triceratops Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 There has been a lot written on 2-channel about the classic McIntosh tube amps like the MC-30, MC-240, MC-225, etc. Do Forum folks have much experience with classic McIntosh tube preamps, specifically the C-20? How does it compare with modern preamps? Is there any advantage to vintage preamps in cost/performance or is that only true of vintage power amps? One more observation: My experience some years ago with solid state McIntosh power amps was that the inputs were less sensitive than most other power amps. As a result they worked best with McIntosh preamps that had a higher output to match (I found this out the hard way by trying to use a Dyna PAT-4 preamp with a McIntosh 2505 power amp in the 1970s). Is this input/output sensitivity thing similar with the vintage McIntosh tube preamp/power amps? Thus would it be worthwhile to find a vintage Mac preamp to run with a vintage Mac power amp? Thanks for any and all advice! Best in horns, triceratops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilbert Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Interesting question....I hope someone will respond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 ---------------- On 1/22/2005 8:34:58 PM triceratops wrote: Do Forum folks have much experience with classic McIntosh tube preamps, specifically the C-20? How does it compare with modern preamps? Is there any advantage to vintage preamps in cost/performance or is that only true of vintage power amps? ---------------- Thw C-20 is a bad sounding preamp. Too veilled and dark. It does not compare with a modern preamp (not even with budget ones). This is true with most vintage preamp but there are exceptions. Although some of them sound nice, they're too noisey (especially with efficient horns). I'd look elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triceratops Posted January 23, 2005 Author Share Posted January 23, 2005 Guy- Thanks for your insights! I understand you don't fancy the C-20--any thoughts about other Mac tube preamps, like the C-11 or C-22? Would solid state Mac preamps be a better choice? Or in general would you use something other than a Mac preamp? Has anyone else run into the output/input level problems that I described? Best in horns, triceratops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai2000 Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Much as I respect Guy's opinion, I do not find a vintage Mac preamp necessarily inferior to modern designs. Yes, I love my MX110 and will be biased , but having compared it to some modern preamps, I still enjoy it for its musicality. It's not as neutral as the Transcendent Sound GG, but hardly less 'fun'. Does it sound darker? Yes, to some degree, does it seem to 'hide' too much? - to my ears - no! What is important, though, is that it has been gone through by a competent tech and the right tubes are used. I am not sure about input sensitivity. Let's put it this way: I can use (and enjoy) the MX110 with all my amps - inclusive modern SETs . Wolfram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I like the C11 but agree with Guy on the C20. Not a very good sounding pre. I don't think any of them can compare to a good modern pre. My Blueberry sounds better to me then the Marantz 7C I had last year and the C11 I'm packing right now. Maybe not as cool looking if you're into vintage stuff and they do last a very long time and are well-built. I just don't think they can compete unless rebuilt and then the value plummets. Some folks like the vintage sound however. Each of these older units has its own sonic signature. JMHO. YMMV. Yadda, yadda, yadda. BTW - I was very suprised at the quality sound I got from the recent 240 I just packed up. With CDs, it seemed to be right up there with my rebuilt MkIIIs. Lost a little transparency with LPs however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Just a general observation (and only an opinion). The earlier Mac tube gear I think is very good/excellent. There was a time, when McIntosh was switching to all soid state, that like most manufacturers, I think "missed the boat" sound quality wise. Don't forget, McIntosh was used in professional/commercial applications such as powering intercom systems in stores or powering PA systems in stadiums, simply because its well built and built to last, even when used 24/7. These earlier Mac SS designs, IMO, had a veiled, dark, opaque, even constricted, sound quality. About the only thing that was similar to their older tube gear was the "smooth, somewhat warm" sound, not quite as irritating as many other solid state equipment of the era. The more recent Mac SS gear seems to have climbed back to "audiophile" status but still seems a little constricted and opaque, to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilbert Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 ---------------- On 1/23/2005 3:19:46 PM artto wrote: The more recent Mac SS gear seems to have climbed back to "audiophile" status but still seems a little constricted and opaque, to me. ---------------- About 2 years ago I sampled variou HTS. And that is a perfect word to describe what I heard, back then. I know this is the 2 channel section of the forum, but when I read the word "Opaque", I just couldn't help myself, because it is the perfect description of what my impression was. I've got to back to ebay now, and look for some more Mac gear to buy. See Ya!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triceratops Posted January 23, 2005 Author Share Posted January 23, 2005 Wolfram- I understand that your Mac preamp will drive virtually any power amplifier. What I've run into in the past is the opposite problem, having a different brand of preamp that was not able to adequately drive a Mac power amp. The Mac power amps seem to have lower input sensitivity, this was obviously a deliberate design choice on the part of McIntosh--maybe a benefit in commercial applications or other set-ups with longer cable runs between the pre and power amps. But my experience is limited to the Dyna/Mac set-up I described earlier. I'm still hoping someone can enlighten me if this is just an isolated case of a component mismatch or something that is a typical problem when using other brands of preamp with a McIntosh power amp. Thanks in advance, triceratops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I might consider a modern tube preamp if someone would make one with tone controls (for 78s) and a mono switch. I know there are $10,000 phono preamps with these features, but . