitarian. An indicator...

www.audiosciencereview.com

JSmith

Thank you, @JSmith, very similar THD+N/SINAD and FR, although Multitone shows a (clear) improvement (18->21 bits) and when power/current rises (THD+N vs Power), For this Implementation or equivalent, wonder if this would be audible/noticeable below 10 watts, or even 20 watts, or even higher?

Very interesting what a material not to spec can do to a good appliance.

Thank you, @Ruediger, Yes, this shows/implys that Material Tech & Implementation can/does matter, doesn't it, and shows/implys that Implementation can/does overcome some Limitations....

 

[Tone]

A pedestrian SMPS1200, like all Nord Purifi builds. Pedestrian but very good, we use it too.

With all the respect due to Nord, no.

I would hardly term Hypex 1200w psu as 'pedestrian'.

SE casework heatsink is used on 9040MB by the way. Thermal pads behind psu.

 

[Tone]

The lack of reviews is probably sampling bias no one sent any to amir Nord or any member

It is the trouble with sending overseas and trying to avoid taxes.

No disrespect intended, if asr was local, sure we would.

 

[Tone]

You are the one who bought it and made the statement first. We are not the one who down $600 for that "few millimetres of wire". Anyone with basic understanding of how electricity works will understand no fuse will ever change the sound.

Yes member of ASR will be triggered by an amp regardless of class or power if it is sold for thousands and claims "sounds better".

These are two seperate arguments by the way.

 

[Cpopovic]

Following up on my earlier post after receiving and spending some time with the Nord 1ET9040BA MB MkII monos.
First, build quality is excellent. Internals are very cleanly laid out with short signal paths and good separation between PSU and input stage. The implementation looks thoughtful rather than flashy.

For context, I’m coming from the Nord 1ET7040 Mk2 monos with the custom Weiss op-amp, so this isn’t a baseline comparison — the previous setup was already very competent and low noise.

On to what most here will care about: do they actually sound different?
Short answer: not night-and-day, but there are consistent differences that could plausibly correlate with improved measurements.

What I’m hearing:
• Slightly lower perceived noise floor (blacker background, especially noticeable on very quiet passages and trailing decays)
• Better separation in complex passages (macro detail is easier to follow when things get dense)
• A bit more “ease” at higher SPLs — less sense of strain

What I’m not hearing:
• No tonal shift
• No added “warmth” or coloration
• No artificial detail or edge

So this doesn’t come across as a “voicing” change, but rather as incremental refinement.

If I had to speculate (and keeping it aligned with ASR thinking), this could be explained by:
• Lower noise and/or distortion floor of the 9040 module vs 7040
• Improved PSU implementation and/or grounding
• Possibly better behavior under load (current delivery / stability)

Of course, without controlled level-matched testing and measurements, I’d treat this as anecdotal. But the differences are repeatable enough in my setup to be noticeable.

At this point, I have peace of mind on amplification — these monos measure and behave in a way that should place them firmly in the “transparent” category, and I don’t expect them to be a limiting factor in my system going forward. Class D Reference level.

 

[Ruediger]

Really nice "endgame" amps.

Most important: have fun and turn them up.

 

[Paul7777x]

are those the ‘posh’ cases with the upgraded front panel?

And are the speaker connectors different on each amp?

 

[Cpopovic]

are those the ‘posh’ cases with the upgraded front panel?

And are the speaker connectors different on each amp?

SE cases, 9040 (left) vs 7040 (right) on the photos. Not many differences.

 

[Redacted]

What I’m hearing:
• Slightly lower perceived noise floor (blacker background, especially noticeable on very quiet passages and trailing decays)
• Better separation in complex passages (macro detail is easier to follow when things get dense)
• A bit more “ease” at higher SPLs — less sense of strain

What I’m not hearing:
• No tonal shift
• No added “warmth” or coloration
• No artificial detail or edge

So this doesn’t come across as a “voicing” change, but rather as incremental refinement.

If I had to speculate (and keeping it aligned with ASR thinking), this could be explained by:
• Lower noise and/or distortion floor of the 9040 module vs 7040
• Improved PSU implementation and/or grounding
• Possibly better behavior under load (current delivery / stability)

Surely the 'lower perceived noise floor... noticeable on very quiet passages and trailing decays" means you are listening to noise inherent in the recording and it has zero to do with the amp.
And, no disrespect intended, but some of the other observations strike me as weird.

 

[Cpopovic]

Surely the 'lower perceived noise floor... noticeable on very quiet passages and trailing decays" means you are listening to noise inherent in the recording and it has zero to do with the amp.
And, no disrespect intended, but some of the other observations strike me as weird.

You’re right that the “blacker background” could easily be the recording’s own noise or room acoustics, not the amp. My amps were Nord Three 1ET7040SA MKII , and are now both 1ET9040BA MKIIs into Paradigm Founder 120Hs. The 9040 module is spec’d with a lower noise floor and higher SNR, but in my seat the amp hiss is already well below audibility, so I perhaps should have been more careful with that wording.
What I can say more confidently is that the 9040‑based amps feel a bit more composed at higher SPLs and slightly easier to follow in dense passages, which could come from lower noise and better behavior under load, without any tonal shift or added coloration. I wasn’t trying to outline a voicing change, just a subtle refinement that lines up with the 9040’s spec‑level advantages. I can’t measure the monos, but I certainly measure my happiness and peace of mind now.

 

[amper42]

It's really hard to hear a difference between Purifi 9040, 7040 and 1ET6525SA amps with level matched listening tests when you don't know which one is playing. With a decent speaker they all sound very similar. Even with giant explosions in movie tracks each sounds amazingly clean. About the only way I can tell a difference is looking at their measurements or visually inspecting the modules. Hearing a consistent difference audibly is tough.

I find a quality input board paired with the Purifi amp like the custom-designed Boxem Stage III which utilizes a composite (OPA1612/OPA1656) design to achieve ultra-low noise and distortion can be just as important as the Purifi module installed.