BillH2121

Price of $5950 was set to offset cost of listing on Audiogon. No listing fee here, so asking $5600.

Edmond, Ok

Selling my fantastic MC2102 - excellent condition with no dents or oxidation. Front glass is perfect. I am the original owner having purchased the amp as a demo from local audio store. I prefer local pick-up but will ship within continental US in original shipping box. Buyer pays all shipping and insurance cost. No returns. Can provide pics on request. $5200

Well, actually, your pic of RCA cables demonstrates my original issue - a monoblock only has one input so which of the two RCA goes in the input?? Regardless, I ordered inexpensive balanced cables last night to use temporarily. I needed 25 ft for one amp and 15 ft for the other. When the monoblocks arrive Friday, I will put my beloved McIntosh MC2102 up for sale. My system has been pretty much the same for 20 years - MC2102, C2200, RF7s. New system is MC830s, C2200, B&W 803s. Thanks to everyone who weighed in on my question.

I think this has now become my primary plan - thanks!

The original plan was to use the existing in-wall speaker cable to connect amps and preamp (the outlet for the speaker cables is exactly where the amps will sit) until I could get someone out to run balanced cables through the wall to exit behind the two amps. If that plan is "iffy", I'll probably just buy some inexpensive balanced cables and run them on the floor from amps to preamps until I can get them run in the wall. It will likely be a couple weeks until get someone out to do in-wall job. I was just trying to save some time and money.

Thanks!

One cable from preamp right output to input of right amp. . One cable from preamp left output to input of left amp. What I’m trying to find out is whether to use bothe “wires” of speaker cable or just one. the cables are unbalanced.

Yes - I fully agree. I will eventually use balanced cables though my wall like the existing speaker cable but that will take a couple of weeks to get installed. i want to use the existing speaker cable temporarily until the other cable is installed.

I have not visited this group in a long, long time but I knew where to come with a question re 2 channel audio! I recently purchased McIntosh monoblocks that will connect to a McIntosh C2200. I will be placing the amps near each speaker. For a short time, I would like to use the existing in-wall speaker cables to connect the preamp to the monoblocks. Can I use a y-cable from the wall receptical to the amp or should I just connect one of the two (red/black) speaker wires to the amp? Thanks for any help.

hugeroost - I definitely agree that the RW10 is primarily an HT sub and I recognize its limitations - it wasn't remotely "top pf the line" when I bought it and certainly didn't cost much. The last few days, I have experimented a little with placement, volume and freq cut-off on the sub and I am more pleased with its integration in my system than previously. However, I don't think it will ever add much beyond the added "thud" of a bassdrum, etc. I could never imagine cutting off the RF7s at 50 or 60 hz and letting the RW10 handle the rest. I guess my main problem is that where I'm located, I don't have an opportunity to hear a "musical" sub that is well integrated in a 2-channel system. I'm not able to experience the sonic benefit of a higher quality sub to know if its something on which I want to spend additional money at this point. I'm keeping my eye on Craiglist and Audiogon to see if maybe I can find a better quality sub at a low enough price to feel I could experiment and not lose much money. Thanks for your input!

Good afternoon Klipsch forum members - it has been quite awhile since I last posted, but I have a question to throw out there. Several years ago, I purchased a Klipsch HT system primarily for my family's amusement while I focused more on my 2-channel setup. That HT system included an RW10 that I thought did an excellent job (for the cost) at producing special effect-type lows in the HT format. At some point, I started sharing the RW10 with my 2-channel setup just for grins. My 2-channel gear includes a McIntosh MC2102 amp and a C2200 preamp along with RF7s. Recently, we updated our living area by, among other things, removing the carpet and installing wood floors with several area rugs. Needless to say, the accoustics of the room have changed dramatically and drew my attention back to the RW10. The sub is connected to my C2200 with line-stage RCA jacks with the RW10 controlling frequency cutoff - the LFE runs from my Denon receiver. To my aged ears, the RW10 is not what I would describe as "musical" - however, it does provide that needed "punch" for rock bass drum and more resonance for upright bass in jazz. My questions - am I expecting too much out of the RW10? Would I notice great improvement with a higher-end sub? Does the RW10 have a place in my system or should I just accept the limitations of the RF7s and enjoy them without the RW10?

Bill are you still using the stock tubes? In my quest for my perfection I am trying to get educated on what tubes would be good for the C2200. Thanks, Rob Hi Rob - yes, I'm still using stock tubes and I don't have a good reason except financial. Between my 2102 and th 2200, if I start tube rolling, it will get a little expensive. I will definately be doing so in the future. I would look over at the Mac board on the AK site - there are a lot of knowledgeable Mac users there that have very definate ideas about tube selection. Good luck.

I believe the C2200 is one of the best investments I've made soundwise - I've had mine about four months now and I'm still blown away by it. Enjoy your new toy. I'm an unabashed McIntosh nut and you're hearing why every time you turn on your system.

Just buy McIntosh and your worries are over!

Wow, its not enough that there's always something new from McIntosh, now I have the vision of those Palladiums burned into my brain .......when will the torture end?

You may have to elaborate some - I don't know if its a sole goal, but people generally don't buy a cd or album based on who the recording engineer is - they look to the artist and want to hear the artistic creation envisioned by the artist. I agree that may involve a collaborative effort between musician and recording engineer (think George Martin and the Beatles). But regardless, the performance is the event - it is the art. Is what you're saying that the recording is the art, after numerous takes and edits, etc., and not the performance. I agree, that may be a compelling argument in many cases - its a good point.