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 ---------------- On 1/23/2005 4:13:08 PM Allan Songer wrote: I might consider a modern tube preamp if someone would make one with tone controls (for 78s) and a mono switch. I know there are $10,000 phono preamps with these features, but . . . ---------------- I got a Mark to add a mono switch on my BB (now comes standard I think) and he built a box with tone controls which I requested. Turns out I didn't need them after I got a better TT. I can understand why you'd want them however. Had I not bought a modern Pre, my initial comments would have been much different. I thought I had an amazing Pre with the 7C until I bought the BB. The C11 was no slouch either. I just prefer the added transparency I get now. I have to admit it's hard to beat the build quality of the old Marantz & Mac units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai2000 Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Triceratops, I should have read your post more carefully , so let's turn things round and say that the MC-30s also like the GG (and the Cary AE-1 I used before)...and I don't recall problems running my former 2105 with a non-McIntosh preamp. Wolfram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triceratops Posted January 23, 2005 Author Share Posted January 23, 2005 Thanks Wolfram- Maybe the old Dyna PAT-4 design had a low output signal level. Or maybe the modern preamps you've mentioned have a higher output level like the McIntosh preamps. From your comments it sounds like there are no real limitations of what preamp you can use with McIntosh power amps. Possibly my experience was just a fluke. Is there anyone else on the Forum who has run into a problem like I did? Best in horns, triceratops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 ---------------- On 1/23/2005 2:35:19 PM triceratops wrote: Guy- Thanks for your insights! I understand you don't fancy the C-22--any thoughts about other Mac tube preamps, like the C-11 or C-22? Would solid state Mac preamps be a better choice? Or in general would you use something other than a Mac preamp? Has anyone else run into the output/input level problems that I described? Best in horns, triceratops ---------------- T, IMO, The C-22 is a much better preamp than the C-20. I wouldn't be surprised if the C-11 sounds even better than the C-22 that has more features and control trimmers that lengthen its signal path. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott0527 Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I've not had the problem of running different(nonMac) preamps with the Mac 240's I own. However I have never heard anyone say much good about the Dyna PAT-4 either. Maybe that's why it didn't sound so good. Wait, I think there is someone here on the foum who likes his PAT. But they've never been that well regarded from what I've heard. On another note, I guess I'd have to agree with the thoughts on the C20. I have one that just plain old doesn't sound that good. Too bad because it's so damn cool looking with those little red dial pointers and all. I have a MX110, a C22 that I like quite a bit. And as soon as Gary's done packing that C11, I'll have one of those too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Packing's done Scott. Please PM me your address again! I'll ship it tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott0527 Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 ---------------- On 1/23/2005 9:46:28 PM garymd wrote: Packing's done Scott. Please PM me your address again! I'll ship it tomorrow. ---------------- Woo hoo! New toys! Thanks Gary. Address is on your PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I have owned a C-20 for 30 + years. I've compared it to others and have been quite happy. Some have mentioned in other posts that the bass sounds tubby. On the back are two trim pots for bass response. Usually they only need to be adjusted. Using Telefunken tubes, I have found it to be open, good sound stage. There are more than enough controls, including where the bass control comes into play. Rumble Control, good loudness control. I respectfully disagree with any negative review. dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptnBob Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I took my C-20 to a Mac clinic lo, these many years ago. Danny O'Brian, the guru who conducted most of the clinics ran the tests, then looked at me over the top of his glasses and said, "You know, we're not too proud of these." That said, I always enjoyed the flexibility the C-20 offered, and wish now I hadn't sold it. Many years later, I had custody of a C-11. It seemed to sound a bit better than the C-20, but my memories were about 15 years apart, and should be so considered. I also had a Dyna PAS-3. It did not get along with my Marantz tube amps. I was told by a tech who should have known what he was talking about that it was an impedance mismatch, and later PAS-3s would behave better. I've heard some people feel tube pre-amps tend to sound "dark." I know mine were always happier with short cable runs to the amps. Longer runs adversely affected the high end response, and I suspect this may be the problem in some cases. In others (the Fairchild I had) it was just a muddy sounding preamp and that was all there was to it. I've never heard of Mac power amps having a low sensitivity. If you turn up the gain enough, they'll go plenty loud with very little encouragement. Well, that's enough random thoughts for now. Thanks for listening to my babblings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triceratops Posted January 23, 2005 Author Share Posted January 23, 2005 Guy, I wrote: >I understand you don't fancy the C-22 Sorry about the typo--I meant to say C-20. I've corrected my original post. Thanks for the additional details. Allan, I would probably know if I kept up with my Forum reading a little better, but what kind of vintage preamps are you using? Any recommendations? Dodger, Thanks for your observations--it's nice to hear there are a variety of opinions on these preamps. I imagine there is a fair amount of variation in the individual vintage preamps themselves as well as variation in the listeners' ears. Just look at speakers: in my experience, virtually every pair of Heresys I have owned (a variety of vintages) has been audibly different in it's frequency range and balance. I think that is one of the reasons there is such a range of opinions on the Heresy as a main speaker. I imagine there are far more sources of variability in a preamp... Gary, A lot of my curiosity about this has come from your posting of experiences about the shootout. That was really a cool idea. When Ki gets his Marantz 8B we're thinking ot trying to round up some other interesting gear and do a Northwest version. Scott, You a lucky boy! Captn Bob, I don't know what the actual numbers are on the McIntosh input sensitivity vs other units, and didn't even think about the impedance--I'll see if I can dig up some specs on both. Thanks for your thoughts... Best, triceratops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.