advertisement


IncaTech Retro Claymore

I can give a much blunter review.

If it’s anything like the original.

Which was quite possibly the worst amplifier ever designed.

Everything came together perfectly, the construction, design and component choice. But even then the sound quality and reliability were so much worse than what was in the box hinted at.

Makes a mission Cyrus one sound like a 82/135’s
 
I can give a much blunter review.

If it’s anything like the original.

Which was quite possibly the worst amplifier ever designed.

Everything came together perfectly, the construction, design and component choice. But even then the sound quality and reliability were so much worse than what was in the box hinted at.

That is an outlying view to put it mildly. I had an original Claymore in a second system for a while and thought it was very decent. It had a good big solid sound with less of the bright forward tinge of most of its contemporaries and had a very good switchable MM/MC phono stage. A very decent mid-price amp IMHO.
 
I liked the original version. A good sounding implementation of the Hitachi topology also used by loads of other companies and sold by Maplins as their mosfet amp kit/module.
 
I can give a much blunter review.

If it’s anything like the original.

Which was quite possibly the worst amplifier ever designed.

Everything came together perfectly, the construction, design and component choice. But even then the sound quality and reliability were so much worse than what was in the box hinted at.

Makes a mission Cyrus one sound like a 82/135’s


Do you now work for KOG and TQ??
 
When the claymore came out it received amazing reviews and I spent my hard earned buying one off the back of them. The system was Xerxes/rb300/atf5 claymore into ES14.

After the claymore blew up for the second time I went into a dem room and chose a 42.5/110 as its replacement. The nait, creek 4040 and rotel 820 were all quite a bit better though. This was about 1985.
 
After the claymore blew up for the second time I went into a dem room and chose a 42.5/110 as its replacement. The nait, creek 4040 and rotel 820 were all quite a bit better though. This was about 1985.

I don’t understand why given the simplicity of the crossover, but the ES14 has a reputation for being quite hard to drive. At the time a 140 or 160 was usually considered the minimum amp, so I’d be amazed if the Nait or Rotel eould have been an option. IIRC Robin Marshall used a 250 to design the 14s. At the time I had a Claymore for a short while, which was about 20 years ago in a second system, it seemed perfectly happy driving Kans, HB2s or even Harbeth C7s. I’m no volume freak though, so it never got pushed.
 
I am currently listening to an original Claymore, upgraded by CJ14 about 18 months ago and it sounds very sweet at the heart of my study system. T'is a peach - Thanks Colin.
I also have a serviced Nait 2 which I haven't been compelled to switch back into the system for about, well ... 18 months. Not saying one is better or worse than the other but I am so happy with the sound of the Claymore that I really can't be arsed to muck about.

Some comment and pics further down the thread here: http://www.audiochews.com/discussion/comment/33580#Comment_33580

I have recently installed some EWA LS-25 speaker cable from the new production batch and it is indeed the icing on the cake.
 
I had a LP12/Lingo/Ekos/Troika > Claymore > Epos ES11’s in a second system. No way was that amp inferior to a Creek CAS4040 (my first amp when I was 15!). It was far nearer to a Nait in terms of performance, but went louder.
 


advertisement


Back
Top