^^^^ Actually, I think that we are in agreement in most respects - my primary point is that because of the art form at issue (music) and its inherent differences from other forms such as painting, scuplture, literature, etc, we have trouble agreeing as listeners regarding what the original artwork actually is (due to all the subjective consideration you mention above). Further, every layer of "interference" with the artwork, such as recording and reproduction moves us further away from what that original is or was. However, I do think that it is important to consider what the artist wanted you to hear - I can tell you from experience that that in the mixing and recording process certain things get buried or magnified or altered in some way that affects the final product and ultimate vision the artist wanted to present. I also agree with you about the specialized language that we use in our hobby to describe things - that was the point of my earlier post regarding "terms of art". Every group develops this specialized language to describe in richer detail their experience (i.e. wine tasters, cigar smokers, cinema critics). Lastly, I guess my other point was that to the extent every speaker has limitations that in some way alter the sound sought to be reproduced, it cannot be said to be "accurate". Does fewer limitations equal more accuracy - I don't know - I'll leave that to the more technically knowledgeable people on this Board like yourself to consider - I'm just not sure that "clinical" is bad if it results in a sound more like, than unlike, the actual performance.

Which of the following CDs is "accurate," and how do you make the determination? "Gustav Holst: The Planets", Op 32 by Gustav Holst, André Previn, and Royal Philharmonic Orchestra "Blue" by Mitchell, Joni (Audio CD - Oct 25, 1990) "Birth of the Cool," by Davis, Miles (Audio CD - Jan 9, 2001) "Led Zeppelin II," by Led Zeppelin (Audio CD - Jun 21, 1994) Since "accuracy is truth" there has to be an independently repeatable methodology, otherwise truth is just an opinion, isn't it? I can never know which of those recordings is accurate unless I attended the actual performance and possess a perfect memory - not a likely combination for me. The state of accuracy I'm talking about is a theoretical state of perfection that can probably never exist with this hobby - in which the reproduction is an exact replication of the original. What I can do is rely upon my experience and memory as a performing musician to recall what instruments actually sound like in live performance and strive to obtain equipment and recordings that recreate, at the least to me, accurate sounds of various instruments. I should hear the ping of sticks on cymbals, the "thud" of a bass drum, the shimmer of a violin playing in its upper register, etc, etc. But I will never know if the recording is an accurate reproduction of the actual performance - that's one of the things that makes this hobbly so fascinating and maddening - its governed by subjective response with few reference points to "truth". We all hear what we hear but that doesn't mean that's what the artist meant for us to hear.

It has always seemed to me that the purpose of recordings and the audio equipment that plays the recordings is to reproduce or "document" the artistic event. The "art" is the original performance - whether in a studio, concert hall, local bar, wherever. While there may be an "art" involved in the recording process, or producing great audio equipment, etc, the underlying art that is of the most importance is the musical performance. Were we discussing a different medium, i.e., painting or sculpture, there would be no need for the recording or playback equipment - we would simply visit the gallery and view the artist's creation in its original form. Unfortunately, with a temporal medium such as music, we simply cannot do that. Equipment, whether recording or playback, that changes the performance changes the artist's creation. Would you put a filter over a Monet painting to emphasize certain colors to create a "better" effect? I would hope not. When a musician performs in a certain venue, he accepts the conditions (echoes, dead spots, etc) and his performance is done with that compromise in mind. The recording process involves another compromise that, again., the artist, may accept and have some say over. Our personal choices of audio equipment add an additional layer of compromsie over which the artist surely has no control. Accuracy is truth - each step in the recording and playback chain takes us further from that original performance that we seek to recreate. To the extent our audio equipment changes the sound of the original performance, we have added an additonal "performer" that was not meant to be there.

I think several posters have hit on it - people with specialized interests like to have a specialized language or "terms of art" that convey meaning within the group. Think about reviews of cigars, wine, art, ....whatever... I mean, I love cigars, but some of the descriptions floor me. A speaker or system should have but one goal - to reproduce the original sound of the musical instument(s). That, in many cases, might disappoint many sterophiles or audiophiles.

I bought a PS3 for its blu-ray capabilities, but now I'm hooked on playing the damned video games!

Ok Jim, you're speaking my language - I was a drummer who made a living playing and teaching music for a lot of years and I'm also a BMW fanatic. I get your analogy perfectly. I think the Mac tubes I use for amp and preamp smooth out the edge of the RF7s when pushed hard but I know what a bass drum should should like live and that's why I use a sub. Yes, the 335 is incredible but the M5 (and my preference the M6) is another level entirely. I so look forward to hearing the Palladium - you have certainly whetted my appetite - now I just need to find a spare $15k to satisfy the hunger.

Well, I certainly agree the mid-range is where its at for us middle-aged geezers, especially those of use who played in rock bands in our younger years, But, I do want deeper extension for that added punch of the bass drum, lower registers of string bass, pipe organ, etc. That's why I use a sub with my RF7s. However, if a speaker dug down to that 27or 28 Hz level, I might not have the need for a sub.

Thanks for the explanation Jim - that's the kind of layman's language I hoped someone would provide to explain the specs and the differences between the speakers that were discussed. Great job!